News Post

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)

Game: NFL StreetReader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: NGC / PS2 / XboxVotes for game: 6 - View All
Member Comments
# 1 bigbob @ 01/11/13 09:50 AM
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).
# 2 DGMikeBarker @ 01/11/13 10:19 AM
That's like barbers suing athletes for using there hairstyles. Makes no sense.
# 3 thescoop @ 01/11/13 10:21 AM
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.
# 4 BaylorBearBryant @ 01/11/13 10:31 AM
No one bought the game because of this tattoo. This "artist's" contribution added nothing to sales.
# 5 Dazraz @ 01/11/13 11:05 AM
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.
# 6 BCDX97 @ 01/11/13 01:30 PM
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.
# 7 cattlekiller @ 01/11/13 02:36 PM

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.
# 8 rynecandy @ 01/11/13 03:15 PM
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.
# 9 inkcil @ 01/11/13 03:48 PM
@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.
# 10 rynecandy @ 01/11/13 04:04 PM
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.
# 11 Bolt957 @ 01/11/13 04:24 PM
I know the economy isn't great, but he's willing to stoop this low to sue for copyright issues over a tattoo? Come on, a 2004 game & he doesn't realize til 2010, and this is brought up in 2013? Some people are just really desperate and sad.
# 12 grabursock55 @ 01/11/13 09:32 PM
Im not really sure how tattoo art works... but is all tattoo art copyrighted? cause if its not, it seems unrealistic that EA sports would leaf through every single tattoo in the NFL to make sure it is copyrighted or not. Its not as cut and dry as the Pepsi tattoo or GI Joe. Those things are quote obviously copyrighted, where as a dragon, seems to be pretty generic.

Like I said, take this with a grain of salt, I dont know much about tattoos or tattoo art
# 13 elgreazy1 @ 01/12/13 10:15 AM
Man, poor Ricky Williams can't catch a break! Every one is gouging the guy for money.
# 14 westview33 @ 01/27/13 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by elgreazy1
Man, poor Ricky Williams can't catch a break! Every one is gouging the guy for money.
That's the reality of the world we live in.

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.