Sony Sues Kevin Butler

People get sued over every damn thing these days. That's why it's always important to have your lawyer go over your contract because they can catch you if you slip up without even realizing it.

@SomeDeliCook said:

Does this mean no Kevin Butler in All Stars Battle Royale?

Yeah, he's probably the only Sony character left out.

I went there. Sue me, Sony.

@Wong_Fei_Hung: He was advertising the Wii, not the Wii U. Plus, I doubt this'll get anymore people to buy a Wii U unless they search up info online.

@RandyF said:

Unless the guy who plays Kevin Butler signed something which made him exclusive to Sony, I don't even see how there's a case here. He's an actor and he's acting. Are the Kevin Butler commercials even still happening? I haven't seen one in a while. Granted, I don't watch that much TV.

People don't seem to understand. It's called a CONTRACT. Not directing this at you Randy, but everyone else. Butler COULD be under contract to not advertise competitors consoles.

@LiquidPrince said:

Wait, I'm confused... What's going on? Why is he being sued?

Someone probably replied to you but I don't feel like looking through 2 more pages for it so I'll leave this here...

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/10/07/sony-is-suing-bridgestone-over-its-tv-ads-featuring-kevin-butler-actor.aspx

Ya know, I think I saw that kid who played Marcus for those PSP ad's in a movie. Maybe they should go after him next?

I guess Sony has a lot of job openings for VP's of a whole variety of positions.

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@deathstriker666: character my ass they are trying to a copyright a man's likeness no one ever said the name kevin butler in that commercial the only thing they have to go on is the same man played the part. In other words what they are saying is you are not allowed to work for anyone else because you look like you.

Well, we'll see what the court has to say about that.

Looks like Butler just got served.

It seems like Sony actually has a case to me. It will all depend on whether the court feels that the character in the Bridgestone commercial is similar enough to the Kevin Butler character that Sony owns. I'm not a big fan of Sony but this one may be an easy win for them.

So when are they going to sue that little black kid for being in a Target or Old Navy commercial? 
 
I don't know if he has but its the same derp feeling.

@Nightriff said:

@WilliamHenry said:

@Nightriff said:

I understand where they are coming from on this, personally I don't know why the hell they would get rid of him, the commercials were actually funny, but it is stupid of them to do this.

Ad campaigns eventually run their course, usually after people have stopped caring.

I get that but I was still enjoying those commercials. I don't watch a lot of tv so maybe I didn't see it run its course but they were still funny to me.

You don't watch TV and are already into video games, so Sony doesn't care what you think of the commercials. They weren't made for you. They were made for the general public who either has a small understanding or no understanding of video games. I'm sure Sony did their research and realized they weren't getting enough return on investment any more and killed the campaign.

I haven't seen the tire commercial, but it seems that Sony is suing over the possibility of it creating market confusion. Sony is worried that people will see the new commercial and will think its associated with Sony somehow and vice versa. They are also worried that the new commercial is using the popularity and market awareness of the Sony commercials to help sell the new product.

@awesomeusername:

Wii and Wii U are a brand, Nintendo called it Wii U because they wanted to retain that brand.

This news is already in the wider media and spreading fast with advantageous headlines for Nintendo:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214416/Jerry-Lambert-Sony-sues-face-Playstation-hes-seen-Nintendo-Wii-Bridgestone-ad.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/sony-sues-bridgestone-and-jerry-lambert-over-wii-commercial

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@deathstriker666: character my ass they are trying to a copyright a man's likeness no one ever said the name kevin butler in that commercial the only thing they have to go on is the same man played the part. In other words what they are saying is you are not allowed to work for anyone else because you look like you.

Remindsw of when a record company sued John Fogarty, lead singer and writer of Creedence Clearwater Revival. Anyway, in the 80s, Fogarty had a hit with a song that sounded a lot like a song he wrote in the late 60s, which the record had copyright for. So they sued him for copyright infringement of a song he wrote himself. The record company lost, but it tied Fogarty up in court for a long time.

Shorter story - big companies are inherently evil.

It will be interesting to see if Sony try to approach from the angle of them owning the Kevin Butler image, because thats really close to saying "We own you and copyrighted your face so you cant be in anything else now". Im sure its not as cut and dry as that but its certaintly going to be entertaining to watch.

@darkdragonmage99 said:

Wait are these guys basically trying to claim they own a man and I thought slavery was over.

@darkdragonmage99 said:

@deathstriker666: character my ass they are trying to a copyright a man's likeness no one ever said the name kevin butler in that commercial the only thing they have to go on is the same man played the part. In other words what they are saying is you are not allowed to work for anyone else because you look like you.

I had the same line of thought. Actors act, it's what they do. If there's not some magical clause putting him on hold, I hope the judge throws the case out and forces Sony to pay damages. People have to work, and if you don't keep them hired they have to work for someone else.

