surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
6:45 PM on 10.05.2012
Hell, the first time I saw the tire ad with Jerry in it I thought there'd be an issue. He had to know there'd be SOME kind of conflict.
@Ronin4life
"So my description stands: He can't appear as himself near anything remotely game related unless it is Sony? That's what I'm saying. Any contract itself is ridiculous, but I don't think one would even apply here in the first place."
When he deals with something that has to do with a direct competitor, yes. It's like Jerry from Subway going and doing something for McDonald's using the same 'character' even if it's just him being himself. It's not about right or wrong, it's about what's done in the business to prevent competitors from using something you created, the character, to their advantage. To think any contract involving these major companies in such a way is ridiculous only shows you don't know how these things work.
"So my description stands: He can't appear as himself near anything remotely game related unless it is Sony? That's what I'm saying. Any contract itself is ridiculous, but I don't think one would even apply here in the first place."
When he deals with something that has to do with a direct competitor, yes. It's like Jerry from Subway going and doing something for McDonald's using the same 'character' even if it's just him being himself. It's not about right or wrong, it's about what's done in the business to prevent competitors from using something you created, the character, to their advantage. To think any contract involving these major companies in such a way is ridiculous only shows you don't know how these things work.
Sony...I've supported you for many years, why do you keep pissing me off? I love the character Kevin Butler...yet I don't believe you guys have used him much this year? He's an actor...actors ACT w/e character they are paid to act...I understand there are contracts and stuff but damn. I guess Holiday Inn should sue Sony for using one of their "Business guy" characters.
I’m not saying Sony are the good guys here but do people expect them to do nothing?
This is like having someone dressed as Colonel Sanders appear in a McDonalds ad. Could they be cool about it? Yes. Do KFC own the rights to having a white suite, beard and glasses? No. But you’d be mad to think they wouldn’t take legal action.
I’m not saying I’m on Sony’s side but Jerry Lambert should have seen this as an inevitability the second he saw how extensively the Wii featured in the ad. But it should all be moot now that he’s been taken out of the ad right? Did it air with him in it for a long time?
I’m more surprised at the missed opportunity here, if they had the guy who plays Kevin Butler they could have had some cross-promotion going, especially with the whole GT Academy tying into real world racing and cars. But then it’s not like they cast the actors before they made the deal with Nintendo.
This is like having someone dressed as Colonel Sanders appear in a McDonalds ad. Could they be cool about it? Yes. Do KFC own the rights to having a white suite, beard and glasses? No. But you’d be mad to think they wouldn’t take legal action.
I’m not saying I’m on Sony’s side but Jerry Lambert should have seen this as an inevitability the second he saw how extensively the Wii featured in the ad. But it should all be moot now that he’s been taken out of the ad right? Did it air with him in it for a long time?
I’m more surprised at the missed opportunity here, if they had the guy who plays Kevin Butler they could have had some cross-promotion going, especially with the whole GT Academy tying into real world racing and cars. But then it’s not like they cast the actors before they made the deal with Nintendo.
@Lacsyler
I do get the legal end. I also don't think.there was any actual breach in any such contract. Certainly not one so blatant that this case would be a certain legal victory for Sony.
Far worse more obvious breaches have occurred and been ignored or legally crushed for the very basic common sense basis of my comment: it doesn't make sense. "Right" or "wrong" be damned; it's just outright grasping at straws and stupid. And in my opinion would be even stupider if it actually is found in Sony's favor(depending on the EXACT details of the contracts, I guess...)
I do get the legal end. I also don't think.there was any actual breach in any such contract. Certainly not one so blatant that this case would be a certain legal victory for Sony.
Far worse more obvious breaches have occurred and been ignored or legally crushed for the very basic common sense basis of my comment: it doesn't make sense. "Right" or "wrong" be damned; it's just outright grasping at straws and stupid. And in my opinion would be even stupider if it actually is found in Sony's favor(depending on the EXACT details of the contracts, I guess...)
@Handy
It's not like having someone dressed as Colonel Sanders appearing in a McDonalds ad. Lambert isn't "dressed like" Kevin Butler, and Lambert himself isn't Sony's mascot.
