A tattoo that represents a business' art and IP is not a birthmark, a hairstyle, or a scar.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tattoos In Video Game Violates Copyright?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
A tattoo that represents a business' art and IP is not a birthmark, a hairstyle, or a scar.
So all you need to do is license a tattoo design, offer an athlete a free tattoo and then sue the gaming industry. I wouldn't be surprised if the players already had the tattoos before the company licensed the design and didn't perform any of the work they're claiming ownership of. It would be stupid for game companies to be forced to license features that are a physical part of a person, like a hairstyle, birthmark, or scar.
They licensed likeness rights in the context of that video game. So the parts that are inherently part of th athlete are indeed actually licensed.
The tattoos, as IP, are not the property of the athletes unless they have a work for hire contract both parties signed off on. That's the way creative works work.
There is arguably an implicit license in getting it done, but someone would have to go to court to prove what that is.
Would think that unless there is a contract or laws to the contrary, that getting a tattoo might well be considered 'work for hire' and belong to whoever paid the bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employernot the employeeis considered the legal author.
"Work for hire" is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work.
I think you misunderstand the "Work for Hire" statutes. Under these laws, it's the employer who gains the IP rights and not the employee and the employer is not the customer, it's the business owner who pays the employee's salary and in who's name the employee works.
The only case where this could be construed as the customer gaining authorship of the material under "work for hire" is if the tattoo artist were freelance and not an employee of a business.
What financial benefit is the publisher deriving from the reproduction of those tattoos in games? It's not relevant to why the "likeness" of the player is valuable in that context and it's not depriving the artist of any income.
In fact famous people should sue their tattoo artists since they probably had to pay to receive a tattoo which they're now displaying prominently in games and other media, thereby providing a platform for promotion and advertising, not to mention a tacit endorsement.
In fact famous people should sue their tattoo artists since they probably had to pay to receive a tattoo which they're now displaying prominently in games and other media, thereby providing a platform for promotion and advertising, not to mention a tacit endorsement.
I would think that as long as the tattoos depicted are tattoos that these players actually have on their bodies then their is no case, otherwise, if the companies are using these images "standalone" in a money making venture, there is a valid case here.
But how often do these tattoo's actually their design? I don't have nor have I ever visited a tattoo shop, but I thought they do tattoo's based on designs people bring in. So do they own megaman if they tatted someone up with a megaman pic?
If the court rules that a tattoo is a separate object, then it becomes illegal to take a for-profit picture or digital reproduction of a tattooed person without the express permission of EVERY tattoo artist that person has ever been to (which could be dozens of artists, some of which might be an alcohol-induced blur)
I can totally see this happening... sadly.
A tattoo that represents a business' art and IP is not a birthmark, a hairstyle, or a scar.
I agree that the artists own the original design and the right to reproduce the designs they create. I don't agree that the artists own the rights or ownership to the particular one that they put on someone else's skin.
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
So what about the dresses worn by Actresses at awards shows. Pictures don't list who made them (all the time) and they sure don't pay the dress maker for the ok to print said pictures.
What financial benefit is the publisher deriving from the reproduction of those tattoos in games? It's not relevant to why the "likeness" of the player is valuable in that context and it's not depriving the artist of any income.
The artist the publisher hires is being paid to reproduce someone else's artwork, someone who owns the copyright to that artwork and who did not give permission to reproduce or use said artwork.
They're almost certainly scanning the person, not drawing the tattoos by hand, which is no different to a TV station broadcasting an image captured on a video camera.
If you're going to make your artwork part of someone's likeness, you should accept that they have control of licensing that likeness, not you. Otherwise make them sign a licensing agreement before you do the work, or charge them enough to compensate you for... whatever it is you think you're contributing to the value of their likeness (so in the case of sportsmen in video games, nothing). Or work in another medium.
There's a difference between the design itself, which is the property of the artist, and the tattoo, which is a unique manifestation of that design, and which should be the property of the recipient, who paid for it and who should be free to with it as they will. Otherwise it's like a painter* or author (or game developer) demanding a cut of any second hand sales.
* There is a painter who does that, I can't remember his name, but in his case he makes buyers sign a contract to make it legally enforceable.
If you're going to make your artwork part of someone's likeness, you should accept that they have control of licensing that likeness, not you. Otherwise make them sign a licensing agreement before you do the work, or charge them enough to compensate you for... whatever it is you think you're contributing to the value of their likeness (so in the case of sportsmen in video games, nothing). Or work in another medium.
There's a difference between the design itself, which is the property of the artist, and the tattoo, which is a unique manifestation of that design, and which should be the property of the recipient, who paid for it and who should be free to with it as they will. Otherwise it's like a painter* or author (or game developer) demanding a cut of any second hand sales.
* There is a painter who does that, I can't remember his name, but in his case he makes buyers sign a contract to make it legally enforceable.
They're almost certainly scanning the person, not drawing the tattoos by hand, which is no different to a TV station broadcasting an image captured on a video camera.
If you're going to make your artwork part of someone's likeness, you should accept that they have control of licensing that likeness, not you. Otherwise make them sign a licensing agreement before you do the work, or charge them enough to compensate you for... whatever it is you think you're contributing to the value of their likeness (so in the case of sportsmen in video games, nothing). Or work in another medium.
There's a difference between the design itself, which is the property of the artist, and the tattoo, which is a unique manifestation of that design, and which should be the property of the recipient, who paid for it and who should be free to with it as they will. Otherwise it's like a painter* or author (or game developer) demanding a cut of any second hand sales.
* There is a painter who does that, I can't remember his name, but in his case he makes buyers sign a contract to make it legally enforceable.
The game actually has a comprehensive tattoo editor in the player creation module. You can place numerous tattoos anywhere, change the colours, size, etc. You actually buy tattoos from the in-game tattoo shop using virtual currency. These tattoos were most certainly not scanned in but rather created by an artist.
I previously posted how copyrights for art works and if the customer did not purchase commercial rights, to the design, they cannot claim ownership. The tattoo studio, Solid Oak Sketches, included the copyrights to the tattoos in question, when it filled the suit.
I forgot to add that the tattoo studio approached the publisher, before the game was released, offering to sell the tattoo rights and the publisher ignored them and released the game anyway.
The madden game, on the other hand, refused to include players tattoos unless the player had a waiver from their tattoo artist.
The madden game, on the other hand, refused to include players tattoos unless the player had a waiver from their tattoo artist.
I can totally see this happening... sadly.
NFL already does it. All players must get signed consent otherwise the players can not show their tattoos in ads nor can they have them in games.
So what about the dresses worn by Actresses at awards shows. Pictures don't list who made them (all the time) and they sure don't pay the dress maker for the ok to print said pictures.
Clothing is special, because it specifically isn't covered by copyright or patent (food isn't covered either).
That's why is perfectly legal to make and sell rip-off versions of designer purses, as long as it doesn't contain the designer logos. (logos are still covered under trademark)