Comments (25)
Xof  +   638d ago
Yes, it's bonkers because Sony is suing a man who violated the terms of his contract.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
MAJ0R  +   638d ago
How do you know? Have you seen the contract?
dennett316  +   638d ago
If reports are to be believed, the ad showed after the contract was expired. He was no longer bound by those terms, and even if it were written into his contract in some way that he's not allowed to advertise other gaming products in the future, that could be challenged in court as it may place an unfair restriction on the man's livelihood.

Doesn't matter when it's filmed, it only matters when it's actually shown. Sony are effectively trying to own his face in perpetuity as it relates to games. It's ridiculous.
Gridloc  +   638d ago
Funny though that they pulled all of his commercials. Must have some merit...
Imalwaysright  +   638d ago
If he breached the contract why isnt Sony suing him? Why is Sony suing Bridgestone and not the person that breached the contract? Besides Sony is suing because they felt that Kevin Butler, the character they created was advertising for a direct competitor.

http://n4g.com/news/1097871...

This lawsuit is just as stupid as that "shapes" lawsuit from Apple and i hope that Sony loses and that Bridgestone and Lambert counter sue them.
morganfell  +   638d ago
Sony is suing the company (Wildcat Creek) of which the actor that plays Kevin Butler, Jerry Lambert, is President. That company manages all of Lambert's business as an actor.
Irishguy95  +   638d ago
Really what do you see when you look at the ad? I see Kevin butler playing a Wii.

They should have at least put Jerry doing something else with the ad, he was obviously chosen to go into that segment because he's associated with gaming, due to sony.
Gridloc  +   638d ago
Allowing another one of these articles is BONKERS...
ALLWRONG  +   638d ago
"Never mind the fact that Sony never actually trademarked the “Kevin Butler” character or that the actor, Jerry Lambert, has done Bridgestone commercials for years."

Sony is going to lose this one. You can't prevent actors from working. You do not own the actor, the clothes he wears, or what he sells.
hkgamer  +   638d ago
cant remember where I read it, but an article was on N4G.

basically it mentions that Jerry Lambert's company is doing a joint marketing scheme with Bridgestone that has a competition to win a Wii or something. Anyway, just trying to point out that Jerry Lambert is not as innoncent as it seems and he is using his fame from Sony ads to sell another console.

Not sure if you guys here are old enough, but a character from "friends" had a character who was a coffee shop worker called Gunther. Friends became a massive hit and Gunther(dunno his real name) did an commercial advertising a coffee maker, he and the company got ended up getting sued.
ChickeyCantor  +   638d ago
He isn't selling a console. He was selling tires. The Wii was just a " free bonus ".

He didn't play as Kevin Butler. I hope Sony loses. This is just ridiculous.
Knight_Crawler  +   638d ago
I am sure a gazillion people went out and bought a Wii after they saw that commercial -_-

Sony can not prove that the Wii benefited from having Jerry in the advert so the judge will tell Sony to bug off.
hkgamer  +   638d ago
@sidar

to be honest, since we dont know what his contract with Sony states, we can't really say who is right or wrong.

I'm sure if you advertise for Pepsi, I am pretty sure you are not allowed to be seen in public drinking a Coca-Cola.
ElectricKaibutsu  +   638d ago
@hkgamer
That's for people being sponsored by companies, not for people advertising. But, of course like you said, it depends on what's in the contract.
Qrphe  +   637d ago
@sidar
He was definitely marketing the Wii, Sony's competitor, no doubt about it
colonel179  +   638d ago
There has to be something wrong because Bridgestone removed Jerry Lambert from the commercial, otherwise they wouldn't have removed him. It's likely has to do with his contract whit Sony, but I think Sony is overreacting with this situation.
Knight_Crawler  +   638d ago
Maybe they just did not want the bad attention...Sony should have just left it alone adfte Bridgedstone pulled the commercial but the fact that Sony is still pursuing this makes them look like scum bags.

Seriusly I doubt that the Wii sold allot because of this commercial so I do not see why Sony is acting like a diva.

@Soldier - that works both ways...Jerry made Kevin Butler who he is and took Sony out of the bad marketing reputation that they had, sure some other guy could have played KB but who is to say that they would have been as good as Jerry.

Also they covered it up because they did not want bad press which is what is happening now - no company wants there name involved in some law suit no matter the outcome.

Sony does not realize this but this makes them look like jerks and can damage PS3 sales - Bridge switched the commercial so why go further?
#4.1 (Edited 638d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
DonaClarkson22   638d ago | Spam
Soldierone  +   638d ago
They created Kevin Butler. Without Sony's massive ad campaign creating a fake character, this new commercial would have no standing ground to be interesting.....THATS the issue.

If I was wrong, they wouldn't have tried to cover it up by replacing him.
ronin4life  +   638d ago
I'm sure the ad was pulled because of the litigation. Pretty sure you can't keep doing something if youse been called into court on it until the case is over.
#6.1 (Edited 638d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Blankman85  +   638d ago
So Jerry isn't allowed to show his face on TV anymore because SONY made him famous? Got it.
Soldierone  +   638d ago
He isn't allowed to be Kevin Butler....The very first time this commercial aired, people made connections to Kevin Butler and it wasn't just because he was in it. He was acting the same and portraying the same character.

"but but but he wasnt kevin butler" okay so I could go rip off Bugs Bunny, but call him Bigs Bunny and be fine? No.
ElectricKaibutsu  +   638d ago
I don't know about that Buggs Bunny analogy. It's not like he called himself Gevin Gutler. Imagine if whoever owns the rights to the Bill and Ted characters sued Keanu Reeves for acting kind of spacey and confused in another movie.
MasterD919  +   638d ago
It would be a bit funny if he ended up doing Wii or Xbox commercials now.

I mean seriously Sony...this is like beating up a team mascot.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember