Throwbacks, Montreal Expos, and the Style Guide
So as we found out today, via the stream, the Montreal Expos uniforms are not in MLB The Show because "they do not have the rights" to use that uniform set. Understandable.
We also are well aware that the MLB Style Guide is pretty much the governing force behind what is allowed in the game. Also makes sense.
Where there seems to be much grey area is when it comes to items that are not in the style guide, such as other gear (outside of hats, jerseys, and pants), throwback uniforms, and uniform sets that exist in real life but are not listed within said style guide.
In a simple attempt to have things cleared up so that perhaps this is not such a reoccurring question(s) on these forums and others, maybe we can open up a civil discussion about this topic in the hopes that we may finally get straight answers and be able to put these issues to rest in moving forward.
For starters; having seen and worked with the style guide, personally for years, what allows a video game like MLB The Show the right to replicate prior uniform sets from real MLB teams? These throwbacks are often not represented in any form in the yearly style guide. Are these uniforms sort of a public domain after a certain amount of time?
I also know that Majestic often does not produce one-off throwbacks for a lot of MLB teams, especially for the Negro League uniforms that are often worn during each season. Teams have special permission to seek these uniforms from other providers. Would a company have to have the rights to the Negro Leagues and/or those jersey providers to put them into the game, if they were desired?
Furthermore, what goes into the decision making process in the selection of any particular uniform set from the past, especially ones that are not included in a style guide? IE. Why include a jersey set from 1915 instead of one from 1992?
Also, when this decision is made, how does the art team go about researching these uniforms? Do they simply search forums and internet pictures? Do they reach out to teams for cooperation?
I find all of this simply intriguing.
Finally, since the rights to the Montreal Expos have not been obtained by SCEA, what must go into these sorts of deals to obtain said rights? From the copyrights that I have seen the MLB itself holds the rights to the Expos brand, logos, and uniforms.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74...e=statusSearch
Probably why it has appeared in several other MLB licensed products, such as video games, over the years. So what has to happen for SCEA to obtain permission to use the Expos in their game? From what I have researched it may be as simple as asking the MLB for permission to use it in their product since they already have the MLB license. Or, it may be as convoluted as filling out tons of paperwork, exchanging funds, or something we do not even know about.
Any insight would be welcome on the topic. I know it is a busy time and the developers have done a tremendous job on the game and with answering our questions, but I was hoping this could kind of be the shedding of light that we need to understand what all goes into the process.
Thank you for your time.
We also are well aware that the MLB Style Guide is pretty much the governing force behind what is allowed in the game. Also makes sense.
Where there seems to be much grey area is when it comes to items that are not in the style guide, such as other gear (outside of hats, jerseys, and pants), throwback uniforms, and uniform sets that exist in real life but are not listed within said style guide.
In a simple attempt to have things cleared up so that perhaps this is not such a reoccurring question(s) on these forums and others, maybe we can open up a civil discussion about this topic in the hopes that we may finally get straight answers and be able to put these issues to rest in moving forward.
For starters; having seen and worked with the style guide, personally for years, what allows a video game like MLB The Show the right to replicate prior uniform sets from real MLB teams? These throwbacks are often not represented in any form in the yearly style guide. Are these uniforms sort of a public domain after a certain amount of time?
I also know that Majestic often does not produce one-off throwbacks for a lot of MLB teams, especially for the Negro League uniforms that are often worn during each season. Teams have special permission to seek these uniforms from other providers. Would a company have to have the rights to the Negro Leagues and/or those jersey providers to put them into the game, if they were desired?
Furthermore, what goes into the decision making process in the selection of any particular uniform set from the past, especially ones that are not included in a style guide? IE. Why include a jersey set from 1915 instead of one from 1992?
Also, when this decision is made, how does the art team go about researching these uniforms? Do they simply search forums and internet pictures? Do they reach out to teams for cooperation?
I find all of this simply intriguing.
Finally, since the rights to the Montreal Expos have not been obtained by SCEA, what must go into these sorts of deals to obtain said rights? From the copyrights that I have seen the MLB itself holds the rights to the Expos brand, logos, and uniforms.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=74...e=statusSearch
Probably why it has appeared in several other MLB licensed products, such as video games, over the years. So what has to happen for SCEA to obtain permission to use the Expos in their game? From what I have researched it may be as simple as asking the MLB for permission to use it in their product since they already have the MLB license. Or, it may be as convoluted as filling out tons of paperwork, exchanging funds, or something we do not even know about.
Any insight would be welcome on the topic. I know it is a busy time and the developers have done a tremendous job on the game and with answering our questions, but I was hoping this could kind of be the shedding of light that we need to understand what all goes into the process.
Thank you for your time.
Comment