Sections

Kevin Butler’s Sony lawsuit settled out of court

Thursday, 17th January 2013 11:24 GMT By Nick Akerman

Actor Jerry Lambert, aka Sony’s Kevin Butler, has settled the lawsuit with his former employer out of court.

Lambert admitted that his appearance in a Bridgestone advert -in which he was seen playing a Wii- may have caused confusion as to which brand he is actually promoting.

The lawsuit result has seen Lambert agree to not appear in any video game adverts for the next two years. According to Media Post, he is also inclined to tell Sony if he is going to feature in any video game adverts after the ban, just so the company can “assess whether or not Lambert’s intended performance violates [Sony's] rights in the Kevin Butler character.”

While it’s good to see the problem settled, it’s a shame we’ll be Butler-less until at least 2015.

Latest

82 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. OlderGamer

    Sony didn’t play this very well, look like jerks imo.

    Kevin Butler was an awesome chars tho, and kudos to Mr. Lambert.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Beta

    Possibly Sony’s best advertising campaign, now ruined.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. fuchikoma

    Speak for yourself – To me it looks like he breached his contract and Sony did what they had to do. That seems to be the general sentiment on Reddit today as well. He played a cool character, but what did he expect doing a Wii promotion for “a tire ad?”

    #3 2 years ago
  4. OlderGamer

    Um, he is an actor and was doing an acting job.

    He wasn’t in “charecter” and wasn’t either “Kevin Butler” or representing Sony. The company was running a deal with Wiis. It wasn’t like it was some sort of evil plot against Sony. There was no clause saying the guy can’t get work just because he worked in a Sony add.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Clupula

    @3 – Come on, you know some people around here will never think Sony are anything but the bad guy in every situation, no matter what the reality of it was.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. polygem

    lol

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Gekidami

    “There was no clause saying the guy can’t get work just because he worked in a Sony add.”
    …Did you even read past the title? You do know what breach of contract is, right?

    #7 2 years ago
  8. polygem

    spawning

    #8 2 years ago
  9. OlderGamer

    Nice try Gek.

    They settled this out of court, likly due to Sony paying him off to save face. And the current deal they have includes such a clause/agrement but that clearly wasn’t the case beforehand. He appeared in a comercial(that is what actors do, they act). What Lambert had actual said was, “Lambert admitted that his appearance in a Bridgestone advert -in which he was seen playing a Wii- may have caused confusion as to which brand he is actually promoting.” That obviously isn’t what you are taking it to be.

    This is what it is, face value. An actor that the public associates his face to Sonys PS3 did a comercial for bridgestone. That comercial was advertising a promotional tie in with Nintendo. Sony wanted to stop that, makes sense. But did Lambert actualy do anything wrong or admit to doing anything wrong?

    Nope.

    Sony just wanted to make it go away, and they did that.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Dragon246

    Oh man, ignorance is running loose here.
    “Sony paid Lambert”
    Lolwut? Try harder next time to fail at arguments.
    Do you know how a actor who played james bond was barred from wearing that look in any other film. Its a breach of contact.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. Gekidami

    OG, proving he’s one of the most dense posters on the site. Hows about you actually read the source, you’ll look less stupid:

    “According to the settlement, Lambert acknowledged that his contract with Sony precluded him from promoting or endorsing competing game systems. Lambert also acknowledged that at the very least, confusion was created in the minds of some consumers who believed he was portraying the Kevin Butler character in both the PlayStation and Bridgestone commercials.”

    Let me break it down for you:
    -Lambert says Sony were right.
    -Lambert says he was wrong.
    -Lambert says there was a clause preventing him from doing such an ad.

    They settled out of court on their terms and their terms alone, they didnt pay off Lambert as you suggest. But guess when its about Sony the actual facts just dont matter any more, they HAVE to be the big bad company who is always in the wrong.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. polygem

    aaand booom…congrats og. you said sony and didn’t combine it with awesome…tsss.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. polygem

    awesony

    #13 2 years ago
  14. OlderGamer

    I stand 100% behind what I said.

