Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[King_B_Mack]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

2K ain't going to win man...there has already precedence set when EA lost the case to Ricky Williams' artist. So they either settle out of court, most likely, or go to trial and lose all 1.1 million.

As far as I know there is no precedent set man. Everybody has settled out of court and no judge has officially ruled on anything yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slegger]

What blows my mind is how they think they can prove 2K sold $1.1 million worth of video games to people who bought those copies of the game for the only reason that that their tattoos were presented in it.

And besides that, doesn't 2K already pay the NBA license fee to be able to use those players names and features.

I bet at first this tattoo shop was so proud of putting ink on celebrities.
That was until somebody whispered in their ear that if they were willing to sell their soul they could really cash in big time.

It's not a matter of right or wrong. This is a loop hole in the legal system that should be fixed. But that has to be done by the same lawyers who leach on situations like these.

This is so sad.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by King_B_Mack

As far as I know there is no precedent set man. Everybody has settled out of court and no judge has officially ruled on anything yet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that tells you companies would rather settle out in court vs paying out more $ and time to a verdict that could go against them.(I think that is 3 lawsuits we are aware of)

From that point forward, in EA's case, the NFLPA sent out a message to all the players, the only way your tats are in Madden for now and in the future is to get a waiver from the artist. The case against EA was dismissed, but it appears the NFLPA and EA didn't want to take any more chances.

Here is a great article written in 2013 about this whole mess.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles...o-get-you-sued

Defendants are leery of letting these claims get before a jury because the damages could be costly. As long as the artist has taken the step of registering his copyright, he is eligible for statutory damages. It doesn’t matter, in other words, whether the infringement actually cut into sales. Depending on the nature of the use, the creator would be paid between $750 and $150,000 per unauthorized copy. “With The Hangover they were really panicking,” says Bradley, “because there are posters and advertising, too.”

The cheaper course is to get a waiver beforehand. “Anything you can do to prevent headaches is always good,” says Bradley. “Give them a signed football or something.” Most tattoo artists are just happy for the free advertising that comes with celebrity clients. Football players have not reported any trouble getting waivers so far. “Players are doing it,” NFLPA’s Atallah says. “Tattoo artists are cooperating. And if there is a little extra money exchanged for the license, then so be it.”

And from the tattoo artist that inked Carlos Condit for the UFC game from THQ:

Escobedo has a different idea. He says he would charge from $50,000 to $200,000 to sign away his copyright to an NFL player. “A song that only plays for a few seconds in a game gets $25,000 to $100,000 for a licensing agreement,” he says. “I don’t see the difference with my custom mark that was way harder to do in someone’s skin than it is on a computer or a piece of paper.”

[MoneyOvaHuds]

Quote: Originally Posted by jake44np

So you don't play Madden or the Show then? Because they don't have real tattoos??? LOL Not having tattoos or real tats on players would make no difference to me. you cant make them out 99% of the time anyway when you are playing the game.

Baseball and football games don't show as much skin as basketball games . Everyone in MLB and NFL look alike in uniform

[CujoMatty]

This reminds me of when Metallica went ape over napster. They came out looking like the biggest cry babies.

The ufc tattoo trying to compare himself to the music licensed for a game is a massive reach. And kinda egotistical if you ask me. Next to no one cares about your art homie we just like the idea of authenticity of the individual you put it on.

I'm on board for changing these dudes art to something similar and different and Ya it sucks kinda and won't be quite the same but it's better than no tattoos.

[Iasounis]

Nah. Can't side with the artists here. They apply their art on someone's body for a fee and that should be it. Why should the league or 2K pay the artist for depicting the player, as he looks? While this seems to only be for video games, what would really stop them from suing those who are models, celebrities, etc.? If they don't want their art displayed, don't put it on someone who is gonna walk out of your door and do whatever they want; nobodies like me included.

I'm for the idea of introducing waivers; only for the purpose of shutting them out, legally.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by Iasounis

Nah. Can't side with the artists here. They apply their art on someone's body for a fee and that should be it. Why should the league or 2K pay the artist for depicting the player, as he looks? While this seems to only be for video games, what would really stop them from suing those who are models, celebrities, etc.? If they don't want their art displayed, don't put it on someone who is gonna walk out of your door and do whatever they want; nobodies like me included. I'm for the idea of introducing waivers; only for the purpose of shutting them out, legally.

They have sued celebrities per se. The guy who did Mike Tyson's tattoo sued the Hangover team because they used his work (putting the tattoo on Ed Helms face without changing it) without his permission.

[MeloJello]

PC version here I come in 2k17.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk