Some Potential Damages in NBA 2K Tattoo Lawsuit Have Been Dismissed

[mcpats]

One other question, and the Mickey mouse idea made me think of this again, but why is 2k the defendant in this case and not the player and/or player's union?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcpats

In your Mickey scenario the tattoo itself was executed illegally which definitely changed the scenario, and you would know much better than myself what that would entail legally. How about a different scenario? Suppose I was working for a graphic design firm but on my own time I created a killer graphic that I had trademarked. Now if it was discovered later that I used a work computer on work time to make some adjustments to that design, wouldn't that change the claim to ownership? It's the same design using the same methods but the time and location play a huge deal regarding the intellectual rights. If a copywrited image is painted on a canvas or wall it's one thing. But if you change the environment in which that art is executed (I.e. a person's body) than it also changes the equation. You have introduced an individual whose rights to their own body and appearance supersede a trademarked image IMO

Lets say it wasnt. Lets say that Disney has given license to certain tattoo artists to do MM tattoos. The artist has the right to draw MM. Does that give the person who gets the tattoo the right to grant corporations the right to recreate MM?

To your example:

- Trademark and copyright are completely different things. The tattoo situation in 2k is a copyright issue.

- Your company would claim it owns the copyright to that killer design. Why? One, you are an employee and have likely agreed that any work you do using equipment owned by the your job, the copyright is owned by your job. I signed a similar agreement when I started my job. If you didnt sign an agreement, the copyright remains with you.

- The enviornment doesnt effect copyright at all. None at all. If I create an image and I put it on a wall....its copyrighted. On canvas....its copyrighted. On TV....its copyrighted. On a person, its copyrighted.

Since its copyrighted, I own the right to decide who can copy my image.

- Likeness rights do not trump copyright rights.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcpats

One other question, and the Mickey mouse idea made me think of this again, but why is 2k the defendant in this case and not the player and/or player's union?

2k is the company that actually copied the image not the player or the player's union. Depending on their agreement with the player's union, 2k could say that the NBAPA guaranteed that all tattoo rights were cleared. If thats true, 2k can counter sue the NBAPA or ask them to indemnify them from the claim.

[mcpats]

Thanks for setting me straight on TM and copyright, didn't realize the mistake I was making.

Does the law you are talking about specifically mention tattoos or is it inferred? I ask because in my world I see a BIG difference between a canvas and a human arm. I might be in the small minority but I think it's equally as valid to classify a tattoo as a cosmetic procedure vs. art. Tattoos are the only art I know of that require a license to practice, sterilized equipment that pierce human tissue, and are governed by the Department of Health.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcpats

Thanks for setting me straight on TM and copyright, didn't realize the mistake I was making. Does the law you are talking about specifically mention tattoos or is it inferred? I ask because in my world I see a BIG difference between a canvas and a human arm. I might be in the small minority but I think it's equally as valid to classify a tattoo as a cosmetic procedure vs. art. Tattoos are the only art I know of that require a license to practice, sterilized equipment that pierce human tissue, and are governed by the Department of Health.

No problem.

Court cases have determined that tattoos are considered works of art and protected under copyright law. It doesnt matter if its on a canvas or an an arm...art is art.

[mcpats]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

No problem. Court cases have determined that tattoos are considered works of art and protected under copyright law. It doesnt matter if its on a canvas or an an arm...art is art.

Well as a Patriots fan unfortunately I am aware that court decisions can be overturned

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcpats

Well as a Patriots fan unfortunately I am aware that court decisions can be overturned

I don't think these will. It's hard to argue that original designs of tattoos aren't forms of art. Especially since where the art was created doesn't matter.

[strawberryshortcake]

Aholbert32, out of curiosity...

If you were part of the 2k legal team, and let's say there wasn't that technicality for dismissal. How would you approach this case? Or is there not even a case for 2k? Is there even a legitimate argument in favor of 2k? Is there even a way (i.e. loophole or whatever the technical term may be) that the attorneys for 2k can take? Does 2k simply concede and make a deal with the plaintiff?