Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by anthonyf105

This tattoo stuff is all crazy. When a person gets a tattoo, they pay the artist for it so it's no longer their property due to the transaction for the work of art. It'd be no different if LeBron was playing with the Mona Lisa he payed for strapped to his back. Smh

This is absolutely not true. The artist owns his work and intellectual property then sells copies of it.

When 2K Sports sells you a copy of NBA 2K - an original product produced by their company, no different than a piece of art produced an artist - you the consumer don't suddenly own the intellectual property of NBA 2K. You own the disc which holds the software, you may play that software on your game console, and you may re-sell your copy, but you don't have the right to mass-produce the game and sell it as your own original work.

[downsouth]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

That was me speaking as if everything is on the up and up. The way I understand it is that 2K knew these guys had the rights and put the tats in question in game anyway without their permission. In that case, right is right and 2K should pay them. Now if this is just a money grab and 2K settles for a fraction of that then that's cool, too. But I'm no lawyer. What worries me somewhat is how all this will affect player tats next year and beyond.

Its the way it works. Like the old apologizing is easier than asking permission.

Sent from my P01M using Tapatalk

[anthonyf105]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

This is absolutely not true. The artist owns his work and intellectual property then sells copies of it. When 2K Sports sells you a copy of NBA 2K - an original product produced by their company, no different than a piece of art produced an artist - you the consumer don't suddenly own the intellectual property of NBA 2K. You own the disc which holds the software, you may play that software on your game console, and you may re-sell your copy, but you don't have the right to mass-produce the game and sell it as your own original work.

A 2K artist created that tattoo on that virtual arm, the original artist didn't create it. Unless there's a contract between the players and tattoo artist for that likeness and image, I don't know how this is still the artist' property.

[DreamAgain]

Well if they take tats out of the game there's always the PC mod community for this kind of stuff =)

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by anthonyf105

A 2K artist created that tattoo on that virtual arm, the original artist didn't create it. Unless there's a contract between the players and tattoo artist for that likeness and image, I don't know how this is still the artist' property.

Incorrect.

The 2K artist created a digital facsimile of the original work of the original artist in a manner that is not transformative. Transformative, in the legal sense of the word, means that the work has changed to a different state or thing, and changing the medium of the artwork is long established as not transformative. Thus the new asset is not an original work and the original artist retains rights to the asset.

For example, one can't record the playback of a vinyl AC/DC album on an analog record player to a computer file, burn that file to a CD, and claim that CD as a transformative original work and sell copies of it; you're still selling the intellectual property which belongs to AC/DC.

The digital representation of the art also doesn't constitute fair use because it doesn't add anything to the artwork such as commentary or a review. It also (obviously) isn't protected as a parody (which is by definition transformative).

This is the precedent under which Electronic Arts has been party to lawsuits for use of tattoos in their sports video games dating back to NFL Street 2.

[drugsbunny]

I would think one of a few things: A. Are the actual tattoos themselves trademarked patterns designed by the artist themselves and patented? B. Were the tattoos gifts to the players for marketing purposes? C. Did the athletes sign something saying that the tattoos can not be used for marketing purposes? That would almost be like Guitar company suing the Beatles for using their instruments to create music. If Lebron had on a long sleeve turtle neck with a top hat on, I was still buying 2k14. This is quite frivolous to me. I was actually quite upset that I couldn't put tats on my created players in 2k basketball... Now this... I hate people.

[ksuttonjr76]

Well, I guess the NBA and 2K Sports have to redefine the term "player likeness". To me, if 2K Sports is paying a licensing fee to the NBPA/NBA to use the players' " likeness", but the contract language doesn't address tattoos then why is 2K Sports the only one at fault?

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

Dude you are missing my point...my point is these guys aren't getting any exposure by having these tattoos in NBA 2K. They aren't mentioned by Take Two or Visual Concepts. And I have never seen a player say on Twitter that he got this tattoo from shop x in city Y. That's all I am trying to say. So Ksutton please tell me who did every tattoo on Birdman's body? This should be an easy question for you to answer because they get all this exposure from Birdman and the companies that create the 2K game. And the only other thing I have said is that they need to get permission from the artist to use it, and after reading through the Kaepernick thread that may not even be true. I am going to do some more research on this before I say they need permission from the artists or not. But I will keep defending that these artists aren't getting exposure from Take Two and Visual Concepts.

You're making this point way too complicated. I'm just talking about plain old visual exposure as in people can see the tattoos without official/organized advertising. It's on the individual to do the research to find out who did the tattoo.

I'm pretty sure people are smart enough to know that tattoo was done by a "famous" artist.