"Kevin Butler" is more like the current Wendy's girl. And the situation is more like what that girl might face in the future, like five years after Wendy's stopped using her. If she were in a Toyota commercial where she stops at a McDonald's drive-through, is never referenced by name, but speaks.
It's not like having someone dressed as Colonel Sanders appearing in a McDonalds ad. Lambert isn't "dressed like" Kevin Butler, and Lambert himself isn't Sony's mascot.
"Kevin Butler" is more like the current Wendy's girl. And the situation is more like what that girl might face in the future, like five years after Wendy's stopped using her. If she were in a Toyota commercial where she stops at a McDonald's drive-through, is never referenced by name, but speaks.
@Alan Argentina
I certainly agree that he is no bad guy in this. I'm sure he thought he was doing a Bridgestone commercial and it never even crossed his mind that he might be violating his agreement with Sony. However, if the commercial in any way pushes Nintendo's products (and if it is an advertisement for a giveaway that Bridgestone is doing then I'm afraid it will probably be seen that way in court) then, unfortunately, Sony needs to at least point the situation out and take steps to receive restitution from Bridgestone if for no other reason than to make it clear that it takes its contracts with its spokesmen seriously.
I certainly agree that he is no bad guy in this. I'm sure he thought he was doing a Bridgestone commercial and it never even crossed his mind that he might be violating his agreement with Sony. However, if the commercial in any way pushes Nintendo's products (and if it is an advertisement for a giveaway that Bridgestone is doing then I'm afraid it will probably be seen that way in court) then, unfortunately, Sony needs to at least point the situation out and take steps to receive restitution from Bridgestone if for no other reason than to make it clear that it takes its contracts with its spokesmen seriously.
@Indigo
Take a look at my posts. It doesn't matter if he is appearing as Kevin Buttler or not. He looks and sounds like himself? He can't sell a competitor's products.
@Icehearted
Your examples don't fly. Star Trek/Star Wars and In Living Color/Mad TV are not advertisement, they are entertainment and the contracts are very different. Entertainment doesn't compete against itself directly for consumer dollars. They compete for advertising dollars. No one can say that if Star Wars is more popular than Star Trek or the other way around that one is directly influencing the viewership of the other unless they are somehow in opposite time slots. Even then they are not competing for sales, they are direct entertainment PRODUCTS. A commercial is a sales pitch for a product. You can not have the icon for one company shilling the products of another, it would be a ridiculous business practice to allow.
Take a look at my posts. It doesn't matter if he is appearing as Kevin Buttler or not. He looks and sounds like himself? He can't sell a competitor's products.
@Icehearted
Your examples don't fly. Star Trek/Star Wars and In Living Color/Mad TV are not advertisement, they are entertainment and the contracts are very different. Entertainment doesn't compete against itself directly for consumer dollars. They compete for advertising dollars. No one can say that if Star Wars is more popular than Star Trek or the other way around that one is directly influencing the viewership of the other unless they are somehow in opposite time slots. Even then they are not competing for sales, they are direct entertainment PRODUCTS. A commercial is a sales pitch for a product. You can not have the icon for one company shilling the products of another, it would be a ridiculous business practice to allow.
I'm seeing a lot about the nature-of-business here, but that's over-complication of the problem. We don't know what was in the contract Lamert signed, and if he agreed not to appear in competitors commercials then yes he has wronged Sony. But if he hasn't, then this is Sony feeling regret for not negotiating that.
@mojoscosco
Whoa, slow down there, hoss! I realize my comparisons were weak, but my point stands; things that may present a rivalry (deliberately or not) taking people from one another and using them. That's also funny because Nintendo has said all along (Sony only a little) that they are NOT COMPETING. Might be BS, but you may consider yourself better informed now ( The more you know ). Star Trek and Star Wars have been compared for decades, and MadTV was created, in part, to compete directly with SNL. You want to talk icons? Jim Carey, ILC's golden boy, and a HUGE hit on SNL.
(oh, and not competing for sales.... because television shows don't sell time to advertisers, amirite?)
I get what you're trying to say, but it ignores too much of what I actually did say.
Whoa, slow down there, hoss! I realize my comparisons were weak, but my point stands; things that may present a rivalry (deliberately or not) taking people from one another and using them. That's also funny because Nintendo has said all along (Sony only a little) that they are NOT COMPETING. Might be BS, but you may consider yourself better informed now ( The more you know ). Star Trek and Star Wars have been compared for decades, and MadTV was created, in part, to compete directly with SNL. You want to talk icons? Jim Carey, ILC's golden boy, and a HUGE hit on SNL.
