Home
NBA 2K17 News Post


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
# 61 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhein77
I ultimately want a win win for both sides. Copyright Infringement has eradicated gaming in college sports and as a result, no more games.

It will completely kill the realism for me if tattoos were omitted from future 2k offerings. The people who ultimately suffer are the gamers who want to play a realistic basketball simulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
CI didnt eradicate college sports games. Likeness rights did. Those are completely different things.

The people who ultimately suffer are also a tattoo artist who makes 30-40k a year and has to watch a billion dollar corporation copy his artwork without compensation.
 
# 62 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 11:20 AM
This is a bs lawsuit. Plain and simple. You can't claim ownership for something you put on someones body. Looks like a stupid cash grab in my opinion. If you can sue somebody for the appearance of a tattoo you created then why not go after the NBA for royalties. The made more money off the Finals alone then 2k did off of one years worth of sales on a game. Hell half the Cavaliers have a billion tattoos. Why not sue the league? Making plenty of money displaying your art. NBA likely has much more monstrous lawyers too. Garbage *** lawsuit. Further more whats stopping 2k from putting a sketch tool in the games and letting people add the tattoos that way? Not a damn thing......
 
# 63 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xx313xx
This is a bs lawsuit. Plain and simple. You can't claim ownership for something you put on someones body. Looks like a stupid cash grab in my opinion. If you can sue somebody for the appearance of a tattoo you created then why not go after the NBA for royalties. The made more money off the Finals alone then 2k did off of one years worth of sales on a game. Hell half the Cavaliers have a billion tattoos. Why not sue the league? Making plenty of money displaying your art. NBA likely has much more monstrous lawyers too. Garbage *** lawsuit. Further more whats stopping 2k from putting a sketch tool in the games and letting people add the tattoos that way? Not a damn thing......
I love when people have no actual knowledge of the law but claim a lawsuit is BS.
 
# 64 Boltman @ 08/04/16 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
I doubt this lawsuit will affect 2k17 at all. I dont even think it will lead to tattoos not being in the game. Two reasons for that:

- People keep comparing this to the Madden situation but I think Tattoos are more important in basketball than in football from a realism perspective. One reason is because of the jerseys which show the entire arm. Even if 2k lost this suit, I think they would find a way to keep them in.

- I believe the NBAPA has agreed to indemnify 2k against claims of this type so its possible that 2k isnt that concerned about this suit.
Thank you for the explanation, I love it when two people have a valid back & forth exchange (us) and I come out learning something on the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xx313xx
This is a bs lawsuit. Plain and simple. You can't claim ownership for something you put on someones body. Looks like a stupid cash grab in my opinion. If you can sue somebody for the appearance of a tattoo you created then why not go after the NBA for royalties. The made more money off the Finals alone then 2k did off of one years worth of sales on a game. Hell half the Cavaliers have a billion tattoos. Why not sue the league? Making plenty of money displaying your art. NBA likely has much more monstrous lawyers too. Garbage *** lawsuit. Further more whats stopping 2k from putting a sketch tool in the games and letting people add the tattoos that way? Not a damn thing......
Umm.

Ignorance is bliss?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
I love when people have no actual knowledge of the law but claim a lawsuit is BS.
Yea these are the type of responses I expect from someone extremely uninformed on the subject matter. It's a bit silly, similar to a kid ranting.

I prefer the knowledgeable exchanges to learn more about it. Rather than the rants.
 
# 65 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
I love when people have no actual knowledge of the law but claim a lawsuit is BS.
Ok then, enlighten me. Why not sue the league who constantly does the same thing once the season starts for all intent and purposes. Don't insult, educate. How is this not a bs witch hunt or cash grab? Would love to know. Plenty of other sports have ways of athletes covering up their bodies as to not display tattoos. Not that is generally the reason. By all means though explain why you wouldn't sue the league but would sue a game developer?
 
# 66 sane478 @ 08/04/16 11:34 AM
It's not BS but very petty to me anyway. I get both sides, because it's like it's their work but then again if 2K wasn't so popular would this even be a topic? They should do like Live and just partner up with a few of those players tattoo artists and have them design original ones for say MyPlayer & etc. That way the more popular athletes keep their ink, they get $$ for their original art for MyCareer etc..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
# 67 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltman
Thank you for the explanation, I love it when two people have a valid back & forth exchange (us) and I come out learning something on the subject.



Umm.

Ignorance is bliss?



Yea these are the type of responses I expect from someone extremely uninformed on the subject matter. It's a bit silly, similar to a kid ranting.

I prefer the knowledgeable exchanges to learn more about it. Rather than the rants.
Again if you have a law degree or some formal knowledge educate me on why I should not think this way. Don't be a snob. Explain why the average person should not think this way.
 
# 68 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sane478
It's not BS but very petty to me anyway. I get both sides, because it's like it's their work but then again if 2K wasn't so popular would this even be a topic? They should do like Live and just partner up with a few of those players tattoo artists and have them design original ones for say MyPlayer & etc. That way the more popular athletes keep their ink, they get $$ for their original art for MyCareer etc..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That brings up an interesting question. If this series wasn't so big would this be happening?
 
