Tattoos In Video Game Violates Copyright?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Okay, this stuff is just ridiculous. How can you copyright a tattoo that you put on someone else's body? Copyright crap like this is getting way out of hand. :(

A company called Solid Oak Sketches, which paid several tattoo artists for the authority to license their designs, is suing [PDF] the makers of the NBA 2K16 video game in federal court, alleging that the use of these tattoo designs — featured on players like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kenyon Martin, and others — without Solid Oak’s permission is a violation of copyright.
 
Will be interesting to see how this plays out, because 2K has certainly licensed the right to use the players likenesses from the NBA. And tattoos, once applied, are certainly a defining part of a person's likeness.

I could see a judge going either way with it, so I would guess this one comes down to whoever hires the better legal team.
 
A tattoo artist owns your skin after he damages it? That is news to me. I suppose they can just cut it off their arms and call it good.
 
Brian_B said:
Will be interesting to see how this plays out, because 2K has certainly licensed the right to use the players likenesses from the NBA. And tattoos, once applied, are certainly a defining part of a person's likeness.

I could see a judge going either way with it, so I would guess this one comes down to whoever hires the better legal team.
Click to expand...



2K will probably have EA join forces as the NFL and FIFA players are starting to looking the Sistine Chapel with all the scrawl work being done.
 
"In fact, the U.S. Copyright Office granted registrations to the designs in the lawsuit in the summer of 2015. On July 8, a lawyer representing the artists — the same lawyer who had sued over the Mike Tyson tattoo — contacted Take Two Interactive, the publisher and distributor of NBA 2K16, to broach the idea of a settlement “to resolve this matter quietly and amicably.”
On July 28, the lawyer then suggested a settlement of around $1.9 million, including more than $800,000 to close the books on the alleged copyright violations and $1.1 million for a license to continue using the designs in the game.
No deal was reached, the game was released in Sept. 2015, and the lawyer involved in these efforts to reach a settlement is not involved in the present lawsuit."


I can see video game companies spending well over the 2million mark to keep this lawsuit from ever seeing the light of day now or in the future.
 
Steve said:
Okay, this stuff is just ridiculous. How can you copyright a tattoo that you put on someone else's body? Copyright crap like this is getting way out of hand. :(

A company called Solid Oak Sketches, which paid several tattoo artists for the authority to license their designs, is suing [PDF] the makers of the NBA 2K16 video game in federal court, alleging that the use of these tattoo designs — featured on players like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kenyon Martin, and others — without Solid Oak’s permission is a violation of copyright.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I can't remember the circumstance. But I recall something similar happening before and they ruled that the tattoo on a person cannot be copyrighted
 
I remember now. It was the Mike Tyson tattoo from Hangover 2. WB settled out of court and nothing else was released on the matter.
 
lcpiper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if the tattoos do just appear on the player or is it some micro-transaction to buy them, in that case yea this will hold up pretty well then.
 
The tattoos are just on the players. Although there are in game ones you can buy to put on your created player. But i don't think any of them are clones to what the NBA players have. But i could be wrong there.
 
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.
 
My wife is a producer and usually is in charge of clearances for the projects she works on. All I can say is fuck off copyright laws! I get an earful daily, and the problem is, there isn't any set rules, it's all beat judgement and either take a risk or don't use it at all.
 
If the tattoo artist creates the tattoo design from scratch, and doesn't just use some pre-generated art, of course they own that design. I find it incredibly disconcerting how far too many people believe designers / artists shouldn't get paid for their work.

Elite athletes typically go to extremely talented tattoo artists and spend large sums of money to get these unique tattoos. To say that once that tattoo is on someone's body the design is public domain is asinine.
 
Does this mean Solid Oak can sue the players themselves for infringement, if they publish photos of themselves where the tattoos are visible?
 
Draax said:
If the tattoo artist creates the tattoo design from scratch, and doesn't just use some pre-generated art, of course they own that design. I find it incredibly disconcerting how far too many people believe designers / artists shouldn't get paid for their work.

Elite athletes typically go to extremely talented tattoo artists and spend large sums of money to get these unique tattoos. To say that once that tattoo is on someone's body the design is public domain is asinine.
Click to expand...

Should the artist get paid every time some NBA player who has his tattoo goes out in public, is on TV, gets a photo taken? Of course not. It's is no different with a video game representation of the NBA player. The artist got paid when he made the tattoo. Greedy mess like this is why the public feels the way it does about copyright.
 
Vultures smelling a payday will sue anyone for anything.
 
Draax said:
If the tattoo artist creates the tattoo design from scratch, and doesn't just use some pre-generated art, of course they own that design. I find it incredibly disconcerting how far too many people believe designers / artists shouldn't get paid for their work.

