A federal court struck down Electronic Arts’ First Amendment rights defense of artistic expression for a second time in a controversial lawsuit relating to the use of college athletes’ likenesses without their permission.
Photo courtesy of Ugur Akdemir (Unsplash.com)
The case, which may have far-reaching implications for college sports and video game makers, was originally brought against EA Sports by former Arizona quarterback Sam Keller in 2009. He alleged that the game manufacturer used his likeness without his permission, a charge that was also levied against EA Sports by Ed O’Bannon later in 2009. The cases have now been consolidated.
Although the game maker has alleged that it is protected by the First Amendment, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court ruling that EA was not protected by free speech because the company created the likeness of Keller “in the very setting in which he has achieved renown.” The court also noted that the EA game had the “same height, weight, skin tone, hair color, hairstyle, handedness, home state, play style (pocket passer), visor preference, facial features, and school year as Keller.”
“Given that NCAA football realistically portrays college football players in the context of college football games, the district court was correct in concluding that EA cannot prevail,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote in the decision.
However, the dissenting opinion in the case may gave hope to those who agree that game makers can use player images under federal law. In an argument that may be used to further EA Sports’ appeal, dissenting judge Sidney Thomas wrote that the games have creative and transformative elements that “predominate over the commercial use of the athletes’ likenesses,” according to Yahoo Sports.
“We believe the reasoning in Judge Thomas’ dissent in that decision will ultimately prevail as we seek further court review,” said EA spokesman John Reseburg.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Court Rules Against EA Sports' "First Amendment Rights" Defense
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
A federal court struck down Electronic Arts’ First Amendment rights defense of artistic expression for a second time in a controversial lawsuit relating to the use of college athletes’ likenesses without their permission.
Photo courtesy of Ugur Akdemir (Unsplash.com)
The case, which may have far-reaching implications for college sports and video game makers, was originally brought against EA Sports by former Arizona quarterback Sam Keller in 2009. He alleged that the game manufacturer used his likeness without his permission, a charge that was also levied against EA Sports by Ed O’Bannon later in 2009. The cases have now been consolidated.
Although the game maker has alleged that it is protected by the First Amendment, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court ruling that EA was not protected by free speech because the company created the likeness of Keller “in the very setting in which he has achieved renown.” The court also noted that the EA game had the “same height, weight, skin tone, hair color, hairstyle, handedness, home state, play style (pocket passer), visor preference, facial features, and school year as Keller.”
“Given that NCAA football realistically portrays college football players in the context of college football games, the district court was correct in concluding that EA cannot prevail,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote in the decision.
However, the dissenting opinion in the case may gave hope to those who agree that game makers can use player images under federal law. In an argument that may be used to further EA Sports’ appeal, dissenting judge Sidney Thomas wrote that the games have creative and transformative elements that “predominate over the commercial use of the athletes’ likenesses,” according to Yahoo Sports.
“We believe the reasoning in Judge Thomas’ dissent in that decision will ultimately prevail as we seek further court review,” said EA spokesman John Reseburg.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