    I know Poly, right, I should also think about getting the word Sony tattooed on my butt too.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. lexph3re

    i don’t think they were implying for you to idolize sony. He was simply saying what the article said where Lambert confessed he was wrong. you were suggesting he was right as if he didn’t have a contract he went against.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. OlderGamer

    Lex, I think it was all part of the settlement out of court.

    If it was open and shut, Sony would have pursued it. I think Sony just wanted it to go away. I think Sony bought his statement. And I stand by that.

    I have extra tin foils hats, if ya would like one? ;)

    #16 2 years ago
  17. DSB

    I’m thinking it’s probably a bit of both in this case.

    Sony managed to clarify the terms of their relationship, without a nasty lawsuit that would undoubtedly cast them as Goliath, and Lambert gets to walk with a slap on the wrist.

    Most likely both just pay their own legal fees and that’s that.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. Clupula

    If it was open and shut, Sony would have pursued it.

    Why, exactly? Please do share your legal knowledge of settlements. In fact, please do share your legal knowledge. It never occurred to you that even if Sony’s case had merit, which it does, that they would gain nothing from going out of their way to destroy him, if he’s willing to settle? I know you like to think of them as an evil empire that has nothing better to do than spend all of their money crushing innocent actors (so THAT’S why they don’t have any R&D money! SONY’S GOING DOWN!!), but if was willing to say he did something wrong and they were willing to make the suit go away, why wouldn’t they? Ending things amicably benefits both parties.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. Gekidami

    The levels of self delusion are amazing. Guy says he was indeed bound by contract to not do an ad, gets a 2 year restriction and has to clear any video game ads he does after that with Sony, Sony have no obligation to do anything. Internet nutcase sticks his fingers in his ears refusing to accept and makes up his own story based off nothing, calls anyone who doesnt play his dumb little conspiracy a fanboy, acts like the big bad internet people are ganging up on him for no reason.

    Remember when OG wasnt a retarded fanboy troll? it seems like such a long time ago. But i guess when you’ve got a rage boner for a hardware company, you cant help but be a dishonest douche bag. Must be what “Nintendo magic” does to a person.

    @Clupula
    Because Sony dont end things amicably, they destroy everything like the evil cartoon villains they are, obviously. Only OG and Poly with the use of their Nintendo magic can stop such an evil.

    …Or, you know, you should put about as much stock into anything OG says as you would have BDH a few years ago. They’re pretty much the same person at this point.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. polygem

    it’s like always. an opinion not pro sony per se pops up. i personally cannot see anything per se anti sony in it either but some guys obviously can…or choose to.

    instant attacks. by the same bunch.

    if you really cannot see that you guys are permanently acting like that…well then it’s just hopeless. it doesn’t make you look sexy, that’s for sure.

    i think what dsb said fits best. it’s a bit of both. like always with these things….called agreements. a foreign word for some. i know.
    something they want to fight. no agreement ever. death before agreement.

    @clupula: what’s your legal knowlege then, what’s dragons, what’s gekis? have you seen the original contract? have you talked to lambert? no? then all this is just speculation anyway.

    both parties are having an interest. they talk and might agree before a trial. out of court. both knowing it would be tough to win. if only one party thinks they will definiteley win, they will go for the trial. they win and will get the reputation. this clearly wasn’t the case here. since it was sonys interest to stop this, it makes sense to speculate that sony bought lambert. statements like the ones he made now are a part of the deal. i personally think that’s a shit attitude from lambert AND sony. in the end their lawyers dealed this for them anyway though.

    it doesn’t really matter who bought who here anyway. this indeed is an agreement and we will never find out. it’s all in the contract they now have made regarding this issue. if we will find out what ‘really’ happened we will see this scenario repeating so in reality we’ll never know. that’s ok. that’s how this works.

    it’s ok to say ‘i think lambert got paid. it’s ok to say ‘i think lambert paid sony’. what’s not ok is to say ‘you suck because you don’t have the same opinion as me’…this is what’s happening here and it didn’t come from og.

    you gus are witch hunting anything even slightly not pro sony and you should realize it and then just change it. it’s not too late. if you bring the ndf ‘hammer’ now. fine. move on. make me smile.