Elite athletes typically go to extremely talented tattoo artists and spend large sums of money to get these unique tattoos. To say that once that tattoo is on someone's body the design is public domain is asinine.
Click to expand...

The game publishers argument is that the tattoo as it appear on the player in real life is part of the likeness of that player, which was licensed by the game publisher from the relevant sport league.
If they used the tattoo image by itself (without the player, or applied to the wrong player) then it would be clear-cut copyright infringement.

Basically, the tattoo artist is attempting to claim partial ownership over someone else's likeness. This would be no different than a painter trying to claim a percentage of profits from an art museum just because some of their art on display there.

The argument boils down to this: is the tattoo on a person a separate licenseable object, or is it part of the licensed likeness of that person?

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)
 
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.
 
viscountalpha said:
I wish it would count on fair use but that's how stupid this has become.
Click to expand...

But how? Look if you or I used it for a non-business purpose, fair use it is. but when EA releases a product for sale and uses it, it's just not the same thing is it. They are profiting from it's use without compensating the people who created it.

Now like I said before, I can see fair use if they only use these images when depicting the real people who have them. But if they use the images as a tattoo you can put on other characters, no way. And what's more, you can't claim that EA couldn't have come up with their own equally appealing tattoo images in their place.

It's the way I see it anyway.
 
It's one thing to have a license to be the sole person to ink the tattoo design. It's another, related, thing to have sole ownership over the isolated reproduction of a notable design like the specific reproduction of Tyson's tattoo for one of the Hangover movies. But this is an entirely much broader and more pernicious suit.

If the suit goes in favor of the company that licensed the tattoo designs then they could hold every photographer in the country for ransom. Take a picture of the person... pay up. TV appearances of the tattoo wearer... pay up. Mandatory post-game interviews... pay up.
 
Teenyman45 said:
It's one thing to have a license to be the sole person to ink the tattoo design. It's another, related, thing to have sole ownership over the isolated reproduction of a notable design like the specific reproduction of Tyson's tattoo for one of the Hangover movies. But this is an entirely much broader and more pernicious suit.

If the suit goes in favor of the company that licensed the tattoo designs then they could hold every photographer in the country for ransom. Take a picture of the person... pay up. TV appearances of the tattoo wearer... pay up. Mandatory post-game interviews... pay up.
Click to expand...

And because this is a legal precedent and not a new law, a ruling in favor of the tattoo licensing company would open the door for lawsuits on pictures and video going back decades. While you can't have retroactive laws, new interpretations of existing laws are retroactive back to the date the law was passed.
 
Carouselambra said:
I can't remember the circumstance. But I recall something similar happening before and they ruled that the tattoo on a person cannot be copyrighted
Click to expand...

You are recalling incorrect. Last such lawsuit awarded the artist $22,500 for UFC Undisputed.

Draax said:
If the tattoo artist creates the tattoo design from scratch, and doesn't just use some pre-generated art, of course they own that design. I find it incredibly disconcerting how far too many people believe designers / artists shouldn't get paid for their work.

Elite athletes typically go to extremely talented tattoo artists and spend large sums of money to get these unique tattoos. To say that once that tattoo is on someone's body the design is public domain is asinine.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in calling it public domain and calling it owned by the person who has the tattoo. If I pay you to paint my house, once you are done the house still belongs to me. I don't pay you ever time I take a picture just because you painted the house. You are paid for a service and the service is done. If I pay to you paint me a painting and I pay you $100,000 for the artwork once you are done. It now belongs to me. If I want to turn around and sell it for $200,000 I don't owe you anything as I am now the owner of that. Why should tattoos be any different? As you said they pay large sums of money, this means the artist was already paid for their work.

However it is normal practice now in the NFL due to them being afraid of such lawsuits that all players have to get a signed form stating that their likeness can include their tattoos from the artist before they game or any ads came show the tattoos.
 
Draax said:
If the tattoo artist creates the tattoo design from scratch, and doesn't just use some pre-generated art, of course they own that design. I find it incredibly disconcerting how far too many people believe designers / artists shouldn't get paid for their work.

Elite athletes typically go to extremely talented tattoo artists and spend large sums of money to get these unique tattoos. To say that once that tattoo is on someone's body the design is public domain is asinine.
Click to expand...

Tattoos are expensive, pretty sure the athlete paid for it in the first place. Why should the artist get paid twice for something they already did? Do artists keep getting commission when their art is bought and sold at auctions?
 
Draax said:
If the tattoo artist creates the tattoo design from scratch, and doesn't just use some pre-generated art, of course they own that design. I find it incredibly disconcerting how far too many people believe designers / artists shouldn't get paid for their work.

Elite athletes typically go to extremely talented tattoo artists and spend large sums of money to get these unique tattoos. To say that once that tattoo is on someone's body the design is public domain is asinine.
Click to expand...

In this case it's the athlete that commissioned the artist for the piece, the athlete owns the finished piece. The artist no longer retains rights over the work. I own a Warhol original and choose to display it publicly I don't pay money to his estate, it's the same thing here.
 
I agree with Kor, it's not like they're reusing the artwork on another person. What's next, barber's will sue for unique hair styles?
 
This is one area where the Bible gets it right... "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

In other intergalactic news, ErMunch on the planet Crunch is pissed some piddly human copied his proton-fusor face markings. It makes since, cause he got them done 300 earth years before this "Tyson" chump was born.
 
Eymar said:
I agree with Kor, it's not like they're reusing the artwork on another person. What's next, barber's will sue for unique hair styles?
Click to expand...

It's not that you can't handle the Cyrus, You just won't be able to afford the legal support for getting the doo.
 
Draax said:
If the tattoo artist creates the tattoo design from scratch, and doesn't just use some pre-generated art, of course they own that design. I find it incredibly disconcerting how far too many people believe designers / artists shouldn't get paid for their work.
Click to expand...

Except he wouldn't have designed it unless I as his client asked for it. If I asked a logo company to make me a logo, then its my logo and its mine to display and use. As a tattoo enthusiast I find it troubling that others would claim rights to artwork I commissioned and I wear.
 
Completely disregarding the legal basis of the claim, it seems like this company is looking at this ass backwards. They should be at most demanding that the companies put their names in the credits or otherwise leverage the game as free advertising. Suing the company for a cut is just going to make other high profile athletes and personalities avoid them like the plague in the future.
 
Accursed said:
Except he wouldn't have designed it unless I as his client asked for it. If I asked a logo company to make me a logo, then its my logo and its mine to display and use. As a tattoo enthusiast I find it troubling that others would claim rights to artwork I commissioned and I wear.
Click to expand...

So if you get a company's logo tattooed on you then it's your logo to display and use? If you commission a cabinet maker to design custom cabinets do you also claim rights to that cabinet design?

I find it interesting that so many believe a photographer owns the rights to a photo they take, in the horse selfie thread, but a tattoo artists does not own the rights to the tattoo they design.
 
Draax said:
So if you get a company's logo tattooed on you then it's your logo to display and use? If you commission a cabinet maker to design custom cabinets do you also claim rights to that cabinet design?

I find it interesting that so many believe a photographer owns the rights to a photo they take, in the horse selfie thread, but a tattoo artists does not own the rights to the tattoo they design.
Click to expand...

Because different rules for different mediums. You have been paid for a commissioned piece of work and the labor to apply it to me so that I can have it. It's still their art and while I'd prefer to have a unique piece, they can replicate it as they wish as any artist can. If someone steals their art for profit they're welcome to try and get a piece of that but it's hard to enforce except in cases like this....which in a case like this it is not theft it's merely reproduction of the likeness of the walking canvass that has already paid.

An artist doesn't have say in what happens to their art after they have sold that piece. I can buy a print and then resell it as long as I give due credit to who the original artist was instead of claiming it as my own. Unfortunately in the case of these tattoos they fall in a weird place, but I would hardly say that the athletes are making money purely from the tattoos, it's just part of their body now, and their body their choice.

As for the Logo argument. Those are owned by the companies using them, and hopefully the artist is appropriately compensated.
 
Brian_B said:
Will be interesting to see how this plays out, because 2K has certainly licensed the right to use the players likenesses from the NBA. And tattoos, once applied, are certainly a defining part of a person's likeness.

I could see a judge going either way with it, so I would guess this one comes down to whoever hires the better legal team.
Click to expand...

yeah, I'd see them possibly having a case, but probably not against 2k.

2K is properly licensed to use the likeness of these players. if anything it might be the tattoo artists they have a case against, as they offered an exclusive license of these patterns, when they didn't have the exclusive right to do so.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Because different rules for different mediums. You have been paid for a commissioned piece of work and the labor to apply it to me so that I can have it. It's still their art and while I'd prefer to have a unique piece, they can replicate it as they wish as any artist can. If someone steals their art for profit they're welcome to try and get a piece of that but it's hard to enforce except in cases like this....which in a case like this it is not theft it's merely reproduction of the likeness of the walking canvass that has already paid.

An artist doesn't have say in what happens to their art after they have sold that piece. I can buy a print and then resell it as long as I give due credit to who the original artist was instead of claiming it as my own. Unfortunately in the case of these tattoos they fall in a weird place, but I would hardly say that the athletes are making money purely from the tattoos, it's just part of their body now, and their body their choice.

As for the Logo argument. Those are owned by the companies using them, and hopefully the artist is appropriately compensated.
Click to expand...

