Operation Sports Logo Header
Home
Operation Sports Logo Header
NBA 2K17 News Post

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

  06:28 PM - August 3, 2016 by RaychelSnr

It appears the folks at 2K won a major legal challenge against the use of tattoos in NBA 2K16:

Quote:
2K and parent company Take-Two can breath a sigh of relief following the dismissal of some requested damages in a lawsuit that might have cost the company billions. A case brought by tattoo designer Solid Oak Sketches attempted to secure statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement for unauthorized use of eight designs in NBA 2K16.

United States district judge Laura Taylor Swan granted 2K’s motion to dismiss statutory based on timing of the design copyright. The first use of the tattoo images was in 2013’s NBA 2K14. The designs were not copyrighted until 2015.

As we reported on back in February, this suit is exactly why other games don't really use player tattoos unless they are fully licensed.

2K won this challenge on a technicality, which could have cost Take Two upwards of a billion dollars in damages. However, it is likely that tattoos in NBA 2K (and other sports games) will continue to grow scarcer due to copyright and licensing issues.

Take Two is still potentially on the hook for some damages in the case so they aren't out of the woods yet, however the total damages they may have been on the hook for has lessened considerably after today's ruling.

Game: NBA 2K17Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PC / PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 14 - View All
Member Comments
# 21 CMH @ 08/03/16 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluFu
Forgive me, but I'm genuinely confused as to how tattoo artists can literally own a part of someone's body.
They don't own the body part. They own the art on the body part.
 
# 22 juicey79 @ 08/03/16 10:19 PM
Bottom line why allow yourself to be someone's personal canvas if you can't own the right to something you paid for. It's very silly in my opinion.
 
# 23 mcpats @ 08/03/16 10:37 PM
Sure they own the art, meaning other artists can't steal that design and use it on their own clients. It also means 2k can't take a specific tattoo off LeBron and make it available for your MyPlayer or your center court logo, which they do not do. However, a person's pigment is part of their likeness, whether it's their natural born color or if it's been electively altered (i.e. tattoo).
 
# 24 Phreezy P @ 08/03/16 10:38 PM
I'm just hoping they don't get affected by this for future releases. Hopefully they find a way to get in contact with some tattoo parlors to make sure they aren't infringing upon anything. I just hope they don't go the Madden route and clear all the tattoos out the game.
 
# 25 bigdipper88 @ 08/03/16 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junior Moe
Wow! That's a good point. I wonder if I got Mickey Mouse tatted on my arm could Disney sue the tattoo artist. That's interesting...
CM Punk never had his Pepsi or Cobra Commander tats in wrestling games, so I can see where that comes into play
 
# 26 wallofhate @ 08/03/16 10:47 PM
It's both for me. It bugs me that it threatens the authenticity but I can't lie it also bothers me that this is even a thing. I find it stupid for coming from tattoo artist of all ppl who for the money will tattoo anything. I get the scenario of a graphics designer creating something of a painter creating something and someone uses their creation likeness to profit but this is more of a stretch imo. Taking advantage of the system is legal but a waste of time and money and a get cash quick angle. Even the tattoo artist that was suing the hangover movie I thought was dumb too.
 
# 27 CaseIH @ 08/03/16 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vni
Shouldn't tattoos become the player's property ? I don't really get it. It's on their body, most likely they've decided what they wanted to draw on their body, I don't get why do the tattoo artists own them.

Yep, thats my feeling as well. Glad 2k won this argument, always someone out there trying to get a free handout, it seems to be the New American way, rather than working hard for it and earning it.
 
# 28 nuckles2k2 @ 08/03/16 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcpats
Sure they own the art, meaning other artists can't steal that design and use it on their own clients. It also means 2k can't take a specific tattoo off LeBron and make it available for your MyPlayer or your center court logo, which they do not do. However, a person's pigment is part of their likeness, whether it's their natural born color or if it's been electively altered (i.e. tattoo).
They also can't package it in something that they monetarily gain from. No it's not called Tats 2K16, but they're still in the game, a game that's not free.

That's just how licensing goes.

If I don't license my code in a way where someone else can take it and use it in a commercial product -- but they do anyway, no matter how small...they're stealing. I didn't give them permission to use this when they make a single cent. So don't do it. Use something else, or get permission.

I can see both side of this argument. It does seem kind of petty tho. Where were they all those years ago?
 
# 29 Junior Moe @ 08/03/16 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdipper88
CM Punk never had his Pepsi or Cobra Commander tats in wrestling games, so I can see where that comes into play
Hopefully 2K and others go that route and just alter the designs that way they're clear of lawsuits and we still get to keep the semblance of realism.
 
# 30 aholbert32 @ 08/03/16 11:58 PM
A tattoo is a work of art.

Just like a painting.
Just like a photograph.
Just like a movie.
Just like a song.

Because its a work of art, its protected by US copyright laws. One of those laws is that the artist who created the work of art has the right to decide who can copy his/her artwork. He also has the right to demand payment from people who copy or create other versions of his work.
 
