GP writer Jared discusses why he Sony could be hurting the Playstation brand by suing the actor behind one of their most famous mascots.
I never liked him anyways so I dont care, but thats rough hes just the working man and they are looking for money trying to keep him down because he played with his wii.
He gained his popularity among the gaming audience through a long line of PS3 commercials. Without those commercials, he would have just been known by a few people in the gaming sphere through the sitcoms he has appeared in.
Note title should said: Sony Is Only Hurting My wallet By Suing Kevin Butler's Actor
@Kevin ButIer Duly noted.
You're f'd now. :P
The actor isn't being sued, Bridgestone is being sued, for having some strange affiliation with the Nintendo Wii... lol really strange if you ask me.
Sony will have destroyed their relationship with Kevin Butler the actor, which only goes to show this decision to sue was done solely by Sony's lawyers looking to make money in court. Now Kevin Butler won't be in ANY future commercials, and Sony went along with the short term cash of suing rather using the character in future marketing campaigns. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Lawyers ruin everything!
And what is this Kevin Butler doing anyway working for directo competitors? Doesn't anyone have any loyalty anymore? Is Sony not paying him enough? He should know Sony would be pissed at him for promoting a directo competitor, I mean what is that! If he runs a marketing campaign and has made his own image a central part of each advertisement, then you can't expect to use your likeness to go and promote a direct competitor!
What exactly is your point? People only knew Mark Hamill for a while because he was Luke Skywalker. Is Luke Skywalker the only character he should have ever been allowed to be? I could literally go on and on and on. Yeah, the guy got a break of sorts because the Kevin Butler character was popular with gamers, but how much do you people think he actually made on those commercials? MAYBE 5K per? Probably a whole lot less. The lawsuit is a joke. I don't see anything alleging he had a no compete clause, and he didn't use the Kevin Butler name. No leg to stand on.
Why are people arguing at me? I just stated a fact, I never said I would make an argument or counter the arguments thrown at me. I AINT GOT NO TIME FOR THAT! Haha
You are so wrong. Sure the Kevin Butler character give him recognition in the gaming world, but he is popular for doing hotel ads for Holiday Inn, as well as other commercials.
just stupid. you gamers know nothing about the advertising business. I wont pretend to know either so it is what it is. I can say this though. Sony can really only sue for the use of KB outside their marketing division if that is the character he was portraying. An example. the person who plays the voice of bart simpson was doing a promo for something completely unrelated to the simpsons. That did not go against her contract (yes the voice of BS is played by a woman) however she inadvertantly went into bart voice mode during the promo and that was a violation. she got sued or they settled but ultimately her using the character voice without authorization was the wrong doing. Not just simply doing something else. So for whatever legalities, sony thinks they can sue these guys for him doing his job as an actor (an unrelated actor) by way of simple association of him in a tire commercial that included a wii. For shame sony...for shame.
If he had a non-compete clause in his contract that prevented him from advertising anything related to gaming products not manufactured by Sony, than he absolutely had to see this one coming! The commercials Jerry Lambert did for Sony are probably the reason why Bridgestone noticed him in the first place. The conflict of interests is obvious! We don't have all the details of how the different companies involved in this matter interacted with each other (intentionality, foul play, etc...), but it's safe to say that Sony is hurting the Playstation brand as much as Lambert is hurting his own company.
jujubee YOU AINT GOT NO BUBBLES TO ARGUE BACK!! lol that is all
Kevin Butler Vice President of the making Nintendo awesome?
No. The only person this article is hurting is the idiot who wrote it. Where are all these troll journalists coming from?!
Well, I guess it depends on what kind of contract HE signed with Sony.. for all we know the contract could've stipulated that he can't appear in any ad's (print or TV) showing him with another console other than Sony PS line.
Again they are not suing the actor they are suing the companies for using the Kevin Butler character. Which they DID NOT. No mention of the character name or any resemblance to the Kevin Butler other then the fact he looks the same (duh) and he is playing a video game. So Sony is basically saying they patented his likeness? Not possible... Why didn't they sue David Hayter for voicing another character in a video game other then Medal Gear? His voice is just as identifiable. And Michael Ironside doing anything outside of Sam Fisher will mean what? He can't use his voice anymore?
People are making it seem that the ps3 fan base is going to rally behind the Butler persona. The majority of the ps3 install base have no idea or even bother to pay attention to this character. The only ppl who know him are folks that go to blogs and gaming websites on the daily bases which isn't a lot of the install base. Don't see how this can hurt sony.
sony just seem like a jealous envious butthurt money grabbing organisation.
