Top
710°

Sony suing Bridgestone over Kevin Butler's Wii-related commercial?

Things are getting really weird with Bridgestone's recent Wii-related commercial. It all started when Kevin Butler was spotted in the company's "Game On" promotion featuring the Wii. It didn't take long for an updated TV spot to be released, this time featuring a new actor.

Read Full Story >>
gamingeverything.com
The story is too old to be commented.
zdkapl1776d ago

That would be both funny and awful if this is actually happening.

guitarded771776d ago

It broke my heart when I saw the commercial on TV. I was like "KB sold out" :(, then I was like "Damn you Sony, why didn't y'all keep KB"!

knowyourstuff1776d ago

Lawyers are to blame for crap like this. Sony thinks they can trademark Lambert's likeness as "Kevin Butler", which is nonsense since it would prevent him from working for anyone else. Sony can't do that unless there is a non-compete clause in Lambert's contract.

Sony has also been doing huge cutbacks to remain profitable. Lets just say Kevin got a pay cut and he quit, while Sony's executives running the company into the floor are getting bonused all day long.

Nimblest-Assassin1776d ago

Well this is happening, and honestly, Sony should cancel this lawsuit, because it is ridiculous

They own the character "Kevin Butler" not the man Jerry Lambert

He can act in whatever he wants to act in... Sony doesn't own him, unless this commercial is a breech of terms with Jerry

All in all, this is a stupid ass decision from sony

http://dockets.justia.com/d...

http://docs.justia.com/case...

^

Those are the actual documents, proving this is a real thing

alien6261776d ago

its more of he could work for bridgestone but Jerry Lambert is still under contract with sony in which he cant be promoting other systems other than sony. Bridgestone is the fault for not thinking that. BTW people dont get mad they not suing Jerry Lambert(Kevin Butler) they are suing Bridgestone.

Blankman851776d ago

Actually they are suing Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek Inc, which happens to be presidented(is that a word?) by Jerry Lambert.

-Alpha1776d ago

@alien

Not sure if this is true, but:

" Not only are they suing Bridgestone for the commercial, they're also suing Wildcat Creek, Inc.

Who are they? Well, evidently they're the advertising company hired by Bridgestone for the commercial. According to this their president is none other than Jerry Lambert."

From the Neogaf thread

nukeitall1776d ago

knowyourstuff:

"Sony can't do that unless there is a non-compete clause in Lambert's contract."

None compete clauses are often impossible to enforce, due to it in fact bars people from using their trade to earn money.

By the way, that is a good thing!

MAJ0R1776d ago

inb4 Sony gets hacked again

BrianC62341776d ago

"Lawyers are to blame for crap like this. Sony thinks they can trademark Lambert's likeness as "Kevin Butler", which is nonsense since it would prevent him from working for anyone else. Sony can't do that unless there is a non-compete clause in Lambert's contract."

I never saw the commercial. Did he use the Kevin Butler name and dress like him? If so I'm sure Sony would have a reason for suing. He'd have to at least not pretend to be the same character.

Cupid_Viper_31776d ago

Wow, the amount of people talking about things that they don't understand here is staggering.

Guys....when an actor signs a commercial contract to represent a certain company, there is always a clause that states that said actor CANNOT EVER feature in any commercial work representing a competitor, it is a breach of contract.

Lebron is under Contract with Nike, hence can never appear in a commercial for Adidas, or Reebok, or Under Armour. Same thing for Messi as he is under contract with Adidas, therefore cannot feature in Nike commercials even though Barcelona, the club he plays for is sponsored by Nike. Any breach of those contract term is subject to legal action.

The purpose of commercials in the first place is build a certain perception, and actors/mascots are spokesperson for those companies. that's why they put these actors under a contract, meaning that you get paid specifically not to work for the competitor.

A company cannot afford to be publicly sponsoring you, and have you as a downloadable character in one their biggest franchises, while you're also pushing commercials for their direct competitor........I don't a single company that would allow that. And as much as I like Lambert, as an actor, he would be well aware of that, and as the president of marketing company, he would know that all too well.

Sony is going to have to cut ties with him, meaning that all their future plans to use him as Kevin Butler are now washed up, meaning an entire marketing strategy and investment has been foiled.......Cmon now, get real, What Lambert did was amateurish and unprofessional,and he breached his contract, period.

ScubbaSteve1776d ago

@Cupid_Viper_3

After reading through most of these comments I'm glad to see someone who actually understands what's going on. When this commercial came out I knew there would be a legal action coming and when Bridgestone suddenly edited out KB it was pretty much confirmed that this was going to happen.

I'm not sure if it's just people trolling because it's Sony or they really don't understand how the world works. I'd honestly be surprised if this weren't a shoe-in case for Sony and I suspect we'll hear about a settlement in a few months.

Legion1775d ago (Edited 1775d ago )

@Cupid_Viper_3

The only issue here is they are not suing the actor who might be in breach of contract. They are suing the companies that utilized him. And regardless of who is President... they can't sue the company for using him... they can only confront the actor if he is in breach.

