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

[sane478]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

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.

Oh ok, my fault I didn't see that part when I read it so your right. Regarding EA at least for Madden I read where they had to get rights for some of the tattoos that they used. I'll have to go back and see about Live and etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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"?

Nope because profit isnt the only factor in a copyright infringement case.

The court looks at it as simple as the tattoo artist owns the artwork and 2k took and duplicate that artwork without permission. If 2k has no excuse for using it without permission...they lose.

[strawberryshortcake]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Nope because profit isnt the only factor in a copyright infringement case. The court looks at it as simple as the tattoo artist owns the artwork and 2k took and duplicate that artwork without permission. If 2k has no excuse for using it without permission...they lose.

(1) Don't know how to exactly phrase this, but does that essentially mean the artist "own" or "claim" (or insert phrase or term) your body part because the artist has inked that particular body part and the person receiving the tattoo or the tattoo artist has not signed a waiver/acknowledgment or whatever document? If this athlete ever wants to do a legitimate artistic photoshoot, etc..

EDIT: Sure the artist can use whatever "platform" (paper, skin, side of a building, etc) to create their artwork, but a "human being" is you know... It just kind of boggles my mind that one can "own" a human being or part of the human being. Shouldn't there be some type of exception when it comes to a human being. ... start buying and selling people ... I don't know... Yes, I know it's still the tattoo's artwork, but the platform is human skin .... I don't know...



(2) Is there a difference between "photographing" and "artistically recreating using pen/paper or adobephotoshop" and "scanning" the tattoo? What if 2k simply took pictures of the tattoos and photoshopped it onto the digital characters body part?

(3) Paparrazzi's taking a picture of athlete (out in public) and just so happens their tattoos are visible. This photograph is sold to a magazine and the magazine either puts the photograph on the cover or within one of the pages within the magazine.

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

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?

If it were me in the market for the Kobe tattoo, I'd probably seek out information on who actually created the tattoo and go from there. Sort of like hearing a fantastic song in a movie or tv show, I'd run an internet search on the song and artist, go buy the song.

[Sheba2011]

If it were me in the market for the Kobe tattoo, I'd probably seek out information on who actually created the tattoo and go from there. Sort of like hearing a fantastic song in a movie or tv show, I'd run an internet search on the song and artist, go buy the song.[/quote]

A lot of people wouldn't go through all that, they would get the picture of the tattoo they want and go to their local shop. The same way a lot of people hear a song, movie or tv show they like and download a torrent. Either way the original artist doesn't benefit from it.

[xx313xx]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

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.

I was never aggressive toward anyone on this site. I never insulted anyone posting. Again as a lawyer your job is convey information better than someone else in order to prove a point . I get that. This is not a court room. Sitting on your perch with information valid to subject and not giving it out when it would have made sense to is what I find vexing. Again thats what you guys do....whatever I'm done with it.

[BluFu]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

You werent asking for education. You were making a statement based on little to no knowledge of the law. Now that you are asking for education I will help. The NBA is not copying or creating a derivative version of artwork when it shows a tattoo on TV or in a photo. 2k is creating a derivative version of the artwork when it recreates the artwork in game and puts it on a player. Thats why 2k got sued and not the NBA.

But isn't the NBA still broadcasting art that isn't theirs? You said earlier that tattoos are just like any other art. If the NBA is playing music for one of their TV promos, they need to get the artist's permission correct? TV broadcasters need permission of the movie producers/directors to air their movie right? If tattoos are exactly like these other kinds of art, why does the NBA not need permission from the artists? In those cases I mentioned, the broadcasters are not "recreating" the art but they still need permission to show it because it's not theirs.

Sounds like a slippery slope to be honest.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake

(1) Don't know how to exactly phrase this, but does that essentially mean the artist "own" or "claim" (or insert phrase or term) your body part because the artist has inked that particular body part and the person receiving the tattoo has not signed a waiver/acknowledgment or whatever document? If this athlete ever wants to do a legitimate artistic photoshoot, etc.. (2) Is there a difference between "photographing" and "artistically recreating using pen/paper or adobephotoshop" and "scanning" the tattoo? (3) Paparrazzi's taking a picture of athlete (out in public) and just so happens their tattoos are visible. This photograph is sold to a magazine and the magazine either puts the photograph on the cover or within one of the pages within the magazine. If it were me in the market for the Kobe tattoo, I'd probably seek out information on who actually created the tattoo and go from there. Sort of like hearing a fantastic song in a movie or tv show, I'd run an internet search on the song and artist, go buy the song.

1) No its different. This is where the 2k case can confuse people. The tattoo artist isnt claiming to own the body part. He isnt even claiming that he owns the tattoo that is on the player's body (he doesnt).

He is claiming that he owns the right to decide if anyone can recreate/copy that tattoo or design. If a photographer takes a picture of the tattoo, he isnt recreating the art.

What 2k is doing is scanning the artwork, manipulating the artwork and adding it to a character within the game. Thats the difference.

2) Yep. Photographing is OK. Scanning and manipulating or recreating is something you need permission for.

3) See above.

4) Re: the Kobe tattoo. That isnt good advertising if I have to go search outside of the game to see who did that artwork. Also good advertising isnt a defense for copyright infringement.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by xx313xx

I was never aggressive toward anyone on this site. I never insulted anyone posting. Again as a lawyer your job is convey information better than someone else in order to prove a point . I get that. This is not a court room. Sitting on your perch with information valid to subject and not giving it out when it would have made sense to is what I find vexing. Again thats what you guys do....whatever I'm done with it.

Look man. Sometimes you just have to admit you were wrong. In this case you were wrong. You made an incorrect statement because you know very little about the subject matter.

I've done that before. So has everyone else here.

I gave the info to people before you even posted. You failed to read any previous posts and just made an incorrect statement.

Sometimes you just have to take the L and move on.