Ridiculous. If some random company came out and started advertising with the Master Chief, you'd better believe they'd have to answer for it. Would that ensuing lawsuit hurt the Xbox brand? Of course not. Sony pr created the character. Obviously the actor needs to work but you don't see Daniel Craig going around using Bond to sell items and cash a paycheck. And obviously Bridgestone knew they stepped in it because they edited Kevin Butler out of the commercial. Finally, Sony isn't suing the actor. They're suing Bridgestone and the actor's company (which he just happens to be ceo of, I understand). Everyone involved should have known better and I'm sure this will settle out of court quickly enough.
"If some random company came out and started advertising with the Master Chief, you'd better believe they'd have to answer for it." That's a bad example and strays from the truth. A correct example would be: "If some random company used the guy who played Master Chief but in a different role, with no name, advertising tires for Bridgestone." I think the thing is Sony's lawyers didn't write a proper contract with Lambert, and now they're getting greedy. Only hurting themselves. Seriously, where is the win for Sony in sueing Lambert?
So Jerry isn't allowed to ever take another acting role again just because his face is owned by Sony by some backwards logic?
"Finally, Sony isn't suing the actor. They're suing Bridgestone and the actor's company (which he just happens to be ceo of, I understand). Everyone involved should have known better and I'm sure this will settle out of court quickly enough." agreed, and when this news was put on here in Sunday, the person who posted it failed to read the reference legal doc's. Or maybe they did and decided the bad PR damage was worth it anyway to show Sony in a bad light, when in the reference doc's part 14 the Sony's Legal Team already moved the case to be moved An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. in other words like you stated it was being moved to outside of the court case, and the Hint of that was Bridge Stone pull jerry out of the TV Ad. does that tell you what happened. it was a Breach of contract , and its being settled already.
We can't speak on who is right or wrong.None of us have a copy of the contract that was signed by both parties..Its all business for these companies at the end of day and sometimes things get ugly.
Damn right, the people love him. Sony's most disappointing move with All-Stars is not having him as a playable character.
Kevin Butler wasnt even funny on either side so I dont see the difference or what the fuss is about
Legally it may or may not be an appropriate move. It's just unfortunate, given that the chance of more Kevin Butler ads is now pretty slim. I really liked those ads too.
What? Where is the connection between Kevin Butler and the PlayStation brand?
Kevin Butler is the character from the PlayStation adverts played by Jerry Lambert. Where is the connection between Ronald McDonald and McDonald's?
Ronald McDonald is a maskot of McDonald's, Kevin Butler is not a maskot of Sony.
absolutely (except you spelled mascot wrong)
He may not have been an official mascot for PlayStation, but he served the same purpose. He was a reoccurring character used to represent PlayStation, albeit for a short time.
Microsoft has sued and been sued a hundred times, from going after high school kids like Mike Rowe to being nuked themselves in the US government's anti-trust case. Hasn't hurt the XBox brand to be associated with MS, neither will this hurt Playstation. Heck, part of Microsoft's settlement with Mike Rowe was they gave him an XBox http://news.cnet.com/MikeRo... .
Xbox has never sued Master Chief though. . .
There is no way you could have been serious ROFLMAO!
They're suing Bridgestone, not the actor himself.
They're also suing the marketing company, which Jerry Lambert is CEO of. Also, Sony seem to think the character appearing advertising a rival's console is hurting the brand, but best to not take that into consideration, it's definitely Sony's fault.
And even that's a rumor, not a confirmed fact. Articles like this one are mind boggling. They misinterpret the information published by another source, and then ignore the fact that it's a rumor. Also PirateThom, he may be the CEO of the company, but suing the company is very different from suing the actor himself.
Why are they suing a tyre manufacturer?
This is a cry baby move by Sony.
And more "ammo" for certain fanboys. Then again, Sony doesn't have to do much to hurt their brand for the more sensitive types. Go nuts guys.
Agreed, hopefully Lambert can prove that basically he is playing himself so Sony loses this.
Well sony's the one who has to prove that he was trying to use the same character, and i doubt sony can as the guy didn't even talk in the commercial.
you realise in court if they can prove the characteristics and lines used by the actor are similar enough then they could well be awarded this even if he was just playing himself more obscure things have won cases in the bast...
The only person that's hurt in this thing is Lambert. His career is now bye-bye.
Sony loves money. They will find every opportunity to gain it so suing is efficient in doing so. It's quite sad. Sony wouldn't be hated on if they didn't perform monumentally stupid decisions such as this. KB ain't no Sony fanboy, so Sony will only rage.
