Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by NINJAK2

Great post 24ct but I don't agree with the NCAA comparison. The tat artist did receive compensation for services rendered. NCAA players never got a dime and their likeness was used without permission and long after their NCAA days were done. I've never had a tat done but it's my line of thinking that once I've paid you cash and sat in a chair for hours after I've collaborated with you on what to do our transaction is done and the end product belongs to me. If someone were to ask me where it was done I would obviously tell them and give a ringing endorsement to the artist. Now if I were to start a company and use that tat as my logo that's another story.

I agree with this on a personal level, but unfortunately, there are copy right laws posted in this very thread that differ than the pay and it's mine motif.

It basically boils down to the law and then let the parties involved battle it out in court.

EA took the low road and settled because obviously going to court takes time and money.

[iReP PHiLLY]

Quote: Originally Posted by NINJAK2

I've never had a tat done but it's my line of thinking that once I've paid you cash and sat in a chair for hours after I've collaborated with you on what to do our transaction is done and the end product belongs to me.

Thank u NINJAK2! This is exactly my point, but I guess tattoo artists have a different train of thought then the rest of us.


Shot from my 6s Plus[emoji1605]

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by The 24th Letter

LeBron......

Welp...the argument is done for me. Put me on the jury!

Personally, I think 2K Sports should challenge it and set a future precedent against this. Isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that 2K Sports' sales was a indirect/direct results of the tattoo, and that 2K Sports maliciously recreated the tattoos and claimed ownership?

In most copyright cases I've seen, the problem normally arises when the "stealer" takes credit for the original work or knowingly makes a profit from the work. I think they're going to be hard pressed to find any 2K Sports employee who said "We're going to get paid off Lebron's tattoos!".

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76

Welp...the argument is done for me. Put me on the jury! Personally, I think 2K Sports should challenge it and set a future precedent against this. Isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that 2K Sports' sales was a indirect/direct results of the tattoo, and that 2K Sports maliciously recreated the tattoos and claimed ownership? In most copyright cases I've seen, the problem normally arises when the "stealer" takes credit for the original work or knowingly makes a profit from the work. I think they're going to be hard pressed to find any 2K Sports employee who said "We're going to get paid off Lebron's tattoos!".

So, why would EA not go to court and settle instead?

These corporations have corporate attorneys working for them and advising what to do and what not to do.

Trouble is, the lawsuit for EA came out of nowhere. It was 9 years before they decided to take EA to court.

We'll see where Take-Two and VC take this, settle out of court or take it to court and tie it up for awhile and pay out more money and hope to get a winning verdict.

[24ct]

Quote: Originally Posted by NINJAK2

Great post 24ct but I don't agree with the NCAA comparison. The tat artist did receive compensation for services rendered. NCAA players never got a dime and their likeness was used without permission and long after their NCAA days were done. I've never had a tat done. It's my line of thinking that once I've paid you cash and sat in a chair for hours after I've collaborated with you on what to do, our transaction is done and the end product belongs to me. If someone were to ask me where it was done I would obviously tell them and give a ringing endorsement to the artist. Now if I were to start a company and use that tat as my logo that's another story.

Agreed. I wasn't necessarily comparing the tattoos work with the NCAA students. I'm just saying suing for likeness rights/recreation is feasible. Just like a sample record. Even if I don't make a penny off the song I make, if someone comes and samples it then makes money, I can sue. As long as it's within the statue of limitations which is like 50+ years lol. This is basically what the players did with the NCAA games. I agree with your point as far as them not getting paid so it's different in that regard. I should've made that a clear thought.

As for the tattoos, it's all the discretion of the artist. We don't know what they're having players/celebrities sign or do when they get work done. Each shop/artist has their own policy. It could be on the walls of the parlor or in the tattoo books. Like I said I have a bunch of tattoos. And there was an artist who wouldn't do the same work on 2 different people. Like if you saw something you liked on someone else, he wouldn't copy it or redraw for you to have on your own skin. He also didn't copy the tattoo I gave him from online verbatim. He didn't really want to do it. He was glad I had a big enough picture so he didn't have to redraw it then trace it but the finished product was his own creation/twist. If this studio is doing big names like LeBron & Kobe I'm sure they have a policy written somewhere.

I actually know of the guy who has done some of LeBrons tattoos. The place is in Cleveland. He's done work on Mo Williams too. I'm from Ohio & my friend gets his tattoos from the same guy. You can tell by the shading/filling he does. The artist I said wouldn't redraw tattoos worked in the same studio as the guy who did LeBrons, Mo's & my friends. I don't think it's the same company that's suing take two tho. So either they got permission or they're not that strict.

Guys name is Jimmy. Works at Focused parlor. But they're not suing. Also the article says it's about the 2k where LeBron was on the cover. Says the tattoo was a focal point of sales. Which isn't true of course lol but by law/default it makes sense. Especially if the guy in question was on the cover of the game. Legit case here from that standpoint.

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

We'll see where Take-Two and VC take this, settle out of court or take it to court and tie it up for awhile and pay out more money and hope to get a winning verdict.

Truthfully, this paragraph pretty much sums it up. Sometimes, it's just easier and cheaper to go with the settlement regardless if it's right or wrong.

[coolcras7]

Quote: Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76

Truthfully, this paragraph pretty much sums it up. Sometimes, it's just easier and cheaper to go with the settlement regardless if it's right or wrong.

They settle with this artist and two more will pop up wanting the exact same deal.

[deetoman]

Quote: Originally Posted by iReP PHiLLY

Thank u NINJAK2! This is exactly my point, but I guess tattoo artists have a different train of thought then the rest of us. Shot from my 6s Plus[emoji1605]

Yeah that's what I thought, I guess none of my tattoos really belong to me?