Post by: NewsBot on March 29, 2004, 04:10:10 PM
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.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 29, 2004, 04:40:58 PM
Post by: Bartman3010 on March 29, 2004, 04:58:17 PM
Besides, if he doesnt want to be in the games, obviously he'll lose his fans...or lack thereof.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 29, 2004, 06:46:25 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on March 29, 2004, 07:50:49 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 29, 2004, 08:09:39 PM
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.
Post by: Stom on March 29, 2004, 09:02:05 PM
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.
Post by: KnowsNothing on March 29, 2004, 11:52:30 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 29, 2004, 11:59:40 PM
Post by: WackerJr on March 30, 2004, 12:47:18 AM
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!
Post by: KDR_11k on March 30, 2004, 01:51:25 AM
