• Dadyo238 - October 9, 2012 8:05 p.m.

    Wow. Just, wow.
  • spankyj25 - October 9, 2012 4 a.m.

    One has to assume that there is a clause in the contract that states that he can't be in a competing company's advertisements. Technically, he wasn't in a Nintendo ad, but he's in an ad with a Nintendo product being used as an incentive. We don't know the details of the "Kevin Butler" contract, but I don't blame Sony for the suit.
  • jackthemenace - October 8, 2012 2:03 p.m.

    Can Sony ever just NOT sue someone?
  • ranivus - October 9, 2012 12:36 a.m.

    You're thinking of Apple sir. Sony just screws up and gives away our private information.
  • Divine Paladin - October 8, 2012 11:30 a.m.

    Had they sued over something else, this could've worked, and Sony would've had a great case to make. They could've said that their brand was damaged because of the "Kevin Butler betrayed Sony" comments that exploded on the internet when this story broke, and they would have been able to make their case much more easily. Now they've gotta stretch just to make their case.
  • winner2 - October 8, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    A case of idiots being idiots fighting over the use of other idiots. Naw, it's pretty funny lol. Just seems a bit of a waste of time to me
  • CROZILLA - October 8, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    R.I.P. Kevin Butler
  • JarkayColt - October 8, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    This is simultaneously unsurprising and mind-bogglingly absurd at the same time. I think it all boils down to what exactly Jerry Lambert's contract ruled out when he signed for the Sony Kevin Butler ad campaigns. You would think Sony would allow such a person to star in such an ad on the grounds that they do not appear in any other videogame related ads or promotions that would have otherwise caused character protrayal confusion (like the case is here). By signing a contract, such as is implied here, Mr Lambert would've had to at least relinquish a small amount of his freedom as an actor and willingly comply. So, if such a clause did exist, then Sony actually do have a shot at a case (not that I'd know anything about the intricacies of that). But they'll probably still lose, and hell, who even cares anyway? It's not like Sony were even putting him to use anymore.
  • ChiChiRocket - October 8, 2012 9:09 a.m.

    How dare he show that you can have fun on a system that isn't made by Sony!
  • LordZarlon - October 8, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    They never used his name in this ad. This is outrageous! There is legal precedence for performers appearing in a competing company's commercial or t.v. show and impersonating characters they have played before. In the mid-nineties Scott Hall and Kevin Nash left the WWF and appeared on WCW Monday Nitro acting like their former characters. They even said, "You know who we are and you know why we're here." They even acted like their former characters. The WWF sued WCW and LOST! This was an even more blatant example than the Bridgestone/Nintendo commercial because the performers in question referred to their old characters. None of the people in the commercial called Jerry Lambert Kevin Butler or referred to that character. This is just a waste of time and money.
  • J-Fid - October 8, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    So I guess no Kevin Butler in the Sony Smash Bros. game? Darn...
  • Bloodstorm - October 8, 2012 7:05 a.m.

    So, now actors count as intellectual property? So because this guy got popular playing 'Kevin Butler' in Sony's Playstation ads, he is now their property, and can't play himself in any other commercial featuring a competing product, directly or indirectly as in this case? This is a great example of the gross misuse of our legal system. Law suites over an actor being an actor. It's like if Dreamworks sued Jack black for voicing a character in a Pixar movie. Ridiculous.
  • SentientSquidMachine - October 8, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    Actually it's more akin to the actress that plays 'Flo' in the Progressive auto insurnce commercials doin a State Farm commercial (if you're not american, youtube these commercials). Logical step by Sony.
  • Cyberninja - October 8, 2012 12:51 p.m.

    No because this isn't a Nintendo company its a company outside the game industry, so it would be like flo commenting on State Farm in a cooking commercial
  • Bloodstorm - October 9, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    What Cyberninja said. He was doing a commercial for Bridgestone tires, in which he was seen playing a Wii which was one of the prizes for something Bridgestone was doing. It's not really the same thing. Unless Sony has gotten into the tire business.
  • KnowYourPokemon - October 8, 2012 6:03 a.m.

    What the... I just... really Sony????? This is just so mind bogglingly stupid I can't...
  • moh82sy - October 8, 2012 4:02 a.m.

    Jerry Lawler ? I think you mean Jerry Lambert.
  • GR_DavidHoughton - October 8, 2012 6:10 a.m.

    Of course I do. I have no idea how my brain managed to autocorrect that for the entire story. I'm blaming lack of coffee for now.
  • DarthPunk - October 8, 2012 9:34 a.m.

    Watching too much wrasslin'

Showing 1-20 of 21 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.