Colin Kaepernick Will Be the Only Player in Madden NFL 15 with Tattoos

[SiNsinNatti]

Really feel like EA should give a hoot if people complain about generic tats. Until you have the rights to your tattoos and they get scanned all players should just have generic tats. It would help the visual aesthetics of the game. Sometimes just seeing a bunch of bland plain arms on EVERYONE looks weird. Kap's plain arms in M25 next gen freak me out a little. He looks like a default character like all the other default characters. Seeing all players with similar generic tattoos would be an improvement.

[hanzsomehanz]

Open Q: Aholbert fwrd his feedback today but was there any feedback fwrd in June at the inception of this thread?

I ask because the very point he raised was raised and supported in the first five pages of this thread.


Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

[mestevo]

There was dialog at the time and they read the forums.

[FBall Life]

I still just don't get it. I'm playing WWE 2K14 right now in preparation for 2K15, and I'm seeing all these wrestlers covered in tattoos. Did 2K go out of their way and somehow secure the rights from the creators of every single tattoo in the game? Why can every single wrestler on the roster have their correct tattoos, but only one player in Madden? It just baffles me...

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by FBall Life

I still just don't get it. I'm playing WWE 2K14 right now in preparation for 2K15, and I'm seeing all these wrestlers covered in tattoos. Did 2K go out of their way and somehow secure the rights from the creators of every single tattoo in the game? Why can every single wrestler on the roster have their correct tattoos, but only one player in Madden? It just baffles me...

The easiest answer to the question - no one has sued 2K yet about tattoos. EA lost a lawsuit about tattoos (NFL Street 2 featured Ricky Williams and his tattoos, the artist of Williams' tattoos sued and won), thus the company's different approach being one of avoiding litigation.

It's also possible that WWE requires wrestlers to get rights to all their tattoos before appearing in any print / digital media whatsoever, given how prominent tattoos are in wrestling in general. This would eliminate the problem altogether before it even gets to 2K.

Finally, there have been instances of tattoos being removed from WWE games. CM Punk has a tattoo which strongly resembles a Pepsi logo on his left shoulder, that tattoo never appeared in a WWE video game.

[OhMrHanky]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing and I guess the litigation thing answers the question as to why WWE has them and I believe nba2k has them as well and why ea won't without consent. I don't know if they're generic or authentic, but pretty much every nba player has turned into a rodman clone these days with tats everywhere. And, on the litigation tip, this ultimately is totally ridiculous in general and shows the deeper sadness in our legal system, rights, etc. R u telling me that if I buy a tatto for what, $300-$1000, I'm not allowed to have people take pics of me without my artist's consent? And, if u argue it's about being on tv, in a video game, etc, I'll say it this way. If I'm an NFL player and I pay $300-$1000 for a tat, r u telling me that I don't have the right to do whatever the f--- I want to do with MY tattoo that I PURCHASED and put on MY body?? F--- the artist, he lost rights to his art once I PAID for it. If the artist gave it to the player for free because he wants to advertise, then ok, it's still the artist's, but the MOMENT I PAY u for it, it is MINE to do with what I please. This litigation nonsense just makes me ill. Ridiculous.

[FBall Life]

Quote: Originally Posted by OhMrHanky

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing and I guess the litigation thing answers the question as to why WWE has them and I believe nba2k has them as well and why ea won't without consent. I don't know if they're generic or authentic, but pretty much every nba player has turned into a rodman clone these days with tats everywhere. And, on the litigation tip, this ultimately is totally ridiculous in general and shows the deeper sadness in our legal system, rights, etc. R u telling me that if I buy a tatto for what, $300-$1000, I'm not allowed to have people take pics of me without my artist's consent? And, if u argue it's about being on tv, in a video game, etc, I'll say it this way. If I'm an NFL player and I pay $300-$1000 for a tat, r u telling me that I don't have the right to do whatever the f--- I want to do with MY tattoo that I PURCHASED and put on MY body?? F--- the artist, he lost rights to his art once I PAID for it. If the artist gave it to the player for free because he wants to advertise, then ok, it's still the artist's, but the MOMENT I PAY u for it, it is MINE to do with what I please. This litigation nonsense just makes me ill. Ridiculous.

Exactly. Tattoos aren't like videogames where the developer is licensing the game to you.

[Hooe]

The issue isn't the athlete displaying the tattoos on his body, the issue is with the artist at the video game companies using original art to create a derivative work without permission from the original artist. On television it's fine because it's a live broadcast of the person in question, and the person has the art on his body. In a video game where the art explicitly must be recreated (i.e. it's not the original work being displayed), the courts have decided it is not.

As someone who works with artists on a daily basis, I can understand the line of reasoning.

Beyond that, we'll not be going any further down the "questioning our legal system" line of discussion as that isn't allowed at OS.