Madden NFL 15 News Post

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

03:26 PM - June 5, 2014 by Steve_OS

Polygon's Samit Sarkar interviewed Seann Graddy, line producer of Madden NFL 15 and asked him why tattoos are making their way back to the Madden series and what was the reason for their disappearance.

Many people figured it was a licensing agreement with EA and the NFL, but that is not the case. According to Seann, it comes down to copyright infringement. The player needs to secure permission from the artist first, which Kaepernick did, before EA can even begin to implement the tattoos into the game.

Quote:


	For now, Kaepernick is the only player who will appear in Madden 15 with his authentic tattoos, because he's the only one who has obtained the permissions from the artists involved. "We want to do this with every player, frankly, and we're hopeful that more players over time actually go out and secure the rights so that we can use their tattoos as well," said Graddy.

If another players wants his tattoos in the game, they need to go through the same process as Kaepernick. Since the game is almost complete, the odds of getting anyone else in the game with authentic tattoos is slim. We'll most likely see more players with tattoos in Madden NFL 16.

Game: Madden NFL 15Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 42 - View All

Madden NFL 15 Videos

Member Comments

# 41 lakers24 @ 06/05/14 04:53 PM

This raises a few questions for me:
1)Why wait this long before this was said? Couldn't this have been said a few years ago since people have been asking for how long now?

2) Couldn't this info have been given to the players so they could get clearance so it wouldn't just be Colin with tatts or couldn't they have waited until a lot of players have the waivers?

3) What the hell does this have to do with created players not being able to have tatts for so many years and why were they gone from the game BEFORE the Ricky Williams case?

# 42 apollon42 @ 06/05/14 04:55 PM

I would like to see more tattoos, but I can only think of a handful of players that have noticeable tattoos.

# 43 DeuceDouglas @ 06/05/14 04:57 PM

This is mildly disappointing but I get it. I don't really see this as being any different than a guy like RGIII being the only player in the game wearing one sleeve. I doubt we'll ever see anything close to probably 50% of guys with their authentic tattoos in the game. Mainly because it seems to be on the onus of the players to get their stuff cleared. If anything though, I'd much rather see his in the game than not in the game even if it is just him.

# 44 apollon42 @ 06/05/14 04:57 PM

They should get Aaron Hernandez's tattoos in the game ... oh, wait a second ....

# 45 apollon42 @ 06/05/14 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas


	This is mildly disappointing but I get it. I don't really see this as being any different than a guy like RGIII being the only player in the game wearing one sleeve. I doubt we'll ever see anything close to probably 50% of guys with their authentic tattoos in the game. Mainly because it seems to be on the onus of the players to get their stuff cleared. If anything though, I'd much rather see his in the game than not in the game even if it is just him.

It's disapointing but I think it's cool when EA does things for individual players. RGIII's sleeve, Kaepernicks tattoos, Ray Lewis's pre-game dance, Individual celebrations.

# 46 Rams_3 @ 06/05/14 05:00 PM

Come on man. Permission for tattoos. I done heard it all. Typical EA. Always getting you excited about something and then they shoot you down. SMH.

# 47 JKSportsGamer1984 @ 06/05/14 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakers24


	This raises a few questions for me: 1)Why wait this long before this was said? Couldn't this have been said a few years ago since people have been asking for how long now? 2) Couldn't this info have been given to the players so they could get clearance so it wouldn't just be Colin with tatts or couldn't they have waited until a lot of players have the waivers? 3) What the hell does this have to do with created players not being able to have tatts for so many years and why were they gone from the game BEFORE the Ricky Williams case?

My theory is that EA just probably didn't care or weren't concerned about adding tattoos before because they knew they didn't have to. Fast forward to Next Gen & maybe EA realizes how far behind the are in a presentation/players model aspect. Games like NBA 2K14 set the bar high & EA has no choice but to step it up now or they will really get exposed this gen. If you combine this with recent declining sales, rumors of 2K getting back into football, etc...It's not a coincidence that EA is finally stepping it up. I'm still curious about what kind of licensing deal was negotiated between EA & the NFL. I have a feeling we'll find out more at E3.

# 48 moylan1234 @ 06/05/14 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas


	This is mildly disappointing but I get it. I don't really see this as being any different than a guy like RGIII being the only player in the game wearing one sleeve. I doubt we'll ever see anything close to probably 50% of guys with their authentic tattoos in the game. Mainly because it seems to be on the onus of the players to get their stuff cleared. If anything though, I'd much rather see his in the game than not in the game even if it is just him.

That's not a good example to me because you can edit anyone in the game to play with one sleeve. If you can edit anyone to have tattoos in M15 then I'm fine with only CKs being authentic. I get it's a small thing to most people, but to me it's just going to throw the visual off. It's like when NCAA added dreadlocks, if they had only added them to one player it would have looked pretty strange IMO

# 49 UH53 @ 06/05/14 05:17 PM

I'd prefer no tattoos and all the equipment that SHOULD be in the game! Nike and Under Armour are represented in the NFL from combine apparel to the apparel that's worn on the field and EA still has yet to represent the "NFL" in this manner. From gloves, cleats, half sleeves, and all they've fallen way short of my expectations and others. I truly hope they didn't spend this entire year of development working on one players tattoo! E3 will be a big proving ground for me to see exactly what these guys have been doing.... It's hard to be a football fan and watch EA muck it up every year!

# 50 DeuceDouglas @ 06/05/14 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Lowery


	They don't have to get tattoos for all the players in one year. Why not just start off with the star players one year, then the starters and others over the next few years. But only one player in the game with tatts is just stupid, now everybody is going to wonder where such and such tattoos are.

Because, right now, it's on the players to get the permissions. And I'm sure there is a pretty good chunk of players that don't care whether their virtual likeness has tattoos enough to go through the process of securing permissions.

# 51 JAYHOVA110 @ 06/05/14 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rams_3


	Come on man. Permission for tattoos. I done heard it all. Typical EA. Always getting you excited about something and then they shoot you down. SMH.

they do it every single year

# 52 roadman @ 06/05/14 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hanzsomehanz


	Some may agree the timing was impeccable but I disagree strongly: tattoos in video games is not a novelty nor is the fashioning of Kap's tats. Promote the use of ink when you have a solid clientele base otherwise your market push is premature esp if this is not used as a selling point to the consumer. To have only one player out of hundreds model his ink screams of a waste of resources. They should at least give generic ink to the others who have ink but have not signed waivers. Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk

I think you were referring to me with the "impeccable timing" pharselogy. The tatts don't mean much to me, but to others they do for the authenticity, so, I wasn't so much focused on the tatts vs Kap in the news yesterday for signing a big honking contract and showing off the new player model.

Just to set everything straight, the marketing of Kap(he could have been w/o the tatts) was impeccable to me before E3.

# 53 Hooe @ 06/05/14 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Lowery


	Haven't players been on the front of Madden covers sporting their tattoos before? Going to be interesting to see if they show Sherman tattoos on the cover of Madden 15.

A photograph of a person with a tattoo is absolutely not the same thing as the artistic recreation of the art of the tattoo.

# 54 NicVirtue @ 06/05/14 05:52 PM

So. ...you mean to tell me that NBA players have to get rights from the artist for 2K to have them I'm the game?

# 55 mestevo @ 06/05/14 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Lowery


	The whole situation is stupid, other games find a way to get it done Tiburon can too.

It's an established risk, as demonstrated by the litigation that's been linked to a number of times across a few threads. I haven't read the source, but sounds like from one of roadman's earlier posts it comes from the NFLPA (who also don't allow swearing, drugs and alcohol I believe w/ their typical licensing agreements)

# 56 sportjames23 @ 06/05/14 06:07 PM

EA Sports...It's in the game.

Except when it's not.

# 57 mf756193 @ 06/05/14 06:07 PM

I am completely baffled at how the majority of you cannot comprehend this. The NBA, UFC, etc. has NO policy/rule that states a player must get their tattoo artist to sign a waiver in order for their tattoos to show up in a video game. However, the NFL requires this because they were sued in the past. This is 100% on the NFL and has nothing to do with EA Sports.

Some of you need to take the time to read and do some research before blatantly ripping EA when they did not make this rule. The NFL is making sure they are not liable for any future litigation. A tattoo artist who inked up an NBA player could (if they wanted to) sue the NBA right now because they have no such rule in place.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/1/10/3859356/tattoo-artist-suing-ea-over-depiction-of-nfl-players-tattoos-in-2004

# 58 RipCityAndy @ 06/05/14 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	A photograph of a person with a tattoo is absolutely not the same thing as the artistic recreation of the art of the tattoo.

Copyright law disagrees with you. Even though a photo of the tattoo is technically different from a graphical rendering, they are treated the same.

See 17 USC 102 - Scope of copyright. Clearly covers pictorial and graphic works under a(5).
See 17 USC 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works . Specifically see sections (1) and (2). FYI, a derivative work is a "work based on or derived from one or more already exist- ing works. Common derivative works include translations, musical arrange- ments, motion picture versions of literary material or plays, art reproductions, abridgments, and condensations of preexisting works." A graphical representation of a tattoo is either an art reproduction, or in the alternative an "abridgment."

EA is SMART for not illegally recreating a tattoo. What's wrong with not wanting to get sued?

Also, as a bit of irony, the importance you are all placing on tattoos makes a lawsuit against the NFL, NFLPA, etc. more lucrative for the IP holder because it shows a high monetary value of the intellectual property at issue = more damages.

Some other things to be considered:
1) If the tattoo is non-original it doesn't need to be approved by the tattoo artist. See 17 USC 102 (a). So, if a player has a tribal tattoo that is a reproduction of a tattoo that dates back hundreds of years, the tattoo artist has no IP rights.
2) Does the player own the tattoo IP in the first place? See 17 USC 201(b) Works made for hire. In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. I'm curious (having no tattoos) if a tattoo artist retains the IP rights with a written instrument.

# 59 vpizzle28 @ 06/05/14 06:10 PM

After reading multiple articles it seems to me that Colin went out of his way to do this. He wanted to set the tone. Props to him. As far as the NBA, UFC, and WWE are concerned, those players/athletes market themselves like crazy. Bird-Man had to do the same thing for NBA 2K.

Funny to me that no one noticed they added in the QB play selection band on his arm. Nice!

# 60 infemous @ 06/05/14 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKSportsGamer1984


	Yeah but if that's the case, why even bother putting tatts in the game at all if you're EA? If you're not going to be able to get all or at least 75% of the players to have tatts then why only have them for a few players? It'll look extremely awkward if Kap is the only player in the game with tatts.

I think its a good start.

I'm not ready to praise them for it, because I doubt whether the game will look like that when you're playing it, but what difference is having one player having a tattoo vs none having? It won't ruin the immersion just because one guy doesn't have it.

Its also good because it opens the door for other players to get them in if it means that much to them.

I wonder how proud Jake Long will be of his awful tats� haha

« Previous 1 234 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

More Links

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