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

# 161 roadman @ 02/03/16 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cujomatty


	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.

I get your point and agree, I'm just saying the money still comes from corporate any way you look at it.

Plus, who knows if they are coming after Live and EA too. Heck, it was 9 years before the tattoo artist came after Ricky Williams and EA.

# 162 coolcras7 @ 02/03/16 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cujomatty


	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.

I am sorry but some of these tattoo artist need to get their as kicked, read in the article the guy who did Tyson tattoo wanted to be payed because tyson appearance in the hangover, so now they own the rights to what a individual can do or be seen on.

# 163 24ct @ 02/03/16 08:52 PM

Are we even sure NBA live didn't get permission tho? If you look at their tattoos they have real artists work in their in game tattoo shop. You guys are merely speculating they didn't ask the actual tattoo owners. Maybe they asked LeBron & Kobes tattoo guys because of Madden? Maybe they're being sued by them too or they've been contacted and it just isn't big news?

Obviously it's a money grab but suing ppl is usually because of monetary issues. So yeah it's about money but it's still their right to sue for their property. Same with the player likeness in NCAA games. I see nothing wrong with them suing for money.

And about the Tyson tattoo I thought they just wanted the money for them recreating the tattoo on another actor. That makes sense. If they wanted money for Tyson being in the film that's pretty ludicrous lol. I don't see how they would win that.

# 164 BA2929 @ 02/03/16 08:52 PM

Note to people getting tats in the future:

Figure out the rights to your tattoo designs in advance, either a license or you're given full ownership. Some artists will probably just hand it over to you for free, especially if you're a nobody like me.

Get it in writing. Even if you're getting it from your friend and you drew it. Granted, if it's a tat of Super Mario you're out of luck, but if it's an original work then get the rights. If the artist you choose doesn't want to do it, find another.

It's easier to pay a licensing fee to your artist than deal with crap like this. Especially if you start going on TV or appearing in visual work like ads.

# 165 jeremym480 @ 02/03/16 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolcras7


	I am sorry but some of these tattoo artist need to get their as kicked, read in the article the guy who did Tyson tattoo wanted to be payed because tyson appearance in the hangover, so now they own the rights to what a individual can do or be seen on.

I haven't read the article, but I'm pretty sure the guy who didn't Tyson's tattoo didn't sue because Tyson appeared in The Hangover. He sued because the tattoo he created was used on Ed Helms' character.

# 166 iReP PHiLLY @ 02/03/16 09:07 PM

I agree the artists have rights to their work in certain situations and if Lebron basically did the "copy and paste" thing through a website then there is a argument but if he designed it himself then......[emoji848]where is the argument? I honestly only care about the integrity of the the game, realism etc. If these artists feel that entitled then they shouldn't tatt superstar athletes knowing what their occupation is. So what is 2k supposed to do put every artist in the credits so they can get credit? Ctfu this is crazy. Like I said before I could care less about this honestly but it effects a game I enjoy so I'm just voicing my opinion.

Fun topic tho.

Another thing: To me the athletes should go in these tattoo shops with a contract for the artists that says look "this is what I do and this tattoo will be used in many different ways and seen by many different people" that to me is the only way to avoid this BS because regardless of whatever, it is exactly that...BS!
Shot from my 6s Plus[emoji1605]

# 167 NINJAK2 @ 02/03/16 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24ct


	Are we even sure NBA live didn't get permission tho? If you look at their tattoos they have real artists work in their in game tattoo shop. You guys are merely speculating they didn't ask the actual tattoo owners. Maybe they asked LeBron & Kobes tattoo guys because of Madden? Maybe they're being sued by them too or they've been contacted and it just isn't big news? Obviously it's a money grab but suing ppl is usually because of monetary issues. So yeah it's about money but it's still their right to sue for their property. Same with the player likeness in NCAA games. I see nothing wrong with them suing for money. And about the Tyson tattoo I thought they just wanted the money for them recreating the tattoo on another actor. That makes sense. If they wanted money for Tyson being in the film that's pretty ludicrous lol. I don't see how they would win that.

