GamesBeat writes: "The PlayStation spokesperson and faux-executive Kevin Butler is in trouble with Sony. On September 11, Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against the Bridgestone Tires company and Wildcat Creek, Inc advertising firm. Actor Jerry Lambert, who plays the hilarious and arrogant Kevin Butler character in PlayStation commercials, is the president of Wildcat Creek according to Corporationwiki.com. SCEA claims that Bridgestone and Lambert violated one of Sony’s intellectual properties. Which one? Well, Kevin Butler."
10°
10°
10°
30°
Ad 
40°
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
It's possible that Kevin Butler's contract had specifics which prevents him from advertising or being in other commercials.
No, that Vince guy worked for a flea market who then decided to create a commercial marketing that product. You really think that guy is the business owner type? He punched a prostitute in the face because she bit his toungue and wouldn't let go LOLOL
They're suing Bridgestone AND Wildcat Creek and guess where Lambert works and is conveniently the head off? Wildcat Creek.
Is it Sony suing Sony for using Lambert in the movie Bad Teacher as well? XP
The woman that does the voice of bart simpson got sued by the simpsons creator for her using the bart voice in something unrelated to the simpsons without authorization.
I think it was, she was doing a promo for something else (which did not go against her contract) but as she was reading, the bart voice slipped out and was caught in the promo.
That was the violation right there. not just the fact she was doing work for something else. All actors have that right to work but their persona's (or characters) can be contractually obligated to not be used outside of whatever they are contracted for.
Lambert was doing a commercial for a tire company that happened to have the wii in it. Had he been in butler character then he would be in violation but simply being in the commercial is not enough for sony to go on.
i have seen enough commercials in my time to have seen the same person advertise for more than one unrelated product as many different characters.
This is stupid sony.
http://dockets.justia.com/d...
Kevin Butler the character didn't need to be in the commercial. This Jerry Lambert is the biggest attention whore on the planet if he can't just keep himself out of the commercial and keep two campaigns separate, he should've had some inkling that Sony wouldn't be happy with him using his face to promote a competitor. Dumba$$.
Perhaps if they showed a pixel-ed out Mario, speaking with his familiar voice saying here Mr.Kevin Butler *Screwa Sony, *taka thisa* cash as Mario hands a overflowing briefcase of cash to Kevin Butler...
Bring in "Sack-boy" and he will show you how to be a proper mascot...
we wasnt playing the game at all. If you watch the commercial, it is the woman playing. plus its a tire company commercial not specifically a wii commercial.
Basically sony are suing for association. He was doing his job as an actor and because it just so happened to be a wii in the commercial they think he stepped out of contract.
seriously, im sure his contract is for butler. Not tire guy #2.
hope they lose the case and nintendo pick him of official and promote the wii u. this will be big slap to sony for betraying him.
By the looks of it, it's not simply non-comepetitive clause, as A: Bridgestone is not in the same market so it's not competition; and B: they aren't suing Lambert, but his firm, which makes no sense for ex-employee agreement breaking.
My guess here is Sony is claiming some kind of usurpation (plagiarism, patent infringment, copyright infringement, etc), that they own the character "Kevin Butler" and as so suing whoever uses the same idea.
Also, companies don't like suing who they can't win or who won't benefit 'em if wasting time/money on courts... Considering that slowing down Lambert gives Sony nothing, chances are they have a little more than an ex-employe agreement. I'm thinking of copyrights over Kevin Butler's persona, speech, gestures, clothes, etc...
How did they violate the Kevin Butler property? They didn't use his name or even the attitude of Kevin Butler in that Ad. The character he played in the Ad was much too passive and dorky compared to Kevin Butler and his take charge attitude.
They are basically saying because his likeness (does he have to wear a disguise from now on when working on film?) and that he talked about a video game... makes it the Kevin Butler character?
Give me a break... if the courts up hold this then they are really allowing anyone to be sued for looking like ANY other character.
Here is a link to the original video: http://www.gonintendo.com/?...
lol Id sue too.
it limits this guy in what he can do in his career.
but not a generation has passed and the ad was like saying he's already jumping ship! for those who are aware that this guy is "Keving Butler" - VP of anything PS, this is kinda send a message that Sony has fired him or something!
Sony wont spend money on marketing, but they WILL spend money on this!?!?!?
GTFO!.
Funny Commercial, Kevin (Jerry Lambert) at the end made it worth watching.
Typically the contract would dictate that he, the actor, couldn't promote competing products, either in, or out of the Kevin Butler character. This is very common and done to ensure specific brands can be consistently associated with specific faces. Many people who have seen Jerry in Sony's adds are going to simply assume he's Kevin Butler in the Wii add.
Sony have every right to pursue this.
However if my memory serves WWF lost that cast and it was MUCH more clear cut then this one is so who knows how it will end up.
Either way it's sad because the end result will mean no more Kevin Butler. He was a awesome character and the best Sony marketing campaign ever.
But will do it now wow there still are some people with a brain and some sense wow ...
And ya both of you are right I agree is due to the likeness and its use with out te word of sony
some would have thought that the wii is apart of the playstation brand and that you could play ps3 move games on it.
its best to nip it in the butt before it gets bad.
So regardless of what commercial he acts in, his face is like one in the same with the name of the character.
Think of it as Mickey Mouse being shown by some other company, but is not referred to as MM within the commercial. I think they could be sued.
