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

[OhMrHanky]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM 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.

That's pure conjecture and herse! Rabble rabble rabble! On the serious tip, though, and I imagine we'll disagree on this, but it's kind of an interesting discussion to me. I would still say that the video game is reproducing a likeness of the NFL player. The NFL player happens to have ink. Ink that he PAID for. That art is now HIS. He should be able to allow the developer to recreate a likeness of his as authentic as possible. And, really, what if it's a tribal that every artist does. Does this count? I'm all for protecting an artist's rights, btw, and maybe similar to napster, as much as I love free music over the internet, that was legitimately not fair to the artists making the music and not receiving proper compensation. In this tattoo case, the artist isn't even looking for compensation, they just want to give their blessing to recreate their artistry? I mean, I get it, but I don't agree with it. And, actually I worked in a photo lab for a minute back in the day (yes, a long time ago in a galaxy far away before digital video), and I remember having to get professional photos rights' from the photographer that took them originally in order for our lab to make copies. I disagreed with that as well. Lol. U see, in that case, the original sets of photographs and the photography session is what u pay for as a customer. Once u get the prints u pay for, they're YOURS and u should be able to do whatever u want with them. So, I guess it's ultimately up to the courts, and they've decided. That doesn't always make it the correct decision. I do get what you're saying here, though: 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.
I think overall this just hits such a grey area. But, it is what it is. Oh well. I'm all for generic tats in games myself, I could care less whether they're authentic.

[FBall Life]

Wait wait wait, here's the thing. Even during a live broadcast, NFL players are still being "recreated", including their tattoos. It's called "video". But if we wanted to stick with the "needing to be recreated by an artist" point, what if the tattoos were scanned in, like the faces? An artist isn't recreating them, they're essentially taking photos of the tattoos and digitizing them. Seems like they could get around all this mess with this method, no?

[Sheba2011]

Quote: Originally Posted by OhMrHanky

The NFL player happens to have ink. Ink that he PAID for. That art is now HIS.

The right to the art is not his. Anything of artistic expression can be covered under copyright law and there have been several high profile cases of this recently (Mike Tyson/Hangover 2) where the judges have ruled in favor of the artist saying a tattoo is no different than a song, sculpture or painting. If you pay for a song on Itunes, you own the song you don't own the rights to the song. You can't reproduce it without the authors consent.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by FBall Life

Wait wait wait, here's the thing. Even during a live broadcast, NFL players are still being "recreated", including their tattoos. It's called "video". But if we wanted to stick with the "needing to be recreated by an artist" point, what if the tattoos were scanned in, like the faces? An artist isn't recreating them, they're essentially taking photos of the tattoos and digitizing them. Seems like they could get around all this mess with this method, no?

I think you need to look up the definition of re-creation. You aren't recreating someone by filming them and broadcasting the video. You are in a video game. You are creating a digitized version of them and if they have tattoos, you are creating a digitized version of that artwork. You need permission to do that under copyright law. Fair use isn't a defense in this situation.

[Hooe]

Bump, from USA Today about Madden and the tattoo situation and how the NFL is different from the NBA:

Quote: Originally Posted by Clint Oldenburg

The NBA has a different licensing agreement with their players than the NFL does with theirs. In the NBA, if their tattoos are on their skin, they are technically owned by that player and can therefore be used in games and whatnot. In the NFL, they are owned by the tattoo artist.

So that answers that question.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Bump, from USA Today about Madden and the tattoo situation and how the NFL is different from the NBA: So that answers that question.

Thanks. Whats likely is that the NBA has agreed to indemnify any tattoo artist who brings a copyright infringement suit against EA/2k. That indemnity is passed on from the players to the league to EA/2k.

For example, I'm a tattoo artist and I ink John Wall. The Wall tattoo appears in NBA2k15 and I sue 2k. 2k would then turn to the NBA who would then turn to Wall. Wall would have to cover the legal fees/settlement for all three parties against me.


The NFL isnt willing to do that and the NFLPA doesnt grant them indemnification rights when it comes to tattoos. So EA has to go to each person. Still no reason why they cant use fake tats.