NBA 2K16 News Post

Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists

07:16 PM - February 1, 2016 by jfsolo

Some of the tattoos seen on LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kenyon Martin, DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe are getting Take-Two Interactive and Visual Concepts into some hot water. Based off of articles from ESPN (Darren Rovell) and The HollyWoodReporter (Eriq Gardner), the makers of the NBA 2K series are getting sued for $1.1 million, because Solid Oak Sketches claims the tattoos are their copyrighted work.

Quote:


	Worried that they might be party to a lawsuit, the NFL Players Association told players in 2014 that, in order for their tattoos to be represented on merchandise, including video games, they needed to get waivers from the artists.

This is one of the main reasons other companies don't put tattoos in their game. Getting permission from the tattoo artist can take quite a bit of time. The Madden team had to go through that process to get the tattoos for Colin Kaepernick (Madden NFL 15) and Odell Beckham, Jr. (Madden NFL 16) in the game.

Quote:


	In a demand letter to Take-Two before the lawsuit was filed, an attorney for the plaintiff took the $22,500 award to Escobedo, and using information about NBA 2K16 sales, calculated that the value for the eight tattoos should be $572,000. But there was also the matter that two of LeBron James tattoos were featured on the cover of the videogame. According to the letter, "Given that those two tattoos are 'the face' of the 2014 game, their marketing and promotion value is, conservatively, at least four times the value of the rest of the tattoos." Thus, the claimed value of using all of the tattoo designs in question allegedly equals $819,500. That tattoo design company offered a perpetual license for a fee of $1,144,000.

You can read the full complaint at The Hollywood Reporter.

Game: NBA 2K16Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PC / PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 45 - View All

NBA 2K16 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/01/16 08:51 PM

Seems like a money grab lawsuit....2K Sports will probably settle out of court, then make sure to have something in place for the next up and coming ambulance chasing lawyer. Also, let's not start pretending this is "Doh!" moment for 2K Sports. Tattoos have been in the game for a while now, and no such lawsuits were filed before. It's just a situation where someone thought of it, tried it, and won. Now, everyone wants a piece of that pie.

24th Letter might have been joking, but I can see barbers wanting to sue over their "Patented Haircut".

# 22 kadzier @ 02/01/16 08:59 PM

All I'm hoping is this somehow gets resolved without having to straight-up remove the tattoos.

Seeing Colin Kaepernick with bare arms in madden was the most jarring thing ever.

# 23 ChaseB @ 02/01/16 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King_B_Mack


	I expect the courts to knock this nonsense off eventually. The can of worms that they'd be opening letting people put copyright claims on tattoos would be insane. Like Two Four mentioned what's next, you gonna let dudes start putting in claims for hair cuts? The NBA going to have to blur out every tattoo on every player in league history to show old games on tv, release their championship DVDs for the Finals winning teams? It's a bad precedent to set allowing tattoo artist to start suing for copyrights knowing damn well that their inking guys who's jobs are to be filmed/visible in the public eye. They're getting free exposure to millions by the guys wearing their ink in the first place and are getting greedy now. Reading the story that thing said this company "acquired" the rights to the tattoos last year. They're suing over a tattoo that Kobe has had on his body and in 2K games for about a decade now. That ain't right.

Pretty sure there's a difference between being broadcast on TV and selling an actual product based around the re-creation of said authentic player.

EA got sued over this and took it on the chin, I'm more surprised it took this long than anything as it never made sense why one company was then super careful about this for a football game yet nobody else was trying to avoid the issue.

That being said, Live has lots of tatts now too though doesn't it?

# 24 headzapp @ 02/01/16 09:01 PM

Imagine having a tattoo and not actually owning it. There should be a law made that when you get work done on your body, you then own it and the rights.

# 25 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/01/16 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsox4evur


	Really? So tell me who did the ink on Andre Iguodala? This should be easy to answer as these guys are getting all this exposure.

It's free exposure and advertising. It's on the individuals who sees it to decide to go "Hmmmm...that's a sweet tattoo. I wonder who did that? Let me find out". Tattoos are basically walking ads on human bodies.

However, how do we know they're NOT getting increased celebrity traffic as a result of NBA/NFL/etc players wearing their tattoos?

# 26 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/01/16 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kadzier


	All I'm hoping is this somehow gets resolved without having to straight-up remove the tattoos. Seeing Colin Kaepernick with bare arms in madden was the most jarring thing ever.

That actually happened??? Wow...that's crazy. I didn't know. That would trip me out if I fired up NBA 2K17, and they removed all the tattoos from Paul George. It would be worse for NBA games, because so much of their body is exposed due to their uniforms.

# 27 Old School Fool @ 02/01/16 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76


	That actually happened??? Wow...that's crazy. I didn't know. That would trip me out if I fired up NBA 2K17, and they removed all the tattoos from Paul George. It would be worse for NBA games, because so much of their body is exposed due to their uniforms.

Only like 3 players in Madden have tattoos. It's a joke.

# 28 BBallcoach @ 02/01/16 09:20 PM

Greedy tattoo artists. Once you put it on someone's body, it's their decision to do with it. You don't own that work, the person who paid for it does. If lebron doesn't care, then you don't deserve anything. You got paid for them once.

# 29 Spaced Ace @ 02/01/16 09:34 PM

Ridiculous. You'd think tattoo artists would be happy for the exposure.

# 30 Dawg Pound @ 02/01/16 09:34 PM

Thats a lame money grab.

