Why can’t I use their names?

[BlueWaldo]

I just read a thread in the announcements section about a politically inspired game. It seams to be legal to use George W. Bush’s and John Kerry’s name. However if I make a baseball game then I have to pay the Players Union for the right to use their names. Additionally, the union will not allow baseball games to simulate players’ contracts; instead player must be paid with points or something similar.

How can someone stop me from printing their name? Is that not what free speech is about? I don’t have to pay for rights if I write a news article about a baseball game. What is the difference?

[Dom]

Because most profesional sports players participate heavily in 'licensing', whereby there name itself is a brand - hence adopts brand protection. their lawyers will therefore jump on anyone using the name as it is brand dilution etc. etc.

Politicians are not allowed to license their name/image, so they don't seek brand protection.

Legally, there is probably no difference, but sports players will aggresively sue whereas George W probably won't.

[Gilzu]

well, there are couple of causes why its legal:

1. the game is a freeware - the law is only valid if you are making profit from other peoples rights.
2. the game is a parody - you do not need to licence a game if its a parody, just make sure youre not insulting the subjects invoulved. Take "Spaceballs" for example.

also, i think there was a thread or two about that in the ol' dex forums

[mahlzeit]

you do not need to licence a game if its a parody
Making a parody of something, or anything else that would reasonably be considered "fair use", is not a safeguard against legal harrasment. You will be sued if the other people are nasty enough. In practice, the principle of "fair use" only gives you the right to get a lawyer and defend yourself. And going to court costs a lot of money, even if you win.

[BlueWaldo]

So if a third party releases a free roster set for my game that has names of real players that would be ok? What if it has logos and team names?

[Greg Squire]

So if a third party releases a free roster set for my game that has names of real players that would be ok? What if it has logos and team names?

Even a freeware games could get sued. There's issues with "Brand Integrity" and "Brand Dilution". Best course of action would be to get permission, from each team and the league. I doesn’t hurt to ask, but in all likely hood the answer will be “No”. (At least from the major leagues; the minor leagues might be more open to that as they want the exposure more.)

[Bluecat]

It's my understanding that a trademark has to be defended in order to remain your property. So for example if I had a game trademarked as SuperGamePlus and someone copied the name for their game, after I became aware of it I would need to send them a cease and desist letter (and take it further if necessary.) If I didn't defend the name, then basically I am giving them permission to infringe and my trademark becomes worthless.

If someone made a 3rd party mod with trademarked or branded names, they would likely be the ones who get the letter. However, there is nothing stopping the aggrieved party from naming your company in the lawsuit. A lot of EULAs and licences have the "you agree to indemnify us" clause for this reason I believe. I don't know how this stands up in court though.

I'm not a lawyer though.

[dan]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

But I'll pretend that I am.

You can't use real player names in a commercial game, period. You would stand a very good chance of getting a 'cease and desist' letter with legal threats.

There is little chance that a fan-made baseball roster 'mod' would get a 'cease and desist' letter. The chance of them actually getting sued is virtually nil. No profit being made, too small to be concerned with, etc.

You wouldn't be the first sports indie game with this issue... the early version of Baseball Mogul used 'fantasy' baseball names that were remarkably similar to actual player names. And if I recall correctly, they provided a tool to enabled fans to easily change names and make new files for others to download.

You might try that approach.

[cliffski]

Ive said everything there is to be said on these forums regarding lawyers.
basically they should be hunted down and killed. This is another example why.
I know a guy called James brown. Luckily hes not a soul singer, but if he was, I bet some scumbag lawyer would sue him for using his own name.
*sigh*

[Diragor]

Re: companies not bothering with free, fan-made mods, doesn't anybody remember when the term "foxed" started appearing in gaming news circles, specifically in reference to mods? Several years ago media companies started actively pursuing game makers, including freeware and mod makers, to protect their copyrights. You may not get sued if you're not making any money, but you're likely to at least get shut down if the project gains any kind of significant public recognition.