Great post 24ct but I don't agree with the NCAA comparison. The tat artist did receive compensation for services rendered. NCAA players never got a dime and their likeness was used without permission and long after their NCAA days were done. I've never had a tat done. It's my line of thinking that once I've paid you cash and sat in a chair for hours after I've collaborated with you on what to do, our transaction is done and the end product belongs to me. If someone were to ask me where it was done I would obviously tell them and give a ringing endorsement to the artist. Now if I were to start a company and use that tat as my logo that's another story.

# 168 roadman @ 02/03/16 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NINJAK2


	Great post 24ct but I don't agree with the NCAA comparison. The tat artist did receive compensation for services rendered. NCAA players never got a dime and their likeness was used without permission and long after their NCAA days were done. I've never had a tat done but it's my line of thinking that once I've paid you cash and sat in a chair for hours after I've collaborated with you on what to do our transaction is done and the end product belongs to me. If someone were to ask me where it was done I would obviously tell them and give a ringing endorsement to the artist. Now if I were to start a company and use that tat as my logo that's another story.

I agree with this on a personal level, but unfortunately, there are copy right laws posted in this very thread that differ than the pay and it's mine motif.

It basically boils down to the law and then let the parties involved battle it out in court.

EA took the low road and settled because obviously going to court takes time and money.

# 169 iReP PHiLLY @ 02/03/16 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NINJAK2


	I've never had a tat done but it's my line of thinking that once I've paid you cash and sat in a chair for hours after I've collaborated with you on what to do our transaction is done and the end product belongs to me.

Thank u NINJAK2! This is exactly my point, but I guess tattoo artists have a different train of thought then the rest of us.

Shot from my 6s Plus[emoji1605]

# 170 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/03/16 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 24th Letter


	LeBron......

Welp...the argument is done for me. Put me on the jury!

Personally, I think 2K Sports should challenge it and set a future precedent against this. Isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that 2K Sports' sales was a indirect/direct results of the tattoo, and that 2K Sports maliciously recreated the tattoos and claimed ownership?

In most copyright cases I've seen, the problem normally arises when the "stealer" takes credit for the original work or knowingly makes a profit from the work. I think they're going to be hard pressed to find any 2K Sports employee who said "We're going to get paid off Lebron's tattoos!".

# 171 roadman @ 02/03/16 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76


	Welp...the argument is done for me. Put me on the jury! Personally, I think 2K Sports should challenge it and set a future precedent against this. Isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove that 2K Sports' sales was a indirect/direct results of the tattoo, and that 2K Sports maliciously recreated the tattoos and claimed ownership? In most copyright cases I've seen, the problem normally arises when the "stealer" takes credit for the original work or knowingly makes a profit from the work. I think they're going to be hard pressed to find any 2K Sports employee who said "We're going to get paid off Lebron's tattoos!".

So, why would EA not go to court and settle instead?

These corporations have corporate attorneys working for them and advising what to do and what not to do.

Trouble is, the lawsuit for EA came out of nowhere. It was 9 years before they decided to take EA to court.

We'll see where Take-Two and VC take this, settle out of court or take it to court and tie it up for awhile and pay out more money and hope to get a winning verdict.

# 172 24ct @ 02/03/16 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NINJAK2


	Great post 24ct but I don't agree with the NCAA comparison. The tat artist did receive compensation for services rendered. NCAA players never got a dime and their likeness was used without permission and long after their NCAA days were done. I've never had a tat done. It's my line of thinking that once I've paid you cash and sat in a chair for hours after I've collaborated with you on what to do, our transaction is done and the end product belongs to me. If someone were to ask me where it was done I would obviously tell them and give a ringing endorsement to the artist. Now if I were to start a company and use that tat as my logo that's another story.

Agreed. I wasn't necessarily comparing the tattoos work with the NCAA students. I'm just saying suing for likeness rights/recreation is feasible. Just like a sample record. Even if I don't make a penny off the song I make, if someone comes and samples it then makes money, I can sue. As long as it's within the statue of limitations which is like 50+ years lol. This is basically what the players did with the NCAA games. I agree with your point as far as them not getting paid so it's different in that regard. I should've made that a clear thought.

