I could've sworn this came from when EA devs were actually on the site.
Maybe ? I dont personally recall it although I have not been here as long as alot of users. Ive always read post from users saying it so I assumed it was true. This says different. I dont think we are gonna get much info from EA or the NFL though. On a side note if they get gameplay on point and Kaep is the only person with tats i'll take it at this point lol.
Im with you, for years misinformation was spread by users on this forum about how the NFL banned tattoos and now it turns out people were wrong and some light is being shed, we get guys saying now the reason is that EA is lazy. Like you said we should wait for facts to come out instead of jumping to conclusions and being wrong like most of us were before.
But it is being lazy because there is a thing called immersion and realism. And other developers who face the same hurdles as EA constantly go beyond the call of duty (no pun intended) to make sure they can have as many areas of realism in their games.
If all EA had to do was get players to obtain permission from their tattoo artist to have their tats in the game why wasn't it done before? You mean to tell me this is the first time a tattoo artist was willing to agree to allow the tattoos he's provided to one of his most famous, high profile client's to be published without compensation? The bottom line is EA didn't do it because they didn't have to because there was no incentive to do so.
The sad thing is this "tattoo license debate" really overshadows a damn nice screen shot of what could be a special madden from a visual standpoint. Need to see it in motion before I anoint them.
The last time there were tats in Madden, the license was open. It looks more and more like competition will be coming back. Maybe it won't be this year, but it's coming back.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when tattoos used to exist in Madden on PS2 / XBOX / PC, they were pretty much all generic tribal bicep bands, none of which approach what existed on players in real life, yes?
Tattoos don't make or break my opinion of the game, beyond that the more authenticity in the visuals, the better.
But it is being lazy because there is a thing called immersion and realism. And other developers who face the same hurdles as EA constantly go beyond the call of duty (no pun intended) to make sure they can have as many areas of realism in their games.
If all EA had to do was get players to obtain permission from their tattoo artist to have their tats in the game why wasn't it done before? You mean to tell me this is the first time a tattoo artist was willing to agree to allow the tattoos he's provided to one of his most famous, high profile client's to be published without compensation? The bottom line is EA didn't do it because they didn't have to because there was no incentive to do so.
The sad thing is this "tattoo license debate" really overshadows a damn nice screen shot of what could be a special madden from a visual standpoint. Need to see it in motion before I anoint them.
I get what your saying, but ultimatetly in that situation wouldnt it be up to the player to actually go out and seek permission ? how do we know EA didnt try to convince players to do this ? we dont know that. Thats why im saying its a bit premature to jump to those conclusions. Im willing to bet this explanation about tattoo artist needing to consent is probably only half the truth. We are all probably specualting on half the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apollon42
We aren't sure if this is true yet.
Yep, like I said this is probably only partly truth.
I get what your saying, but ultimatetly in that situation wouldnt it be up to the player to actually go out and seek permission ? how do we know EA didnt try to convince players to do this ? we dont know that. Thats why im saying its a bit premature to jump to those conclusions. Im willing to bet this explanation about tattoo artist needing to consent is probably only half the truth. We are all probably specualting on half the truth.
I'm with you, someone dropped the ball somewhere. Maybe they asked and didn't follow up. But if devs are saying players are calling/emailing them asking where are their tats in game somewhere there was a disconnect.
But for at the end of the day tattoos not be included were the lease of the problems within the game. Hopefully gameplay will look as impressive as this screen shot.
Are people overlooking what I posted above or maybe they just don't want to believe it, but FIFA comes under the same umbrella as Madden does: EA
This came from a developer of FIFA:
Why don't tattooed players have their tattoos in the game? (Stuart Maughan)
It's a long and complicated story but all different reasons, really. Sometimes we don't have permission to use them; there's a bunch of different reasons for that. We actually get emails and messages from the players more than the fans saying, 'Where's my tattoo?' The copyrights around tattoos is really interesting, you'd be surprised."
Edit: I see dg read it.
I know we were told by the developers before the Weber regime that the NFL didn't allow tattoos, that's where the disconnect is coming from.
This sounds more like more of a valid and legal reason.
But NBA, WWE, and even EA UFC get around this? That's why I don't buy it.
Acccording to THQ article, there were many missing tattoos from NBA 13 and maybe these companies paid out for the tattoos.
Who knows?
Tattoos were never a biggie for me, but I can see it being a biggie for others for the realism.
From one of mesteveo articles:
EA has lost of lot of money to lawsuits recently. Why take that chance, I guess?