    edit: ahhh the ‘nintendo magic’ already happened here i see. well that didn’t take long.

    while we’re at it: remember that peta/mario tanooki suit stuff. remember nintendos reaction to it? a statement: “mario isn’t wearing a tanooki suit. it’s a costume.”
    stuff settled with nintendo magic.

    anyway, sony showed with this that they aren’t as ‘cool’ as their vita ads ‘are’. you guys just represent that.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. Dragon246

    Oh! Poly giving lessons to others on agreements and instant attacks and coolness?
    World is going to end soon.
    OH SAVE US NINTY MAGIC!

    #21 2 years ago
  22. polygem

    “Oh! Poly giving lessons to others on agreements and instant attacks and coolness?
    World is going to end soon.
    OH SAVE US NINTY MAGIC!”

    …well look at you.
    what is there i can do? really, tell me. i want to know…but first, seriously. look at you. then we can talk.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. viralshag

    The “Pro-Sony fanboi” arguments here are wrong in this case and you’re really just arguing against nothing. First comment on the article is negative towards Sony, when there is really no reason to be. Other people have tried to explain why…

    It’s quite clear by all information available that Lambert is in the wrong on this one. People need to learn that businesses don’t run completely on goodwill and sometimes have to pull people/companies up on the contracts that bind their working relationship. Sony handled this better than some of their other cases. It’s ended quietly which is good for both.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. polygem

    it ended well for both and this is good indeed.

    “Sony didn’t play this very well, look like jerks imo.”

    this is negative towards sony. but in the end it´s also an opinion. it probably only means: sony shouldn´t have bothered about it in the first place. poster described and clarified his thoughts in the next posts.

    being all mad just made them look a bit silly in this case. they even kinda ruined their great butler campaign themselves with it. i also think their reaction wasn´t very clever. don´t you think.
    they should´ve made a funny comment to the public, talk to lambert behind closed doors, find an agreement for the future and move on.

    that´s why i brought uo the nintendo/peta reference…you almost always have a choice HOW to react to things.

    poster #1 kind of said he thought they overreacted a bit. that made them look like jerks in the end…

    but if you say something like this you clearly are against sony. against everything they do. always. for life. i get that. but it´s getting old.

    lol.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. viralshag

    @24, This is what I don’t understand about gamers sometimes…

    “being all mad just made them look a bit silly in this case. they even kinda ruined their great butler campaign themselves with it. i also think their reaction wasn´t very clever. don´t you think.
    they should´ve made a funny comment to the public, talk to lambert behind closed doors, find an agreement for the future and move on.”

    This isn’t some favour Lambert has done for Sony… it’s not a deal done between friends. This is business, you can’t simply let someone break the terms of their contract and say “oh hey don’t worry about it but don’t do it again.”

    In this case, there really is no need for a negative opinion of Sony though, they have done what they had to do and still let Lambert walk away without any damage to his name. They are however, still in a legal case with Bridgestone.

    What people are trying to point out is that negativity towards Sony over this, and what they’re basing it on, is really quite unfounded.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. DrDamn

    I think you are stretching the imagination a bit now OG. When this first came out people were quick to dismiss it. Sony does seem to have had a decent legal claim, hence this outcome. Could they have handled it better, sure, but to claim they paid him off to get this result is ridiculous.

    Look at the stuff beyond this article, he has admitted he was wrong to do this based on his contract with Sony. So yes your comments at the end of @9 are incorrect.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. polygem

    i think you don´t understand what i was trying to say here. BECAUSE it is business and because it´s also about an image you have as a corp, it sometimes is more clever to settle things a different way than fighting the full force sue em kind of way. it´s strategy. it´s about corporate identity, about an image, marketing. they´ve build up butler to represent them in a huge, successful campaign. then they sue lambert. makes them look like jerks. no matter how you look at it. they ruined their own campaign and corporate identity with this. that´s why i think it wasn´t clever. you can disagree with that point of view of course, no problem, but imho it would´ve been much more clever to make a funny pun in an interview, then find an agreement with him for the future behind closed doors and just move on…business also is like politics sometimes and stuff like this happens all the time. diplomacy is needed. they´ve hurt themselves more in the end this way. that´s just my opinion and it is not negative towards sony per se in any way.