Edit: here's a nice article I found on the subject: http://www.planetquake.com/features/articles/editorials/foxed.shtml

[Diragor]

There are notable exceptions to what I just said. One huge example is a fairly high profile Star Wars mod for Unreal Tournament 2004 whose creators sought and obtained Lucasarts' blessing. That absolutely amazes me, considering George Lucas's usually vigorous protection of his intellectual property and the fact that they released early versions of this mod just as the very similar commercial game Star Wars Battlefront was about to come out. Maybe they figured the buggy early releases of the mod would make people anxious for the commercial product, who knows. The moral of the story is: ask for permission and you'll either save yourself a lot of wasted work or you'll be able to continue without worrying about lawyers chasing you down.

[Greg Squire]

Also, if you do get permission, make sure you "get it writing". Verbal agreements don't count for "squat" these days.

[Bluecat]

Let's turn it around for a bit. If you owned a valuable intellectual property, if your name was famous and you made a lot of income from it, would you like people using it without your permission, if they made money or not?

[Lerc]

As a vaguely related aside. Today I read Jennifer Government. I kept thinking all the way through that it was amazing the author didn't get sued.

It appears I'm not the only one because he has a faq answer.


People often ask how I get away with using real company names in my fiction. I'm not completely sure; all I know is I keep using real company names and they keep not suing me. But I can think of two possible explanations. One is that my novels are protected free speech, since they're clearly parodies and don't allege actual misdeeds. That is, when I use a real company name, it's just like using a real place name -- and the City of Los Angeles has yet to sue James Elroy. The other explanation is that I always use highly visible, brand-name companies, and suing a comedy writer would be terrible PR.

Anyway it's well worth a read, You'lll be amazed he wasn't sued too.
First chapter vailable online. http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/preview.html

[cliffski]

Let's turn it around for a bit. If you owned a valuable intellectual property, if your name was famous and you made a lot of income from it, would you like people using it without your permission, if they made money or not?

somebodies name isnt 'intellectual property'. If anything, its the idea of their parents not them. You dont even chosoe your name, so how you can prevent other people using it is beyond me. Maybe one day someone in china will patent the word 'chang' and then the rest of china will owe them patent rights?
Its insane.
Put a character called cliff harris in your games. Amazingly, I honestly will not sue you.

[Bluecat]

somebodies name isnt 'intellectual property'. If anything, its the idea of their parents not them. You dont even chosoe your name, so how you can prevent other people using it is beyond me.

I should have put an 'or' after the comma. No a name isn't IP as far as I know. But the statement stands. Actors, sports stars, and media personalities all make money by using their names and likenesses. If anyone could come in and use that without paying, then that would hurt their ability to make income from it.


Maybe one day someone in china will patent the word 'chang' and then the rest of china will owe them patent rights?
Its insane.
Also, thats nothing to do with patents. They are completely different things, and a different topic!


Put a character called cliff harris in your games. Amazingly, I honestly will not sue you.Well, not to be rude ;) but there are probably a few Cliff Harris' out there, and you aint well known outside these circles. But if I put a distinctive name like Arnold Schwarzenegger in a game without permission, unless my name is Arnold Schwarzenegger I'm asking for trouble.

But what would you say if I used Universal Boxing Manager for my next title? After all, it's just a name.

I'll be back...

[fusionlab]

I think in Europe at least, you seem to be able to get away with using a person's name in a game without their permission - but not their likeness. Here's what has led me to this conclusion:

1. Eidos has never been sued for using real player or club names in their mega-successful Championship Manager series of text-only simulations. Both Eidos and Sports Interactive are using real names again in their forthcoming versions, and AFAIK there has never been any mention of licensing (except in the USA interestingly, where the new SI game is being licensed by the official soccer league).

2. Electronic Arts have paid for the FIFA license for their soccer arcade games - presumably because they have animated versions of the characters which are linked to the names? In Konami's Pro Evo Soccer, another arcade game, they've made up false player names where they've been unable to obtain a license.

I think if it's obvious your game isn't selling on the strength of one or more commercial "personalities" that happen to be featured in it, and you definitely do not use their image in any way, then you should be OK.

I hope so anyway, because I'm thinking about using real life names in my forthcoming sim. ;)

[BlueWaldo]

Actors, sports stars, and media personalities all make money by using their names and likenesses. If anyone could come in and use that without paying, then that would hurt their ability to make income from it.

I know why they don't want me to be able to use their name. However, I see it as preventing my from speaking about a comon interest. I don't think people should be able to charge me to say their name. What gives an athlete more rights to his name than I have to mine?

[mahlzeit]

If you are making a sports game with the names of real athletes, you are making money off these names. Without it, you sell less copies. These people have worked very hard to become the athletes they are, so compensating them for this only sounds fair. It's not just the name, it is what the name represents that makes it valuable.

[Bluecat]

I know why they don't want me to be able to use their name. However, I see it as preventing my from speaking about a comon interest. I don't think people should be able to charge me to say their name.

And they don't. Fair use allows this. You can say that a football player sucks or that a certain actor was great in a certain movie without being charged. You can even write a newspaper article or a parody under the fair use provisions. You can show their image on Fox or CNN or Channel 9 News associated with a sports or entertainment report.

You just can't exploit their name commercially without their permission, and rightly so.


What gives an athlete more rights to his name than I have to mine?

In fact, nothing. But let's put this in context shall we?

If Walmart put an ad out saying that BlueWaldo of something street, somethingtown (thus identifying you uniquely) shopped regularly at their stores, then you would have the right to stop them if you wished (and had the money to do so.) In fact you probably have more rights over your identity than a public personality does according to the privacy laws in your own country. Just look at how the paparazzi gets away with violating the privacy of celebrities.

cheers

John

[cliffski]

not true. if i say james brown is a murderer, doubtless lawyers would sue me even though im talking about a different person.
Its this assumption that people own the rights to a name they may share with thousands of people.
arrogance, assumptions... goes well with lawyers.

[Bluecat]

not true. if i say james brown is a murderer, doubtless lawyers would sue me even though im talking about a different person.


I think you're splitting hairs here. If James Brown *is* a murderer and you say so on a public forum, there is no problem. If you (or a newspaper) say James Brown is a murderer and you don't take steps to correctly identify the correct person, or to continue to let people believe it is the wrong person, then you will probably get sued. Newspapers often print corrections or retractions when they realise they have made a mistake.

Fair use doesn't let you lie or slander/libel someone. Also rightly so.


Its this assumption that people own the rights to a name they may share with thousands of people.
arrogance, assumptions... goes well with lawyers.

No. People own their identity.

Case in point. Macdonalds. Macdonalds vigorously defends its trademark. If you create a company called Macdonalds Game Co. then Maccas will come down on you like a ton of bricks. However, if your name was Cliff Macdonald (at least in Australia, I'm not sure about the USA) you would have the right to use that name. That wouldn't necessarily stop Ronald Macdonald from taking you to court though. It just means that he wouldn't win the case. There are caveats to this though. If it appeared that you were trying to leverage of the Macdonalds brand, your legal footing would be shakier. Judges don't tend to like people playing silly buggers with things like this.

If someone identified themselves as you and tried to use your company name and/or trademarks to benefit themselves, wouldn't you be upset?

cheers

John

[ztownsend]

not true. if i say james brown is a murderer, doubtless lawyers would sue me even though im talking about a different person.
Its this assumption that people own the rights to a name they may share with thousands of people.
arrogance, assumptions... goes well with lawyers.Now you're opening up a whole new area - deformation of character. They'd definately sue you, and they'd probably win... (unless they were a murderer). Try it!

I'm sure there was a case in the UK years ago, of a guy with a surname 'Dixon' who had a small electronics store which he quite legitimately called 'Dixon's'. For you non-brits, Dixons is a large chain of camera/electronics stores. I seem to remember that Mr Dixon got away with it, because he operated in good faith, his store had been open for a good many years, and he wasn't attempting to trade off Dixons good-will. Now that's a bit close to the wall, and Dixons could have won, as there is direct competition.

It really depends on exactly what you are using the name for. Also, there is an added issue if the name is trademarked - then you have no chance - and I'm guessing some personalities may even trademark their name!!

Surely there is a massive difference between using a sports personality's name in a sports sim, where there is an 'obvious commercial benefit' to the game, and free speech, where you comment on a personality, for a reason not directly designed to make money from using the name.

Imagine I write software, and my name is Bill Gates (a different one). What do you think would happen if I called the company "Bill Gates' Software Co."?

Having said that, you could always use their names in a game, and see if they chase you. Then you just change your identity and move abroad!! :p
Thailand anyone?

[BlueWaldo]

I apologize, I went on a bit of a rant in my last post. My point is this: I am not saying any one endorses my game. But if my game is a baseball simulation game I don’t think it should be wrong to include stats in the game about people who play baseball. (I’m no lawyer so I am not talking about what is or is not legal, just what I think should be allowed.) It is currently not illegal for me to go around telling everyone I know that Barry Bonds hit 50 home runs. I don’t think it is illegal for me to make a webpage that say Barry Bonds hits 50 home runs (as I just did). So why should it be illegal for me to put that information into a database and the have my game read in the information?

[Bluecat]

I apologize, I went on a bit of a rant in my last post. My point is this: I am not saying any one endorses my game. But if my game is a baseball simulation game I don?t think it should be wrong to include stats in the game about people who play baseball. (I?m no lawyer so I am not talking about what is or is not legal, just what I think should be allowed.) It is currently not illegal for me to go around telling everyone I know that Barry Bonds hit 50 home runs. I don?t think it is illegal for me to make a webpage that say Barry Bonds hits 50 home runs (as I just did). So why should it be illegal for me to put that information into a database and the have my game read in the information?

It seems to me a sort of gray area. If you are not using his likeness or name to promote the game, you may be ok. I doubt if a trivia game would get into trouble for doing that, that would be allowed as fair use. But a baseball game... well... it could be argued that a baseball game using the name of a player in any capacity is using that identity to promote the game.

It may not even be Barry Bonds who is worried about it, but the owner of the license to make baseball games with Barry Bonds name. In this case, EA might serve you with a cease and desist order.

Honestly, if you reckon you are in a gray area of the law, then you should consult a law talking person. (I didn't want to use the term that raises Cliffs ire! ;) )

[EpicBoy]

It is currently not illegal for me to go around telling everyone I know that Barry Bonds hit 50 home runs. I don’t think it is illegal for me to make a webpage that say Barry Bonds hits 50 home runs (as I just did). So why should it be illegal for me to put that information into a database and the have my game read in the information?
Because, as previously stated, the game would be generating income. Hence, you're making money off of their name.

If the game was free, you could probably get away with it but you would definitely be in a grey area.

[G_P]

Hello everyone! This is my first post on this forum. I am thinking about working as an Indie and I started to work on my first project. I was really happy to see there is a Indie forum with so much activity.

Now regarding the topic :)

Where does that stop? What if I am working on a sports title and I use names "similar" to real ones (example: Tigers Forest (similar to Tiger Woods), Carlo Malony (similar to Karl Malone)... What if I give this players ratings that are similar to their "counterparts" in real life (ability ratings, height, age etc...), and then put them in similar teams ( example: just LA instead LA Lakers - or let's say LA Rivers)? What can you do, and what not? Can you combine ( invent names, but work with ratings and statistics that obviously match their real life conterparts?)

[Bluecat]

Hello everyone! This is my first post on this forum. I am thinking about working as an Indie and I started to work on my first project. I was really happy to see there is a Indie forum with so much activity.

Now regarding the topic :)

Where does that stop? What if I am working on a sports title and I use names "similar" to real ones (example: Tigers Forest (similar to Tiger Woods), Carlo Malony (similar to Karl Malone)... What if I give this players ratings that are similar to their "counterparts" in real life (ability ratings, height, age etc...), and then put them in similar teams ( example: just LA instead LA Lakers - or let's say LA Rivers)? What can you do, and what not? Can you combine ( invent names, but work with ratings and statistics that obviously match their real life conterparts?)

If you're not using real identities I can't see a problem. IANAL.

The question I have is why would you want to?

If you were going to the trouble of creating fictional names, why not just invent fictional statistics as well?

[EpicBoy]

This sort of reminds me of people who go through all sorts of gyrations and antics trying to use (for example) Star Wars IP when their game could easily be applied to anything. Make something else up! It's not that hard... Even use the Star Wars "farmboy come hero" story if you want, just change the damn characters. Geez...

[G_P]

I agree up to a certain point.
When you are trying to re-create some Star Wars story clone it is up to you to create something new. To have a copy of characters, ships, light sabres etc. is probably lack of imagination not only a copyright issue.

When you are working on a sport sim/manager style of game your task is (should be :confused: ) to re-create reality.
While it is a great thing to have custom made leagues and players I was under impression that some sport gamers like the fact that they can manage "their" teams, re-create historic matchups...
I believe that between the two same managerial games, one that has an option to also imitate real world teams would sell better (IMHO)

I didn't do any market reasearch on that, though...

[TJS]

Hello,

I'm new to the forum, so hope you don't mind me dragging up this old thread.

I'm thinking of working on a football (soccer) management game using real clubs names and possibly real players names. Does anyone know whether Sports Interactive (or anyone else that writes management games) actually had a license for the names/clubs used in their Championship Manager games or not?

Tim


I think in Europe at least, you seem to be able to get away with using a person's name in a game without their permission - but not their likeness. Here's what has led me to this conclusion:

1. Eidos has never been sued for using real player or club names in their mega-successful Championship Manager series of text-only simulations. Both Eidos and Sports Interactive are using real names again in their forthcoming versions, and AFAIK there has never been any mention of licensing (except in the USA interestingly, where the new SI game is being licensed by the official soccer league).

2. Electronic Arts have paid for the FIFA license for their soccer arcade games - presumably because they have animated versions of the characters which are linked to the names? In Konami's Pro Evo Soccer, another arcade game, they've made up false player names where they've been unable to obtain a license.

I think if it's obvious your game isn't selling on the strength of one or more commercial "personalities" that happen to be featured in it, and you definitely do not use their image in any way, then you should be OK.

I hope so anyway, because I'm thinking about using real life names in my forthcoming sim. ;)

[Robert Cummings]

1. the game is a freeware - the law is only valid if you are making profit from other peoples rights.This isn't actually true. You aren't allowed to make free stuff either.

This is because you are basically taking business away from them. Therefore if they have a sweeping copyright claiming no reproduction or likeness, they can take your product and own it, or they can force you to take it offline, and so on.

Free or commercial, it makes no difference. If you see a game using these names and it's free, that doesn't make it legal. It depends what they WANT to do about it.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the written word is in actual fact, a load of bollocks. You would need to pay quite a bit to keep that freedom. Even the press can be silenced.

[BlueWaldo]

I took a law (note: we only discussed US law) class this semester and we talk specifically in the class about how you cannot copyright facts, only the presentation of those facts. So I am allowed to put stats from a baseball game on my website, but I am not allowed to just copy the html someone else used to present those stats.

You are also not allowed to make it look like a celebrity is endorsing something. You could put a picture of a celebrity drinking a coke in the news paper, but Coke would not be allowed to use that picture as an ad.

I would argue that using players’ names in a game is just presenting facts. However, since no one does this without a license, and I don’t know of any court cases that challenge it, I would guess that most lawyers disagree.

If I ever make such a game, I might put the names in there and see what happens.

[soniCron]

You are also not allowed to make it look like a celebrity is endorsing something. You could put a picture of a celebrity drinking a coke in the news paper, but Coke would not be allowed to use that picture as an ad. What about something like Linspire? On their website (http://www.linspire.com/), they state, "Linspire is a full-featured operating system like Microsoft Windows XP or Apple Mac OSX." Are they allowed to mention Windows and OSX like this? Or, does this not count because neither Microsoft or Apple are being implied as endorsing their product. I would assume they'd be watching their butts very carefully ever since Microsoft sued them for calling themselves "Lindows." Can they do this safely?

[Sybixsus]

What about something like Linspire? On their website (http://www.linspire.com/), they state, "Linspire is a full-featured operating system like Microsoft Windows XP or Apple Mac OSX." Are they allowed to mention Windows and OSX like this? Or, does this not count because neither Microsoft or Apple are being implied as endorsing their product. I would assume they'd be watching their butts very carefully ever since Microsoft sued them for calling themselves "Lindows." Can they do this safely?

Interesting question. I've often wondered about a similar issue with games. I see a number of people advertising their games in relation to other games. For example, one that springs to mind is Aerial Antics. This was advertised with something like "Like Pilotwings? Then you'll love Aerial Antics". Now to me, that's actually a really useful way to advertize your game to me as a customer. It's actually really good for me to know what games your game is like. But is there a legal issue with that? Evidently Nintendo *didn't* do anything about it, but could they have if they had chosen?

( No offense intended to Jeremy and Adrian, I'm genuinely curious on this issue, particularly as it's very relevant to one of my long term projects. )

[Omega]

If the question is will you be sued, then well, if you tick off a company, whether or not you broke any laws or precedents, you will be sued.

If the question is will you win such a suit, then you can ask a lawyer or surf the net. As far as I know from the info I got from the net, courts use common sense in this case. If you are using 'fair use' such as to compare products, then of course you can use the trademark, that's the whole point of it. All sorts of generic products say "compare to <brand name>TM !" on their packaging. If you are giving people an impression that your game is made by that company or you are affiliated with the company or the company approved you, then of course you are breaking law. Very simple.

[Omega]

Therefore I think that the reason it is improper to use real names is because if you used real NFL player names you would make people think you are affiliated with the NFL, and that is illegal. It's common sense that if you say Tom Brady and all the other players are in your football game then people will automatically think the NFL allowed it, or you are affiliated with the NFL, or with each individual player.

Could you do this 20 years ago? I think yes, since games were unlicensed and it was OK. Nobody assumed that NFL could possibly make all those ugly football games. But in 2006, if you use the name Tom Brady, EVERYbody will think you paid him money or he approves or the NFL approves. That is illegal.

Now, if you make an ugly football game mess that nobody could possibly think the NFL made it, even if you use real player names, you might be using NFL rules or whatnot that belongs to them that will still make people think of the NFL. This is a huge IP question involving copyrights as well as trademarks.

In this day and age, there is NO way you could put "Tom Brady" in your game and not make people think that you are affiliated with TB, Players, INC, or the NFL. Now, if it was a fan game that was 1 level long and it was really ugly and was on the net for 2 days, then I think it could be OK. But anything with player names that you would sell on a web site, or in stores, or on portals for people to buy, people will automatically assume you are affiliated with the NFL, which is what the whole issue is about. They will have to easily prove that people bought because they thought you were affiliated with the NFL or the real Tom Brady. In a court of law, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff, and they will easily be able to find tons of people or do studies with the general public about whether or not a game with Tom Brady makes people think it is sponsored by the NFL/PlayersInc/real Tom Brady, and then present their "80% of people we ask assume that name means it was licensed" data as proof to the judge for him to rule that you were intentionally confusing people and therefore degrading the value of the NFL and PlayersInc trademarks.

