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

[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

[aholbert32]

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.

[aholbert32]

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.

[aholbert32]

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.

[xx313xx]

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.

[xx313xx]

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.

[aholbert32]

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.

[aholbert32]

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.