Copyrights, for artists, can be explained in the following way:

Basically, from the moment something is fixed in a medium (be it a canvas, on a piece of paper, in a photograph, or in a digital file), it is copyrighted to the person who created it. That would be your artist. Even if you’ve given them the idea for the painting, the execution of the final product is copyrighted to them. Copyright gives the artist the right to decide who can use their work and how, whether or not it can be duplicated or reproduced, and where and how it can be displayed.
Click to expand...

It is the artists who gets to determine whether who can use their work, and if their work can be duplicated or reproduced .... not the canvas. With that being said, customers can purchase the commercial rights but that is a different story.
 
Steve said:
Okay, this stuff is just ridiculous. How can you copyright a tattoo that you put on someone else's body? Copyright crap like this is getting way out of hand. :(

A company called Solid Oak Sketches, which paid several tattoo artists for the authority to license their designs, is suing [PDF] the makers of the NBA 2K16 video game in federal court, alleging that the use of these tattoo designs — featured on players like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kenyon Martin, and others — without Solid Oak’s permission is a violation of copyright.
Click to expand...


Lets see. I'm an artist. I make an image. I own the copyright, UNLESS it is created as a work for hire.

Other tatto artists license it as flash/a stencil and can put it on anyone they want.

Anyone who gets it effectively gets a license to unlimited use and reproduction of the image on their bodies. One could make this explicit, I doubt anyone did. But I have run into people who have gotten original art done on them from some high end artists, and they did have to sign a contract regarding the future disposition of said art (namely any alterations not performed by the original artist were not permitted and the reccipient would be sued over the alteration of the work for misrepresenting the artists product).

However, a video game is none of those things. So yes, they are reproducing the work without a license. If they are done as a stencil or other overlay that ins't baked into the texture and such can be extracted by third parties, I can really understand why they'd be upset (i.e. shitty artists couldn't reproduce it from images of the player, but can trace a nice image they extract and scale up from a video game asset, and that infringes on a product they sell) If it is baked in, and can't be extracted, the suit is stupid money grubbing.
 
Draax said:
It is the artists who gets to determine whether who can use their work, and if their work can be duplicated or reproduced .... not the canvas. With that being said, customers can purchase the commercial rights but that is a different story.
Click to expand...

Yep, usually when a work is commissioned - however - this right is waived by the artist as part of the contract that pays the artist to commission said work.

I'd argue that Tattoos ARE commissioned work, but I'm betting that those commissioning the work have never thought about the ownership of said work, and thus there is no stipulation in the contract about ownership (if there even IS a contract)

The more I think about it in this case, they should be suing the league, not 2K. The league in this case sold rights to the image of the players, without it being clear about any artwork on the players image.

This will - indeed - make for an interesting case. I'll probably have forgotten about it by the time it comes to a conclusion though.
 
raz-0 said:
Anyone who gets it effectively gets a license to unlimited use and reproduction of the image on their bodies. One could make this explicit, I doubt anyone did. But I have run into people who have gotten original art done on them from some high end artists, and they did have to sign a contract regarding the future disposition of said art (namely any alterations not performed by the original artist were not permitted and the reccipient would be sued over the alteration of the work for misrepresenting the artists product).
Click to expand...

I could see that not holding up very well. Finishing out a sleeve with a different artist could be argued as alteration even.

But mostly I just see that the way it's worded is that a person could be sued for having the tattoo removed. I understand its to try and keep people from doing a cover-up but kinda shitty regardless. Hell what if the original artist died and you wanted to get the colors retouched if they're fading. The rights would've probably passed to family and they could sue. It's silly.

Of course on the other hand, 99% of us are not high profile and that sort of shit is nearly impossible to control. Sign the contract and then fly back home halfway around the world and alter it.
 
Nolan7689 said:
I could see that not holding up very well. Finishing out a sleeve with a different artist could be argued as alteration even.

But mostly I just see that the way it's worded is that a person could be sued for having the tattoo removed. I understand its to try and keep people from doing a cover-up but kinda shitty regardless. Hell what if the original artist died and you wanted to get the colors retouched if they're fading. The rights would've probably passed to family and they could sue. It's silly.

Of course on the other hand, 99% of us are not high profile and that sort of shit is nearly impossible to control. Sign the contract and then fly back home halfway around the world and alter it.
Click to expand...

*shrug*
No idea if it covered removal. The main gist was that the artist only did original work they felt like, you singed a waiver that you didn't even get to have a say in it nor necessarily warning of what it would be, and no other artist touches it. Very high profile artist from what I understand (I could give a shit about tattoos), and they basically didn't want to work often or on many people. It wasn't intended to be a revenue generator but to make the maximal number of people he didn't want to deal with go away.

Most of it probably wasn't enforceable with anyone willing to fight. Hell for all I know, he didn't need to or care to work at all and this was a quick way for him to find super submissive women for his stable he could tat up as his disposable canvasses and bang on the side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top