MLB 15 The Show Fact Sheet - Gameplay Reveal Scheduled For February 5th on Twitch

[Heroesandvillains]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

Maybe just list the profiles? So profile1: New York Mets profile 2: LA Angels, Houston Astros, Oakland Athletics...

That could work too.

[Madden's Jowels]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

And when SCEA makes an NBA or WWE game I'm sure this will be very relevant information... Until then, do remember that MLB is not owned or operated by Vince McMahon or Adam Silver. Expecting something to be in The SHow on the basis of a WWE game is akin to expecting something to be legal here in the U.S. because it is legal in Poland.

I'm sorry but I've gotta call you out on this awful logic.

Ramone said they don't have tattoos in the game because tattoo artists legally own the artwork. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it would be true for the NBA, the WWE, the NFL, or any other type of digital medium where that artist's intellectual property would be represented. In other words it has nothing to do with Adam Silver, Vince McMahon, or Bud Selig/Rob Manfred. It's a legal issue, not a commissioner mandate.

It means that either a) Ramone's claim that they can't legally put the tattoos into the game because it's intellectual property of the tattoo artist is not the entire story or b) it means 2K is paying the artists to use the tattoos.

And if 2K is paying to use the tattoos, it's reasonable and fair for a consumer of SCEA's product to question if that would be possible at all for MLB The Show down the road.

Now we all know that SCEA is a smaller studio and they don't get anywhere near the budget that Madden or 2K does, but all I'm saying is your post was extremely rude and snarky considering the content of your post was entirely wrong.

[pistolpete]

This looks great. I've already decided I am going to come back to this game. I can't wait!!!

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden's Jowels

I'm sorry but I've gotta call you out on this awful logic. Ramone said they don't have tattoos in the game because tattoo artists legally own the artwork. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it would be true for the NBA, the WWE, the NFL, or any other type of digital medium where that artist's intellectual property would be represented. In other words it has nothing to do with Adam Silver, Vince McMahon, or Bud Selig/Rob Manfred. It's a legal issue, not a commissioner mandate. It means that either a) Ramone's claim that they can't legally put the tattoos into the game because it's intellectual property of the tattoo artist is not the entire story or b) it means 2K is paying the artists to use the tattoos. And if 2K is paying to use the tattoos, it's reasonable and fair for a consumer of SCEA's product to question if that would be possible at all for MLB The Show down the road. Now we all know that SCEA is a smaller studio and they don't get anywhere near the budget that Madden or 2K does, but all I'm saying is your post was extremely rude and snarky considering the content of your post was entirely wrong.

It has everything to do with the commissioners. NFL and NBA players unions have signed a bunch of waivers in their labor-agreements that furnish all intellectual and ownership rights to the respective leagues. These waivers are why the NFL can tell their players what kind of headphones they are allowed to wear, even when they are nowhere near a football stadium, for example. The WWE literally own the wrestlers, (they've sued wrestlers for using their own names) and as such, any deal made with the almost certainly league nets you the rights to every aspect of the athlete, from tattoos, to personality.

Due to the strength of the MLB player's union, the MLB players have not been placed under this type of arrangement. It's why the Barry Bonds (not in video games) situation existed, for example. MLBPA has fought hard to maintain a capitalistic and individualistic approach to the league, and as such, every aspect of the MLB's legal situation is very different from the situations of the NBA and WWE.

Stop comparing them.
And next time you go and call someone out for their "awful logic," you should try Google first.

http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/info/licensing.jsp

Read the second sentence.

[Russell_SCEA]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

Now I have a question in regard to this, which may help clear up confusion in the thread. Is it that you cannot put the authentic tattoo on the player because that art belongs to the artist, or are you not allowed to tattoo any players anymore due to Kapernick having his authentic tattoo put into Madden?

Q&A is over sorry and I've said everything we will say on that subject.

[Madden's Jowels]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

It has everything to do with the commissioners. NFL and NBA players unions have signed a bunch of waivers in their labor-agreements that furnish all intellectual and ownership rights to the respective leagues. These waivers are why the NFL can tell their players what kind of headphones they are allowed to wear, even when they are nowhere near a football stadium, for example. The WWE literally own the wrestlers, (they've sued wrestlers for using their own names) and as such, any deal made with the almost certainly league nets you the rights to every aspect of the athlete, from tattoos, to personality. Due to the strength of the MLB player's union, the MLB players have not been placed under this type of arrangement. It's why the Barry Bonds (not in video games) situation existed, for example. MLBPA has fought hard to maintain a capitalistic and individualistic approach to the league, and as such, every aspect of the MLB's legal situation is very different from the situations of the NBA and WWE. Stop comparing them. And next time you go and call someone out for their "awful logic," you should try Google first. http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/info/licensing.jsp Read the second sentence.

If the IP belongs to the tattoo artist, and not the player, then it wouldn't matter what likeness rights of the players that the MLBPA owns. The player doesn't get to negotiate on behalf of the tattoo artist.

That's why I said that there's a chance that Ramone's statement was not the entire story, i.e. maybe the tattoo artists don't own the IP completely. I was just going off Ramone's statement. But if his statement is true, I don't see how the MLBPA could negotiate ownership of that IP through it's players without the artists themselves being paid for it. Which was another point I brought up.


I'm not a lawyer and I don't claim to fully understand the topic, but you were being a dick about a legitimate, fair question raised and that's still true.

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

It has everything to do with the commissioners. NFL and NBA players unions have signed a bunch of waivers in their labor-agreements that furnish all intellectual and ownership rights to the respective leagues. These waivers are why the NFL can tell their players what kind of headphones they are allowed to wear, even when they are nowhere near a football stadium, for example. The WWE literally own the wrestlers, (they've sued wrestlers for using their own names) and as such, any deal made with the almost certainly league nets you the rights to every aspect of the athlete, from tattoos, to personality. Due to the strength of the MLB player's union, the MLB players have not been placed under this type of arrangement. It's why the Barry Bonds (not in video games) situation existed, for example. MLBPA has fought hard to maintain a capitalistic and individualistic approach to the league, and as such, every aspect of the MLB's legal situation is very different from the situations of the NBA and WWE. Stop comparing them. And next time you go and call someone out for their "awful logic," you should try Google first. http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/info/licensing.jsp Read the second sentence.

Thank you for posting the website.

Should help clear up any confusion.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

These waivers are why the NFL can tell their players what kind of headphones they are allowed to wear, even when they are nowhere near a football stadium.

This actually isn't true.

They can where whatever they want away from the football stadium. They can even wear them inside of a football stadium. They just can't be seen with them on camera.