    #27 2 years ago
  28. polygem

    DrDamn: in business agreements you are making new contracts about your agreement. lambert saying these things after a signed agreement is just part of the deal really. it always is. but again. everyone of us here is speculating anyway. i think it´s pretty naive to think that because lambert is making these statements now, after their negotiation, proves he was wrong in the first place. it´s not stretching the imagination. it´s business deals guys…

    #28 2 years ago
  29. viralshag

    @Poly, That’s ridiculous. I don’t understand how you’re not getting this…

    Sony didn’t ask to be in this situation… Lambert should never have done the advert, it’s really as simple as that. He is the one and only person that has caused any real or potential damage to Kevin Butler, the ad campaign and Sony’s investment to that image.

    And to promote a competing product, even indirectly through another company, would usually be a no no in most contracts unless Sony have a terrible legal/contract team. You are trying to oversimplify business far too much here.

    #29 2 years ago
  30. DrDamn

    @27
    How do you know they didn’t try and find an agreement behind closed doors first? What would you expect them to do if that didn’t work?

    #30 2 years ago
  31. DrDamn

    @Poly
    It is ridiculous if Sony are continuing to pursue Bridgestone. They can’t pay him to say this if it strengthens the case against someone else. This is a legal agreement and resolution.

    #31 2 years ago
  32. polygem

    @viral:
    maybe, maybe not. was he lambert or butler in the ad?
    what was part of the sony contract what wasn´t?
    it´s not as easy as you make it to be.

    also, like i said, sometimes it´s better to walk a different path than sueing or threatening to sue even IF you are right. in this case it would have been imho.

    @DrDamn: sure, that could´ve been the case and in that case sonys reaction would´ve been legit. usually though they (every corp not only sony) go all out with this kind of stuff in official staements sayig they wanted to find a way of agreement out of court first but it didn´t work. so they have no other choice to prove they are right.

    we´ll never now. we speculate. the way this discussuion goes now is great though.
    that also was my point here.
    sharing opinionsí s cool. fanboy calling is not.

    #32 2 years ago
  33. polygem

    it doesn´t strengthen the other case.
    it´s sony vs bridgestone because sony believes bridgestone stole their intelectual property: k. butler.
    i think sony will lose this hands down if bridgestone haven´t been complete fools with their contracts.
    lambert has a contract with sony: lambert is butler.
    lambert has a contract with bridgestone: lambert is lambert.
    sony has no contract with bridgestone obviously.
    it´s simple as that.
    lambert admitting (now) that his appearance in another advert may have caused confusion as to which brand he is actually promoting, has nothing to do with sony vs bridgestone. this is sony vs lambert…
    bridgestone has made a contract with lambert, not the fictional k. butler. i am sure you wont find the name butler in their contract…so what lambert says about butler now is irrelevant. bridgestone will always say they wanted lambert in their spot.
    it´s a mess. it´s bullshit. it´s business.

    #33 2 years ago
  34. DrDamn

    @33
    So the actor himself admitting it may have caused confusion doesn’t help their case? Of course it does.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. polygem

    it doesn´t if the contract bridgestone has with lambert doesn´t say anything about butler (and i´m sure it doesn´t).

    sony vs lambert because of a possible butler in bridgestone is sortet now: agreement.

    now it´s sony vs. bridgestone
    if there´s no butler in the contract, there is no butler in the spot.

    they bought lambert not butler…

    it really is that simple.

    #35 2 years ago
  36. viralshag

    @32, I really don’t understand what your point is. You keep saying Sony should have walked a different path… They did, they settled. They didn’t have to but they did.

    @34, I think you’re wasting your time on this one…

    @35, It’s really not that simple… Otherwise there would never have been a court case in the first place.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. Dragon246

    Not that I expect a certain person here to understand the “logic”, since protecting a friend is obviously a more important thing, logic goes to hell.
    Keep floating man. Contact me when you want to get down from the high place.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. Da Man

    Sony123456 should be banned for continously derailing topics, flooding and being a moron.

    #38 2 years ago
  39. OlderGamer

    Sorry, I went to bed.

    For what it is worth Poly is right.

    I didn’t claim to have inside info. I was simply speculating.

    In my mind everything after the new agreement needs to be taken with a grian of salt. Think about it.

    IF IF IF(did you guts get that?) If Sony “settled” out of court buy paying Lambert(and tbh an exchange of money seems reasonable), then it stands to reason that part of THAT agreement is for Lambert to shoulder “blame” publicly in an attempt at smoothing things over.

    What part of that theory has holes? It is just a therory after all, again speculation. And it is pretty solid in my mind.

    What actualy happend in the “settlement”? I don’t know. I don’t know if the terms have been made public. But the things you guys don’t know what happend either.

    Their obvously was an agreement reached. With a bit of logic, what I laid out makes sense. Lambert sudenly changing his mind for now reason doesn’t.

    I really don’t think Sony had much to stand on anyways. Like Poly tried pointing out Bridgstone didn’t buy Butler, they bought Mr. Lambert.

    Next Sony is trying to sue in a Cali court Bridgstone for “poaching” Kevin Butler. Basicly Sony doesn’t feel that Mr. Lambert has the right to work in comercials.

    #39 2 years ago
  40. polygem

    i am just trying to explain my point of view. nothing else. what´s so weird about that? your logic doesn´t make any more sense than mine. again: it´s speculation anyway. we don´t have insider infos here so we speculate. for fun. or not? no need to say stuff like: “Not that I expect a certain person here to understand the “logic”, “think you´re wasting your time on this one”
    “(he´s)…just defending a friend” “get down from the high place” “keep floating”
    i think i made my point pretty clear. you do not agre with it. that´s fine! but do you want to discuss or just trashtalk? it´s two different types of conversation. i can do both but i´d prefer to have a discussion.
    what about you?

    #40 2 years ago
  41. stretch215

    Goodness! You fucking sony guys are just as bad as the ninty guys. Console loyalists are so ridiculous. Grow up, seriously.

    #41 2 years ago
  42. DrDamn

    The legalities here are completely separate from whether this was a good idea on Sonys part. You have to be very, very careful with legalities. Paying someone off to say there was something in a contract which wasn’t actually there is very stupid idea. Bridgestone can’t just say we had a contract with Lambert and not with Butler. That doesn’t stand up.

    #42 2 years ago
  43. OlderGamer

    Right now Sony are going forward with a lawsuit in the state of California against Bridgstone. Their hook: they claim that Bridgstone bought Butler. And look at the headline on this page. It doesn’t say Mr. Lambert, it says Butler. Surely VG247 isn’t confused as to the score here. They are just trying to wind people up. The same type of thing has been happening all over the web.

    Because Mr. Lamberts face is so recognizable as a “Sony Guy” it is tuff. I mean the man is the face of the PS3. Given the delicate situation, it wouldn’t suprise me at all if Mr. Lambert was paid. It could be legealy worded several ways. Like in compensation for projected loss of work(pressuming you don’t see his face in any other adds on TV).

    If I was Sony I would have bought him out completly from day one. I would have had him the payroll, and heading around the nation doing live apperances. His work for Sony was priceless.

    #43 2 years ago
  44. theevilaires

    Long Live Play Pew Pew Pew :P

    #44 2 years ago
  45. OlderGamer

    “Goodness! You fucking sony guys are just as bad as the ninty guys. Console loyalists are so ridiculous. Grow up, seriously.”

    Worse really. Because speaking for Manu, Poly, Dr.Damn, MonkeyGourmet, Dave Cook, Pat Garrett, myself(and I am sure many others here) that own the WiiU…we also own(and game on) other, non Nintendo systems. I own Nintendo systems, I like Nintendo games. But just last night I spent four hours playing XB360. Today I will prolly play more Guild Wars 2 on PC.

    So the folks I just mentioned aren’t really Console Loyalist at all. We aren’t crazy, not fanboys. Just sticking up for one of the systems that we enjoy.