Frivolous law suit dropped on the one man that single highhandedly rescued PS marketing from the drowning it was doing since the PS1 days... When KB or Jerry or whatever his name is trotted out on stage a few E3s ago and brought the house down, I thought for sure Sony would have franchised him.. This is their own doing..
I think it's pretty clear what's going on here. It's not an attack against Lambert, but the consumer confusion the commercial and context propagates. If you think about it, Lambert's face has been plastered all over Sony marketing over the last few years. That's a lot of money spent on branding an image for PlayStation in the name of Kevin Butler. The moment a casual gamer sees this "Kevin Butler" holding something other than a PlayStation product (a Wii remote for example), the integrity of the character is breached and the validity of the character (regardless of if it's an acted role) is compromised. The actor is free to do what he pleases as long as it doesn't directly place him in a role supporting the competition, within the same industry. If it was Lambert simply in a Bridgestone commercial and there was no promotion for Video Games, the Wii specifically in this case, it wouldn't even be an issue.
I'm just confused over the lawsuit hes an actor that worked for Sony. If Sony can't pay him to represent the PlayStation 3 then theres no lawsuit to be had. So Sony is suing for the actor and not his character "Kevin Butler." Yeah that makes no sense from both cases. Unless Sony trademarked Kevin Butler. As I said before Sony's doing this to makes cash which is understandable, if they had a legitimate case going which I fail to see.
You're missing the point. If this was simply Lambert in a Bridgestone commercial with no video game theme, all would be fine. As I understand it, the breach of contract comes in the form of his image attached to something other than the PlayStation brand. Makes sense to me. The average to casual gamer would likely see Jerry Lambert as Kevin Butler "the PlayStation guy". The moment he's seen as supportive to anything other than PlayStation, that's money spent not doing its job and creating consumer confusion. It's a valid case.
Why can no one move forward without suing anymore? Sony let the Kevin Butler character go. If I left a job and joined a new company occupying the same role I wouldn't get sued. And as for the contract the guy would have had with Sony (note: past tense) it stopped being relevant when Sony let him go. He isn't an IP and I doubt Jerry Lambert was naive enough to hand Sony the rights to 'Kevin Butler' in any way. It just sounds like the typical actions of a large corporations legal department. I hope it gets thrown out. I know it's not directly related but Paul Lambert, the former manager of Norwich is suing them as when he FORCED THEM into terminating his contract so he could move to Aston Villa, they activated a clause which meant he didn't get the payout he would have if he had been sacked. He was the one who forced the move FFS.
There's all sorts of clauses in contracts that will forbid people from working for rival comapnies even after leaving the employment of a company because they can carry information to the rival company and they need to ensure they've moved on. It can sometimes be over a year before you can seek employment even within the same industry! Sony wouldn't just sue for the sake of it, they may have had a clause in the contract that means he can't advertise rival's consoles for a certain amount of time after they stopped the ads. I have said a few times, if this was just Bridgestone Tyres being advertised, even with the same persona, it would be fine, you can't sue a personality. However, the moment he used that personality and a rival console, then it may have breached a contract he had with Sony. I'm genuinely shocked people think Sony are just going to sue with absolutely no case.
No, I fully expect they do have a case, it's just an unscrupulous move, that's all. And i'm pretty sure that (in the UK at least) new employment legislation has prevented that type of contract from being enforced.
tire company is not a rival of sony tho. The tire company was working with nintendo and he was working with the tire people. Who knows if his contract says he cant work with companies that work with his rivals. What if he appeared in a TV show playing a wii or with a wii on the set? Could they sue him them you think? Its not like he made the decision. This is like an actor being sued by his sponsors because the costume people put him in a shirt of one of their competitors. Its not like he was in a nintendo commercial.
Sure,i have an idea let's put up a flamebait item... Why not, it's Sunday nobody cares, so go nuts!
Seems greedy and wrong for Sony to sue an actor just because he got an acting job in a commercial and he's seen with a Wii. I think you need to pick and choose your battles, but Sony is clearly in the wrong here.
No i think they are suing for advertising a rival product which he did even if it wasnt in a Nintendo commercial.
"but Sony is clearly in the wrong here" You're basically asking for disagrees.
why do people care about disagrees?? who gives a sh*t? it doesnt mean or change anything.
He is a Sony troll. You'll see him on every article that's doom an gloom or negative towards Sony.
How do you know maybe it's a breach of contract. You don't take a job as a main voice for a company and do a ton of commercials only to use it to do something that breaks your contractual agreement.
Even if Sony has the right to sue Kevin, it still negatively affects their image in my opinion.
I don't know. It depends on quite a number of factors: how much they are suing for and their willingness to work behind closed doors to settle without dragging either parties name through the mud.