[rynecandy]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

If it's copyrighted then the guy has a case and he's right. If it's not copyrighted and it's just a tattoo he did then he has no case. But as long as it's copyrighted then the artist is justified in doing what he's doing. WWE has to essentially take out the 2 tattoos on CM Punk of the GI Joe logo and Pepsi logo because those logos are copyrighted. It sounds stupid to us but that's the entire point of getting something copyrighted. that has NOTHING to do with it. If the art is copyrighted, then he has a right to sue. That is why you get something copyrighted. It is NOTHING like a barber suing athletes for using their hairstyles UNLESS they have those hairstyles copyrighted. You guys are all acting like this guy just did some random tattoo and saw it portrayed on Williams in the image and is looking for a quick buck. The art was COPYRIGHTED.

/\/\/\/\

That's true but I'm guessing since neither of those companies (or owners of entities) put the tattoo on the body knowing others would see them makes it different. The guy put the tattoo on Williams knowing others would see it with (most likely) the hopes of getting free pub for his tattoo shop. I doubt this see a courtroom, EA has lots of lawyers vs what this guy can provide for himself.