Ricky Williams and EA Getting Sued For NFL Street Tattoo

[Steve_OS]

Stephen Allen, a tattoo artist at Crybabies Tattoo in Shreveport, Louisiana is suing Ricky Williams and EA for a tattoo they used on the NFL Street cover. Stephen claims it is his copyrighted artwork.

NFL Street was released way back in 2004 for the Xbox, PS2 and GameCube, but Mr. Allen wasn't aware of it until 2010.

Back in November of last year, Chris Escobedo, a tattoo artist and owner of Elite Tattoo, filed a lawsuit against THQ for a tattoo on the side of Carlos Condit in UFC Undisputed 3.

Source - New Case: Allen v. EA (Tattoo Art) (Patent Arcade)

[bigbob]

Re: Ricky Williams and EA Getting Sued For NFL Street Tattoo

I don't see a problem with it. I know it's copyrighted, but it's also on Ricky's body.

They could have, I guess, went the WWE route and made it a little different (CM Punk's Pepsi Tattoo, etc).

[Irishwhiskey119]

I'm so glad i'm not pathetic like those tattoo guys. I guess the yankees should get paid everytime Jay-Z wears their hat on stage or tv. lol

[DGMikeBarker]

That's like barbers suing athletes for using there hairstyles. Makes no sense.

[thescoop]

Tattoos might be considered art but if you sale it to someone and it is placed on their body it is theirs. These lowlife tattoo artist's lawsuits should be thrown out and they should all be forced to pay high court fees for wasting the courts time. The lawyers that help represent them should be disbarred. This is just getting out of hand.

What is next? Can I sue Operation Sports for allowing someone to quote a comment I posted on their site somewhere else? Of course not because I know that if I post something here it now belongs to OS. These tattoo artist know they are putting these tats on celebrities. They know their "art" is going to be on display.

Come on and start throwing this crap out. This non sense shouldn't even go to trial.

[BaylorBearBryant]

No one bought the game because of this tattoo. This "artist's" contribution added nothing to sales.

[footballfan41]

OMG!!!!! This is just why we can't get good video games this day and time, alone with other items,..I sure do hope the courts laugh in the guy face,...All it is bout Money that guy could care less bout the tattoo,.when was that game art made??? And just now crying bout it,..goes to show its bout the money,...hope he has to spend every single dime of that $85 dollar tattoo to fight EAs deep pockets,..what a joke,.his eyes looks like this $=$ is all it is,.I'm pulling for EA all the way on this one, cause I want this crap to stop so EA can give us awesome games with out the worry of someone suing over money

[Dazraz]

What is the world coming to? Everyone sees a quick buck opportunity or a chance for some cheap publicity. Craziness. Hey buddy just restrict your tattoo work to people's backsides, that way you won't have to worry about it getting into a sports game.

[BCDX97]

Crybabies Tattoo? Crybabies sounds about right. How lame. And absurd.

I don't know why anybody would ever go to that clown for a tattoo again.

[cattlekiller]

Wow.

The next step from this now is each time a athlete goes to a tattoo parlor he is going to have to bring a lawyer for the artist to sign over his rights for this Tattoo.I wonder if this is going to start a wave of people getting sued for posting there tattoo on social sites?

I agree this is a complete waste of court time.

[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.

No one bought the game because of this tattoo. This "artist's" contribution added nothing to sales.

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.

That's like barbers suing athletes for using there hairstyles. Makes no sense.

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.

[rynecandy]

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.

[JerseySuave4]

/\/\/\/\

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.

Makes no difference as long as its copyrighted. If the image is copyrighted then the guy has a case. I doubt it will see the courtroom because EA will just settle with the guy. If it were a photograph maybe that's different but even this image is a drawing.

[inkcil]

@Jersey...no point in debating this issue with "young people," it's clear-cut copywright infringement if EA didn't get his permission. EA shoula known better. Oh well.

[rynecandy]

Re: Ricky Williams and EA Getting Sued For NFL Street Tattoo

Read on 2 cases online and seems he does have a case as long as the copyright was made before the game came out. Both of them were settled out of court. Seems the guy is trying to get a few more dollars out of Ricky than what he paid for the ink....and it will most likely work.