# 69 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 11:38 AM
Look guys I have a degree in Computer Science not Law so if you know something, I'm willing to hear you out. Insulting is not going to get us anywhere.
 
# 70 rhein77 @ 08/04/16 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
CI didnt eradicate college sports games. Likeness rights did. Those are completely different things.



The people who ultimately suffer are also a tattoo artist who makes 30-40k a year and has to watch a billion dollar corporation copy his artwork without compensation.


Likeness is a form of copyright infringement...

Artist who are great enough to tattoo a professional artist, athlete, actor etc. make far more than the median salary as well.

The most highly sought after tattoo artist can make upwards of $1000 bucks per hour.

They are able to charge that much because they are highly sought after... Top tattoo artist are making a great living.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/...attoo-artists/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
# 71 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 11:47 AM
I take it the ones calling me a whining child or ignorant don't know anything either. So, does anybody actually understand this case or are people just white knighting? I want to know how this is not witch hunt
 
# 72 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xx313xx
Ok then, enlighten me. Why not sue the league who constantly does the same thing once the season starts for all intent and purposes. Don't insult, educate. How is this not a bs witch hunt or cash grab? Would love to know. Plenty of other sports have ways of athletes covering up their bodies as to not display tattoos. Not that is generally the reason. By all means though explain why you wouldn't sue the league but would sue a game developer?
You werent asking for education. You were making a statement based on little to no knowledge of the law. Now that you are asking for education I will help.

The NBA is not copying or creating a derivative version of artwork when it shows a tattoo on TV or in a photo.

2k is creating a derivative version of the artwork when it recreates the artwork in game and puts it on a player.

Thats why 2k got sued and not the NBA.
 
# 73 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhein77
Likeness is a form of copyright infringement...

Artist who are great enough to tattoo a professional artist, athlete, actor etc. make far more than the median salary as well.

The most highly sought after tattoo artist can make upwards of $1000 bucks per hour.

They are able to charge that much because they are highly sought after... Top tattoo artist are making a great living.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/...attoo-artists/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Likeness rights are not a form of copyright infringement. They are both forms of intellectual property.

Comparing a tattoo artist to the highest paid people in their industry isnt a fair comparison.

I'm a lawyer. The top 10 lawyers make tens of millions of dollars. That doesnt mean that I'm well off or that most people in my industry make that.
 
# 74 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xx313xx
I take it the ones calling me a whining child or ignorant don't know anything either. So, does anybody actually understand this case or are people just white knighting? I want to know how this is not witch hunt
I'm a intellectual property lawyer who has been practicing for 13 years. I also have been handling copyright infringement cases for a major cable television network for 13 years.
 
# 75 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
You werent asking for education. You were making a statement based on little to no knowledge of the law. Now that you are asking for education I will help.

The NBA is not copying or creating a derivative version of artwork when it shows a tattoo on TV or in a photo.

2k is creating a derivative version of the artwork when it recreates the artwork in game and puts it on a player.

Thats why 2k got sued and not the NBA.
My reaction is the same as many other people who likely didn't bother to post it. You guys could have very easily put that in your initial comment but chose to insult first. Like I said, not necessary. It's much more constructive to inform then it is to berate. I 'll gladly take that bump for those who felt the same way. Thanks for the answer.
 
# 76 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
I'm a intellectual property lawyer who has been practicing for 13 years. I also have been handling copyright infringement cases for a major cable television network for 13 years.
Which further drives home my point.
 
# 77 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xx313xx
That brings up an interesting question. If this series wasn't so big would this be happening?
Who are you to determine when a person can sue or cant? I know its tough to hear this but what 2k did was tantamount to theft.

They took someone's artwork without permission or compensation. Created millions of duplicate copies and made a profit from the game.

Now you may say "This isnt Tats 2k! Its not like 2k was specifically selling the tattoos"

One reason people love 2k is because of realism and having accurate tattoos adds to that realism. So those tattoos do play a role in the popularity and sales of the game.

So 2k is using someone's artwork to increase the realism of the game and to help generate revenue but is refusing to pay that person for using its artwork.
 
# 78 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xx313xx
Which further drives home my point.
Huh? You just claimed that I had no knowledge and I just explained to you why I have more knowledge than you.

Also based on my job.....I should be on 2k's side. I represent a big corporation. We constantly get sued or threatened to be sued by everyday people based on copyright.
 
# 79 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xx313xx
My reaction is the same as many other people who likely didn't bother to post it. You guys could have very easily put that in your initial comment but chose to insult first. Like I said, not necessary. It's much more constructive to inform then it is to berate. I 'll gladly take that bump for those who felt the same way. Thanks for the answer.
They didnt bother to post it likely because they didnt know the law. Ignorance isnt an excuse. If you dont know the law, ask a question. Dont call the suit BS when you dont know the law.
 
# 80 xx313xx @ 08/04/16 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
They didnt bother to post it likely because they didnt know the law. Ignorance isnt an excuse. If you dont know the law, ask a question. Dont call the suit BS when you dont know the law.
Ok, you're a lawyer so it's your job to hold information until an advantageous moment. I get that. Again all could have been said in the initial quote thanks for nothing....
 


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