NBA 2K17 News Post

Some Potential Damages in NBA 2K Tattoo Lawsuit Have Been Dismissed

05:28 PM - August 3, 2016 by RaychelSnr

It appears the folks at 2K won a major legal challenge against the use of tattoos in NBA 2K16:

Quote:


	2K and parent company Take-Two can breath a sigh of relief following the dismissal of some requested damages in a lawsuit that might have cost the company billions. A case brought by tattoo designer Solid Oak Sketches attempted to secure statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement for unauthorized use of eight designs in NBA 2K16. United States district judge Laura Taylor Swan granted 2K�s motion to dismiss statutory based on timing of the design copyright. The first use of the tattoo images was in 2013�s NBA 2K14. The designs were not copyrighted until 2015.

As we reported on back in February, this suit is exactly why other games don't really use player tattoos unless they are fully licensed.

2K won this challenge on a technicality, which could have cost Take Two upwards of a billion dollars in damages. However, it is likely that tattoos in NBA 2K (and other sports games) will continue to grow scarcer due to copyright and licensing issues.

Take Two is still potentially on the hook for some damages in the case so they aren't out of the woods yet, however the total damages they may have been on the hook for has lessened considerably after today's ruling.

Game: NBA 2K17Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PC / PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 14 - View All

Member Comments

# 101 strawberryshortcake @ 08/04/16 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	It would have to be more than just "very slightly." Using the tattoo with a slight change could still be considered a derivative work and run against copyright laws. Think of it this way. If I took a song without permission, kept the melody and only changed 3 words of the song, the writer of that song would still feel like I used his song without permission, right? Same thing here.

Side remark: Just curious and have always been curious. Can you elaborate on youtube song covers? Take the song "Titanium." The same lyrics accompanied by the same melody are plastered all over youtube, and some/a lot are collecting revenue through view and subscribers. Plus, some even have the song for sale through itunes. What's the legality of this? Have always wondered, but never investigated.

# 102 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Side remark: Just curious and have always been curious. Can you elaborate on youtube song covers? Take the song "Titanium." The same lyrics accompanied by the same melody are plastered all over youtube, and some/a lot are collecting revenue through view and subscribers. Plus, some even have the song for sale through itunes. What's the legality of this? Have always wondered, but never investigated.

What they are doing is technically against copyright law. If one of the writers of the song contacted Youtube, they could get YT to take down each video.

It doesnt make much sense to sue those people though. The copyright owners would win but the likelihood that they would collect any damages is zero since these are just average people.

# 103 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfsolo


	If I were the publisher that would be my position too. I'd rather have the customers complaining about authenticity 24/7 than have these potential suits always hanging over our heads.

Its really not that difficult though.

Review each tattoo.

If its something copyrighted, ask the player if he remembers who did that tattoo.

If he does, contact the artist and offer him a small amount for lifetime rights to use the tat within the game.

If he refuses to license it or you cant identify the artist, change the tat enough so that he doesnt have a copyright claim.

# 104 strawberryshortcake @ 08/04/16 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	What they are doing is technically against copyright law. If one of the writers of the song contacted Youtube, they could get YT to take down each video. It doesnt make much sense to sue those people though. The copyright owners would win but the likelihood that they would collect any damages is zero since these are just average people.

Let's add an extra tidbit to it. If they were well known or became well known youtubers because of the covers. I am quite certain Madilyn Bailey got big because of her song cover of Titanium. I personally like her version as well. Basically both of these individuals (and others) would be in violation if they never got rights (and anyone else however small they are).

And what about song covers done by famous artist of other artists song at their concerts?

Madilyn Bailey - Titanium (~3 million subscribers; ~75 million views)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGoCtJzPHkU

The Piano Guys - A Thousand Years (~5 million subscribers; ~74 million views)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgaTQ5-XfMM

# 105 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Let's add an extra tidbit to it. If they were well known or became well known youtubers because of the covers. I am quite certain Madilyn Bailey got big because of her song cover of Titanium. I personally like her version as well. Basically both of these individuals (and others) would be in violation if they never got rights (and anyone else however small they are). Madilyn Bailey - Titanium (~3 million subscribers; ~75 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGoCtJzPHkU The Piano Guys - A Thousand Years (~5 million subscribers; ~74 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgaTQ5-XfMM

Correct but keep in mind just because you can sue doesnt mean you will.

