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

[aholbert32]

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...

You own a copy of that tattoo.

You dont own the artwork or the right to give people (or corporations like 2k) the right to copy or create derivative works of that artwork.

Now if you create the artwork and you go into a tattoo shop and ask them o put that on your arm....you own the artwork.

[Schibling]

if theres no tattoos i wont buy the game simple fact. the company that is suing bought the rights to these tattoos after the fact which is stupid.

[sportjames23]

Quote: Originally Posted by wallofhate

Funny thing is that there isn't a tattoo artist out there that wouldn't tattoo a Disney,marvel or dc character. If one of those entities started going after the tattoo artists they'd be crying corporate hatred and complaints of big business bothering the "lil guy". I get it they "can" sue but I grow tired of silly lawsuits that coattail off of bigger cases that are actually significant. I watch a video about lawyers suing app makers because they own the patent to making apps not copying the same type of app but they own the idea of an app smh.

Great freakin point. I almost wish one of these big companies would go after some of these tattoo artists just to see their reactions.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by sportjames23

Great freakin point. I almost wish one of these big companies would go after some of these tattoo artists just to see their reactions.

That would make no sense and would not lead to anything. If Disney sues a tattoo artist, they spend money to file suit and best case scenario settle for less money than it cost to file the suit.

[mcpats]

aholbert32 I appreciate your knowledge and insight into this topic, but I find so many things puzzling here. I get 'art is art'. But when you take that art and apply it to a human body you are effectively engaged in an elective procedure to change someone's appearance, just like teeth whitening, a haircut, laser hair removal, or plastic surgery. You are altering an individual's skin pigmentation, and it doesn't matter if it's in the form of an original design or it's one color, a person's pigment is their likeness and they have a right to license their own likeness. Shouldn't matter if it's for a photo, painting, or digital recreation.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcpats

aholbert32 I appreciate your knowledge and insight into this topic, but I find so many things puzzling here. I get 'art is art'. But when you take that art and apply it to a human body you are effectively engaged in an elective procedure to change someone's appearance, just like teeth whitening, a haircut, laser hair removal, or plastic surgery. You are altering an individual's skin pigmentation, and it doesn't matter if it's in the form of an original design or it's one color, a person's pigment is their likeness and they have a right to license their own likeness. Shouldn't matter if it's for a photo, painting, or digital recreation.

Let's argue the flip side: if I get a tattoo of Mickey Mouse on my arm, does that mean I have the right to give 2k the right to duplicate it?

Disney has created Mickey over 60 years ago but because I decided to put it on my body, I get the right to give corporations the right to duplicate their art?

[King_B_Mack]

I do think the tattoo artists deserve to have their work protected here, but I don't like the idea of one side of this equation having to play by the rules while the other doesn't. Not every tattoo that these guys do are their designs. A lot of people design their own artwork, take it to the tattoo shop and have the artists put it on them. If someone comes into a tattoo shop saying they want the tattoo that X player has (that that player happened to design himself) is the tattoo artist really turning away that business because he's recreating someone else's work? Suddenly the morals of copyright protections/trademarks or whatever go right out the window. If you're worried about not being able to profit off someone else's art then do that at all times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mcpats]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Let's argue the flip side: if I get a tattoo of Mickey Mouse on my arm, does that mean I have the right to give 2k the right to duplicate it? Disney has created Mickey over 60 years ago but because I decided to put it on my body, I get the right to give corporations the right to duplicate their art?

In your Mickey scenario the tattoo itself was executed illegally which definitely changed the scenario, and you would know much better than myself what that would entail legally.

How about a different scenario? Suppose I was working for a graphic design firm but on my own time I created a killer graphic that I had trademarked. Now if it was discovered later that I used a work computer on work time to make some adjustments to that design, wouldn't that change the claim to ownership? It's the same design using the same methods but the time and location play a huge deal regarding the intellectual rights. If a copywrited image is painted on a canvas or wall it's one thing. But if you change the environment in which that art is executed (I.e. a person's body) than it also changes the equation. You have introduced an individual whose rights to their own body and appearance supersede a trademarked image IMO