How ANYBODY can think this paints Sony as anything but an overeaching bully really shows how thick fanboy goggles are.

Hell, even in the comtext of the commercials the lab monkey he plays in the Bridgestone commercial si a far cry from the executive he plays in the Sony commercials. This is bad PR in the constants stream of diarreah that is Sony's public image. They really need to nix their entire PR division and hire somebody who doesn't make them look like such huge tools.

@TeflonBilly said:

How ANYBODY can think this paints Sony as anything but an overeaching bully really shows how thick fanboy goggles are.

Hell, even in the comtext of the commercials the lab monkey he plays in the Bridgestone commercial si a far cry from the executive he plays in the Sony commercials. This is bad PR in the constants stream of diarreah that is Sony's public image. They really need to nix their entire PR division and hire somebody who doesn't make them look like such huge tools.

I make it a point to consider each side as carefully as possible. Sony's case seems awfully flimsy to me, and based on what little I know if I were the judge I'd throw the case out because I've not been presented with the details of the "non-competition agreement". As it stands, there appears to be no applicable agreement, the Sony character "Kevin Butler" was not portrayed (he has a distinct character), and the only wrongdoing I see is Sony wasting time and money with a frivolous lawsuit. But without knowing the details of any agreement that may or may not exist, it's difficult to have an informed opinion.

As for how things ought to work, if they want to keep their actor, they need to pay him well enough that he doesn't go acting for other people.

I don't get people jumping on Sony for this. Assuming their legal team knows what they are talking about (and given that they have a copy of Lambert's contract, i Imagine they do) they are in the right.

You can't expect companies to not enforce their contracts if they can, do you? Sony has every right to sue, and really should sue, if somebody they signed with is violating their contract. I'd certainly sue a contract worker or employee who blatantly violated a contract.

Of course, this is assuming Sony knows the wording of their own contract they wrote up. If there was no kind of non-compete in the contract, then yes it was a wasted lawsuit. Since I assume that Sony would not attempt a lawsuit like this for no reason, I can only assume they have a valid case to be pursuing it. Give me a copy of his contract and I can get back to you on that.

@Wong_Fei_Hung: I'm pretty sure anything the Daily Mail reports on is nearly the opposite of accurate, so if they are reporting with positive headlines for Nintendo I'd expect Nintendo to be crumbling any day now.

I'm usually on the anti Sony side of things, but I find it hard to blame them in this case. He's a Sony "character" and was appearing in an ad to promote a competitor. If it was a generic advert, for some other product, I don't think there'd be a problem, but I can see why Sony would want to put a stop to it. It reminds me of when that guy who played Johnny Cage was advertising that other fighting game. Sure, you can argue he wasn't playing "Kevin Butler" here, but it's still pretty shaky. He should have known better and I can't believe this wouldn't have been his contact.

Is it actually the exact same kind of act he does for Sony? Seems a little lacking not to post the reason for the suit against these parties, but having seen it and it having nothing to do with the "character" that is portrayed by Kevin Butler makes this whole thing about as silly as anything legal in the industry these days.

This whole episode does seem strange. Why did Bridgestone hire his company and put him in a Wii commercial, they must have surely have known of his work for Sony, and naturally been aware of the possible conflict in promoting Wii. To do this advert he must have felt confidence with his legal position, been aware of some clause or possible exploit. The deal must have been significant for him to jeopardize his business like this, after all, a case like this can do nothing good for an advertising company, it wouldn't make you look like a dependable partner.

Sony own that character, they will never be able to own his face. I think that's going to be the crux of his case in court. He didn't speak in the advert, he wasn't even touching the Wii, his face was merely shown, his own face, Jerry Lambert's face, not Sony's.

Sony think they can claim ownership of anybody's face and get away with it, I remember a small number of people in Japan had their faces used in Sony's adverts without consent, after Sony set up concealed cameras inside a specially kitted out PS3 bus, for some "Sony Playface" campaign

edit:

The only way they have a case is if Sony have a no contest clause.

@LiquidPrince said:

Wait, I'm confused... What's going on? Why is he being sued?

I think the actor is not being sued, Bridgestone and the ad company are being sued. And, Sony is in the right from what I can see. Imagine if Kashi® hired the "I'm a Mac & I'm a PC" guys to do those characters exactly except Mac says, "I'm Kashi Flakes" and the PC guys says I'm Kelloggs Corn Flakes.

Companies cannot just don't steal characters from other one commercial to sell their products based on the popularity of the characters selling another product. it is dishonest. And, it breaks trademarks and breaks contracts. Sony is going to win if it can prove Kevin Butler character was doing the iconic Sony Executive shtick made famous from it own commercials. I feel bad for the actor, but he should have known better.

