- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Kevin Butler actor sued by Sony
Posted on 10/9/12 at 12:26 am
Posted on 10/9/12 at 12:26 am
LINK
RIP funny arse Playstation commercials.
My Favorite
2nd favorite
quote:
Jerry Lambert, best known among PlayStation fans as the actor who portrays marketing maestro Kevin Butler, is being sued by Sony for breach of contract. The news comes as Lambert was featured in a commercial for Bridgestone’s Game On promotion, where he is seen playing Nintendo Wii in a similar style to his Sony executive alter ego.
RIP funny arse Playstation commercials.
My Favorite
2nd favorite
3
Posted on 10/9/12 at 6:02 am to UltimateHog
when was the last time he did a playstation commercial? PS Move? I thought he was long gone long ago.
Posted on 10/9/12 at 7:50 am to UltimateHog
This is Bush League by Sony.
Unless there is something in his contract, this is a joke.
Unless there is something in his contract, this is a joke.
Posted on 10/9/12 at 10:20 am to taylork37
The very idea that Sony suggests that because actor Jerry Lambert is handling a Wii peripheral (that is not mentioned by nor is it the basis of the ad) would create confusion among consumers is insulting. I know that Sony has to protect their investment but at the cost of underhandedly insulting the market is pretty low. If you have read Sony's release on this issue you know exactly what I am referring to.
The idea that if you saw the actor Jerry Lambert on TV with any other electronic device in his hand other than a Sony product, you would become confused. bullshite.
The idea that if you saw the actor Jerry Lambert on TV with any other electronic device in his hand other than a Sony product, you would become confused. bullshite.
Posted on 10/9/12 at 10:36 am to Tactical1
quote:
The very idea that Sony suggests that because actor Jerry Lambert is handling a Wii peripheral (that is not mentioned by nor is it the basis of the ad) would create confusion among consumers is insulting. I know that Sony has to protect their investment but at the cost of underhandedly insulting the market is pretty low. If you have read Sony's release on this issue you know exactly what I am referring to.
The idea that if you saw the actor Jerry Lambert on TV with any other electronic device in his hand other than a Sony product, you would become confused. bullshite.
With our court system the way it is: Sony will win.
Posted on 10/9/12 at 10:39 am to Tactical1
I did get a case of vertigo when I saw Lambert using a Wii, I was so confused and Sony is looking out for me
Posted on 10/9/12 at 10:44 am to taylork37
quote:well they are suing for breach of contract, so.....
Unless there is something in his contract
Posted on 10/9/12 at 11:15 am to Devious
quote:
well they are suing for breach of contract, so.....
Doesn't necessarily mean there is anything in his contract to prevent him from doing what he did. IF there is, I would not see how Lambert wouldn't have known that.
Posted on 10/9/12 at 2:05 pm to taylork37
Posted on 10/9/12 at 4:27 pm to BaddestAndvari
quote:
With our court system the way it is: Sony will win.
as they should.
Posted on 10/9/12 at 4:40 pm to UltimateHog
Meh, I think it's a stupid move by Sony. Nobody even picked up on it, and they are losing their best commercials.
Posted on 10/9/12 at 5:10 pm to Alabama Slim
I mean if it is in his contract i agree, but since we dont know if it is, what is your reasoning?
Posted on 10/9/12 at 8:39 pm to Alabama Slim
quote:
With our court system the way it is: Sony will win.
as they should.
Not so fast. Nothing wrong with what he did. I bet the contract said Kevin Butler couldn't be in any other commercials. It makes no sense that Jerry Lambert can't appear in any other commercial ever.
quote:
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Bridgestone has now responded to those claims, saying "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." Bridgestone will reportedly fight the suit on the grounds that Sony does not actually own a trademark for the Kevin Butler character, and that “the character has not acquired secondary meaning and that there is no likelihood of confusion among consumers.”
Posted on 10/9/12 at 9:07 pm to Alabama Slim
quote:
as they should.
No they shouldn't
Posted on 10/9/12 at 10:14 pm to Moss
quote:
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Bridgestone has now responded to those claims, saying "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."
So they are saying it's okay for him to appear in a similar role to Kevin Butler as long as his name isn't shown as Kevin Butler?
I highly doubt only the name Kevin Butler was in his contract.
Kevin Butler might not speak in the commercial, but Lambert does.
Original Commercial
This post was edited on 10/9/12 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:06 am to BaddestAndvari
quote:
No they shouldn't
so you have someone under contract to promote your product in national advertising and they show up in another commercial pimping your direct competitors system? that's never going to work out well for the actor. guaranteed they had a no compete clause in the contract that probably extended several years past his contract with sony. corporations don't play around with that sort of thing and him and/or his agent should have known better.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:18 am to Alabama Slim
quote:
CVG reports that the Bridgestone advert initially aired three days after Lambert’s contract with Sony expired, but that an “exclusivity clause” prevented the actor from phaving his likeness used alongside any rival games product or console – like the Wii.
LINK
their case against bridgestone is very weak however
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News