Still sounds like a slippery slope to me:
Good stuff for a law school exam, I would think. Of course, plenty of tattoo artwork is actually covered by copyright -- which quite frequently goes ignored. But if we're talking about a unique piece of artwork, and no clear assignment of the copyright is made, there could very well be an issue.
It's worth pointing out, however, that this is not entirely a theoretical issue. Six years ago, we wrote about a tattoo artist suing the NBA, because a professional basketball player he had tattooed, Rasheed Wallace, had shown off the tattoo in a TV commercial, and the artist claimed it was a violation of his copyright. That lawsuit settled out of court, however, so we don't have a legal ruling as specific (that I'm aware of... but if there are other such cases, I'd love to know about them!).
But NBA, WWE, and even EA UFC get around this? That's why I don't buy it.
I'll give you Live and UFC, but WWE and NBA 2K are from a completely different company with different policies and procedures of operation. You can stream Live to twitch and get audio, you stream 2K and you get none because of legal issues.
I am not familiar with tattoo copyrights at all, as I have none. But if you come in to get one and work with the artist on the design and then pay for that design how do you not have ownership of it. I would think its similar to commissioning an artist to do work for you. They attach their name to it, but the painting belongs to you.
I am not familiar with tattoo copyrights at all, as I have none. But if you come in to get one and work with the artist on the design and then pay for that design how do you not have ownership of it. I would think its similar to commissioning an artist to do work for you. They attach their name to it, but the painting belongs to you.
Sounds like if it's unique enough, the copywright belongs to the artist. An artist sued the NBA for Rasheed Wallace for showing the artist tattoo on a TV commercial.
Probably need to read the paperwork before you sign it, too, if there is paperwork. I would think if you do help design it, then there isn't anything.
I am not familiar with tattoo copyrights at all, as I have none. But if you come in to get one and work with the artist on the design and then pay for that design how do you not have ownership of it. I would think its similar to commissioning an artist to do work for you. They attach their name to it, but the painting belongs to you.
I think the legal argument is that the bearer of the tattoo owns it, but video game companies doesn't have the right to reproduce the art without compensating the tattoo owner.
From that - the guys who made The Hangover II apparently got sued by the artist who did Mike Tyson's face tattoo for said tattoo's appearance in the movie on a character who was not Mike Tyson himself. That case was settled out-of-course for an undisclosed amount of money.
Tattoo copyright appears to be a pretty fluid and messy legal issue right now.
Then why can't tattoo artists sue the leagues and their tv partners? The leagues themselves are primary vehicles for advertisments or all sorts.
I have the Jays game on now, and they just showed a sponsored graphic by Honda for some stats with an image of Brett Lawrie and all his tattoos.
I know the reality of the legal precedents appear to disagree with me, but it just seems so asinine. A human body is fundamentally different than any other sort of entity or rights-bearing vehicle around which legal particulars are ascribed.
From that - the guys who made The Hangover II apparently got sued by the artist who did Mike Tyson's face tattoo for said tattoo's appearance in the movie on a character who was not Mike Tyson himself. That case was settled out-of-course for an undisclosed amount of money.
Tattoo copyright appears to be a pretty fluid and messy legal issue right now.
It boggles my mind that this sort of thing is even a legal issue. Essentially, if you get a tattoo, you are legally limited in your choice to become an actor or appear in any kind of commercial media.
Anyway, I can understand EA just wanting to be extra careful with this nonsense.
Late last year, for example, Stephen Allen, a tattoo artist, sued video game maker Electronic Arts and former Miami Dolphins running back Ricky Williams over a tattoo Allen put on Williams' bicep. The tattoo appeared on the cover of EA's "NFL Street" video game. Allen claimed that the reproduction and display of the tattoo violated his copyright.
That case was dismissed in April at the request of the plaintiff, but because so many NFL players have tattoos, it got the attention of the NFL Players Assn. NFLPA officials began advising players to get copyright waivers from their tattoo artists. George Atallah, an NFLPA official, told Bloomberg Businessweek that the union recently cautioned its players: We know you love your tattoo artists, but regardless of whether you trust them, regardless of whether there are legal merits to the lawsuits that we've seen, just protect yourself.
Well I must say that I am really IMPRESSED with EA these days! EA sports UFC if anyone hasn't downloaded the demo, you need to check it out, even if your not a fan of MMA the graphics alone states that it is a MUST buy! Anyway, back to the point, I'm pumped as whole with the next gen of games that are hitting the market! This is what gaming should be!!