Silly for Sony to do this but then again since Kevin Butler wasn't normally associated with the Nintendo, equally silly for him to do this commercial. After seeing the commercial they could have gotten just about anyone for that role Kevin has.

@MonkeyKing1969 said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Wait, I'm confused... What's going on? Why is he being sued?

I think the actor is not being sued, Bridgestone and the ad company are being sued. And, Sony is in the right from what I can see. Imagine if Kashi® hired the "I'm a Mac & I'm a PC" guys to do those characters exactly except Mac says, "I'm Kashi Flakes" and the PC guys says I'm Kelloggs Corn Flakes.

Companies cannot just don't steal characters from other one commercial to sell their products based on the popularity of the characters selling another product. it is dishonest. And, it breaks trademarks and breaks contracts. Sony is going to win if it can prove Kevin Butler character was doing the iconic Sony Executive shtick made famous from it own commercials. I feel bad for the actor, but he should have known better.

1) The actor, Jerry Lambert, who is also owner of the advertising company in question, is being sued - try reading the OP.

2) He wasn't acting the role of "Kevin Butler", he was appearing as himself, Jerry Lambert.

3) He spoke no words or even touched the Wii in the advert.

4) Sony don't own his face or image rights, they own a character called "Kevin Butler" which he has played.

5) As an actor and an advertising man, he should be able to take on any work he is given, as long a he doesn't break legally binding previous contract agreements.

6) Sony's issues most likely pertain to what they see as misuse of "Kevin Butler", problem is, Jerry Lambert is the person who starred in this advert, not the character Kevin Butler.

Has anyone made a V.P. Of Legal joke yet?

Misleading headline, people seem to forget that Kevin Butler is a fictional character played by an actor. He is not a real person. I feel bad for Jerry Lambert. How is he suppose to find work as an actor if that is all he is known for? The Kevin Butler ad campaign is over and done with. I'd find it funny if Jerry or a Kevin Butler like character would sell personal or embarrassing products like Preparation-H or Vagisil.

@Zleunamme:

The title is in jest at the stupidity of Sony suing their own mascot.

UPDATE 2:

Bridgestone have issued a statement:

Mr. Lambert is one of the actors who appeared in the commercial as a Bridgestone engineer. Bridgestone denies that 'Kevin Butler' appears in the Bridgestone commercial discussed herein and thus denies that he speaks or does anything whatsoever in the commercial.

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@Spoonman671 said:

Vita really needs some games, guys.

How about Phoenix Wright with Kevin Butler and the Sony law team.

Oh great I've always wanted to reenact the closure of lik-sang.com in video game form.

If Sony insists that they own Jerry Lambert's likeness, then I hope some kooky judge forces Sony to pay Jerry Lambert for as long as he has his face in upkeep expenses. And then he sentences Kaz Hirai to be his butler.

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@MonkeyKing1969 said:

@LiquidPrince said:

Wait, I'm confused... What's going on? Why is he being sued?

I think the actor is not being sued, Bridgestone and the ad company are being sued. And, Sony is in the right from what I can see. Imagine if Kashi® hired the "I'm a Mac & I'm a PC" guys to do those characters exactly except Mac says, "I'm Kashi Flakes" and the PC guys says I'm Kelloggs Corn Flakes.

Companies cannot just don't steal characters from other one commercial to sell their products based on the popularity of the characters selling another product. it is dishonest. And, it breaks trademarks and breaks contracts. Sony is going to win if it can prove Kevin Butler character was doing the iconic Sony Executive shtick made famous from it own commercials. I feel bad for the actor, but he should have known better.

2) He wasn't acting the role of "Kevin Butler", he was appearing as himself, Jerry Lambert.

The average viewer doesn't know/care that Kevin Butler is a fictional character played by Jerry Lambert, so when they see him shilling Bridgestone and Wii's, they just think, "looks like that funny Butler guy is into Nintendo now." They're probably not going to go buy Wii's because of it, but because they're using the same face, it creates "brand confusion," which is that catchy phrase people love to sue each other over.

The public face of the Playstation brand is on TV playing (and enjoying) the competition's game system. Yup, sounds like a law suit in the making to me...but I'm no expert.

Its pretty ironic that Jerry Lambert was playing Mario kart Wii in a Bridgestone ad, but Sony needs to calm down here. He wasn't Kevin Butler in that ad and the fact that Sony is producing a law suit on Lambert just playing a Wii game in another company's ad is pretty stupid. 

He should release a Kevin Butler sextape

I was wondering about this. When I saw him in the Bridgestone commercial i was like "is he not Kevin Butler anymore?"

I think the closest Sony has to a case is that Jerry Lambert was in a commercial with video games in it.

He obviously didn't sign a contract because Sony would be suing him, personally for it. They just have a problem with the whole video game thing.