Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[SpeedyClaxton]

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.

I'm not a fan of baseball or NFL, never played them but for basketball it's a part of game just as much as it's real hair and all stuff. You're saying me authenticity doesn't play a role to you, so tell me would you play 2K if LeBron for example is not made authentic but some generic black dude with afro hair ? Please don't get me started..

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

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.

So did EA secure the rights to every tattoo in NBA Live?

[anthonyf105]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

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.

It's why Grand Theft Auto can have cars in their game similar to their real life counterparts without having to pay the actual vehicle manufacturers. I guess I'm still bitter about these game manufacturers being sued for everything like Ed O'Bannon winning that likeness case and killing off the NCAA series of games which most of us loved. In any case, removing all those tattoos on any of the games won't stop me from buying a great sports game. If 2K came out with legends of college with no tattoos that game would be bought immediately.

[DBMcGee3]

This is absolutely absurd. Are they also filing a suit against DirecTV, ESPN, Fox and CBS for showing these tats on camera every Sunday? What's the difference exactly? It would seem to me that once a player pays a tattoo artist for a tattoo, it becomes the property of the player. It's on his arm for f#ck's sake.

Everybody wants something for nothing nowadays.

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

So did EA secure the rights to every tattoo in NBA Live?

The answer to this question has literally no relevance as to the merits of the suit filed against 2K Sports and the publisher's alleged improper misuse of intellectual property belonging to tattoo artists in the NBA 2K video games.

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hassan Darkside

I wonder how feasible generic tattoos are. I'm usually not looking closely enough to notice every intricate detail of each player's tattoo. If Amar'e Stoudemire's bicep tattoo said "Korea is Korean" instead of "Knowing is Knowledge" I probably wouldn't even notice unless someone pointed it out. Might be too much work for the art department though.

I'll be honest. I wouldn't even notice the difference. However and knowing the community, there would be a thread on it and people demanding that 2K Sports get it right. The way people be battling over accessories, signature shots, shoes, etc being correct, someone is going to notice.

[jake44np]

Quote: Originally Posted by SpeedyClaxton

I'm not a fan of baseball or NFL, never played them but for basketball it's a part of game just as much as it's real hair and all stuff. You're saying me authenticity doesn't play a role to you, so tell me would you play 2K if LeBron for example is not made authentic but some generic black dude with afro hair ? Please don't get me started..

I grew up playing the game below, so yes I would and have.

http://static1.techinsider.io/image/...kobe_nba97.jpg

http://www.gameclassification.com/fi...A-Playoffs.gif

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

The answer to this question has literally no relevance as to the merits of the suit filed against 2K Sports and the publisher's alleged improper misuse of intellectual property belonging to tattoo artists in the NBA 2K video games.

Why not? And I'm not talking about in a court of law or anything like that. EA was sued for the same thing. They cite it as a reason why Madden doesn't have tattoos. That's understandable. But Live still does. Why didn't they disappear in Live or have to get explicit permission from an artist? If they don't then what's so different here and why wouldn't it be relevant? It's the same thing, apparently.