Top
110°

Why the Sony vs Kevin Butler Lawsuit is Bonkers

Pixels or Death's Joseph Rush writes, "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. This hullabaloo stems from the actor holding a Wii remote in his hands during the commercial. That’s it. He doesn’t say anything. He doesn’t wear a clever 'Kevin' name tag.

It’s as though Jerry Lambert is Prince Adam and any piece of video game hardware in existence is the Power Sword; Sony is insinuating that touching one transforms Lambert into Kevin Butler.

Sony is practically condemning this man to a lifetime of only being able to hold the Japanese manufacturer’s products."

Read Full Story >>
pixelsordeath.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Xof1516d ago

Yes, it's bonkers because Sony is suing a man who violated the terms of his contract.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

MAJ0R1516d ago

How do you know? Have you seen the contract?

dennett3161516d 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.

Gridloc1516d ago

Funny though that they pulled all of his commercials. Must have some merit...

Imalwaysright1516d 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.

morganfell1516d 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.

Irishguy951516d 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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1516d ago
Gridloc1516d ago

Allowing another one of these articles is BONKERS...

ALLWRONG1516d 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.

hkgamer1516d 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.

ChickeyCantor1516d 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_Crawler1516d 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.

hkgamer1516d 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.

ElectricKaibutsu1516d 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.

Qrphe1515d ago

@sidar
He was definitely marketing the Wii, Sony's competitor, no doubt about it

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1515d ago
colonel1791516d 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_Crawler1516d ago (Edited 1516d 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?

DonaClarkson221516d ago ShowReplies(1)
Show all comments (25)