NBA 2K16 News Post

Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

07:16 PM - February 1, 2016 by jfsolo

Some of the tattoos seen on LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kenyon Martin, DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are getting Take-Two Interactive and Visual Concepts into some hot water. Based off of articles from ESPN (Darren Rovell) and The HollyWoodReporter (Eriq Gardner), the makers of the NBA 2K series are getting sued for $1.1 million, because Solid Oak Sketches claims the tattoos are their copyrighted work.

Quote:


	Worried that they might be party to a lawsuit, the NFL Players Association told players in 2014 that, in order for their tattoos to be represented on merchandise, including video games, they needed to get waivers from the artists.

This is one of the main reasons other companies don't put tattoos in their game. Getting permission from the tattoo artist can take quite a bit of time. The Madden team had to go through that process to get the tattoos for Colin Kaepernick (Madden NFL 15) and Odell Beckham, Jr. (Madden NFL 16) in the game.

Quote:


	In a demand letter to Take-Two before the lawsuit was filed, an attorney for the plaintiff took the $22,500 award to Escobedo, and using information about NBA 2K16 sales, calculated that the value for the eight tattoos should be $572,000. But there was also the matter that two of LeBron James tattoos were featured on the cover of the videogame. According to the letter, "Given that those two tattoos are 'the face' of the 2014 game, their marketing and promotion value is, conservatively, at least four times the value of the rest of the tattoos." Thus, the claimed value of using all of the tattoo designs in question allegedly equals $819,500. That tattoo design company offered a perpetual license for a fee of $1,144,000.

You can read the full complaint at The Hollywood Reporter.

Game: NBA 2K16Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PC / PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 45 - View All

NBA 2K16 Videos

Member Comments

# 141 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/03/16 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hassan Darkside


	I wonder how feasible generic tattoos are. I'm usually not looking closely enough to notice every intricate detail of each player's tattoo. If Amar'e Stoudemire's bicep tattoo said "Korea is Korean" instead of "Knowing is Knowledge" I probably wouldn't even notice unless someone pointed it out. Might be too much work for the art department though.

I'll be honest. I wouldn't even notice the difference. However and knowing the community, there would be a thread on it and people demanding that 2K Sports get it right. The way people be battling over accessories, signature shots, shoes, etc being correct, someone is going to notice.

# 142 jake44np @ 02/03/16 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedyClaxton


	I'm not a fan of baseball or NFL, never played them but for basketball it's a part of game just as much as it's real hair and all stuff. You're saying me authenticity doesn't play a role to you, so tell me would you play 2K if LeBron for example is not made authentic but some generic black dude with afro hair ? Please don't get me started..

I grew up playing the game below, so yes I would and have.

http://static1.techinsider.io/image/...kobe_nba97.jpg

http://www.gameclassification.com/fi...A-Playoffs.gif

# 143 Junior Moe @ 02/03/16 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	The answer to this question has literally no relevance as to the merits of the suit filed against 2K Sports and the publisher's alleged improper misuse of intellectual property belonging to tattoo artists in the NBA 2K video games.

Why not? And I'm not talking about in a court of law or anything like that. EA was sued for the same thing. They cite it as a reason why Madden doesn't have tattoos. That's understandable. But Live still does. Why didn't they disappear in Live or have to get explicit permission from an artist? If they don't then what's so different here and why wouldn't it be relevant? It's the same thing, apparently.

# 144 SpeedyClaxton @ 02/03/16 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jake44np


	I grew up playing the game below, so yes I would and have. http://static1.techinsider.io/image/...kobe_nba97.jpg http://www.gameclassification.com/fi...A-Playoffs.gif

Well i also grew up on all these 2D games as well but since it's 2016 i would like to have WHOLE PACKAGE.

# 145 24ct @ 02/03/16 02:25 PM

I don't think you can sue a TV company for showing a player who happens to have your work represented on them. It isn't the same as suing a gaming studio that's making money by selling a game with your digital recreation in it. The video game is made by a 3rd party and they digitally recreated the work vs a TV show that's just showing live action. I think that's a totally different case.

# 146 NINJAK2 @ 02/03/16 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolcras7


	You do realize that people are jerks and will try to take advantage of this situation, we will be the ones who loses. Can you imagine like MSG, EA/2K buying the rights to Tattoos and it's only available on one of the games.