    #45 2 years ago
  46. Joe Musashi

    Good to know there are so many legal experts with special insider information here on the web. Next time I have a dispute with my neighbour I know where to come for free legal advice.

    JM

    #46 2 years ago
  47. killersense

    @oldergamer

    i still don’t understand why you keep supporting the argument that he got paid off. why would sony go after him in the first place if they thought this would give negative publicity and then turn around and pay him to save face? lmao do u see how ridiculous that sounds. he breached a contract and sony went after him to make sure he doesn’t go around doing it again. honestly lambert was dumb in a way. after 3 years of showing up in ads for sony playstation as soon as someone puts wii controller in ur hand to do an ad alarm bells should have gone off in his head. o well i hope sony continue to use him for ps4 because the current agreement is he cannot show up in ads for their competitors.

    #47 2 years ago
  48. DrDamn

    @OG
    Just requiring something posted higher up …
    “Lambert acknowledged that his contract with Sony precluded him from promoting or endorsing competing game systems”

    #48 2 years ago
  49. viralshag

    @43, What makes you think Lambert is the one who got paid in all this? Lambert isn’t suing Sony, it’s the other way around… Sony could have just dropped the lawsuit completely if they thought there was no chance of winning.

    Instead, they’re having to do nothing and Lambert is the one with new legal obligations to follow. Thjat doesn’t exactly sound like a case that fell in favour of Lambert.

    #49 2 years ago
  50. viralshag

    @46, Who is trying to be a legal expert here? Do you see anyone discussing the ins and outs of the actual case or the information that we have access to?

    Shockingly, some people might actually work with contracts on a daily basis and know what they’re talking about… shock!

    #50 2 years ago
  51. OlderGamer

    Because Sony can’t leagely keep Mr. Lambert from working in Comercials.

    “@OG
    Just requiring something posted higher up …
    “Lambert acknowledged that his contract with Sony precluded him from promoting or endorsing competing game systems”

    That was released AFTER the new agreement. Hence why I think the way I do. Mr. Lamberts camp reversed positions.

    Look guys feel free to disagree. But I am standing on my opinion. Blame it on my trick knee. I just have a feeling that there is more here then meets the eye. In the end, what does it matter?

    #51 2 years ago
  52. killersense

    there are people that are speculating wildly and there are people that posting stuff that is mentioned in the source article. it can be clearly seen who is doing what in this comments section. i don’t think anyone was trying to be a fanboy until polygem decided to bring it up and derail this thread.

    #52 2 years ago
  53. Ireland Michael

    None of this matters. There wasn’t going to be any more Kevin Butler anyway. That ad campaign was already done and dusted, since they’d drop the ad company before this drama even started.

    #53 2 years ago
  54. stretch215

    @45 That’s the thing though. Why do you feel like you have to “stick up” for a console? Honest question, not trying to start anything.

    #54 2 years ago
  55. theevilaires

    Why do you keep calling him Mr.Lambert O.G.? Are you legally representing this guy or something? Are you afraid to call him by the name he’s most famous for, Kevin Butler? Just you calling him Mr.Lambert sounds so weird.

    Not taking a shot or anything but I’ve never seen you give a SONY employee so much respect before.

    #55 2 years ago
  56. polygem

    #52 + 1

    totally nailed it bro :)
    you are right others are wrong. keep that attitude. it´ll help you in life. on the surface.

    #56 2 years ago
  57. Ireland Michael

    @54 It’s a little thing called “manners”.

    #57 2 years ago
  58. OlderGamer

    I love the adds, they were awesome. Reminds me of the Sega VS Nintendo ones.

    His name is Jerry Lambert, Tea. But that is part of the issue really. Everyone just see him as Kevin Butler.

    “@45 That’s the thing though. Why do you feel like you have to “stick up” for a console? Honest question, not trying to start anything.”

    Well, compelled to really. If you are enjoying your XB360, and someone claims that the graphics are N64 level, the online compontent is a joke, most of the games freeze or lock up, or any other stuff that you know is 100% false…most of the time your going to call BS when you see it.

