Sony sues Kevin Butler!

Quote :

Sony has filed suit against Jerry Lambert, the actor who plays fictional PlayStation executive Kevin Butler in a series of popular ads campaigns.

As spotted by Neogaf users, Sony is suing both Wildcat Creek Inc, a company owned by Lambert, and Bridgestone, in whose ads Lambert has appeared in a quite Kevin Butler-like role.

In a statement given to VentureBeat, Sony claimed Lambert is in breach of contract.

“Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek, Inc. on September 11. The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and he’s become an iconic personality directly associated with PlayStation products over the years. Use of 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.”

Lambert has appeared in a number of online and TV ads for the PlayStation brand, including the It Only Does Everything and Long Live Play campaigns. He’s also appeared live on stage at E3 and is regularly spotted roaming the social media wilds. A recent run of Bridgestone ads have featured Lambert in a role displaying similarly distinctive mannerisms and attitudes; some have been edited in the wake of Sony’s legal pursuit.

Source: VG247

I remember seeing him in a commercial playing the Wii.

:areyoufuckingk

And after all that Kevin Butler has done for Sony...assholes.

Is this real or another publicity stunt? Remember the new job scam

What's the problem here? I mean, I haven't seen the Bridgestone ads so I can't say for sure if Jerry Lambert is copying the character of not, but if he is, then Sony has a legitimate right to complain. It's their character; Lambert just performed the character.

What TRF says is true.

TheCinemaJack wrote:

What's the problem here? I mean, I haven't seen the Bridgestone ads so I can't say for sure if Jerry Lambert is copying the character of not, but if he is, then Sony has a legitimate right to complain. It's their character; Lambert just performed the character.

Trademarking a personality is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. The Bridgestone ad was promoting tires. If you bought 4 you could win a $70 American Express Reward Card or a Wii by mail. I hope Sony fails miserably. I was planning on buying that new ps3 model, not anymore.

Stigma wrote:

TheCinemaJack wrote:

What's the problem here? I mean, I haven't seen the Bridgestone ads so I can't say for sure if Jerry Lambert is copying the character of not, but if he is, then Sony has a legitimate right to complain. It's their character; Lambert just performed the character.

Trademarking a personality is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. The Bridgestone ad was promoting tires. If you bought 4 you could win a $70 American Express Reward Card or a Wii by mail. I hope Sony fails miserably. I was planning on buying that new ps3, not anymore.

Well again, I can't be sure how much they actually did copy, but trademarking a character is nothing new. I think it's ridiculous that you're not buying the PS3 just because of this.

So because of this Kevin Butler may be no more? Whats the point of sueing Jerry Lambert for promoting the wii when because of this, he will probably not want to work for sony anymore? This does not seem like a win situation for Sony

Sounds like Bridgestone and Jerry Lambert didn't do anything wrong.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/09/kevin-butler-was-not-in-bridgestone-advert-sony-lawsuit-trundles-on/

Without actually using the Kevin Butler name in the ad or any Butler quotes Sony cannot claim that he is playing the actor, I personally think Sony hasn't got a leg to stand on. Nice going Sony, haven't you got bigger issues to deal with?

Mr Canai Spy wrote:

Without actually using the Kevin Butler name in the ad or any Butler quotes Sony cannot claim that he is playing the actor, I personally think Sony hasn't got a leg to stand on. Nice going Sony, haven't you got bigger issues to deal with?

Exactly, the fact that Jerry Lambert appeared in another advertisement doesn't mean he's portraying the Kevin Butler character.

Mr Canai Spy wrote:

Nice going Sony, haven't you got bigger issues to deal with?

Must be hard being a multi-billion dollar company.

Mecha wrote:

Sounds like Bridgestone and Jerry Lambert didn't do anything wrong.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/09/kevin-butler-was-not-in-bridgestone-advert-sony-lawsuit-trundles-on/

If he violated an exclusivity clause, then yes, he did do something wrong. Read what you sign.

If that clause is in Lambert's contract, then yes, He may have violated the contract(even though it had expired ) Therefore Sony suing him is justified.

@Jack

He didn't play as Kevin Butler though. Besides, his contract with Sony was expired anyways. It's like suing Jim Carrey for making a movie with another studio. It's fucking stupid. Jerry Lambert is just an actor, Sony doesn't own him.

Mecha wrote:

@Jack

He didn't play as Kevin Butler though. Besides, his contract with Sony was expired anyways. It's like suing Jim Carrey for making a movie with another studio. It's fucking stupid. Jerry Lambert is just an actor, Sony doesn't own him.

Yes but exclusivity clauses can extend beyond a contract. Take, for example, the film Cannibal Holocaust. The actors' contracts stipulated that they couldn't appear in a film for a year after the movie came out. Their contract had ended at that point, but they were still obligated to stay away from films due to the clause. And regardless of whether or not Lambert specifically played Kevin Butler, he was not supposed to help promote competition; in this case, the Nintendo Wii.

I'm not saying I agree with Sony, but the fault lies in Lambert's actions.

It wasn't even an actual Wii ad. He was just some guy playing the Wii in the background for a tire commercial.

I don't know. It just isn't that big of a deal as Sony makes it out to be.

Mecha wrote:

It wasn't even an actual Wii ad. He was just some guy playing the Wii in the background for a tire commercial.

It's more than just that. The ad was for a promotion that Bridgestone was running where if you bought four tires, you would get a Nintendo Wii for free. So yeah, he was promoting Sony's competitor.

More like a way to sell more tires.

Still more legit than Apple suing Samsung.

Mecha wrote:

More like a way to sell more tires.

Yes, but Bridgestone's deal is still supporting Nintendo.

You mean Lambert's deal?

Mecha wrote:

You mean Lambert's deal?

No, I mean the deal they have where you can get a Wii. They're still helping Nintendo which means Lambert, in turn, is helping Nintendo.