That ole Tatoo lawsuit is back again

[apollon42]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

I hope that people will understand why any company might decide that leaving tats out if they aren't 100% percent sure that a players has the rights is a reasonable course of action. Many still won't though, either through ignorance or obstinance.

I hope the court rules that tattoos in video games arent copyrighted so they can start putting tattoos in football games.

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

Haircuts aren't art. You don't commission a barber to create something when they cut your hair. Not the same thing at all. Yep. If you pay someone to put art on your body, you're a gallery unless you purchase the rights. Tattoos have copyrights, whether you agree with it or not. According to the U.S. Copyright Office:This include skin. If you have collaborated with your artist for the final result, you are both owners of the copyright. If he/she is the only one involved in the creation, he/she is the owner, giving the right to the client to display it. If you have a tat and you allowed the artist to create something, surprise! A piece of your body is owned by that person. This won't go to trial. The tat guy just wants a payday. Bron will settle out of court, secure the rights and it'll be over with. I'm honestly surprised LeBron wasn't smart enough to secure the rights when it was done to begin with.

Its sad that we have a law like that, with tats on someone body, but never the less its is the law, and its definitely not the only ridiculous law nor will it be the last either


Like you, I figure Lebron will just pay the tat guy and settle it out of court barring any ridiculous request by the tat guy. As far as being surprised that Lebron wasnt smart enough to secure the rights, when he got the tat, he may not have even known he needed to. I doubt alot of people and even these athletes who have tats probably dont or didnt realize that they would need to secure rights to something they put on their body, and that they paid for. My wife has a tat, and I got friends with tats, and I doubt they know this either, although I doubt my wife or any friends will become famous either, or famous enough anyway, to worry about it,lol. Im sure if you have to sign some type of document before getting your tat to protect the tat artist from being sued if they screw something up, that they have this written in very fine print that they have rights to the tat, but very few people read that kind of stuff,lol.

[NicL24017]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

Haircuts aren't art. You don't commission a barber to create something when they cut your hair. Not the same thing at all. Yep. If you pay someone to put art on your body, you're a gallery unless you purchase the rights. Tattoos have copyrights, whether you agree with it or not. According to the U.S. Copyright Office:This include skin. If you have collaborated with your artist for the final result, you are both owners of the copyright. If he/she is the only one involved in the creation, he/she is the owner, giving the right to the client to display it. If you have a tat and you allowed the artist to create something, surprise! A piece of your body is owned by that person. This won't go to trial. The tat guy just wants a payday. Bron will settle out of court, secure the rights and it'll be over with. I'm honestly surprised LeBron wasn't smart enough to secure the rights when it was done to begin with.

If Bron had any input at all on his tattoo, it would disqualify the artist from having sole ownership of the copyright. Trying to imply that someone getting a tattoo with zero input, like this case is dependent on, would be nearly impossible.

[BruhImAtWork]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

Haircuts aren't art. You don't commission a barber to create something when they cut your hair. Not the same thing at all.

I definitely understand why tattoos and haircuts are different in this case...but haircuts not being art is just wrong lmao. At least a good haircut.

[Junior Moe]

I still don't see this affecting 2K in any real way. They will of course do their due diligence (like now) with regards to what tats they include in the game. If a player doesn't have their tats in game though I think rational people will understand why.

[Mikelopedia]

I think it affected Eric Moreland lol

Used to awkwardly just have his neck tattoos as if he was a Madden or The Show render (when the tatts sneak in through the head scan) but now he has zero tattoos.

I doubt it's related, but just made me laugh when I saw his model in 2k19.