    I never try and make someone like what I do. Or put them down for liking what they do. But when I enjoy something and people just talk shit about it and that shit is worng, it gets me.

    For example: WiiU has no games. I own 8 or 9 of them, rented a few more.

    WiiU has no 3rd party support. I own AssCredIII, Madden, Sonic, and then there is CoD, Darksiders II etc. I also have Aliens on preorder. All of them 3rd party games.

    WiiU GamePad does NOTHING for gaming. The gamepad enhances all of the games I have played. I think it is amazing. Sure, some might not like it. But the ones talking bad about it, haven’t even spent any time with it.

    WiiU has no Online. I have spent a fair amount of time playing online with my WiiU.

    And so on. And on. And on.

    #58 2 years ago
  59. theevilaires

    @57 I don’t think I was talking to you was I?

    @58 Like I said I wasn’t taking a shot I was just wondering cause its odd everyone knows him as Kevin Butler. I know his real name too but thats the point of the whole lawsuit. No matter where Jerry Lambert goes he will always be Kevin Butler and I feel SONY had every right to sue him using the persona to promote for another system.

    #59 2 years ago
  60. viralshag

    @58, “His name is Jerry Lambert, Tea. But that is part of the issue really. Everyone just see him as Kevin Butler.”

    I think this is more your issue. To me your comments sounds more like “Sony are jerks, they’re suing Kevin Butler because he does cool commercials.”

    Other people, like me seem to think “Sony are right, they’re suing Jerry Lambert because he breached their contract agreement.”

    #60 2 years ago
  61. Ireland Michael

    @59 He wasn’t even using the persona of Kevin Butler.

    You can’t sue Jerry Lambert for being Jerry Lambert. He has dozen of commercials before Kevin Butler which are all the exact same shtick.

    #61 2 years ago
  62. stretch215

    @58. Which is the same thing the sony guys are doing. Thank you for helping me prove my point.

    #62 2 years ago
  63. OlderGamer

    What Mike said. Besides Sony were being jerks, exhurting their corperate muscle. They didn’t need to bring leagel action at all did they?

    Guys stop using numbers, they don’t match comments. I can’t figure out who is talking to who lol.

    #63 2 years ago
  64. polygem

    “I never try and make someone like what I do. Or put them down for liking what they do. But when I enjoy something and people just talk shit about it and that shit is worng, it gets me.”

    this. and this is the difference indeed.

    i dont have any problem with someone saying: i don´t like kirby games, they are well made games but feel childish to me.
    i have a problem with someone saying: kirby games are just kids games. if you are over 15 and still playing them, something must be deeply wrong with you”
    but it doesn´t matter anyway. it will stay like this forever.
    i will have to try starting to ignore. i hate to do it but i really think it just doesnßt make sense to argue anymore sometimes.

    #64 2 years ago
  65. theevilaires

    He was acting like Butler clearly in the commercial and got sued as Jerry Lambert for doing so. He could have changed his image to seem more like another character but his image was clearly that of Kevin Butler.

    SONY was right and I hope to see Kevin Butler aka Jerry Lambert back in PlayStation ads because that character brought morale back to the PlayStation Franchise. Good job SONY for securing your investment.

    #65 2 years ago
  66. killersense

    @61 thats the whole point. did anyone even know who he was before he was kevin butler? three years of commercial for sony gaming products and you are going to go out there and hold a competitor product in ur hands? you are saying sony should let this go and let him do whatever he wants. maybe he will show up in another ad promoting the new xbox and you think people are not going to get what microsoft is trying to do? this is just sony making sure nothing worse than this happens. they are not trying to be this evil corporation that OG is trying say here. they invested money in the kevin butler character and a contract was in place. he may not have used the kevin butler character but people look at him as kevin butler. he can do whatever ad he wants that is fine just not gaming related and that is what sony wanted as well and hence the settlement.

    #66 2 years ago
  67. Ireland Michael

    @65 There was never going to be any more Kevin Butler. Sony had already ditched the ad company that he works for before this lawsuit even existed.

