Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-07-21 05:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:ea, ea sports, facenda, lawsuits, madden, nfl, nfl films

Madden Promo Voice-over Generates NFL Lawsuit

T.V. newsman John Facenda died in 1984, but his deep, resonant voice lives on, thanks mainly to its use by the National Football League and the league's video unit, NFL Films.

But according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Facenda's family has filed a federal lawsuit against the league and NFL Films over the use of Facenda's rich baritone in Making of Madden 2006, a promotional video for last year's edition of the long-running pro football game published by EA Sports. The game publisher has an exclusive deal with the league for pro football video games which use NFL logos and other licensing features.

Facenda vs. NFL Films was filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on Monday. The Facenda family's attorney Paul Lauricella said that the broadcaster agreed to allow the NFL to use his voice for its football highlights, but not to promote other types of businesses. The amount of damages sought by the family remains unspecified.

The Associated Press spoke with Lauricella, who claimed that Facenda's voice opened the Making of Madden 2006 and was used later in the video, which the attorney called a "30-minute commercial for the Madden game."

"People revere the guy," Lauricella said of Facenda, sometimes jokingly referred to as "the voice of God."

"They used his voice to make the program look authoritative. We have no problem with the Madden game or NFL Films. The problem is they used (Facenda's) voice without permission."

GP: Since we are citing their coverage today, in the interest of full disclosure, we should mention that GP editor Dennis McCauley writes a weekly video game column for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...


(Post a new comment)

who owns dead people?
[info]com5tock
2006-07-21 01:30 pm UTC (link)
Who long can people's families or estates claim ownership of a dead person's works/likeness/voice? I really wish this kind of stuff would be in the public domain. I might feel differently if it was my dad's voice being used, I suppose. Yet the guy is dead. He doesn't care.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
75 years, if I'm not mistaken.
[info]doggyspew
2006-07-21 05:27 pm UTC (link)
After a death of someone, the rights of the someone will be given to the direct family, unless specified otherwise (like in a will).

After 75 years, if no action is taken by the family, the rights become public property. Unless of course the family DOES take action to preserve the rights.

Ofcourse, the rights can also become public domain, if the whole family does not want the rights.

If the rights are transferred to another entity (like a corporation) the rights are the entitíes property as long as that entity keeps renewing the rights.

(Can someone check that up ?)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]traiklin
2006-07-21 03:46 pm UTC (link)
well it's not EA's fault.

They were granted exclusive rights to everything NFL, thought they aren't suing EA, they are suing NFL films which told EA they could go ahead and use the voice (since they probably have done it many times before and it was never brought up).

It's odd, I've never heard his voice before, granted I was born in 83 and never bothered with the extra content in the Madden games since the PS2.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-21 05:17 pm UTC (link)
i'm sure you've heard his voice, probably didn't realize who he is/was

(Reply to this) (Parent)
One question....
[info]nightwng2000
2006-07-21 04:10 pm UTC (link)
Who?

So much for the "voice of god".

"GP: Since we are citing their coverage today, in the interest of full disclosure, we should mention that GP editor Dennis McCauley writes a weekly video game column for the Philadelphia Inquirer."

Should I be a smartarse and tease about titles that don't exist, or just keep my yap shut? Hmmmm.... Ok, I'll behave and won't tease. No need to rehash old wounds anyway. :)

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: One question....
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-21 05:11 pm UTC (link)
actually, I *am* the video game columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: One question....
[info]taintedecho
2006-07-21 05:13 pm UTC (link)
Things changed since then, been what? Almost a year?

Still though, I don't know why these people are sueing over a dead man's voice. Personally anyone can do whatever they want with my text/voice when I'm dead, it's not like they are making him say things like "I'm a horrible racist!"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: One question....
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-21 05:18 pm UTC (link)
things never changed. I've been the Inquirer's video game columnist since 1998.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: One question....
[info]danzuke
2006-07-21 07:06 pm UTC (link)
There should be some sort of protection for him, even if he's dead. It's not just a random voice, it's distinctive and was chosen because it was his. He has a legacy, both on his own and with the NFL. But if the agreement was to only use his name for football highlights, then the NFL broke the agreement.

Any to those who say they never heard of him cause they were born in the 80's... shame on you

do a little homework then before posting about it... You've probably heard his voice, just didn't know who it was

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: One question....
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-21 07:26 pm UTC (link)
ya know, I'd rather see the guy's family make few bucks. The NFL can certainly spare it...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]goodrobotus
2006-07-21 05:32 pm UTC (link)
I've never heard of the guy but 'Ghost' legal actions are becoming more popular. Without reading the actual agreement between the NFL and the family, I can't say for certain, it depends how it was worded, but I'd assume that the NFL Lawyers who drafted the bill would know what they were doing. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

(Reply to this)


[info]the1jeffy
2006-07-21 05:36 pm UTC (link)
Acutally, Facenda's voice would make a great voice for god. Very powerful, and distinct.

Tsk, tsk, EA. Get your legal deparment to read the agreements you sign next time. Someone should have red-flagged those promos on the bonus disk. A simple extension of royalties probably could have stopped this lawsuit.

GP: Since we are citing their coverage today, in the interest of full disclosure, we should mention that GP editor Dennis McCauley writes a weekly video game column for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Translation: Stop emailing my boss!

Good to head that off at the pass. And it's kind of an inside joke for the regulars to boot.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-21 06:12 pm UTC (link)
nothing like that. Just that when there is a potential conflict - as in citing a story in a paper that you write for - it's good practice to let readers know.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]the1jeffy
2006-07-23 03:24 pm UTC (link)
Wow. I really took taht an ran in the completely wrong direction. And fell of a cliff. Into a pool of sharks. With frickin' laserbeams attached to their foreheads.

Nix my original post, as always, you are being the stalwart defender of journalism by notifying us that in essence you are citing yourself, and I misread it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Seems like a fair deal...
[info]getwellgamer
2006-07-21 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Given that there is such a delineation between the two mediums, I can see how they would have grounds for a suit. Given EA's exclusive contract, I'll bet the NFL just thought, "hey, we own his voice, it's all good", up until the family says "No, we gave you the rights for *this* medium, not *that* medium. It'd be the same thing as the difference between book rights and movie rights. When you switch mediums, there's a whole different infrastructure to go through and they should be compensated appropriately.

(Reply to this)


[info]kurisu7885
2006-07-21 07:46 pm UTC (link)
I'd rather see EA and the NFL take a fall for two reasons, onc,e it's a big corporation, and they can take a hit or two, and two, EA deserves to take a hit to show they ain't invicible

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-21 08:02 pm UTC (link)
yeah, but on this one, EA isn't being sued. It's strictly vs. the NFL and its various sub-units...

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Why would you care?
[info]anticitizenone
2006-07-23 10:26 pm UTC (link)
Seriously why would this guys family give a flying f**k about if a game used his voice or not... jeez... some people will sew over anything these days fiesty lil p**ks.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Why would you care?
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-24 02:22 am UTC (link)
they care because they can make some money off it and there is case law on their side...

Would you rather the super-rich NFL not have to pay the Facenda family a few bucks?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Why would you care?
[info]anticitizenone
2006-07-24 02:24 am UTC (link)
Yeah I can see your point, but does it really have to be a lawsuit cant they just reach a settlement?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Why would you care?
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-24 02:27 am UTC (link)
settlements are triggered by lawsuits... settlements resolve lawsuits... no lawsuit, no settlement.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Why would you care?
[info]anticitizenone
2006-07-24 02:30 am UTC (link)
Cant you just have an out of court settlement without a judge and all that other mess?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…