Topic: RE: EA, Sony and Nintendo Sued by Former Boxer

[NewsBot]

Famous ex-boxer Alexis Arguello sues the publisher of Knockout Kings and associated companies for using his likeness without permission.

The latest in a series of legal battles in the gaming industry, boxing champion Alexis Arguello has filed a law suit against Electronic Arts over his unendorsed appearance in the Knockout Kings series.  Also included in the suit are console manufacturers who licensed—and thereby benefited from—EA’s boxing series.

The athelete states he initially became aware of his inclusion in the games when a fan asked him to autograph a copy of one of EA's games.

Arguello demands compensation for Electronic Art’s misuse of his image and that “existing copies of the game be collected and impounded.” None of the three accused companies have commented on Arguello’s claim.  

[Bill Aurion]

Ridiculous...Including the console makers into the suit just makes this guy look like a bigger ass...

[Bartman3010]

How can Sony and Nintendo be involved? Dont they usually not know if a boxer's name was used or not?

Besides, if he doesnt want to be in the games, obviously he'll lose his fans...or lack thereof.

[KDR_11k]

Microsoft isn't in the suit because they probably paid the guy to initiate the lawsuit. As they did with SCO.

[King of Twitch]

This is just Sue-Fest 2004 isn't it.

[Ian Sane]

I assure you Nintendo did not benefit from the sales of an EA game.  That would require Cube owners to actually BUY an EA game.  

Isn't it funny that despite being ignored by the media and casual gamers the Nintendo name is still well known enough for them to always be included in lawsuits they have nothing to do with?

"Arguello demands compensation for Electronic Art’s misuse of his image and that 'existing copies of the game be collected and impounded.'"

Why do these sue-happy f*cks always have such outrageous demands.  Getting paid is perfectly acceptable.  Asking for existing copies to be collected is ridiculous.

[Stom]

In suits such as this, it is a common practice to bring as many possible parties to the table to give the main case more credibility.  If EA was the only one sued, then they would seem to be targeted as the only ones that had any potential benefits from the misuse of the representation, which is clearly not the case, even if Nintendo and Sony were not directly involved in the misuse of the licensing.

It would not surprise me if the cases against Sony and Nintendo were dropped, but now it will be crystal clear that if EA is found to be at fault in the misuse of the client's image, they are responsible for a piece of any money generated by it to any company, and that must be taken into consideration.  In fact, I would be surprised if Nintendo and Sony did not have legal agreements protecting them from the misuse of licensing by their third party publishers/developers.

To be clear, Nintendo could be held liable if it made money off of a licensed game created by a third party that misuses an owned image, or a person's likeness in the case of an athlete.  Even if they did have an agreement with said third party, if they were found to have knowledge of the event (unlikely in this case) they could still be held liable as well.

[KnowsNothing]

It's called the butterfly effect.  If you go back far enough and search for the cause, IT'S ALL GOD'S FAULT

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Not to worry, Nintendo can easily pay this guy the $11.57 earned from the license.  Sony, on the other hand, is looking at $11.57 baZillion.

[WackerJr]

With the number of licenced sports games EA develop, surely they would've realised that they may have required permission to use a real person in one of their games?

Saying this though, I don't see what all the fuss is about by this bloke. I can't see the game doing anything other than enhancing his image, by getting more people to find out who he is!  

[KDR_11k]

EA has league licenses that are supposed to cover all the people involved. Occassionaly one of the people will hate them for it because they don't get any money. See Oliver Kahn vs. EA Sports (under EU law it is a privacy violation to show off images of people who didn't approve them). Michael Schumacher or Mika Häkkinen (don't remember which one) required a license separate from the Formula One, that's why in some older racing sim he's called "Driver X".