    Sony’s handling of the entire Kevin Butler character is the business equivalent of getting a gun and then proceeding to shoot yourself in the foot.

    #67 2 years ago
  68. stretch215

    @64. It doesn’t make ANY sense to continue arguing. You play what you enjoy, who fucking cares about what some random dude on the internet thinks about it.

    #68 2 years ago
  69. polygem

    noone ever said sony is an evil corp. guys, temper you´re fantasies. it has been said that taking legal action to sort this out made them look a bit cheesy and might have made the situation even worse for them.

    #69 2 years ago
  70. OlderGamer

    I keep asking myself that very same question Stretch.

    #70 2 years ago
  71. polygem

    @68, sure..but then why even commenting something on the internet at all.

    #71 2 years ago
  72. viralshag

    @OG(63), what’s the point in a legally binding contract though if people don’t have to stick to them? It’s not like Lambert has done the Sony ads for free.

    Can’t you understand the impact on all of Sony’s contracts if they let one person/company get away with neglecting a contract? Especially one which is in the public eye?

    @61, I think it’s more that he is promoting a direct competitor more than being Kevin Butler in the ad.

    #72 2 years ago
  73. Ireland Michael

    @68 TEA does. Any sort of criticism of Sony makes you less of a human being… An X-Bot, if you were. *badoom tish*

    #73 2 years ago
  74. OlderGamer

    I said it already Viral.

    I don’t think the contract he had was so iron clad as to make it an open and shut case. If it was, why would Sony make a stink about it and then settle?

    #74 2 years ago
  75. theevilaires

    @67 Dude you’re talking out of your ass. You don’t know what SONY has planned for their ad campaigns. Kevin Butler could have easily spearheaded the PS4 ads as “The comeback campaign” It would be genius. Would you rather have Kevin Butler promoting your new system or a crying baby again.

    Like I said SONY owns the Kevin Butler persona and his act in that commercial could have damaged any upcoming Sony planned campaigns. Again O’Connor you show VG247 just how short sighted you are kid. Go outside and play and leave the discussion to the adults.

    #75 2 years ago
  76. Ireland Michael

    @75 Jerry Lambert works for the advertising company that invented and developed the Kevin Butler character and made the ads. The ad company is no longer partnered with Sony. Their contract expired with them and with Kevin Butler before the Bridgestone ad even existed.

    #76 2 years ago
  77. theevilaires

    ^ doesnt matter the character is already made. doesn’t take a rocket scientist to use the same formula that made him and the ads popular and successful….oh hi Bridgestone commercial.

    So they’re not partnered with the company anymore. Just go to Jerry Lambert and say hey wanna do more Kevin Butler ads for PlayStation. Bet you he’ll say yes in a heart beat.

    #77 2 years ago
  78. viralshag

    @OG(74), there can be a multitude of reasons. One of the most likely is that what they can actually sue Lambert for wouldn’t be cost effective in what it would actually cost to take the court to trial.

    Which might be why they settle with Lambert but continue with Bridgestone. Maybe there was a chance for Lambert to counter-sue and it made sense for both parties to settle. But as I said before, Lambert is the one that has walked away with certain obligations.

    There’s never been anything stopping him from working on commercials or shows, as he continued to do so while being Kevin Butler. But appearing in an ad which promotes a direct competitor is pretty silly and something he didn’t need to do.

    #78 2 years ago
  79. Ireland Michael

    @77 And if Kevin Butler never wants to play him again (which he clearly doesn’t, as he didn’t renew his contract) it doesn’t matter.

    Why would he ever want to work for them again? They sued him and his company. The guy is already a self made millionaire.

    #79 2 years ago
  80. theevilaires

    You’d be surprise how millions disappear fast in this economy. Butler will return sooner or later.

    #80 2 years ago
  81. DrDamn

    @OG51
    The contract he *had* *precluded* very important words. This isn’t something which has been agreed and added now.

    #81 2 years ago
  82. NeoSquall

    Kevin Butler (the character) should be treated like the second Stig, ie. strap him to a car and fly it in the sea from a carrier, then make a new one.

    edit: yeaaaaaaah, necroposting!

    #82 1 year ago