It's only a guess.
This lawsuit is stupid, unless he said in the commercial his name was Kevin Butler, he is just an actor, acting in a commercial
Their reasoning if based on name alone is weak because he doesn't have to reveal himself as KB on another company's commercial.
It's not my fault if you sell me stolen goods without my knowledge
"I'd say it's foolish to think he wasn't using the "Kevin Butler" character intentionally." That is pure speculation, one that Sony will have to prove in court to win the lawsuit because it wasnt given an identity to the character Jerry played in the Bridgestone commercial. I dont think Sony will go far with this lawsuit but then again i didnt think that Apple would go far with that "shapes" lawsuit either.
There are lots of actors that have their own style attached to them that they carry into other roles. The only legal backing I see is if Kevin Butler was owned by Sony and Jerry Lambert was not allowed to mention that name on another product. I don't know if they can trademark a comedic style.
To me it sounds like Sony needs to keep this guy on the payroll and make VP of "something" for real.
If they don't want him making commercials for other companies then they should give him a steady paycheck so that he won't.
"You cannot participate in advertising or promoting rival brands for 3-6 months after this contract ends"
or something like that....
Logicaly wouldn't it of been wise to make him look a little differnt in the advert so people don't assume it's Kevin Butler even though he's just playing a no name character. Give him black hair, thick glasses, a goatee or maybe a crazy "Back to the Future Doc Wig" to go along with that scientist costume...it wouldn't of killed them to do that.
Hopefully they will work this out and maybe make another advert where the take the mick out of the situation to laugh it off....maybe Kevin being sued by Jack trenton stalking him, then saves his life so Jack drops it blah blah blah you get the point.
Have isn't happy that you keep on replacing him with Of, Have would like you to know that he belongs with words like could, would, should, ect.
You two make nice now and forget this whole mess happened.
Ever thought that it's how we say/write things round here where I come from...it's old geordie slang. Sorry if you don't approve...
Seriously why waste your last bubble on that...<sigh>
OT:
I agree with you Carl_Shocker, When I saw the ad I thought it was for playstation at first, and then I realized it was for Nintendo. I can see why they would sue, not that I 100% agree with it but I understand it. I don't think they should of used PS KB's likeness for a nintendo ad. I'm sure Nintendo would hate it if they dressed someone up like mario to sell PS3s.
Oh and are people really disagreeing that there probably wasn't ANYTHING in a contract Lambert did with Sony...I find that hard to believe, I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to do it at all, just for a certain amount of time.
He could also argue fair use, but I'm unsure just how much that would apply in this case depending on the contract he signed with Sony...a judge may rule that the contract is unfair or unreasonable and rule against Sony.
But none of us know the particulars of the contract, if there were any restrictions, how much of the character came from Sony and how much from Lambert etc. So it's all speculation at this point.
@amaguli, they can't restrict a man's right to work in that complete a fashion...you can't ban an actor from representing a competing company. Jerry Lambert is allowed to take employment from whoever he wants...the issue is if he used Sony's intellectual property to do so, ie, the character of Butler. If he had any input into that character at all, he could even argue a right to fair use of said character depending on the level of involvement. That all has to be determined by the court.
I know that they can't restrict his right to work, but I'm sure in his contract they stated he could not endorse a competing console for an x amount of time.
If Sony can show that, then Lambert is guilt of breaching his contract.
The movie industry would be a WAR ZONE if that was the legal precedent.
Sony didn't seem to have a problem then. I think this has more to do with this ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I think he was removed from that ad. Perhaps he had a contract (with Sony) that didn't allow him to advertise competitive brands. You would think Jerry Lambert would have known this, so maybe there wasn't anything in writing.
*Flame shield on*
Related image(s)
I wonder if this applies to that Marcus kid.
Step yo game up!!
This is just craziness on Sony's part. With all the problems they've had recently, do they really need to sully their name and become synonymous with greed now as well?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t...
It'll be interesting to see how Sony plans on going about this case.
According to the statement, it's a breach of contract. If that's the actually the case, then it won't be very interesting at all, as it'll result in a clear win for Sony. But again, that depends on if the contract actually mentions it.
Anyone suprised hasn't been following Sony for more than 5 minutes.
This would not have happened if Jerry Lambert was not in that promotional clip cause he is featured in many other Bridgestone ads that were not a problem.
Yeah Sony is taking this a tad too far but Jerry Lambert had to use some common sense promoting a product like the Wii which Sony is currently up against this gen in gaming. That was a poor lack of judgement in Jerry Lambert's case.
the Kevin Butler
character to sell
products other than
those from PlayStation
misappropriates Sony’s
intellectual property,
creates confusion in the
market, and causes
damage to Sony"
But he wasn't Kevin Butler in the ad, he was a nameless character.
What did Sony expect Jerry Lambert to do? Use a different head?
I understand the updated comment from Sony but I still can't get behind this but at the same time, it is kind of screwed up seeing Jerry sell Wiis after 3 years of trashing Wiis.
They hired a person with a legal name. Not Kevin Butler.
The people who don't know who he is, they won't know what this is all about anyway. The only people that would dive into this kind of situation, would be us gamers that know who he is. Taking the time to sue him, would rub us gamers the wrong way and our view of Sony.
That said, I'm sure things will be fine. In just a matter of weeks, they seem to already be in the works for a settlement without having to go to court (hopefully), which looks pretty good.