Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

[BellSKA]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

You do realize that people are jerks and will try to take advantage of this situation, we will be the ones who loses. Can you imagine like MSG, EA/2K buying the rights to Tattoos and it's only available on one of the games.

This basic idea is what I immediately thought of when I read this story. While we all feel like we are paying more/ getting less; what do you think will happen if Take2 and 2K lose any sort of revenue from this?

The idea that 2K has the vault of stored money and can easily take care of this situation may not be that far fetched. Do understand where that money originally came from. They will try and recoup that from the customer before they ask for more money from sponsors.

If you think the VC payout now is a mere pittance, just wait till they squeeze the consumer to purchase VC just to stay competitive.

[videlsports]

just cut the tattoos out. seriously I'm not in n mood to hear 2k scaling back any future development for sports titles because of this. I don't blame the artist wanting to get paid for their work, I just don't want to lose any more sports games.( I don't care if I'm overreacting) So just lose the tattoos. Gameplay first

[CujoMatty]

I don't at all understand the "EA is protecting themselves against getting sued" argument. I know most people have forgotten that EA makes a game called NBA live with the same tattoos.

Also I see what the law says but it's a case of common sense vs legal mumbo jumbo IMO. People want the players to replicate their real life counterpart that's it. The same shoes, accessories, hair styles and tattoos. I don't get how anyone with any sense would really genuinly care if a tattoo is being "recreated" on a player in a video game or seeing the tattoo on a player on tv. The only reason I can realistically see is because you think you can get money. It really is a money grab. 1.1 million is fair? Really?

[Poke]

I seen this coming. It was just a matter of time. But really do sports magazines, basketball card companies etc. have to pay too? This is ridiculous. Once a person pays for the art and its on their body it belongs to them. I don't care who designed what. What's next? Are the barbers and hair stylists going to start charging too.

[SpeedyClaxton]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

As much as i am fan of basketball and longtime 2k player as well i must admit i wouldn't buy it if they cut it out. Gameplay is always number one but authenticity as well is very high on priority list for me, i don't pay for fake stuff and always target authentic game to buy. That's why i stopped buying PES years ago because they couldn't license teams for their game. They earn each year ridiculous amounts money and they couldn't buy FIFA license for teams, very cheap move and also one that decide me not to buy that stuff anymore. Instead of Arsenal i had 'North London FC' lool..like it was some 3rd party amateur game.

[jake44np]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

As much as i am fan of basketball and longtime 2k player as well i must admit i wouldn't buy it if they cut it out. Gameplay is always number one but authenticity as well is very high on priority list for me, i don't pay for fake stuff and always target authentic game to buy. That's why i stopped buying PES years ago because they couldn't license teams for their game. They earn each year ridiculous amounts money and they couldn't buy FIFA license for teams, very cheap move and also one that decide me not to buy that stuff anymore. Instead of Arsenal i had 'North London FC' lool..like it was some 3rd party amateur game.

So you don't play Madden or the Show then?
Because they don't have real tattoos??? LOL
Not having tattoos or real tats on players would make no difference to me.
you cant make them out 99% of the time anyway when you are playing the game.

[Junior Moe]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

I don't at all understand the "EA is protecting themselves against getting sued" argument. I know most people have forgotten that EA makes a game called NBA live with the same tattoos.

EXACTLY!! EA was sued but NBA Live didn't go tattoo less. I would understand it but they didn't. So what are these guys basing their "get ready to see tattoos gone in 2K" arguments on. This isn't Madden or the NFL.

[Hassan Darkside]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

I wonder how feasible generic tattoos are. I'm usually not looking closely enough to notice every intricate detail of each player's tattoo. If Amar'e Stoudemire's bicep tattoo said "Korea is Korean" instead of "Knowing is Knowledge" I probably wouldn't even notice unless someone pointed it out. Might be too much work for the art department though.

[jeremym480]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Could 2K hypothetically use the scanned tattoos and then slightly alter them on the artist side so that they aren't then using the copyrighted IPs?

Would that be a realistic workaround, if they decide not to pay? Otherwise, I guess PC gamers can edit them back in.

