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

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by xx313xx

My reaction is the same as many other people who likely didn't bother to post it. You guys could have very easily put that in your initial comment but chose to insult first. Like I said, not necessary. It's much more constructive to inform then it is to berate. I 'll gladly take that bump for those who felt the same way. Thanks for the answer.

They didnt bother to post it likely because they didnt know the law. Ignorance isnt an excuse. If you dont know the law, ask a question. Dont call the suit BS when you dont know the law.

[xx313xx]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

They didnt bother to post it likely because they didnt know the law. Ignorance isnt an excuse. If you dont know the law, ask a question. Dont call the suit BS when you dont know the law.

Ok, you're a lawyer so it's your job to hold information until an advantageous moment. I get that. Again all could have been said in the initial quote thanks for nothing....

[sane478]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Huh? You just claimed that I had no knowledge and I just explained to you why I have more knowledge than you. Also based on my job.....I should be on 2k's side. I represent a big corporation. We constantly get sued or threatened to be sued by everyday people based on copyright.

In his defense no one claimed you didn't have any knowledge. I get it completely but we can have a peaceful debate. Back to topic, now that it's been broken down more I definitely understand, almost similar to when games create cities they don't exactly replicate them. Now from a legal standpoint I get it but from a consumer standpoint it's still kind of silly. Also no one said who they can and can't choose to sue but are they going at NBA Live and less popular titles? That's just facts Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by xx313xx

Ok, you're a lawyer so it's your job to hold information until an advantageous moment. I get that. Again all could have been said in the initial quote thanks for nothing....

I dont need to tell you my job if I'm gonna post. Here is a tip:

Try to be less aggressive with a statement if you dont really know what you are talking about. Here is a better first post:

"Can someone explain to me why this lawsuit is moving forward? I dont know much about this kind of law but this lawsuit seems like BS"

or you couldve read some of the posts before your first one where I and others explained why this is a legitimate lawsuit.

[rhein77]

This has been a very enlightening thread. My opinion is that this is a witch-hunt from a lawyer who has nothing better to do but go after a billion dollar corporation.

These tattoo artist will be biting the hand that feeds them in the form of free advertisement. The tattoo artist don't complain when they benefit from work shown on shows like Miami Ink, New York Inc. commercials, printed materials etc. It is free advertisement that shows social proof and heightens the notoriety and exposure.

Such a shame we live in such a litigious society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by sane478

In his defense no one claimed you didn't have any knowledge. I get it completely but we can have a peaceful debate. Back to topic, now that it's been broken down more I definitely understand, almost similar to when games create cities they don't exactly replicate them. Now from a legal standpoint I get it but from a consumer standpoint it's still kind of silly. Also no one said who they can and can't choose to sue but are they going at NBA Live and less popular titles? That's just facts Haha Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually he did:


I take it the ones calling me a whining child or ignorant don't know anything either. So, does anybody actually understand this case or are people just white knighting? I want to know how this is not witch hunt

Thats his post and it refers to me because only two people responded to him.

Regarding the other games. Other than Live, I dont think many other NBA games use accurate tattoos. When it comes to EA, we dont know if EA settled this claim before he planned to file a suit. We dont know if EA licensed the tattoo and 2k didnt.

Those would be the only reason EA wouldnt have been named in a seperate suit.

[strawberryshortcake]

Aholbert32, hypothetically if 2k releases 2k17 or 2k18 and all players were stripped of their tattoos, and the game either sells the same unit as 2k16 or sells more units than ever in the history of 2k basketball. Does this make any difference whatsoever as far as 2k using the tattoos to "create a profit"?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by rhein77

This has been a very enlightening thread. My opinion is that this is a witch-hunt from a lawyer who has nothing better to do but go after a billion dollar corporation. These tattoo artist will be biting the hand that feeds them in the form of free advertisement. The tattoo artist don't complain when they benefit from work shown on shows like Miami Ink, New York Inc. commercials, printed materials etc. It is free advertisement that shows social proof and heightens the notoriety and exposure. Such a shame we live in such a litigious society. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is it free advertisement? Lets say i like Kobe's tattoo after seeing it in NBA 2k. How am I supposed to know that "Jim Smith" and Jim's Tattoo Shop in LA is the one that created that tattoo?

How does 2k replicating his artwork make it more likely that people will visit his tattoo shop?