TheRealSpy1775d ago

kevin butler was never funny. it takes a certain level of desperation to think he did sony a favor with his marketing. it's just childish "humor" that idiots respond to. you can put that stupidity anywhere and there will be a moronic audience for it.

pixelsword1775d ago (Edited 1775d ago )

I don't know all of the names, but it could be that he is under a contract which may have prevented him from promoting any other console, videogame, or device. The only way Sony could sue Bridgestone is that they have a contract which supports the above statement.

Prince was under something similar, as he could not use the name given to him by his parents unless he was with Time/Warner; so it's not a stretch to think something like this exists out there.

@ therealspy;

Your presence here either undermines your hypothesis or supports it.

I'm saying support. ;D

MariaHelFutura1775d ago

@knowyourstuff.

Well, he could always go back to killing babies on scare tactics.

Reibooi1775d ago (Edited 1775d ago )

There are a few reasons Sony could be suing and be within their right and not be bullying in the process.

Firstly is if he signed a non-compete clause. This would basically not allow him to work on anything for a certain period of time in advertising or not work on anything that was gaming related. It all depends on the contract he had signed with Sony.

2nd Sony could be suing because they believe Bridestone was leading people to believe he was still portraying the Kevin Butler character.

This has happened before mind you in a different business. During the Monday night wars of the late 90's the WWF sued the WCW when Razor Ramon(Scott Hall) went to WCW because when he went he played the same character and while they never said his name they clearly hinted at who he was and that he was portraying a character the WWF had Trademarked. As a matter of a fact one of the first things he said was "You know who I am but you don't know why I'm here" Implying he was their as the Razor Ramon character which was against his contract.

Something similar could be happening here with the Sony law suit but until more info comes out there is no reason to be throwing hate in every possible direction.

Kevin ButIer1775d ago

*looks awesome in white coat*

Pekka1775d ago

@Cupid_Viper_3: Even contracts aren't forever and actor can also decide to leave whenever contract is being negotiated. They can't force him to continue and contract is void after he leaves and he can work for their worst competitors. Of course, character of Kevin Butler is owned by Sony but not Lambert if he isn't on their paylist. Even Messi could change from Adidas to Nike if Adidas decides his contract is too expensive or Messi decides to change sides when contracts are negotiated. His contract doesn't last forever but could last for several years.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 1775d ago
StraightPath1776d ago

Sony jus another jealous evil organisation. How is fanboys justify this? I remember the hate apple got for sueing samsung sony are no better then apple. The jus want money n be dominatr

Nimblest-Assassin1776d ago

Is your keyboard broken, or are you unable to spell?

I honestly can't take you seriously like this

SilentNegotiator1776d ago (Edited 1776d ago )

If he signed a non-compete, it's cut-and-dry. Sony isn't "evil" if they want Jerry to complete his contract by not promoting other systems.

No need to call every lawsuit 'frivolous'. No one seems to REALLY know any details here anyway.

soljah1776d ago

here is one of the problems with lambert. sony is still actively promoting kb in its products

http://www.gamestop.com/ps3...

and its a karting game lust like the mario kart game lambert was promoting in the commericial

jadenkorri1775d ago

Kevin Butler aka Jerry Lambert, will unfortunately no longer be doing Sony/playstation commercials, sad really, I always enjoyed them. But I'm gonna call it now, MS will pick him up and do a commercial for "said game" for the 360/720. Cause we all know MS loves copying Sony, plus the amount of media frenzy it will gain will be huge advertisement.

TheRealSpy1775d ago

this is just an example of a sony troll trying to paint an image of anyone who sees sony for the money grubbing corporation that they are. if you think this guy is trying to make a real point, you are an idiot.

he's trolling on behalf of sony fanboys everywhere. that's all it is. nobody is this stupid.

CalvinKlein1775d ago

sony is poor and getting sue happy because they are desperate for money.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1775d ago
nerdkiller1776d ago

i hope this is fake, not right that sony wants copy rights to a human-being who needs to eat. im sure there not upset with them selves after pswiimotes and smash bros. battle royal

BrianC62341776d ago

He can do his job, just not pretend to be a character Sony owns.

nerdkiller1775d ago (Edited 1775d ago )

@brian:

lets think for a sec,so you're tellin me a he shouldn't do commercial that involves video games becuase he used to do sony ones, then i guess ppl who work for pepsi can't drink coke.

if no names weren't involved then its a free country he can do what ever job comes his way, he needs to eat u know.

( l thought this was AMERICA ) south park:

CalvinKlein1775d ago

ahah shouldnt they sue kevin buttnerd instead?

jd6661775d ago

What's your obsession with butts? Oh sorry you can't reply can you as you've run out of bubbles!!! HAHAHA

SPAM-FRITTER-1231775d ago (Edited 1775d ago )

Sony suing Bridgestone.....LOL

I suppose every penny counts when you're on your way to bankruptcy.

I thought Apple suing Samsung was bad till i saw this.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1775d ago
360ICE1776d ago

All this relentless suing...
Well, well, it sure beats threatening as Bill Maher would have said. I think...