There are specific provisions in law that say parodies, especially of gov. figures, are legal. Otherwise, it would be too easy for the gov to block newspapers from printing negative press about them. That provision insures that there is nothing you can't mock the president or any gov official for.

[soniCron]

That doesn't make any sense. So you're saying it would be legal to use their likeness as long as people know it's not endorsed by the NFL? Do you have any reasoning behind this, or is it just speculation?

[Omega]

You need a lesson in logic or Discrete Structures. I'll let somebody else explain.

Here's a link to get you started: http://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/logic/prop_logic/converse/converse_intro.html

Also, in case you were responding to an older version of my post, which I edited at the same time as you were posting, I said:


In this day and age, there is NO way you could put "Tom Brady" in your game and not make people think that you are affiliated with TB, Players, INC, or the NFL.

Let me know if you find a way. Especially when you use 2,500 players with real names. And that's all there is to it. How do you convince a judge?

There was a good web site that listed about 10 or 20 famous patent cases form the past 100 years, by a patent lawyer. I don't remember the URL. Basically, the judges ruled toward the following: using a trademark is normal for comparison purposes or to refer to that product. That's what the trademark is for. "Susan hates GE." "This is better than Microsoft BOB." But when a judge would look you in the eye and say, come on now, how could you not think you were confusing people by using trademark (X), then you lose the case. Judges rule on common sense according to that web site.

But in some of those cases, somebody would have the trademark like "SUPER-DUPER!" in the same trademark category as your product, and they used "Lays Chips are now Super Duper!" And they had to stop using Super-Duper even though they weren't referring to that trademark, but just those words, since using the valid trademark Super-Duper out of context it was registered for (even though it had nothing to do with the trademark) would confuse the use of Super-Duper later on, etc. The whole thing with trademarks is that you can only get them after you have already started using them in commerce. Therefore, that means that some product or service is called "Super-Duper", at least that's what it must mean since that's the only way the USPTO gives trademark rights. Therefore, calling anything Super-Duper in advertising would confuse the SuperDuper trademark. (The actual tm wasn't Super-Duper, it was something else.)

That's as much as I remember. But the player stuff is speculation, it's an answer as to why it is possible that if you had to go to court, the judge would easily find that advertising your game to have Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Adam Vinatieri, Ahmad Green, Bill Parcells, would make people in the 21st century think your game was made by the NFL. Yes, 20 years ago, there were NFL games that were unlicensed. But in the 21st century, everybody is smart enough now that if they hear Tom Brady is on a team, that they will be misled to thinking this game is endorsed by the NFL. I mean, I kind of agree with the NFL for making sure there is no confusion.

If you said UNLICENSED GAME then how could you have a game when the NFL and the owners probably own the stadium, the name, the design, the team names, team logos, the rulebook? Also, the teams are owned by an Owner (as a franchise), except Green Bay which is owned by the people of Green Bay a.f.a.I.c.r. Could I list a Subway Shop's menu? No, the names of the products are their IP. Most importantly, if the employees of the Subway shop signed a contract to give all their rights to the likenesses and exclusive right to use their names in regard to --whatever contract they signed--, then doesn't the NFL have the right to complain on behalf of the player? Of course, I'm sure that contract has exceptions since players can represent themselves on TV. That all depends on the contracts the players sign with the league and the owners. It sounds like the NFL gets the rights of the players names and likeness as long as they are on the NFL team, meaning that they can complain when they are being used without permission.

[soniCron]

You need a lesson in logic or Discrete Structures. I'll let somebody else explain. Perhaps you didn't understand me. I'll clarify.