# 31 redsox4evur @ 02/01/16 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaced Ace


	Ridiculous. You'd think tattoo artists would be happy for the exposure.

What exposure? There isn't any because 2K does not say who created these tattoos? Nor do the players.

# 32 Glenn33 @ 02/01/16 09:38 PM

I'm just curious....why NOW? Tattoos have been in the game for as long as I could remember.

Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

# 33 MontanaMan @ 02/01/16 09:40 PM

How don't the players own what's inked on their bodies though?

# 34 headzapp @ 02/01/16 09:47 PM

I do art. I have work on a meditation album. They came to me and asked if they could use my picture. I said yes and didn't ask for money or anything. Only got a credit on it.
If I did a tattoo and it got on a game, I'd be excited. I'd use it as exposure.
People are too entitled and money hungry these days. Gives humans a bad name.
Old artist like Van Gogh took other artist's work and remade them in their way. These days you'd get sued for that. It's weird.
Just as that pizza joint that looked like the fallout face. They had to change their logo. How many more sales would Fallout get if it was allowed to stay? People would be like that looks like Fallout, I need to get the new one now that I think about it. Everything is money and mine, mine, mine.

# 35 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/01/16 09:57 PM

Curious. Are the artists claiming that the tattoos are "original" work? Original meaning Lebron (using him as an example) walked in, and selected it from a portfolio. To me, the tattoo artists can't have sole copyrights to a particular tattoo, because it would be a collaboration between the artist and Lebron. Hence, Lebron could/should be suing the artist for claiming it as his own creation.

When I got my tattoos, I didn't just lay down and let them create whatever they wanted on my body. Best believe, I gave my input to what my tattoo should look like.

Tattoos are a creation and interpretation of what the individual wanted.

# 36 ksuttonjr76 @ 02/01/16 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsox4evur


	What exposure? There isn't any because 2K does not say who created these tattoos? Nor do the players.

And 2K Sports doesn't claim the tattoos as "theirs", but as a recreation of the players to whom they have the RIGHTS to use their likeness in their video games.

# 37 redsox4evur @ 02/01/16 10:02 PM

Some information on copyright law:

From the thread about Colin Kaepernick a couple of years ago.
Copyright law disagrees with you. Even though a photo of the tattoo is technically different from a graphical rendering, they are treated the same.

See 17 USC 102 - Scope of copyright. Clearly covers pictorial and graphic works under a(5).
See 17 USC 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works . Specifically see sections (1) and (2). FYI, a derivative work is a "work based on or derived from one or more already exist- ing works. Common derivative works include translations, musical arrange- ments, motion picture versions of literary material or plays, art reproductions, abridgments, and condensations of preexisting works." A graphical representation of a tattoo is either an art reproduction, or in the alternative an "abridgment."

EA is SMART for not illegally recreating a tattoo. What's wrong with not wanting to get sued?

Also, as a bit of irony, the importance you are all placing on tattoos makes a lawsuit against the NFL, NFLPA, etc. more lucrative for the IP holder because it shows a high monetary value of the intellectual property at issue = more damages.

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. I'm curious (having no tattoos) if a tattoo artist retains the IP rights with a written instrument.

# 38 Rams_3 @ 02/01/16 10:09 PM

Glad i get the pc version for the mods. Some very talented guys will put whatever tats are missing back on

# 39 redsox4evur @ 02/01/16 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76


	And 2K Sports doesn't claim the tattoos as "theirs", but as a recreation of the players to whom they have the RIGHTS to use their likeness in their video games.

Dude you are missing my point...my point is these guys aren't getting any exposure by having these tattoos in NBA 2K. They aren't mentioned by Take Two or Visual Concepts. And I have never seen a player say on Twitter that he got this tattoo from shop x in city Y. That's all I am trying to say. So Ksutton please tell me who did every tattoo on Birdman's body? This should be an easy question for you to answer because they get all this exposure from Birdman and the companies that create the 2K game.

And the only other thing I have said is that they need to get permission from the artist to use it, and after reading through the Kaepernick thread that may not even be true. I am going to do some more research on this before I say they need permission from the artists or not. But I will keep defending that these artists aren't getting exposure from Take Two and Visual Concepts.

# 40 King_B_Mack @ 02/01/16 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsox4evur


	What exposure? There isn't any because 2K does not say who created these tattoos? Nor do the players.

So you don't think tattoo artists have gotten any foot traffic from the celebrities they've inked? I couldn't tell you who inked up Paul George right now because I haven't researched it at all, but if someone sees his arm and decides they like one of his tattoos and want to get something similar or find out where he got it, as long as it wasn't in a jailhouse or one of his buddies did it in the basement and in an actual shop, I'm sure someone could find out. I'll give you an example. I don't know if it's still up, but for about five years at least on the route I used to take to work I had to look at DMX's smiling *** face on a billboard in one of the worst pictures of him I've ever seen as he was getting inked advertising the shop here in Chicago where he got one of his tattoos done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseB


	Pretty sure there's a difference between being broadcast on TV and selling an actual product based around the re-creation of said authentic player. EA got sued over this and took it on the chin, I'm more surprised it took this long than anything as it never made sense why one company was then super careful about this for a football game yet nobody else was trying to avoid the issue. That being said, Live has lots of tatts now too though doesn't it?

The NBA sells videos including those players tattoos and all on them. I would guess that since you can't simply include copyrighted music in those videos tattoos would be the same if people are really claiming copyrights on them.

« Previous 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

More Links

Take-Two Interactive & Visual Concepts Sued By Tattoo Artists