Bringing it back to 2k, I'm sure there are a bunch of tattoo artists who saw their tats in NBA 2k and said "Thats cool as hell. I'm happy its in the game". They could technically sue but they dont want or care to.

# 106 strawberryshortcake @ 08/04/16 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Correct but keep in mind just because you can sue doesnt mean you will. Bringing it back to 2k, I'm sure there are a bunch of tattoo artists who saw their tats in NBA 2k and said "Thats cool as hell. I'm happy its in the game". They could technically sue but they dont want or care to.

Back to 2k.

I'm guessing that would extend to anything including floor boards, the official basketball, the lighting system (how and what part of the arena was lit replicates "X" manufacturer's lighting system that was used in the arena), the led displays, the electronics around the arena, the chairs, and any objects within the arena? Just because the "arena" was licensed to 2k, would 2k still require to get licensing agreements for other miscellaneous objects around the arena?

# 107 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Back to 2k. I'm guessing that would extend to anything including floor boards, the official basketball, the lighting system (how and what part of the arena was lit replicates "X" manufacturer's lighting system that was used in the arena), the led displays, the electronics around the arena, the chairs, and any objects within the arena? Just because the "arena" was licensed to 2k, would 2k still require to get licensing agreements for other miscellaneous objects around the arena?

Nope.

The floor boards and the design are typically owned by the team. When they hire an artist to create the floor design, they have him sign an work for hire agreement that makes it clear that the team owns it.

The basketball, lighting system, electronics, chairs and other objects are not considered works of art and would not be covered under copyright law.

# 108 strawberryshortcake @ 08/04/16 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	Nope. The floor boards and the design are typically owned by the team. When they hire an artist to create the floor design, they have him sign an work for hire agreement that makes it clear that the team owns it. The basketball, lighting system, electronics, chairs and other objects are not considered works of art and would not be covered under copyright law.

(1) I actually meant the actual floor boards, not the logo design on the floor board. Say the hired company rolls into home depot to buy Orange Manufacturer's floor boards designed and crafted by Joe Smith, or Ikea's Chairs designed by Bob Smith. In a sense, I mean aren't these designs work of art? Someone had to come up with the design. Didn't Samsung or whatever company get sued because their smart phone looked like Apple's iphone or something...

(2) Someone brought up "haircut/hairstyle" ... does this fall under copyright protection?

# 109 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	(1) I actually meant the actual floor boards, not the logo design on the floor board. Say the hired company rolls into home depot to buy Orange Manufacturer's floor boards designed and crafted by Joe Smith, or Ikea's Chairs designed by Bob Smith. In a sense, I mean aren't these designs work of art? Someone had to come up with the design. Didn't Samsung or whatever company get sued because their smart phone looked like Apple's iphone or something... (2) Someone brought up "haircut/hairstyle" ... does this fall under copyright protection?

No those are not considered works of art. The Iphone suit was a patent suit not a copyright lawsuit.

Haircuts dont have copyright protection.

# 110 HowDareI @ 08/04/16 07:11 PM

I understand what he means by if Home Depot sold the hardwood floor to the Sixers or any team do they (Home Depot, or the manufacturer) technically own it...well no, because Home Depot is a retailer and their job is to sell you things that you're allowed to use anywhere you want; store, home, etc.

I have some tattoos, and I see it like my artist gave me what I wanted (well we worked together) and I paid him for his time and work. I feel like after this transaction all ties should be severed. My opinion, I see obviously this isn't how it works...

Now I'm not a tattoo artist, but I feel like they should understand their artwork is held on a different type of pedestal.
They're work is not like a one-time piece where it's drawn on a canvas and sold or displayed in a gallery. It's on a human's body on display everywhere they go whether it be in person, in media, etc.

I feel like if they want that type of recognition they might be in the wrong profession, you don't sign under a tattoo to show it's YOUR artwork...not like a traditional artist would do.

Maybe the laws aren't fully caught up in this regard..but what do I know? I just feel like a tattoo artist should know their art may show up every and anywhere and once it's on a person it's theirs.

If someone sees me and says "Yo bro that's dope who did it?" I let em know the shop and the specific artist, maybe even hit em with a link to their work online...to me, that's enough. I don't feel it's 2K's responsibility to have a database in their game you can go through and see who did each of JR Smith's 1000 tats lol. If that's the case, and you need it so bad, search it up on Google or tweet at him online.

Again, this clearly isn't how it works...just my opinion that I don't find it to be making sense to me.

