Jim Brown Receives $600K Settlement Against EA

[dk6663]

Quote: Originally Posted by noplace

I would think an extra 600k would be a victory for anyone..

Not for someone with a net worth of 50 Mil. Moral victory ?? Is his individual likeness only worth 600K ? He took the settlement because they probably knew they would get crushed in court. And EA just said here , go away. EA is a 3 Billion dollar company, what is 60K ?

[Reed1417]

Quote: Originally Posted by dk6663

Not for someone with a net worth of 50 Mil. Moral victory ?? Is his individual likeness only worth 600K ? He took the settlement because they probably knew they would get crushed in court. And EA just said here , go away. EA is a 3 Billion dollar company, what is 60K ?

What's your point man? Does it matter if it was 2K,or 5k or 1 million. What side do you stand on cause I can't figure it out. Help me understand your point of view.


Reed is comin' atcha!!

[asantead22]

I wish EA would sell classic teams in all of their games and pay the players royalties with a contract forbidden them to sue. MUT is cool but I would pay extra for Classic teams and AllTime teams with the real players. I also wish we could use more teams online. The Classic teams would keep people interested for years to come.

[dk6663]

Quote: Originally Posted by Reed1417

What's your point man? Does it matter if it was 2K,or 5k or 1 million. What side do you stand on cause I can't figure it out. Help me understand your point of view. Reed is comin' atcha!!

My point of view is that it was petty. He is petty. Jim Brown is an egotistical maniac. Madden didn't sell X number of games because of his likeness. It would and will sell with or without him. You probably could have taken his height, weight, etc, and that been half a million people with the same stat line. I used the dollar figures just as a frame of reference to show just how petty it was. If not, why didn't they go to court? And really stick it to the Corp. Giant ? Not like he was on the cover and it was "Jim Brown Madden"

[Reed1417]

Quote: Originally Posted by dk6663

My point of view is that it was petty. He is petty. Jim Brown is an egotistical maniac. Madden didn't sell X number of games because of his likeness. It would and will sell with or without him. You probably could have taken his height, weight, etc, and that been half a million people with the same stat line. I used the dollar figures just as a frame of reference to show just how petty it was. If not, why didn't they go to court? And really stick it to the Corp. Giant ? Not like he was on the cover and it was "Jim Brown Madden"

The only thing I'm going to say is that i think your anger is misplaced. As I said before this isn't about Brown being "petty" or whatever word people throw around. EA used his likeness without his permission and that goes against a lot of rules plain and simple.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by dk6663

Not for someone with a net worth of 50 Mil. Moral victory ?? Is his individual likeness only worth 600K ? He took the settlement because they probably knew they would get crushed in court. And EA just said here , go away. EA is a 3 Billion dollar company, what is 60K ?

Jim Brown is totally in the right here. And he would easily win this in court. There is precedent for him to win this case. So EA decided to settle because it would cost both of them less money in the long run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by dk6663

My point of view is that it was petty. He is petty. Jim Brown is an egotistical maniac. Madden didn't sell X number of games because of his likeness. It would and will sell with or without him. You probably could have taken his height, weight, etc, and that been half a million people with the same stat line. I used the dollar figures just as a frame of reference to show just how petty it was. If not, why didn't they go to court? And really stick it to the Corp. Giant ? Not like he was on the cover and it was "Jim Brown Madden"

I just don't get it, EA uses the man's supposedly insignificant likeness after he told them they couldn't, yet he is the one that's petty and an egotistical maniac. If, as you assert, his likeness was so insignificant, for EA to use it anyway after being told no is very petty and them doing so knowing it was illegal is very egotistical. Spare me any claims of they didn't know it was illegal because aside from the fact they have been proven habitual offenders of illegally using players likenesses, they went and asked Jim Brown could they use in the first place. I guess in your mind if someone asks you to use or borrow something and you say no, them using it anyway isn't anything severe as stealing, it's just harmless borrowing without permission.

Also you keep mentioning Brown settled because he must have known he would lose in court, either you are just ranting or you're serious, either way you should consider that this isn't some one off case, ea has been losing these types of suits in various courts.

[BezO]

I was about to respond similarly until I saw your post.

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

...Also you keep mentioning Brown settled because he must have known he would lose in court, either you are just ranting or you're serious, either way you should consider that this isn't some one off case, ea has been losing these types of suits in various courts.

To add on, it takes 2 sides to settle. Each side settled for similar reasons. They didn't want to spend the time or money to go further and agreed $600K was fair.