AfterDawn Forums
These messages are comments to this news item:

Bridgestone sued by Sony over Kevin Butler character

news article released on:

In 2010, Sony began a new marketing campaign that included comedic actor Jerry Lambert as Kevin Butler, an alleged Sony VP of whatever the company was marketing in that ad. The character and the ads were an instant hit, and Sony has stuck with them ever since, letting Butler introduce most new features and items for the PlayStation 3. Most recently, however, Lambert took a job with ...

Read full article

This discussion thread has 18 messages.

#1
I have no love for Sony, but this is a pretty clear-cut case. They'll win, or rather, Bridgestone will settle, guaranteed.
▼▼ This topic has 17 answers - they are below this advertisement ▼▼
AfterDawn Advertisement
#2
What exactly has Bridgestone done that is illegal?

Bridgestone hired Jerry Lambert to make an Ad, Whats wrong with that?
#3
unless jerry lamberted sign a contract stating he will only represent sony there shouldnt be a problem.

custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
#4
They used his on-screen persona in a similar manner (playing a Wii).

Folks, there's a reason Bridgestone immediately pulled the ads.
#5
Actually folks, HE did not play the game system. The female scientist & the tall scientist wearing glasses doing the primary voice over were the ones actually playing the game system.

Besides, Jerry signed on to sell Bridgestone "Tires" NOT Bridgestone gaming consoles. The man is an actor & I think he wants to eat in this decade. Chances are he only makes scale for Sony's commercials (given their tight assed purse strings) so he obviously went out looking for more work. Good for him.

Sony can't own everything. Otherwise, the comedic fashion of satirizing someone drinking or wearing a product line on a TV show or movie for the comedic value would be lost out of fear of being sued.

Yes, I realize this was(n't)[edit] a satirical event but another commercial entirely, but it was indeed for TIRES, not gaming consoles. Unless little Joey wants $1k of rubber around his Hot Wheels just so he can play Wii bowling in his room I think his folks will balk at the idea.

It's just another attempt at trolling from one company on another because they happen to be losing their ass in this economy. So what do they do? Like any other gambling addict, they double their bet down with a lawyer & court in hopes of a big payoff.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Oct 2012 @ 16:17

#6
The fact that Bridgestone already tried to cut a deal prior to litigation shows they knew full well they violated Lamberts contract, that any defense going forward a judge would have a hard time swallowing anything Bridgestone could use for a defense. Makes me wonder if this was the cause to a lack of Kevin Butler commercials. Sony would be wiser to not only settle, but make amends with Lambert to keep their hit commercials coming.
#7
Ha! I actually saw the ad when it aired. My first thought is Sony's gunna sue somebody. But I assumed it would be Jerrys agent.

Then again, Bridgestone probably did hire him exclusively because of his known character from the PS3 ads. The proof they did it maliciously will be hard to tell, perhaps Sony was first pitched to promote their "Game-on" event and it fell through. Or perhaps someone trying to be witty at Nintendo recommended him.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Oct 2012 @ 15:31
#8
i have no love for sony either but bridgestone crossed the line on this one.
#9
I still say smoke & mirrors... Bridgestone has a lot of money wrapped up in their ad campaign to just let it stop altogether. Not to mention the fact that their partnered with Nintendo to basically pay for probably "x" number of game systems per sets of tires.

Coming at Sony with an initial payoff was just prudent behavior to keep things at bay & keep the ads running for a few more days/weeks. Time, of course, is money in this game. Sony by all means knows this, they simply don't care & the lightening pace at which things move in the entertainment/advertising field move looks as though guilt is always in the first move of the chess pieces.

Honestly... Sony should have just taken the payoff & used it to take a toke on the old ass pipe & called it whatever kind of win they wanted while the commercials ran for a bit longer.

#10
"Bridgestone pulled the ads last month after just a few days live, following the filing of the suit."

Er, the ads didn't run for "a few more days/weeks".
#11
Originally posted by Bozobub:
They used his on-screen persona in a similar manner (playing a Wii).

Folks, there's a reason Bridgestone immediately pulled the ads.
Agree. This is about as cut-and-dry as it gets. It will be settled out of court, soon.

#12
Pretty sad really...it is clear cut that Sony would win if it went to court, but still very sad that they claim a person, a living human being, is their intellectual property.


#13
Wrong. They claim a person playing a role very similar to one they played in Sony's advertisements is infringing, and it pretty clearly is.
#14
Totally agree with sony's position some nutmeg would get confused & buy a nintendo product instead of a sony one by seeing that dude on tv

AD Guides: http://www.afterdawn.com guides/
Console Mod Tuts: http://www.realmodscene.com/

#15
Originally posted by Bozobub:
Wrong. They claim a person playing a role very similar to one they played in Sony's advertisements is infringing, and it pretty clearly is.
it sure is.
#16
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Pretty sad really...it is clear cut that Sony would win if it went to court, but still very sad that they claim a person, a living human being, is their intellectual property.
Right there with you. That's why I hate the whole typecasting navigation within the entertainment industry. I don't doubt that folks would recognize the CEO character from the Sony ads, but you would have to be pretty retarded to not notice that his character was a scientist in the TIRE ads.

It's not like he's blatantly announcing that the Wii is a better console than the PS3 here. And as I stated before, HE's NOT TOUCHING THE GAME CONSOLE OR THE CONTROLLERS! He's just observing.

#17
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Pretty sad really...it is clear cut that Sony would win if it went to court, but still very sad that they claim a person, a living human being, is their intellectual property.

persona
#18
Lambert, butler no idea who either of them are and don't really care. Sony and Bridgestone I know what they are. Toys and tires. I got to watch the Bridgestone commercial on My Sony TV and thought what a lame commercial.

Was I confused by it not at all. Just saddened by how bad it was.
This discussion thread has been automatically closed, as it hasn't received any new posts during the last 180 days. This means that you can't post replies or new questions to this discussion thread.

If you have something to add to this topic, use this page to post your question or comments to a new discussion thread.