(oh, and not competing for sales.... because television shows don't sell time to advertisers, amirite?)
I get what you're trying to say, but it ignores too much of what I actually did say.
He's probably going to win since he's not playing the character. I don't think I have ever heard a case where a person's face is trademarked by anyone other than said person.
It's like if the "Dude, your getting a Dell!" guy went on to make commercials selling HPs. Same thing.
Honestly it'd be stupid to fight it but I almost wish Bridgestone and Lambert would, just so Sony doesnt set a precident (though I really believe any judge would throw this ou)
This is like if The Discovery sued Mike Rowe and Ford or Levi or maybe even more appropriately which ever paper towel company he does spots for, just because he acts like an everyman in the (and a dirty one in the towel commercial.) Character or not theres a context issue that would need to be addressed that hasnt been breached.
This is like if The Discovery sued Mike Rowe and Ford or Levi or maybe even more appropriately which ever paper towel company he does spots for, just because he acts like an everyman in the (and a dirty one in the towel commercial.) Character or not theres a context issue that would need to be addressed that hasnt been breached.
Typical Sony.... they always did these crap things. But ofcourse the Fanboys will again defend it. Can the man now not act in ANYTHING any more. Or never be acting like he played a Console?
Does Sony own his real life face now?
Fecking media companies and distributors. As always is Sony the big Media/Music industry jerk, but one with fanboys.
Does Sony own his real life face now?
Fecking media companies and distributors. As always is Sony the big Media/Music industry jerk, but one with fanboys.
He isn't playing the game in the commercial. He is watching it being played by the check next to him.
Not fucking cool on Sony's part, they should've just let it slide and forgot about it. Not only are they projecting themselves as competitors that are losing the competition, but they're also projecting that they're butthurt over the fucking silliest of things.
I'm not aware of any Sony tires on the market that are directly competing with Bridgestone.
"hey Lambert, you should audition for that Hulu commercial."
Lambert - "I cant, someone in it plays an xbox360 for 3 seconds"
Sony is fucking stupid, trying to paint them like normal business men who were "wronged" is a bitch move, straight up.
I'm not aware of any Sony tires on the market that are directly competing with Bridgestone.
"hey Lambert, you should audition for that Hulu commercial."
Lambert - "I cant, someone in it plays an xbox360 for 3 seconds"
Sony is fucking stupid, trying to paint them like normal business men who were "wronged" is a bitch move, straight up.
Way to go, Sony e_e. Now we can be sure that we won't ever have Butler as a DLC character in Playsation All-stars battle royale.
Dear Sony: Please focus on bringing more games to the vita instead of suing the crap out of everyone.
Dear Sony: Please focus on bringing more games to the vita instead of suing the crap out of everyone.
Funny thing is, when I saw this commercial I was thinking something like this would happen.
I say if Sony gets away with the lawsuit and summarily cans the character in their ads, Nintendo should pick him up.
I say if Sony gets away with the lawsuit and summarily cans the character in their ads, Nintendo should pick him up.
This is why actors should all wear masks like they did back in ancient Greece or at least wear extensive make-up and/or prosthesis to make each separate character that they play distinct from not only one another but from the actor portraying them.
Sony needs to sue themselves; through "advertising" this small unimportant fact, they themselves are advertising Mario Kart Wii. Personally I would never have know about this until Sony complained about it. Think I'll get Mario Kart Wii out now. :)
WTF can they sue for? He was portraying a Bridgestone employee. You cant sue him for doing other roles. They will lose.
Original add can be found here http://www.metatube.com/en/videos/151958/Bridgestone-commercial-Kevin-Butler-becomes-VP-of-Betrayal/
Fuck you Sony. And people wonder why the company is going under. They're run by a bunch of fucking morons.
Completely unrelated to topic, but I have to share:
Ahmuricuuuuhh, FUCK YEAH!!
sorry....it;s been on my mind the entire day :(
Ahmuricuuuuhh, FUCK YEAH!!
sorry....it;s been on my mind the entire day :(
follow