It's common sense that if you say Tom Brady and all the other players are in your football game then people will automatically think the NFL allowed it, or you are affiliated with the NFL, or with each individual player. If it's common sense, then there wouldn't be a discussion in the first place. You're telling me that not only does Bo Jackson have to authorize his likeness in a "Got Milk?" ad, but so do the NFL and the MLB?



Could you do this 20 years ago? I think yes, since games were unlicensed and it was OK. Nobody assumed that NFL could possibly make all those ugly football games. Why do you think "yes?" Because every game was unlicensed, it meant it was ok?



Now, if it was a fan game that was 1 level long and it was really ugly and was on the net for 2 days, then I think it could be OK. Why? Obscurity = legal?



There are specific provisions in law that say parodies, especially of gov. figures, are legal. Otherwise, it would be too easy for the gov to block newspapers from printing negative press about them. How does "parody" = "negative press" in all but a few cases?

[soniCron]

Omega: Thank you for clarifying in your last post. However, I think the question was raised because there was confusion about whether the league owns or controls a trademark on the players' names. And, unless I missed the post, there hasn't been any confirmation that not only a trademark does exist on the players' names, but the league also owns or controls said trademark rights.

[tunca]

However if I make a baseball game then I have to pay the Players Union for the right to use their names. Additionally, the union will not allow baseball games to simulate players’ contracts; instead player must be paid with points or something similar.


I think it's nat fair that EA licenses names of tons of sports people and hinders others. Even if I get permission from each football player one by one, I'm afraid that EA would show up and cease. In the football case (probably similar in many other sports) they have made agreement with FIFA and these players play in FIFA organizations. Therefore you would face both EA and FIFA. Not only player names, but organizaton names like English Premiership may get trouble.

Thank god they haven't got the names "Football", "Soccer" and "Basketball" yet :mad:

Practically, I do not think that an indie game would never ever experience any accusation unless the game has offensive content.

[siread]

New Star Soccer 3 is currently in development and has a very extensive player database. At the moment the player names are all real, and i'm toying with the idea of releasing it this way in the hope that my game will fly below the radar, so to speak. If it were to attract the attention of FIFA or some other organisation though, what would be the worst thing that could happen? Could i face financial ruin or would it simply be a case of saying sorry and replacing the genuine names with fake ones?

[Omega]

New Star Soccer 3 is currently in development and has a very extensive player database. At the moment the player names are all real, and i'm toying with the idea of releasing it this way in the hope that my game will fly below the radar, so to speak. If it were to attract the attention of FIFA or some other organisation though, what would be the worst thing that could happen? Could i face financial ruin or would it simply be a case of saying sorry and replacing the genuine names with fake ones?

The correct thing to do in this situation is to have real names. The first reason is that this will motivate you a lot more than fake names will. However, do not disclose this fact. Then, when you officially release the game and send out press releases, you would want to announce that you have real names in your game! After you are contacted by EA in about a month, say you didn't know and change them.

99% of the people will find your web site via links that say you have real names. After you have been contacted by lawyers, put up a letter on your web site that says how mean EA is and show their letter. This will change people who would normally be upset that they thought your game was real but now it is fake, into buying the game after all just to spite EA. Additionally, send out press releases about how you had to change the player names as well. That's another round of publicity and another round of people buying the game to spite EA.

[soniCron]

The correct thing to do in this situation is to have real names. The first reason is that this will motivate you a lot more than fake names will. However, do not disclose this fact. Then, when you officially release the game and send out press releases, you would want to announce that you have real names in your game! After you are contacted by EA in about a month, say you didn't know and change them.

99% of the people will find your web site via links that say you have real names. After you have been contacted by lawyers, put up a letter on your web site that says how mean EA is and show their letter. This will change people who would normally be upset that they thought your game was real but now it is fake, into buying the game after all just to spite EA. Additionally, send out press releases about how you had to change the player names as well. That's another round of publicity and another round of people buying the game to spite EA. That is the worst advice I've heard in a long time. You really should just keep your mouth shut when it comes to legal issues.