That's a great point coolcras7. You may have given one of these companies an idea

# 147 Haval93 @ 02/03/16 03:44 PM

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't copyright laws only apply for the base image or "tattoo", if you modify the tattoo, the artist can't claim copyrights over it? If so, can't 2K simply modify the tattoos and put it into the game? I'm sure fans would complain that the tattoos look off, but it would be better than nothing.

# 148 iReP PHiLLY @ 02/03/16 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsox4evur


	What exposure? There isn't any because 2K does not say who created these tattoos? Nor do the players.

Man exposure doesn't matter at all, who cares who did the tattoos on whoever. If someone cares that much than that individual should find out themselves, nobody owes squat to the artists but what was paid at the time the tattoo was done. Simple as that IMO. Saying to treat tattoos like other art is ridiculous, that's like buying a painting then selling it and having to give the artist a cut... No way in hell should u do that when you paid in full at the time of purchase. Now if someone is selling saying "I did this" that's what would make this situation valid, but nobody on 2Ks staff is saying "look we made these tattoos" a money grab is exactly what this is and nothing less. Now if there was a contract (I will put this tattoo on your body but I will always own it) before the tattoos where done then ok I get that but I never seen that done and I have tattoos myself done professionally. The person that owns the tattoo is the person that paid for it and who has to look at it for eternity, no one else.

Shot from my 6s Plus[emoji1605]

# 149 The 24th Letter @ 02/03/16 04:35 PM

LeBron......

Quote:


	CHARLOTTE, N.C. � Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James wasn't aware of a lawsuit that's out there involving the ink on his body, but when informed the gist of it, he was a bit puzzled. "So even if I designed it (the tattoo), the company owns it?" James asked. Solid Oak Sketches filed a $1.1 million lawsuit in a New York federal court Monday against NBA 2K Games, Take-Two Software and Visual Concepts claiming unauthorized reproductions of the tattoo designs they crafted on James, Kobe Bryant and other NBA players. Among the eight designs in question are a child's portrait and script scrolls with clouds and doves on the forearms of James; and butterflies on the arm of the Lakers' Kobe Bryant. S.O.S alleges to own copyrights of the tattoos and stated they never permitted the visuals of their art to be used by those companies. There is a precedent for such suits. Previously: Tattoo artists want money for designs in NBA 2K16; you agree? Tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill, who created the face tattoo design for former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson, sued Warner Bros. in 2011 for using his design on a character in the movie, "The Hangover Part II." The suit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Jokingly, James said, "I'm going to copyright my lips," as he retreated to take the court for shootaround in advance of tonight's game against the Charlotte Hornets. The lawsuit appears to be something he's not too concerned with.

# 150 Geolink @ 02/03/16 04:45 PM

Will the barbers sue next for face scanning the players hair?

# 151 jeremym480 @ 02/03/16 04:46 PM

How is all of this stuff even accounted for? If an NBA player gets a tattoo does he have to have his lawyer present? Or do tattoo shops have you fill out a bunch of paper work like when you're buying a house or something? Do they keep detailed records of every celebrities tattoos that the create just for situations like this?

If Lebron says that he designed the tattoo and the Solid Oak Sketches says that they did is there even a way to prove it? I guess it's his word against theirs, but what reason would Lebron have for saying that it's his design?

# 152 24ct @ 02/03/16 04:57 PM

I think ppl are taking this too far honestly. If LeBron drew a tattoo he would own that intellectual property. If he got it tatted the studio wouldn't own it based on copyright laws. Unless of course the actual picture he drew wasn't copywritten by LeBron himself. Then the studio could technically copyright the picture & own it. Like Michael Jackson purchased the Beatles discography. He bought it. If I draw/create something & don't get it copywritten then someone else can copywrite it & own it. That goes with an idea or whatever. If I don't copyright it I own the intellectual property by default. But if someone copyrights it 1st they own that copyright as physical evidence regardless of me owning the intellectual property. Obviously the guys who created these works of art got the work registered. That's how they're able to sue & get a settlement.

# 153 jeebs9 @ 02/03/16 04:58 PM

This is crazy lol

# 154 24ct @ 02/03/16 05:13 PM

I'm pretty sure the studios creating these works are getting the copyright for them. It's not like buying a painting from an auction & then giving certain proceeds to the artist. The artist has already sold it. The only way any proceeds would go to the artist is if it's already a contract in writing. If so then yes they would have to pay whatever they agreed on.

