Electronic Arts Fumbles in Lawsuit Brought by College Athletes (again)

by Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP

College sports is big business.  Student-athletes generate truckloads of cash for their schools, but are prohibited by NCAA rules from sharing in the haul.  In fact, if the student-athlete learns that someone is commercially exploiting his or her name or picture, NCAA rules require the student “to take steps to stop such an activity in order to retain his or her eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.”  (Wouldn’t we all have loved to have had that problem in college….)

Given this state of affairs, when Electronic Arts made its NCAA Football games using the likenesses of college athletes, it could not have obtained licenses from the students even if it had wanted to.  That would have violated NCAA rules.  So what happens when EA uses the likenesses of college athletes without permission, makes a bunch of money, and then doesn’t compensate the students?  After graduation, once they are no longer bound by NCAA rules, they all sue, of course!

Hart v. Electronic Arts

Back in March, I wrote about how EA and its NCAA Football games received a major legal blow in a case called Hart v. Electronic Arts, 11-3750 (3rd Cir., filed Oct. 7, 2011).  In Hart, a former Rutgers football player, Ryan Hart, brought a class action lawsuit against EA, arguing that EA had violated his right of publicity by including a digital representation of him in the game without his permission.  In a 2-1 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EA’s First Amendment defense failed because EA failed to “sufficiently transform” Hart’s identity.  Specifically, the court observed that “[t]he digital Ryan Hart does what the actual Ryan Hart did while at Rutgers: he plays college football, in digital recreations of college football stadiums, filled with all the trappings of a college football game.”  The court also chastised EA for seeking to increase profits by capitalizing “on the respective fan bases for the various teams and players” by creating “a realistic depiction of college football for the users.”

In dissent, Judge Thomas Ambro argued that EA’s use of real people as “characters” in its sports games should be treated the same way as portrayals of individuals (fictional or nonfictional) in movies and books.  He opined that the inclusion of realistic player likenesses to increase profits should have nothing to do with First Amendment protection.  In Judge Ambro’s view, by making such a distinction, the majority created a “medium-specific metric that provides less protection to video games than other expressive works.”  He also stated that digital portrayals of real people should be protected where the likeness, as included in the creative work, has been transformed into something more or different than it was before.

Keller v. Electronic Arts

This month, in the case of Keller v. Electronic Arts, 10-15387 (9th Cir., filed May 6, 2009), EA experienced major déjà vu.  This time, Samuel Keller, the former starting quarterback for Arizona State University who later transferred to the University of Nebraska, brought a nearly identical lawsuit.  Once again, a 2-1 decision was reached, this time by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The panel ruled that, at least at this stage in the case, “[g]iven that NCAA Football realistically portrays college football players in the context of college football games…EA cannot prevail as a matter of law based on the transformative use defense….”

In dissent, Judge Sidney Thomas criticized the majority for confining “its inquiry to how a single athlete’s likeness is represented in the video game, rather than examining the transformative and creative elements in the video game as a whole.  Citing to Judge Ambro’s dissent in the Hart case, Judge Thomas opined that the majority’s approach contradicts the “holistic analysis required by the transformative use test.”  In his view, the “salient question is whether the entire work is transformative, and whether the transformative elements predominate, rather than whether an individual persona or image has been altered.”

The Transformative Use Test

In both cases, all judges agreed (at least theoretically) that the appropriate test was the “transformative use defense” developed by the California Supreme Court in Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387 (2001).  The test is “a balancing test between the First Amendment and the right of publicity based on whether the work in question adds significant creative elements so as to be transformed into something more than a mere celebrity likeness or imitation.”  To make this determination, both courts ostensibly looked at the five Comedy III factors, including whether: (1) the celebrity likeness is one of the raw materials from which an original work is synthesized; (2) the work is primarily the defendant’s own expression if the expression is something other than the likeness of the celebrity; (3) the literal and imitative or creative elements predominate in the work; (4) the marketability and economic value of the challenged work derives primarily from the fame of the celebrity depicted; and (5) an artist’s skill and talent has been manifestly subordinated to the overall goal of creating a conventional portrait of a celebrity so as to commercially exploit the celebrity’s fame.  Yet, out of six federal appellate judges (all ostensibly applying the same five-factor test), four reached one result and two reached an opposite result.

This is nothing new.  It has always been incredibly difficult to predict the outcome of right of publicity cases and some would say it is even more difficult to try and reconcile the outcomes.  That being said, there is much to be gleaned from these two rulings against EA.

In both cases, the majority opinions relied heavily on the case of No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1018 (2011).  In the No Doubt case, members of the rock band “No Doubt” appeared in a game published by Activision called Band Hero where users could simulate performing in a rock band in time with popular songs.  Activision licensed No Doubt’s likeness, but exceeded the scope of the license.  When the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed Activision’s “transformative use” defense, the court ruled against Activision because the video game characters were “literal recreations of the band members” doing “the same activity by which the band achieved and maintained its fame.”  The court ruled that the fact that the avatars appear in a context of a videogame that contains may other creative elements[] does not transform the avatars into anything other than exact depictions of No Doubt’s members doing exactly what they do as celebrities.”

Sound familiar?

In what appears to be a new, albeit unannounced, bright-line rule for video games, all three cases—No Doubt, Hart, and Keller—seem to be singing the same tune:  It is not transformative to depict celebrities in a video game doing exactly what they normally do for a living, especially if it is in the exact same setting.  While the dissenting judges urge a “holistic” examination of the game, any game developer with a lick of sense is going to play close attention to the bright-line rule.  Some may contend that this may not be the same rule that exists for books and movies—and that it may not be fair—but this is the direction the law is headed.  Which once again brings to mind former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s famous words:  “The law never is, but is always about to be.”


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.