Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[kolanji]

Its like DRM on tattoos 😨.....next thing we know tattoo artist starts putting thier sinature in ppls skin....shm

Mein this is just ridiculous to say the least if i was take two i would take this up with the NBA...unless this doesnt fall under paying for the license to recreate a simulation...cause as far as am concerned this not a 2k problem its a NBA problem.......

Is this not the case????

[roadman]

EA has already been sued over this and lost. They didn't take their cause to the NFL. I'm sure 2k won't take this to the league office and it won't sniff Silver's desk. I'm sure his office has better things to do than participate in talks with VC about them being sued.

So, now the artist are going after 2k and VC. Sucks for gamers, it is what is and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. VC knew the outcome of the EA case, they knew their number was coming up shortly,

It's a slam dunk case because of outcome that happened with EA.

[CaseIH]

This is ridiculous, people will sue at the drop of a hat anymore. I hope they get a judge that is just as sick of stupid lawsuits as I am, and 2k ends up not having to pay. And no Im not a fanboy buy any means, as its not like this company probably dont have it coming to them in some form with some of the BS they try to feed people over the years. Its just wrong to sue, I think there are a few legit reasons to sue, but something like this is as ridiculous as suing McDonalds over their coffee hot.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by CaseIH

This is ridiculous, people will sue at the drop of a hat anymore. I hope they get a judge that is just as sick of stupid lawsuits as I am, and 2k ends up not having to pay. And no Im not a fanboy buy any means, as its not like this company probably dont have it coming to them in some form with some of the BS they try to feed people over the years. Its just wrong to sue, I think there are a few legit reasons to sue, but something like this is as ridiculous as suing McDonalds over their coffee hot.

If he does that. The tattoo artist will appeal the decision and win. Honestly he/she can't rule in favor of 2K on this one. Because there is already precedent that the tattoo artist wins a case like this. And any lawyer knows this already.

[bcruise]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

EA has already been sued over this and lost. They didn't take their cause to the NFL. I'm sure 2k won't take this won't and it won't sniff Silver's desk. I'm sure his office has better things to do than participate in talks with VC about them being sued. So, now the artist are going after 2k and VC. Sucks for gamers, it is what is and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. It's a slam dunk case because of outcome that happened with EA.

I feel like this will hurt 2k a lot more from the customer perspective, given how much more skin shows in the basketball game as compared to football or baseball. It's going to be jarring if 2k follows suit (no pun intended) and removes them for fear of getting sued again. The floodgates are open. One suit might not be a dent in even 2k's VC sales (much less total profit), but if every NBA player's tattoo artist sees this and thinks they can make a quick buck too...

That said, having grown up in a generation were players were 2D sprites or barely a step above 3D stick figures, I'll manage somehow even if they get removed.

Edit: Actually, saying it'll hurt 2k more is a little short sighted...you can bet EA is watching this go down and planning accordingly with Live as well.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by bcruise

but if every NBA player's tattoo artist sees this and thinks they can make a quick buck too...

I doubt that will happen...this is only the 3rd or 4th case about this sort of issue in the last decade. You had the EA one, this one and then the guy that did Tyson's face tattoo suing Hangover and maybe one more.

[WISports]

This whole thing is silly.

Players pay money for their tattoos. At that point, that should be their property. And if they're ok with it being in a videogame, that's all that should matter.

[roadman]

By law, it's a copyright infringement of the tattoo artist.

Since that is law, the tattoo artist decides if it's ok to be in the game, not the player.

Here's is an excerpt from the Madden issues with the same thing regarding tattoos:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/5/5782...lin-kaepernick

It really comes down to a piece of art asset here that could be [copyrighted], frankly, as we've learned over time," Graddy explained. This problem came to light last year, when a tattoo artist sued EA and now-retired NFL running back Ricky Williams for copyright infringement. Williams had appeared on the cover of EA's 2004 title NFL Street with tattoos that the artist had inked, and the individual accused EA of using his work without his permission. The artist later dropped the case. (Update: Bloomberg Businessweek reported that following that lawsuit, the NFLPA began advising players to obtain copyright permissions for their tattoos as a preventive measure.)

As it stands, EA will only use real tattoos if the athlete himself first goes out and secures the permission of the artists. That's exactly what Kaepernick did, because he "takes his tattoos as a personal self-expression that he wants represented in any product or marketing thing that he's a part of," said Graddy.