Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[24ct]

I think ppl are taking this too far honestly. If LeBron drew a tattoo he would own that intellectual property. If he got it tatted the studio wouldn't own it based on copyright laws. Unless of course the actual picture he drew wasn't copywritten by LeBron himself. Then the studio could technically copyright the picture & own it. Like Michael Jackson purchased the Beatles discography. He bought it. If I draw/create something & don't get it copywritten then someone else can copywrite it & own it. That goes with an idea or whatever. If I don't copyright it I own the intellectual property by default. But if someone copyrights it 1st they own that copyright as physical evidence regardless of me owning the intellectual property. Obviously the guys who created these works of art got the work registered. That's how they're able to sue & get a settlement.

[jeebs9]

This is crazy lol

[24ct]

I'm pretty sure the studios creating these works are getting the copyright for them. It's not like buying a painting from an auction & then giving certain proceeds to the artist. The artist has already sold it. The only way any proceeds would go to the artist is if it's already a contract in writing. If so then yes they would have to pay whatever they agreed on.

I definitely understand why they're suing. Imagine if you made a song & 2k used that song you own copyrights to without your permission. It's the same exact thing only it's artwork. Regardless of what ppl think they're artists. It's not all the tattoos just specific ones by this specific studio. They own the copyright so it's their right to sue for permissible use.

Sidenote: I have a bunch of tattoos in real life. 1 of which I got from an online website that I had to pay for the design. The rest I had custom drawn but on the site they stated on the work was copywritten. To the point where you couldn't right click & save it as a file. If you tried the site would pop up a copyright warning with the year. It was also watermarked so you couldn't just steal it.

[CujoMatty]

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.

Cmon you know why they arent suing EA for NBA live and it's the same reason that this whole thing is bogus. There's no money in suing NBA live, that's it, bottom line. They are going after 2k because it sold a million copies ( I have no idea exactly how many but it's a lot) and not EA because it sold 10 thousand (i haver no idea exactly how many but it's not a lot) if you had some actual concern for your "art" you'd Sue EA on principle. Nope it's a money grab.

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by cujomatty

Cmon you know why they arent suing EA for NBA live and it's the same reason that this whole thing is bogus. There's no money in suing NBA live, that's it, bottom line. They are going after 2k because it sold a million copies ( I have no idea exactly how many but it's a lot) and not EA because it sold 10 thousand (i haver no idea exactly how many but it's not a lot) if you had some actual concern for your "art" you'd Sue EA on principle. Nope it's a money grab.

It could be a money grab. But from the looks of things they are in the right. But I find it odd how people cite the precedence of Madden's tattoo situation and slam dunk prognostications of tottoos being removed while not acknowledging that EA is still doing the same thing with Live after the Madden lawsuit. NBA Live and NBA 2K are more analogous (governed by same set of legalities being NBA properties) than NBA2K is to Madden or The Show. Seems I remember reading something about how the NBA handles tattoos differently.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by cujomatty

Cmon you know why they arent suing EA for NBA live and it's the same reason that this whole thing is bogus. There's no money in suing NBA live, that's it, bottom line. They are going after 2k because it sold a million copies ( I have no idea exactly how many but it's a lot) and not EA because it sold 10 thousand (i haver no idea exactly how many but it's not a lot) if you had some actual concern for your "art" you'd Sue EA on principle. Nope it's a money grab.

You don't go after NBA Live, you go after EA Sports or EA the company.

Just like these artists are going after Visual Concepts and Take-Two Software.

[I Djm]

uploadfromtaptalk1454547929696.jpg

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[NINJAK2]

The more I think about this the more pissed off I get man. I read their intro settlement letter to 2k and it sounded laughable imo. I'm sure legally they may have a point but that letter just made it sound like these 8 tattoos were pivotal to this game's success. They mentioned that his tattoos appear prominently on the cover of 2k14 but wasn't that a photo of LeBron and not a videogame created image of him? Once LBJ gets a tat do those artists now OWN a portion of his body where his tat is? Does LBJ have to ask permission from them to do a photo spread with ESPN, SI, etc. or anything else where that tat may be displayed? This just sounds flat out wrong to me. They are marketing LeBron the man, not his Tats. IMO this lawsuit may be bad press for the company that's filing the claim as well. If I'm a pro athlete, actor/actress, etc I would have second thoughts about getting any work done by Solid Oaks or any artists that have had dealings with them. Famous athletes have to worry about shady agents and attorneys, friends or associates who try to get over on them. Now they have to worry about tat artists that they already paid $100's if not $1000's of bucks to for services rendered trying to make even more money off THEIR CUSTOMER'S celebrity and success...