# 111 redsox4evur @ 08/04/16 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowDareI


	I understand what he means by if Home Depot sold the hardwood floor to the Sixers or any team do they (Home Depot, or the manufacturer) technically own it...well no, because Home Depot is a retailer and their job is to sell you things that you're allowed to use anywhere you want; store, home, etc. I have some tattoos, and I see it like my artist gave me what I wanted (well we worked together) and I paid him for his time and work. I feel like after this transaction all ties should be severed. My opinion, I see obviously this isn't how it works... Now I'm not a tattoo artist, but I feel like they should understand their artwork is held on a different type of pedestal. They're work is not like a one-time piece where it's drawn on a canvas and sold or displayed in a gallery. It's on a human's body on display everywhere they go whether it be in person, in media, etc. I feel like if they want that type of recognition they might be in the wrong profession, you don't sign under a tattoo to show it's YOUR artwork...not like a traditional artist would do. Maybe the laws aren't fully caught up in this regard..but what do I know? I just feel like a tattoo artist should know their art may show up every and anywhere and once it's on a person it's theirs. If someone sees me and says "Yo bro that's dope who did it?" I let em know the shop and the specific artist, maybe even hit em with a link to their work online...to me, that's enough. I don't feel it's 2K's responsibility to have a database in their game you can go through and see who did each of JR Smith's 1000 tats lol. If that's the case, and you need it so bad, search it up on Google or tweet at him online. Again, this clearly isn't how it works...just my opinion that I don't find it to be making sense to me.

Here's a different example. I buy the Mona Lisa should I be able to take and reproduce that painting and sell it to my hearts content? Because this is the same exact thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 112 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 07:57 PM

What common sense to some people may not be common sense to others.

Plenty of artists think its common sense to be paid if someone takes their design (that they worked hard to create), recreates and financially benefits from it.

# 113 redsox4evur @ 08/04/16 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	What common sense to some people may not be common sense to others. Plenty of artists think its common sense to be paid if someone takes their design (that they worked hard to create), recreates and financially benefits from it.

Yea I can understand where people are coming from though with the art being on a person's body. But I also understand the laws behind this type of stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 114 MackZillaTV @ 08/04/16 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junior Moe


	I was actually talking about Live which altered a NY Yankee tattoo on Jr Smith but it's probably the same thing. Still, I don't see what's fundamentally different than altering the Pepsi or NY Yankee tattoo or one done by a local tattoo artist. For instance, LeBrons 1984 tat. 2K couldn't change that to 1985 in a different font and be fine?

JR doesn't have a Yankee tattoo, he has a Young Money tattoo, Lil Wayne didn't allow live to use the logo

# 115 Junior Moe @ 08/04/16 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MackZillaTV


	JR doesn't have a Yankee tattoo, he has a Young Money tattoo, Lil Wayne didn't allow live to use the logo

Oh is that what it was. My bad. I just knew they altered it.

# 116 brahmagoul @ 08/04/16 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aholbert32


	What common sense to some people may not be common sense to others. Plenty of artists think its common sense to be paid if someone takes their design (that they worked hard to create), recreates and financially benefits from it.

Common sense tells me recreating a tattoo on an athlete in a video game is not stealing the tattoo design but accurately depicting the player. This is not like another tattoo artist trying to draw the tattoo.

# 117 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brahmagoul


	Common sense tells me recreating a tattoo on an athlete in a video game is not stealing the tattoo design but accurately depicting the player. This is not like another tattoo artist trying to draw the tattoo.

Like I said common sense can differ from person to person. The difference here is the law is CLEARLY on the artist's side in the situation.

# 118 brahmagoul @ 08/04/16 09:41 PM

Here's something to pose (and I apologize if it's been brought up), but are tattoos different than shoes? I would say no.

# 119 MackZillaTV @ 08/04/16 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junior Moe


	Oh is that what it was. My bad. I just knew they altered it.

Yeah, I wasn't tryna sound like a smart ***. Speaking of altered tats, I'm suprised Melo's Warn-A-Brother tat wasn't altered.

# 120 aholbert32 @ 08/04/16 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brahmagoul


	Here's something to pose (and I apologize if it's been brought up), but are tattoos different than shoes? I would say no.

Under the law they are very different. One is consider a work of art. The other isnt. Shoes are covered under patent law and trademark law if they feature the shoe company's logo.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 567 8 Next »

More Links

Some Potential Damages in NBA 2K Tattoo Lawsuit Have Been Dismissed