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

[Big FN Deal]

Along with the confusion about how isn't the "art" owned by someone when they buy a tattoo, I keep wondering why isn't requiring a video game to just include the artist in the credits enough.

Also I think it's been said that it's different if it's a photo of the person with the tattoo vs their likeness replicated in a video game, so I wonder why isn't there a difference in scanning in the person with tattoos vs an artistic rendering of them. Seems like scanning would fall more in with photos and copying the actual athlete with tattoos than an artistic rendering.

Lastly, if I'm reading the OP correctly it seems it's all about whatever entity or person copyrighting tattoos, before that this judge at least seems to agree there isn't an issue. I wonder how retroactive copyrighting works with tattoos, it's one thing if I go get a tattoo and pick something the artist has designed, as well as had copyrighted in advance, it's another if I get a tattoo thinking it's an alteration of my body like plastic surgery or whatever, mine to do with as I see fit, then later the artist decides to get a copyright for it. I wonder how much does contract law come into play there because it seems, unless clearly shown otherwise, that both parties agree that the recipient of a tattoo now has lawful rights to it since it's now a part of them.

Idk, interesting topic though.

[nuckles2k2]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Not everyone is a gamer. They may not have realized that the tattoos were being replicated until years after they started doing it.

Fair point.

I don't blame the artists tho. I operate in a field where we use licenses galore & those don't always achieve the desired result. Never mind copyright protection..

Never gonna throw shade at someone trying to protect their original work. Especially cuz someone else feels entitled to benefiting from that work. It kinda felt like the timing of all of this was fishy, especially after the NCAA suits picked up steam, but either way, petty or not -- the artists deserve protection of their efforts.

[mqt]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

A tattoo is a work of art. Just like a painting. Just like a photograph. Just like a movie. Just like a song. Because its a work of art, its protected by US copyright laws. One of those laws is that the artist who created the work of art has the right to decide who can copy his/her artwork. He also has the right to demand payment from people who copy or create other versions of his work.

Let me be clear about the fact that I couldn't possibly care any less about tattoos in video games, but this feels inherently wrong to me. I understand the facts of the situation and it is indeed true that they have copyright protections. However, I find it ridiculous that tattoos can have that protection when we are discussing digital media. In addition to the fact that the artist has already sold that piece of art to a customer, the recreation of that artist's work is both distinctly different in that it's a digital creation and is also in no way going to cause any damage to the original artist. It's my opinion that if an artist sells their work, the purchaser should be able to do as they wish with the artwork, and if that customer wants his purchased artwork to be digitally rendered, it should not be copyright infringement.

For what it's worth, I certainly don't blame the artist here. I'd certainly want to get paid as well if I were in their position. I just feel that given the circumstances that any legal argument in favor of those artists feel incorrect.

[bigdipper88]

And honestly, most tats these days aren't original anyways

[nuckles2k2]

Quote: Originally Posted by mqt

Let me be clear about the fact that I couldn't possibly care any less about tattoos in video games, but this feels inherently wrong to me. I understand the facts of the situation and it is indeed true that they have copyright protections. However, I find it ridiculous that tattoos can have that protection when we are discussing digital media. In addition to the fact that the artist has already sold that piece of art to a customer, the recreation of that artist's work is both distinctly different in that it's a digital creation and is also in no way going to cause any damage to the original artist. It's my opinion that if an artist sells their work, the purchaser should be able to do as they wish with the artwork, and if that customer wants his purchased artwork to be digitally rendered, it should not be copyright infringement.

How about thinking about it as the artist selling the ink, their expertise, & time.

The actual intellectual property still belongs to the artist.

Same with any contractor who's contracted to do work that will stay "on-site", but as soon as someone else tampers/alters it, the contractor washes their hands of the situation & says "I'm not supporting the quality of that work after it's been altered" -- or even the same on any electronic device that warns of voided warranties if tampered with.

In this case, it's just the artists maintaining their ownership of that proprietary work. Get their permission, or don't duplicate it.

Seems pretty fair.

[ChaseB]

Quote: Originally Posted by nuckles2k2

How about thinking about it as the artist selling the ink, their expertise, & time. The actual intellectual property still belongs to the artist. Same with any contractor who's contracted to do work that will stay "on-site", but as soon as someone else tampers/alters it, the contractor washes their hands of the situation & says "I'm not supporting the quality of that work after it's been altered" -- or even the same on any electronic device that warns of voided warranties if tampered with. In this case, it's just the artists maintaining their ownership of that proprietary work. Get their permission, or don't duplicate it. Seems pretty fair.

Also, it's not like the human who has the art doesn't own it, it's just that another company is then profiting off his body in a way where the third party doesn't get any of that benefit. It's only a problem because the art is showing up in another commercial enterprise.

[onetongwa]

I'll say it for everyone else, This is all stupid and everyone involved in the suit is stupid, And as soon as you tattoo me or anybody else, that tattoo becomes a part of their body and I will and can do whatever I want with that tattoo and dare anybody to stop me. These lawsuits are just for fun in my book. I see everybody trying to get rich off of someone else. And I don't care about any clever crap anybody has to say. 2k should keep doing whatever and just hire smarter lawyers. The End.

[DatIsraeliGuy]

Let's just hope they don't go all THQ.
I still can't believe that tattoos are the issue