As for the tattoos, it's all the discretion of the artist. We don't know what they're having players/celebrities sign or do when they get work done. Each shop/artist has their own policy. It could be on the walls of the parlor or in the tattoo books. Like I said I have a bunch of tattoos. And there was an artist who wouldn't do the same work on 2 different people. Like if you saw something you liked on someone else, he wouldn't copy it or redraw for you to have on your own skin. He also didn't copy the tattoo I gave him from online verbatim. He didn't really want to do it. He was glad I had a big enough picture so he didn't have to redraw it then trace it but the finished product was his own creation/twist. If this studio is doing big names like LeBron & Kobe I'm sure they have a policy written somewhere.

I actually know of the guy who has done some of LeBrons tattoos. The place is in Cleveland. He's done work on Mo Williams too. I'm from Ohio & my friend gets his tattoos from the same guy. You can tell by the shading/filling he does. The artist I said wouldn't redraw tattoos worked in the same studio as the guy who did LeBrons, Mo's & my friends. I don't think it's the same company that's suing take two tho. So either they got permission or they're not that strict.

Guys name is Jimmy. Works at Focused parlor. But they're not suing. Also the article says it's about the 2k where LeBron was on the cover. Says the tattoo was a focal point of sales. Which isn't true of course lol but by law/default it makes sense. Especially if the guy in question was on the cover of the game. Legit case here from that standpoint.

# 173 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/03/16 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	We'll see where Take-Two and VC take this, settle out of court or take it to court and tie it up for awhile and pay out more money and hope to get a winning verdict.

Truthfully, this paragraph pretty much sums it up. Sometimes, it's just easier and cheaper to go with the settlement regardless if it's right or wrong.

# 174 coolcras7 @ 02/03/16 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76


	Truthfully, this paragraph pretty much sums it up. Sometimes, it's just easier and cheaper to go with the settlement regardless if it's right or wrong.

They settle with this artist and two more will pop up wanting the exact same deal.

# 175 deetoman @ 02/03/16 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iReP PHiLLY


	Thank u NINJAK2! This is exactly my point, but I guess tattoo artists have a different train of thought then the rest of us. Shot from my 6s Plus[emoji1605]

Yeah that's what I thought, I guess none of my tattoos really belong to me?

# 176 RonRac1 @ 02/04/16 08:43 AM

Take-Two should just follow the process that EA did to secure the tattoo's in Live, because l don't hear about EA being sued for Live's tattoo's. Or they can just adjust the tattoo's like EA has done, for example look at Jr Smith's neck tattoo on Live it resembles his tatt but it ain't his actual tatt. If they can't get the rights they should just adjust them. That's all I'm saying...

# 177 DatIsraeliGuy @ 02/04/16 10:21 AM

How serious is this? Should we be worried 2k will end up like THQ or is it not that bad?

# 178 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/04/16 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DatIsraeliGuy


	How serious is this? Should we be worried 2k will end up like THQ or is it not that bad?

Good discussion, but I'm not that worried about it. I'm expecting to see changed tattoos in NBA 2K17. Personally, I'm kinda looking forward to the "Before and After" thread that will probably be created, lol.

# 179 redsox4evur @ 02/04/16 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76


	Good discussion, but I'm not that worried about it. I'm expecting to see changed tattoos in NBA 2K17. Personally, I'm kinda looking forward to the "Before and After" thread that will probably be created, lol.

Here I'll summarize it a couple quick sentences.

Before: These are greedy *** pigs. After you get a tattoo it's your property.

After being taken out: This is complete bull**** I'm not going to buy this game. How can they call this a sim when the tattoos aren't real.

# 180 HealyMonster @ 02/04/16 09:41 PM

Does the rocks tattoo artist get a waiver for every time he posts a picture on Instagram or goes shirtless in Ballers?

This is ridiculous. I hope 2k fights it and wins. If I go pay someone to put a tattoo on my body, it is mine, it is part of my body. If someone else pays me or pays my organization for me to appear in something, they are buying me, all of me, every part of me, not me minus my tattoos. Absolutely ridiculous.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910 11 Next »

More Links

Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists