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

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

I was actually talking about Live which altered a NY Yankee tattoo on Jr Smith but it's probably the same thing. Still, I don't see what's fundamentally different than altering the Pepsi or NY Yankee tattoo or one done by a local tattoo artist. For instance, LeBrons 1984 tat. 2K couldn't change that to 1985 in a different font and be fine?

The Pepsi/NY Yankees issue is a completely different issue than this lawsuit. In fact it deals with a completely different segment of Intellectual Property law.

Changing the font and the actual number would be more than a slight change and would be a better defense against a copyright infringement suit.

[Boltman]

I'm surprised 2K took a chance with Melo's WB tatt on his shoulder. I woulda thought that kinda jives with the Pepsi, NYY tatts.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by rhein77

True... I think that it is safe to say that the artist charge nba athletes more for work than they would charge the average joe. I agree with your premise. I work in a print world and any photographer who submits work to a stock repository has to sign an art release form prior to giving consent for the platform to sell their work. Why can't a tattoo artist follow that same model? They have been paid for their artwork and they are getting a platform although virtual to display it. I can see your point if they made money exclusively from tattoos but this is simply not the case. They are only being used to further enhance realism. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could but they arent being asked to do so. Its not the tattoo artist's responsibility to make sure that the player, the NBA and 2k can use his artwork.

The "they are getting a greater platform to display their work" argument doesnt work when it comes to artists because anyone could make that argument. I work for one of the biggest television networks in the world and if we were able to use that "greater platform" argument to defend against copyright infringement cases......we would take EVERY popular video on the internet, put it on our air and not pay the owners a dime.

And that would be OK because we could argue "We are one of the biggest networks in the world and we gave the artist a bigger platform to share their work." Even though we didnt pay the artist anything and even though we made millions from the ads that aired during that time. Thats bull****, right?

Most players arent thinking about video game realism when they get a tattoo. They just want a tattoo and arent likely to pay more to get the right to duplicate their tattoo.

2k (which makes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from this game) could set aside some money and actually attempt to license these tattoos. Most of these tattoo artists would be happy with a couple of grand if that.

You know why 2k doesnt do that? Insurance and the NBAPA.

I think the NBAPA has agreed to indemnify 2k against any likeness related claim and that includes tattoos. So 2k isnt actually footing the bill for this case.

Also if the NBAPA isnt indemnifiying them, 2k likely has an insurance policy that covers claims like this. So 2k only has to pay the deductible (likely under 100k) and their insurer handles the rest. So the only real cost to 2k is the time it takes to help its lawyers defend against the lawsuit.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Boltman

So clear this up for me someone if you can. Players in the game that had their tatts showing in 2K14 will continue because of this ruling right? 2K was using them before these tattoo artists filed these copywrites. So let's say the new players coming into the NBA (the rookie class as an example). Will the guys have their tatts in the game? Last year's rookies in 2K16 did right?

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.

[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

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

The Pepsi/NY Yankees issue is a completely different issue than this lawsuit. In fact it deals with a completely different segment of Intellectual Property law. Changing the font and the actual number would be more than a slight change and would be a better defense against a copyright infringement suit.

That's what I was getting at. That way we can keep tats and 2K can avoid the lawsuit stuff. 2k could just do that with all the tats in the game should it come to that. A win win.

[aholbert32]

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.

[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......