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

[strawberryshortcake]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Some tattoo artists do that. They have each person sign a release that releases them from any claims related to the tattoo and states clearly that if its an original tat, the tat is owned by the artist. With that said, its not really the tattoo artist's responsibility to make sure that the person getting the tat knows their belongs to them. Keep in mind this is an issue that rarely if ever comes up. It effects 1% of the population. There isnt a situation the average person will have to deal with. Most people dont have the avenues to exploit a tattoo commercially like with a video game. So its really a non issue for most people.

Shouldn't the artist be partially responsible though or take some accountability to a certain extent in a manner of speaking? Even if it falls entirely on the shoulder of the recipient, if the artist would simply make known the conditions of getting a tattoo, we wouldn't get these 1%. Whether or not the artist knows the client is famous or not, a signed document would likely circumvent these messes. Be proactive rather reactive.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake

Shouldn't the artist be partially responsible though or take some accountability to a certain extent in a manner of speaking? Even if it falls entirely on the shoulder of the recipient, if the artist would simply make known the conditions of getting a tattoo, we wouldn't get these 1%. Whether or not the artist knows the client is famous or not, a signed document would likely circumvent these messes. Be proactive rather reactive.

No because in these cases, the person receiving the tattoo had nothing to do with the creation of the art. He/She shouldnt automatically think that just because he paid for the artist to put the art on his body...that he now owns the design and the right to let others copy the design.

Practically speaking, that could also hurt their business. Who wants to have a full legal discussion about copyright before every tattoo job you do? The law is on the artist's side so he doesnt have inform the recipient of the law every time he creates art.

[downsouth]

Especially because the art itself isnt worth diddly ****. Its the skin its on that makes it valuable. If the most famous living artist worked with the most famous tattoo artist on a tattoo and put it on my arm it would be worth nothing. If i drew a ****ty happy face with a triangle for a hat on lebrons arm it would be worth more.

[downsouth]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

No because in these cases, the person receiving the tattoo had nothing to do with the creation of the art. He/She shouldnt automatically think that just because he paid for the artist to put the art on his body...that he now owns the design and the right to let others copy the design. Practically speaking, that could also hurt their business. Who wants to have a full legal discussion about copyright before every tattoo job you do? The law is on the artist's side so he doesnt have inform the recipient of the law every time he creates art.

The tattoo is only worth something if its on a famous arm. Thats why i said if im famous the artist will sign over the rights or they can advertise that they tatt Joe Fan instead of being able to get business by saying they tattoo LeBron.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by downsouth

The tattoo is only worth something if its on a famous arm. Thats why i said if im famous the artist will sign over the rights or they can advertise that they tatt Joe Fan instead of being able to get business by saying they tattoo LeBron.

Thats not true. That design could have value on a canvas or in other ways to display art. Being on Lebron's arm helps but that doesnt mean that it holds no value somewhere else.

[strawberryshortcake]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

No because in these cases, the person receiving the tattoo had nothing to do with the creation of the art. He/She shouldnt automatically think that just because he paid for the artist to put the art on his body...that he now owns the design and the right to let others copy the design. Practically speaking, that could also hurt their business. Who wants to have a full legal discussion about copyright before every tattoo job you do? The law is on the artist's side so he doesnt have inform the recipient of the law every time he creates art.

Probably not think that he/she owns the design but may think that if he/she gets artistically replicated the same design on the exact location of his/her body could also be replicated in a painting or digital painting with the same tattoo on the same body part without having to deal with legal actions because the design and where it's located is now part of his/her body, and part of his/her physical identity and not of the tattoo artist even if the creation is of the artist.

Aren't tattoos part of someone's physical identity more so because it's a permanent etching? In order to artistically replicate someone's physical identity, also recreating whatever marks on the body (i.e. freckles, piercings, tattoos, etc) may need to be replicated as well in order to truly capture the person's physical identity. It's not like the tattoo is a "shirt" that can be replaced. The person can't remove their skin and slap on a new skin.

It doesn't have to be a long legal discussion, just something brief. What about simply having a clear visible disclaimer signage in view of the customer specifying the designs of the tattoos etched on the recipients' body is still property of the artist and cannot be replicated without the permission of the tattoo artist (or whatever legal wording). In clear view so the customer can initiate the discussion.

On that note, does posted signs even have legal merit? (i.e. public/private parking garages: don't leave valuables in your car because we're not responsible if things go missing, etc.).

[downsouth]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Thats not true. That design could have value on a canvas or in other ways to display art. Being on Lebron's arm helps but that doesnt mean that it holds no value somewhere else.

Or at least own the rights as displayed as part of lebrons own likeness. Like if someone uses it as part of using lebrons image then lebron should own the rignts. If the image is used elseware the artist should. Im not saying thats what the law is im saying thats what is fair because the only reason 2k wants it is for making it look like Lebron. They dont are about the actual art one bit. They arent selling artwork they just want LeBron to look like LeBron.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by downsouth

Or at least own the rights as displayed as part of lebrons own likeness. Like if someone uses it as part of using lebrons image then lebron should own the rignts. If the image is used elseware the artist should. Im not saying thats what the law is im saying thats what is fair because the only reason 2k wants it is for making it look like Lebron. They dont are about the actual art one bit. They arent selling artwork they just want LeBron to look like LeBron.

They are selling realism. In order to sell realism, 2k wanted realistic and accurate tattoos. If they want that, they need to pay the artist who created that tattoo.