Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[luijo]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

That is not at all what the tattoo artists are saying. The NBA player who purchased the tattoo has the right to wear and display it; he has paid the artist for the work in question. The video game publisher, which has not paid the artist for a license to use the artist's intellectual property, does not have the same license unless and until the publisher pays the artist. It doesn't matter that the art is literally on the player's skin, the intellectual property of the art still belongs to the artist.

So, what happens if the player decides to put a new tattoo over the previous one? can he get sued by the artist because he modified his property?

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

That is not at all what the tattoo artists are saying. The NBA player who purchased the tattoo has the right to wear and display it; he has paid the artist for the work in question. The video game publisher, which has not paid the artist for a license to use the artist's intellectual property, does not have the same license unless and until the publisher pays the artist. It doesn't matter that the art is literally on the player's skin, the intellectual property of the art still belongs to the artist.

That seems like a stupid loophole in the law....It's not like 2K Sports is marketing the tattoos. 2K Sports is marketing a basketball game with players who, by coincidence, wear tattoos.

I could see a better lawsuit if 2K Sports was marketing the individual tattoos as a "selling point", and the consumer base mainly bought the product based on the tattoos found in the game. Otherwise...the artist(s) are ASSUMING that 2K Sports is making a profit due to the tattoos. Personally, I would still buy the game regardless without the tattoos....although it would bug me to DEATH not seeing tattoos on Paul George, Monta Ellis, George Hill, etc. That would be too surreal for me to watch a live game on TV, then to fire up NBA 2K17 to see something totally different.

[coolcras7]

Quote: Originally Posted by 24ct

I don't think ppl understand how much money they make on VC alone. Game sold like 8 million copies plus. VC can be purchased for the price of another full game at $50. They have it. Serves them right for making VC a microtransaction anyway. Call it karma. I do remember Madden not having tattoos because of licensing issues. I thought it was just lazy. But now I see it was just cheap.

Who gives a crap, they are not forcing people to buy VC, it's your choice so get off it. Madden/ Live and a bunch of other games that don't have as much game options cost exactly the same as NBA 2k16 VC just allows 2k get additional revenue to hire a guy like DaCzar, Bed etc...and again it your personal choice to purchase, if this becomes an issue it will have negative affect on either the overall presentation of the game or 2k will have to now allocate funds that could be used somewhere else to license body art.

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by luijo

So, what happens if the player decides to put a new tattoo over the previous one? can he get sued by the artist because he modified his property?

The physical tattoo is no longer the property of the artist. That belongs to the person who purchased the tattoo. They can modify it however they want to for personal use.

There's a distinction between physical property and intellectual property. The intellectual property of the tattoo - the design, line work, colors, etc. all in abstract - is what is protected; a second artist can't appropriate that idea and claim it as their own original work, regardless of the medium. A physical representation of that tattoo produced and sold directly by the original artist owning the IP is not governed by the same set of laws.

To use the AC/DC example again - you can buy, sell, trade, modify, or destroy a single physical vinyl copy of their famous 1980 record release "Back In Black". You cannot, however, record the audio of the "Back In Black" record to a cassette tape and attempt to sell that cassette tape as your own original work; the recordings, performances, and compositions on the original record and on the cassette both belong to the band.

Quote: Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76

That seems like a stupid loophole in the law....It's not like 2K Sports is marketing the tattoos. 2K Sports is marketing a basketball game with players who, by coincidence, wear tattoos.

One of the major selling points of NBA 2K and most licensed console sports games is authenticity - the quality of accurately portraying the real-life version of the sport in question. Players having their tattoos unquestionably adds to the authentic quality of the game by increasing the quality of the player likenesses; video game LeBron James wouldn't look as much like his real-life self if all his tattoos were missing, and the game becomes less authentic if his tattoos are not present.

In the current state of things, 2K is appropriating the work of other artists to improve the quality of their product without the original artists' permission or consent.

It's not so much a loophole as much as existing IP law catching up to technology.

[SirGaryColeman]

Too bad the Tattoo Artists aren't 2k fans - they could demand better patches/fixes instead of money.

[iFnotWhyNoT]

Im actually ok with this...

If the artist was the sole creator of the tattoo without ANY design input in the creation of said tattoo, then yes he is the owner of the design of the tattoo. So if a marketing brand or Take-Two want to "recreate", not display a pic of lebron on the cover of the game with his tattoos, but recreate their design for a game or marketing ad, then yes its a copyright issue. That's pretty simple enough for me. The argument of Lebron or whomever displaying it on TV doesn't hold water because the networks aren't recreating the artists designs they are just showing Lebron and are not directly or indirectly being compensated for showing specific tattoos or any tattoos. Its not a tattoo show, its the NBA.

Going forward id keep creating tattoos for the game id just make it generic looking enough. Kobe's butterfly becomes a star and whatnot. I dont care too much for aesthetics but ill admit it would be really weird at first if everyone was bare all of a sudden.

[DreamAgain]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

That is not at all what the tattoo artists are saying. The NBA player who purchased the tattoo has the right to wear and display it; he has paid the artist for the work in question. The video game publisher, which has not paid the artist for a license to use the artist's intellectual property, does not have the same license unless and until the publisher pays the artist. It doesn't matter that the art is literally on the player's skin, the intellectual property of the art still belongs to the artist.

So what if I take exact image of LeBron's tattoo and put it on my skin myself? What happens then

[Mikerophone]

Quote: Originally Posted by DreamAgain

So what if I take exact image of LeBron's tattoo and put it on my skin myself? What happens then

Nothing, that is considered a non-infringement use of the work. Copyright infringement only occurs when the offending party earns income from said infringement. The person who would be on the line for infringement would be the tattoo artist that you paid to copy the tattoo. Or, if you happened to be a male model and used your new tattoo to gain leverage in your industry, that could be considered infringement as well.