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

[HowDareI]

I understand what he means by if Home Depot sold the hardwood floor to the Sixers or any team do they (Home Depot, or the manufacturer) technically own it...well no, because Home Depot is a retailer and their job is to sell you things that you're allowed to use anywhere you want; store, home, etc.

I have some tattoos, and I see it like my artist gave me what I wanted (well we worked together) and I paid him for his time and work. I feel like after this transaction all ties should be severed. My opinion, I see obviously this isn't how it works...

Now I'm not a tattoo artist, but I feel like they should understand their artwork is held on a different type of pedestal.
They're work is not like a one-time piece where it's drawn on a canvas and sold or displayed in a gallery. It's on a human's body on display everywhere they go whether it be in person, in media, etc.

I feel like if they want that type of recognition they might be in the wrong profession, you don't sign under a tattoo to show it's YOUR artwork...not like a traditional artist would do.

Maybe the laws aren't fully caught up in this regard..but what do I know? I just feel like a tattoo artist should know their art may show up every and anywhere and once it's on a person it's theirs.

If someone sees me and says "Yo bro that's dope who did it?" I let em know the shop and the specific artist, maybe even hit em with a link to their work online...to me, that's enough. I don't feel it's 2K's responsibility to have a database in their game you can go through and see who did each of JR Smith's 1000 tats lol. If that's the case, and you need it so bad, search it up on Google or tweet at him online.

Again, this clearly isn't how it works...just my opinion that I don't find it to be making sense to me.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by HowDareI

I understand what he means by if Home Depot sold the hardwood floor to the Sixers or any team do they (Home Depot, or the manufacturer) technically own it...well no, because Home Depot is a retailer and their job is to sell you things that you're allowed to use anywhere you want; store, home, etc. I have some tattoos, and I see it like my artist gave me what I wanted (well we worked together) and I paid him for his time and work. I feel like after this transaction all ties should be severed. My opinion, I see obviously this isn't how it works... Now I'm not a tattoo artist, but I feel like they should understand their artwork is held on a different type of pedestal. They're work is not like a one-time piece where it's drawn on a canvas and sold or displayed in a gallery. It's on a human's body on display everywhere they go whether it be in person, in media, etc. I feel like if they want that type of recognition they might be in the wrong profession, you don't sign under a tattoo to show it's YOUR artwork...not like a traditional artist would do. Maybe the laws aren't fully caught up in this regard..but what do I know? I just feel like a tattoo artist should know their art may show up every and anywhere and once it's on a person it's theirs. If someone sees me and says "Yo bro that's dope who did it?" I let em know the shop and the specific artist, maybe even hit em with a link to their work online...to me, that's enough. I don't feel it's 2K's responsibility to have a database in their game you can go through and see who did each of JR Smith's 1000 tats lol. If that's the case, and you need it so bad, search it up on Google or tweet at him online. Again, this clearly isn't how it works...just my opinion that I don't find it to be making sense to me.

Here's a different example. I buy the Mona Lisa should I be able to take and reproduce that painting and sell it to my hearts content? Because this is the same exact thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aholbert32]

What common sense to some people may not be common sense to others.

Plenty of artists think its common sense to be paid if someone takes their design (that they worked hard to create), recreates and financially benefits from it.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

What common sense to some people may not be common sense to others. Plenty of artists think its common sense to be paid if someone takes their design (that they worked hard to create), recreates and financially benefits from it.

Yea I can understand where people are coming from though with the art being on a person's body. But I also understand the laws behind this type of stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MackZillaTV]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

I was actually talking about Live which altered a NY Yankee tattoo on Jr Smith but it's probably the same thing. Still, I don't see what's fundamentally different than altering the Pepsi or NY Yankee tattoo or one done by a local tattoo artist. For instance, LeBrons 1984 tat. 2K couldn't change that to 1985 in a different font and be fine?

JR doesn't have a Yankee tattoo, he has a Young Money tattoo, Lil Wayne didn't allow live to use the logo

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by MackZillaTV

JR doesn't have a Yankee tattoo, he has a Young Money tattoo, Lil Wayne didn't allow live to use the logo

Oh is that what it was. My bad. I just knew they altered it.

[brahmagoul]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

What common sense to some people may not be common sense to others. Plenty of artists think its common sense to be paid if someone takes their design (that they worked hard to create), recreates and financially benefits from it.

Common sense tells me recreating a tattoo on an athlete in a video game is not stealing the tattoo design but accurately depicting the player. This is not like another tattoo artist trying to draw the tattoo.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by brahmagoul

Common sense tells me recreating a tattoo on an athlete in a video game is not stealing the tattoo design but accurately depicting the player. This is not like another tattoo artist trying to draw the tattoo.

Like I said common sense can differ from person to person. The difference here is the law is CLEARLY on the artist's side in the situation.