Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[DreamAgain]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Well if they take tats out of the game there's always the PC mod community for this kind of stuff =)

[Hooe]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

A 2K artist created that tattoo on that virtual arm, the original artist didn't create it. Unless there's a contract between the players and tattoo artist for that likeness and image, I don't know how this is still the artist' property.

Incorrect.

The 2K artist created a digital facsimile of the original work of the original artist in a manner that is not transformative. Transformative, in the legal sense of the word, means that the work has changed to a different state or thing, and changing the medium of the artwork is long established as not transformative. Thus the new asset is not an original work and the original artist retains rights to the asset.

For example, one can't record the playback of a vinyl AC/DC album on an analog record player to a computer file, burn that file to a CD, and claim that CD as a transformative original work and sell copies of it; you're still selling the intellectual property which belongs to AC/DC.

The digital representation of the art also doesn't constitute fair use because it doesn't add anything to the artwork such as commentary or a review. It also (obviously) isn't protected as a parody (which is by definition transformative).

This is the precedent under which Electronic Arts has been party to lawsuits for use of tattoos in their sports video games dating back to NFL Street 2.

[drugsbunny]

I would think one of a few things: A. Are the actual tattoos themselves trademarked patterns designed by the artist themselves and patented? B. Were the tattoos gifts to the players for marketing purposes? C. Did the athletes sign something saying that the tattoos can not be used for marketing purposes? That would almost be like Guitar company suing the Beatles for using their instruments to create music. If Lebron had on a long sleeve turtle neck with a top hat on, I was still buying 2k14. This is quite frivolous to me. I was actually quite upset that I couldn't put tats on my created players in 2k basketball... Now this... I hate people.

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Well, I guess the NBA and 2K Sports have to redefine the term "player likeness". To me, if 2K Sports is paying a licensing fee to the NBPA/NBA to use the players' " likeness", but the contract language doesn't address tattoos then why is 2K Sports the only one at fault?

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Dude you are missing my point...my point is these guys aren't getting any exposure by having these tattoos in NBA 2K. They aren't mentioned by Take Two or Visual Concepts. And I have never seen a player say on Twitter that he got this tattoo from shop x in city Y. That's all I am trying to say. So Ksutton please tell me who did every tattoo on Birdman's body? This should be an easy question for you to answer because they get all this exposure from Birdman and the companies that create the 2K game.

And the only other thing I have said is that they need to get permission from the artist to use it, and after reading through the Kaepernick thread that may not even be true. I am going to do some more research on this before I say they need permission from the artists or not. But I will keep defending that these artists aren't getting exposure from Take Two and Visual Concepts.

You're making this point way too complicated. I'm just talking about plain old visual exposure as in people can see the tattoos without official/organized advertising. It's on the individual to do the research to find out who did the tattoo.

I'm pretty sure people are smart enough to know that tattoo was done by a "famous" artist.

[bcruise]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

I guess this will finally stop the "why can 2k have tattoos but EA/SCEA can't put them in" talk on their respective boards.

Was only a matter of time.

[jwired21]

This is crazy. By the tattoo artists definition of "ownership" they are basically saying they could also remove the tattoo from the person when ever because they own it. And I mean remove in real life. It's like everything else, a money grab.

[SpeedyClaxton]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Well if FIFA can have tatts for soccer players i don't see why it's not possible with nba players.

[Hooe]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

This is crazy. By the tattoo artists definition of "ownership" they are basically saying they could also remove the tattoo from the person when ever because they own it. And I mean remove in real life. It's like everything else, a money grab.

That is not at all what the tattoo artists are saying.

The NBA player who purchased the tattoo has the right to wear and display it; he has paid the artist for the work in question. The video game publisher, which has not paid the artist for a license to use the artist's intellectual property, does not have the same license unless and until the publisher pays the artist.

It doesn't matter that the art is literally on the player's skin, the intellectual property of the art still belongs to the artist.

[Hooe]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Well if FIFA can have tatts for soccer players i don't see why it's not possible with nba players.

Someone will have to check me on this, but I would assume that any player tattoos which appear in the FIFA soccer video games have the same specific approval from the artist which governs the appearance of player tattoos in contemporary Madden NFL games. Starting with Madden NFL 15, a player appearing in the game must explicitly seek and gain permission from the artist to have his tattoos appear in the game.

[bcruise]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

A thought on FIFA (and it's not something I know for sure, just a guess):

Being an international sport with players from all over the world, it might be subject to different (i.e. less strict) copyright and IP laws than the major US sports games are. It seems like that might be an apples to oranges comparison.

It's also possible that money-hungry tattoo artists and their lawyers haven't come knocking on EA's soccer studio door yet, much like 2k's until now.

[24ct]

Re: Makers of NBA2K sued for using players' tattoos without permission

I don't think ppl understand how much money they make on VC alone. Game sold like 8 million copies plus. VC can be purchased for the price of another full game at $50. They have it. Serves them right for making VC a microtransaction anyway. Call it karma.

I do remember Madden not having tattoos because of licensing issues. I thought it was just lazy. But now I see it was just cheap.

[SpeedyClaxton]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Well i can't imagine seeing players without tats..JR Smith, LeBron, Birdman without tats is really a garbage to me, small part of a game but adds big time to authenticity

[luijo]

That is not at all what the tattoo artists are saying.

The NBA player who purchased the tattoo has the right to wear and display it; he has paid the artist for the work in question. The video game publisher, which has not paid the artist for a license to use the artist's intellectual property, does not have the same license unless and until the publisher pays the artist.

It doesn't matter that the art is literally on the player's skin, the intellectual property of the art still belongs to the artist.

So, what happens if the player decides to put a new tattoo over the previous one? can he get sued by the artist because he modified his property?

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

That is not at all what the tattoo artists are saying.

The NBA player who purchased the tattoo has the right to wear and display it; he has paid the artist for the work in question. The video game publisher, which has not paid the artist for a license to use the artist's intellectual property, does not have the same license unless and until the publisher pays the artist.

It doesn't matter that the art is literally on the player's skin, the intellectual property of the art still belongs to the artist.

That seems like a stupid loophole in the law....It's not like 2K Sports is marketing the tattoos. 2K Sports is marketing a basketball game with players who, by coincidence, wear tattoos.

I could see a better lawsuit if 2K Sports was marketing the individual tattoos as a "selling point", and the consumer base mainly bought the product based on the tattoos found in the game. Otherwise...the artist(s) are ASSUMING that 2K Sports is making a profit due to the tattoos. Personally, I would still buy the game regardless without the tattoos....although it would bug me to DEATH not seeing tattoos on Paul George, Monta Ellis, George Hill, etc. That would be too surreal for me to watch a live game on TV, then to fire up NBA 2K17 to see something totally different.