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

[brahmagoul]

Here's something to pose (and I apologize if it's been brought up), but are tattoos different than shoes? I would say no.

[MackZillaTV]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

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

Yeah, I wasn't tryna sound like a smart ***. Speaking of altered tats, I'm suprised Melo's Warn-A-Brother tat wasn't altered.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by brahmagoul

Here's something to pose (and I apologize if it's been brought up), but are tattoos different than shoes? I would say no.

Under the law they are very different. One is consider a work of art. The other isnt. Shoes are covered under patent law and trademark law if they feature the shoe company's logo.

[strawberryshortcake]

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 was actually referring to joe smith or bob smith that designs the hardwood. Home Depot is simply offering shelf space. I was questioning the "design" and if or why wouldn't this be the same as what's going on with tattoos. Some type of creativity was still used to create the hardwood design. If not copyright, can't you patent the design? Or what's the difference? And if a video game recreates the actual hardwood design without permissuon from the smiths, why wouldn't it be the same.

[HowDareI]

I'm just saying a work of art meaning something drawn or painted onto a canvas is a one-off thing; they've transferred their vision into reality..

You sign it, copyright it, whatever...it belongs to you. Unless that piece of paper becomes a living breathing being and says it's theirs...but seriously tho..

I just can't see that replicating something inked onto someone is illegal as being legitimate..

Different views I guess...and the law says otherwise. But then again I don't agree with tons of laws so...

[nuckles2k2]

Quote: Originally Posted by HowDareI

I'm just saying a work of art meaning something drawn or painted onto a canvas is a one-off thing; they've transferred their vision into reality.. You sign it, copyright it, whatever...it belongs to you. Unless that piece of paper becomes a living breathing being and says it's theirs...but seriously tho.. I just can't see that replicating something inked onto someone is illegal as being legitimate.. Different views I guess...and the law says otherwise. But then again I don't agree with tons of laws so...

I think it's because people keep focusing on the ink as opposed to the artwork. The ink could exist regardless. I know a girl who literally tried to give herself a tattoo when she was younger with some pen ink & a needle (don't ask, cuz I couldn't even begin to explain it...)

But if it were not for that artist designing the artwork (studios would do this well before it's actually inked on the person), that still belongs to the artists.

I would love to know how many of the NBA players in question have the original, likely signed, works of art -- in some sort of print medium -- in their possession.

Unless we know for a fact that the players paid for the artwork (be it designed either by hand, or in Illustrator/Photoshop/etc) as well as the tattoo artist's expertise & time/labor... I don't see what the big misunderstanding is.

Artwork can exist without it being a tattoo. If the tattoo artist sells their time (that's what any paid job is) and their expertise (what any contractor/service provider does) how does that suddenly transfer ownership of the intellectual property?

It's not even really about the laws. It's about being told that you designed something, and someone is saying I can use your design in a commercial product without saying a single word to you. Not something happenstance like a captured image, but the deliberate act of making sure they replicate every detail, every angle, precisely as you did back when you were in the lab creating it. But with no permission, no attribution, nothing.

That flies?

I agree that the timing might be a little weird. But the principle of the matter is...get permission if you're going to use it, especially commercially.

[nuckles2k2]

Basically:

tattoo =/= artwork.

It's a tattoo OF the artwork.

If the artwork is purposely recreated digitally, because the artwork appears on a person, & everyone wants authenticity & realism.. Get permission. Otherwise you'd have to spoof the artwork like Madden did back on the PS2.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake

I was actually referring to joe smith or bob smith that designs the hardwood. Home Depot is simply offering shelf space. I was questioning the "design" and if or why wouldn't this be the same as what's going on with tattoos. Some type of creativity was still used to create the hardwood design. If not copyright, can't you patent the design? Or what's the difference? And if a video game recreates the actual hardwood design without permissuon from the smiths, why wouldn't it be the same.

The design of hardwood is not the same as tattoos. Creativity alone does not mean that something is a work of art.

You could potentially patent the design. You could also potentially trademark the design. Patents cover products or inventions. Trademarks cover logos and marks that are synonymous with a brand or business. Patents prevents some from creating the exact same or substantially similar product (2k is not creating actual hardwood when it puts it in a game). If the design of the hardwood was trademarked by Joe Smith (which is very difficult to do in this case) it could have a case against 2k.

With that said, none of those are even a close comparison to this tattoo case.