# 31 aholbert32 @ 08/03/16 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckles2k2
I can see both side of this argument. It does seem kind of petty tho. Where were they all those years ago?
Not everyone is a gamer. They may not have realized that the tattoos were being replicated until years after they started doing it.
 
# 32 nuckles2k2 @ 08/04/16 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
Not everyone is a gamer. They may not have realized that the tattoos were being replicated until years after they started doing it.
Fair point.

I don't blame the artists tho. I operate in a field where we use licenses galore & those don't always achieve the desired result. Never mind copyright protection..

Never gonna throw shade at someone trying to protect their original work. Especially cuz someone else feels entitled to benefiting from that work. It kinda felt like the timing of all of this was fishy, especially after the NCAA suits picked up steam, but either way, petty or not -- the artists deserve protection of their efforts.
 
# 33 mqt @ 08/04/16 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
A tattoo is a work of art.

Just like a painting.
Just like a photograph.
Just like a movie.
Just like a song.

Because its a work of art, its protected by US copyright laws. One of those laws is that the artist who created the work of art has the right to decide who can copy his/her artwork. He also has the right to demand payment from people who copy or create other versions of his work.
Let me be clear about the fact that I couldn't possibly care any less about tattoos in video games, but this feels inherently wrong to me. I understand the facts of the situation and it is indeed true that they have copyright protections. However, I find it ridiculous that tattoos can have that protection when we are discussing digital media. In addition to the fact that the artist has already sold that piece of art to a customer, the recreation of that artist's work is both distinctly different in that it's a digital creation and is also in no way going to cause any damage to the original artist. It's my opinion that if an artist sells their work, the purchaser should be able to do as they wish with the artwork, and if that customer wants his purchased artwork to be digitally rendered, it should not be copyright infringement.

For what it's worth, I certainly don't blame the artist here. I'd certainly want to get paid as well if I were in their position. I just feel that given the circumstances that any legal argument in favor of those artists feel incorrect.
 
# 34 bigdipper88 @ 08/04/16 12:14 AM
And honestly, most tats these days aren't original anyways
 
# 35 nuckles2k2 @ 08/04/16 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mqt
Let me be clear about the fact that I couldn't possibly care any less about tattoos in video games, but this feels inherently wrong to me. I understand the facts of the situation and it is indeed true that they have copyright protections. However, I find it ridiculous that tattoos can have that protection when we are discussing digital media. In addition to the fact that the artist has already sold that piece of art to a customer, the recreation of that artist's work is both distinctly different in that it's a digital creation and is also in no way going to cause any damage to the original artist. It's my opinion that if an artist sells their work, the purchaser should be able to do as they wish with the artwork, and if that customer wants his purchased artwork to be digitally rendered, it should not be copyright infringement.
How about thinking about it as the artist selling the ink, their expertise, & time.

The actual intellectual property still belongs to the artist.

Same with any contractor who's contracted to do work that will stay "on-site", but as soon as someone else tampers/alters it, the contractor washes their hands of the situation & says "I'm not supporting the quality of that work after it's been altered" -- or even the same on any electronic device that warns of voided warranties if tampered with.

In this case, it's just the artists maintaining their ownership of that proprietary work. Get their permission, or don't duplicate it.

Seems pretty fair.
 
# 36 ChaseB @ 08/04/16 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckles2k2
How about thinking about it as the artist selling the ink, their expertise, & time.

The actual intellectual property still belongs to the artist.

Same with any contractor who's contracted to do work that will stay "on-site", but as soon as someone else tampers/alters it, the contractor washes their hands of the situation & says "I'm not supporting the quality of that work after it's been altered" -- or even the same on any electronic device that warns of voided warranties if tampered with.

In this case, it's just the artists maintaining their ownership of that proprietary work. Get their permission, or don't duplicate it.

Seems pretty fair.
Also, it's not like the human who has the art doesn't own it, it's just that another company is then profiting off his body in a way where the third party doesn't get any of that benefit. It's only a problem because the art is showing up in another commercial enterprise.
 
# 37 onetongwa @ 08/04/16 05:05 AM
I'll say it for everyone else, This is all stupid and everyone involved in the suit is stupid, And as soon as you tattoo me or anybody else, that tattoo becomes a part of their body and I will and can do whatever I want with that tattoo and dare anybody to stop me. These lawsuits are just for fun in my book. I see everybody trying to get rich off of someone else. And I don't care about any clever crap anybody has to say. 2k should keep doing whatever and just hire smarter lawyers. The End.
 
# 38 DatIsraeliGuy @ 08/04/16 05:11 AM
Let's just hope they don't go all THQ.
I still can't believe that tattoos are the issue
 
# 39 Vni @ 08/04/16 05:45 AM
What if 2K changed the tattoos just very slightly ?
 
# 40 Junior Moe @ 08/04/16 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vni
What if 2K changed the tattoos just very slightly ?

This!!! It's what other games have done and is a win win.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.