I definitely understand why they're suing. Imagine if you made a song & 2k used that song you own copyrights to without your permission. It's the same exact thing only it's artwork. Regardless of what ppl think they're artists. It's not all the tattoos just specific ones by this specific studio. They own the copyright so it's their right to sue for permissible use.

Sidenote: I have a bunch of tattoos in real life. 1 of which I got from an online website that I had to pay for the design. The rest I had custom drawn but on the site they stated on the work was copywritten. To the point where you couldn't right click & save it as a file. If you tried the site would pop up a copyright warning with the year. It was also watermarked so you couldn't just steal it.

# 155 CujoMatty @ 02/03/16 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	The answer to this question has literally no relevance as to the merits of the suit filed against 2K Sports and the publisher's alleged improper misuse of intellectual property belonging to tattoo artists in the NBA 2K video games.

Cmon you know why they arent suing EA for NBA live and it's the same reason that this whole thing is bogus. There's no money in suing NBA live, that's it, bottom line. They are going after 2k because it sold a million copies ( I have no idea exactly how many but it's a lot) and not EA because it sold 10 thousand (i haver no idea exactly how many but it's not a lot) if you had some actual concern for your "art" you'd Sue EA on principle. Nope it's a money grab.

# 156 Junior Moe @ 02/03/16 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cujomatty


	Cmon you know why they arent suing EA for NBA live and it's the same reason that this whole thing is bogus. There's no money in suing NBA live, that's it, bottom line. They are going after 2k because it sold a million copies ( I have no idea exactly how many but it's a lot) and not EA because it sold 10 thousand (i haver no idea exactly how many but it's not a lot) if you had some actual concern for your "art" you'd Sue EA on principle. Nope it's a money grab.

It could be a money grab. But from the looks of things they are in the right. But I find it odd how people cite the precedence of Madden's tattoo situation and slam dunk prognostications of tottoos being removed while not acknowledging that EA is still doing the same thing with Live after the Madden lawsuit. NBA Live and NBA 2K are more analogous (governed by same set of legalities being NBA properties) than NBA2K is to Madden or The Show. Seems I remember reading something about how the NBA handles tattoos differently.

# 157 roadman @ 02/03/16 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cujomatty


	Cmon you know why they arent suing EA for NBA live and it's the same reason that this whole thing is bogus. There's no money in suing NBA live, that's it, bottom line. They are going after 2k because it sold a million copies ( I have no idea exactly how many but it's a lot) and not EA because it sold 10 thousand (i haver no idea exactly how many but it's not a lot) if you had some actual concern for your "art" you'd Sue EA on principle. Nope it's a money grab.

You don't go after NBA Live, you go after EA Sports or EA the company.

Just like these artists are going after Visual Concepts and Take-Two Software.

# 158 I Djm @ 02/03/16 08:05 PM

Attachment 115294

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

# 159 NINJAK2 @ 02/03/16 08:23 PM

The more I think about this the more pissed off I get man. I read their intro settlement letter to 2k and it sounded laughable imo. I'm sure legally they may have a point but that letter just made it sound like these 8 tattoos were pivotal to this game's success. They mentioned that his tattoos appear prominently on the cover of 2k14 but wasn't that a photo of LeBron and not a videogame created image of him? Once LBJ gets a tat do those artists now OWN a portion of his body where his tat is? Does LBJ have to ask permission from them to do a photo spread with ESPN, SI, etc. or anything else where that tat may be displayed? This just sounds flat out wrong to me. They are marketing LeBron the man, not his Tats. IMO this lawsuit may be bad press for the company that's filing the claim as well. If I'm a pro athlete, actor/actress, etc I would have second thoughts about getting any work done by Solid Oaks or any artists that have had dealings with them. Famous athletes have to worry about shady agents and attorneys, friends or associates who try to get over on them. Now they have to worry about tat artists that they already paid $100's if not $1000's of bucks to for services rendered trying to make even more money off THEIR CUSTOMER'S celebrity and success...

# 160 CujoMatty @ 02/03/16 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	You don't go after NBA Live, you go after EA Sports or EA the company. Just like these artists are going after Visual Concepts and Take-Two Software.

Ya I said they aren't suing EA because of NBA live. I know it's EA they would go after. Read the OP though. They are basing the 1.1 million off of sales of NBA 2k not take two or visual concepts. Sooooooo you'd Sue EA off of sales of NBA live which is next to nothing hence pointless, hence money grab.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 789 10 11 Next »

More Links

Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists