Jump to content
IGNORED

That one family on the back of the NES box..


Recommended Posts

I was doing some reading and came across this lawsuit: https://casetext.com/case/cory-v-nintendo-of-am

a1ZpTGJJQQXyea-cWf0jSVRjYszP7vrM2lpf68jm

"In this action for alleged violations of sections 50 and 51 of New York's Civil Rights Law arising out of the use of certain photographs taken of plaintiff, a model, on package boxes of a video game manufactured by Nintendo of America, Inc., defendants, Nintendo, Geers Gross Advertising, Inc., an advertising agency which represented Nintendo, and McCann Erickson USA, Inc., which acquired Geers Gross and later represented Nintendo, appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss the complaint.

In March 1986, plaintiff agreed, for a fee of $1,250, to pose for a photograph which would appear on a package back for a Nintendo product. Plaintiff participated in two other photography sessions, for which he was paid $750 and $500, respectively, and signed a document, known as a "model's voucher", prepared by his agent, McDonald/Richards, Inc., in connection with each of the three sessions. These vouchers grant to Geers Gross "or those for whom they are acting" the right, inter alia, to use and/or publish the photographs of plaintiff for a period of 12 months. Subsequent to each session and the signing of each of the vouchers, Geers Gross sent McDonald/Richards a "Model Release" for plaintiff's signature. These releases, which do not contain any time limitation on the use of plaintiff's photographs, were signed in plaintiff's name by a representative of McDonald/Richards and returned to Geers Gross. Defendants thereafter used the photographs on packaging for a video game manufactured by Nintendo."

I guess it's the father in the picture, based on some google searching. Funny. I guess it wasn't such a happy family after all 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically, the model signed a 12 month contract for the picture. Then the model's agent signed an unlimited use contract for the same picture by signing the model's name on the new contract. Cour

They fixed some of those oversights on the Indian version of the NES:

Basically, the model signed a 12 month contract for the picture. Then the model's agent signed an unlimited use contract for the same picture by signing the model's name on the new contract.

Court dismissed the judgement because the model had previously granted permission for the agent to sign contracts on his behalf.

Do I have that right?

Sounds like he probably spent whatever he earned from the photo on lawyer fees...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't get over 1) the boys are playing Super Mario Bros, a one-player-at-a-time game while both are holding controllers, 2) the cartridge is outside the console (yeah I know they had to show it, but still...) and 3) Mom's not looking at the TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Welcome to VGS!

    Play, Make, Collect.

    Here at VGS all kinds of gamers are welcome, and that includes you!

    Join the conversation!

×
×
  • Create New...