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

[Vni]

What if 2K changed the tattoos just very slightly ?

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Vni

What if 2K changed the tattoos just very slightly ?

This!!! It's what other games have done and is a win win.

[Vni]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

This!!! It's what other games have done and is a win win.

Maybe they could then be sued by the players for not being represented correctly in the game.

[Boltman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

This!!! It's what other games have done and is a win win.

What are these 'other games' that have slightly adjusted tattoos to avoid legal issues that you speak of?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Vni

What if 2K changed the tattoos just very slightly ?

It would have to be more than just "very slightly." Using the tattoo with a slight change could still be considered a derivative work and run against copyright laws.

Think of it this way. If I took a song without permission, kept the melody and only changed 3 words of the song, the writer of that song would still feel like I used his song without permission, right? Same thing here.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Boltman

What are these 'other games' that have slightly adjusted tattoos to avoid legal issues that you speak of?

If he's thinking about WWE and CM Punk, he's confusing the law. The reason why the Pepsi logo tattoo isnt in WWE games is because of Trademark law not Copyright law.

In Punk's case, 2k is more concerned about Pepsi suing them because it replicated their logo without permission and could lead people to believe that Pepsi is affiliated with Punk, WWE and the game. The tattoo artist who put the Pepsi logo on Punk likely has no copyright protection in the tattoo because recreating the pepsi logo doesnt create an original work of art.

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

If he's thinking about WWE and CM Punk, he's confusing the law. The reason why the Pepsi logo tattoo isnt in WWE games is because of Trademark law not Copyright law. In Punk's case, 2k is more concerned about Pepsi suing them because it replicated their logo without permission and could lead people to believe that Pepsi is affiliated with Punk, WWE and the game. The tattoo artist who put the Pepsi logo on Punk likely has no copyright protection in the tattoo because recreating the pepsi logo doesnt create an original work of art.

I was actually talking about Live which altered a NY Yankee tattoo on Jr Smith but it's probably the same thing. Still, I don't see what's fundamentally different than altering the Pepsi or NY Yankee tattoo or one done by a local tattoo artist. For instance, LeBrons 1984 tat. 2K couldn't change that to 1985 in a different font and be fine?

[Black Bruce Wayne]

After reading this nonsense, just take tattoos out of the game completely. All it is, is a petty money grab from a bunch of tattoo. Also, its a money grab from blood sucking lawyers.