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

# 181 FBall Life @ 08/16/14 08:26 PM

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...

# 182 CM Hooe @ 08/16/14 08:47 PM

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.

# 183 OhMrHanky @ 08/16/14 10:01 PM

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.

# 184 FBall Life @ 08/16/14 10:26 PM

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.

# 185 CM Hooe @ 08/16/14 10:32 PM

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.

# 186 OhMrHanky @ 08/16/14 11:29 PM

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.

# 187 FBall Life @ 08/17/14 08:11 AM

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?

# 188 Sheba2011 @ 08/17/14 08:17 AM

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.

# 189 aholbert32 @ 08/17/14 07:35 PM

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.

# 190 CM Hooe @ 08/25/14 01:54 PM

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.

# 191 aholbert32 @ 08/25/14 02:02 PM

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.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910Next »

More Links

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