That's what I'm wondering, as well. Especially, when you consider this:

Some other things to be considered:
1) If the tattoo is non-original it doesn't need to be approved by the tattoo artist. See 17 USC 102 (a). So, if a player has a tribal tattoo that is a reproduction of a tattoo that dates back hundreds of years, the tattoo artist has no IP rights.
2) Does the player own the tattoo IP in the first place? See 17 USC 201(b) Works made for hire. In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

Just make the ones that they don't have the rights to similar, but not 100% accurate. Kind of like how in MLB The Show they used to put a Dalmatian instead of the Chick Fil A cow at Turner Field. Honestly, I couldn't tell you what particular tattoo any player has in the NBA right now, so just throw something similar on all of the copyrighted tattoos and call it a day.

[SpeedyClaxton]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

So you don't play Madden or the Show then?
Because they don't have real tattoos??? LOL
Not having tattoos or real tats on players would make no difference to me.
you cant make them out 99% of the time anyway when you are playing the game.

I'm not a fan of baseball or NFL, never played them but for basketball it's a part of game just as much as it's real hair and all stuff. You're saying me authenticity doesn't play a role to you, so tell me would you play 2K if LeBron for example is not made authentic but some generic black dude with afro hair ? Please don't get me started..

[Junior Moe]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

Incorrect.

The 2K artist created a digital facsimile of the original work of the original artist in a manner that is not transformative. Transformative, in the legal sense of the word, means that the work has changed to a different state or thing, and changing the medium of the artwork is long established as not transformative. Thus the new asset is not an original work and the original artist retains rights to the asset.

For example, one can't record the playback of a vinyl AC/DC album on an analog record player to a computer file, burn that file to a CD, and claim that CD as a transformative original work and sell copies of it; you're still selling the intellectual property which belongs to AC/DC.

The digital representation of the art also doesn't constitute fair use because it doesn't add anything to the artwork such as commentary or a review. It also (obviously) isn't protected as a parody (which is by definition transformative).

This is the precedent under which Electronic Arts has been party to lawsuits for use of tattoos in their sports video games dating back to NFL Street 2.

So did EA secure the rights to every tattoo in NBA Live?

[anthonyf105]

Incorrect.

The 2K artist created a digital facsimile of the original work of the original artist in a manner that is not transformative. Transformative, in the legal sense of the word, means that the work has changed to a different state or thing, and changing the medium of the artwork is long established as not transformative. Thus the new asset is not an original work and the original artist retains rights to the asset.

For example, one can't record the playback of a vinyl AC/DC album on an analog record player to a computer file, burn that file to a CD, and claim that CD as a transformative original work and sell copies of it; you're still selling the intellectual property which belongs to AC/DC.

The digital representation of the art also doesn't constitute fair use because it doesn't add anything to the artwork such as commentary or a review. It also (obviously) isn't protected as a parody (which is by definition transformative).

This is the precedent under which Electronic Arts has been party to lawsuits for use of tattoos in their sports video games dating back to NFL Street 2.

It's why Grand Theft Auto can have cars in their game similar to their real life counterparts without having to pay the actual vehicle manufacturers. I guess I'm still bitter about these game manufacturers being sued for everything like Ed O'Bannon winning that likeness case and killing off the NCAA series of games which most of us loved. In any case, removing all those tattoos on any of the games won't stop me from buying a great sports game. If 2K came out with legends of college with no tattoos that game would be bought immediately.

[DBMcGee3]

This is absolutely absurd. Are they also filing a suit against DirecTV, ESPN, Fox and CBS for showing these tats on camera every Sunday? What's the difference exactly? It would seem to me that once a player pays a tattoo artist for a tattoo, it becomes the property of the player. It's on his arm for f#ck's sake.

Everybody wants something for nothing nowadays.

[Hooe]

Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

So did EA secure the rights to every tattoo in NBA Live?

The answer to this question has literally no relevance as to the merits of the suit filed against 2K Sports and the publisher's alleged improper misuse of intellectual property belonging to tattoo artists in the NBA 2K video games.

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

I wonder how feasible generic tattoos are. I'm usually not looking closely enough to notice every intricate detail of each player's tattoo. If Amar'e Stoudemire's bicep tattoo said "Korea is Korean" instead of "Knowing is Knowledge" I probably wouldn't even notice unless someone pointed it out. Might be too much work for the art department though.

I'll be honest. I wouldn't even notice the difference. However and knowing the community, there would be a thread on it and people demanding that 2K Sports get it right. The way people be battling over accessories, signature shots, shoes, etc being correct, someone is going to notice.