I think it's ridiculous for someone to claim rights to depictions of other people just because they gave them a tattoo. Should a hair stylist be allowed to sue for any commercial use of image of their client's hair?
this is a stupid lawsuit and hopefully they lose.
I don't see how they can win. it's part of kobe and they have a license to use him.
Just make sure if you take photos not to have NBA 2K16 on in the background.If I buy a piece of art from my local artist, hang it on my living room wall and then put my house on the market do I (or Zillow, whatever) have to pay that artist every time a picture of my living room is viewed? No, correct..? The artist has already been compensated for his or her work.
If I buy a piece of art from my local artist, hang it on my living room wall and then put my house on the market do I (or Zillow, whatever) have to pay that artist every time a picture of my living room is viewed? No, correct..? The artist has already been compensated for his or her work.
what an absurd lawsuit.
right up there with "rectangles with rounded corners."
unfortunately that's the court system.
You need to protect your end content but in a situation like this the artist could stand to have MORE work from people seeing these tattoos and wanting the same artist and researching who did what. A tattoo artist is paid to provide a service. They are not making a product (unless they release limited or not limited prints of their design).
So as long as you're doing something seemingly positive for the artist, you're allowed to commit copyright infringement?exactly.
call it free advertising.
unless you mean someone is going to bring in a screenshot of nba 2k16 and say i want this tattoo please.
in that case google images is your friend.
So as long as you're doing something seemingly positive for the artist, you're allowed to commit copyright infringement?
the people who made nba 2k16 paid for the players likeness in the videogame.
that is a fact.
tattoos are on the players.
the tattoos are part of the players likeness.
the people who made nba 2k16 paid for the players likeness in the videogame.
tattoos are on the players.
the tattoos are part of the players likeness.
the people who made nba 2k16 paid for the players likeness in the videogame.
tattoos are on the players.
the tattoo artists don't have a leg to stand on.
ipso-facto free advertising.
and exactly no copyright infringement.
lol and some people think IP laws arn't broken. What a ridiculous lawsuit. What about the people who get tattoos and they're visible to public, is that copyright infringement too? I mean, they are technically broadcasting the copyrighted material to everyone to see.
I wonder if open source tattoos will become a thing now. lol
I didn't know so many people were on the "artists are crooks and should work for free" camp.
One could argue that the tattoo artist retains the rights to their artwork, and that the NBA player did not have the right to license out said artwork as part of their likeness.
the people who made nba 2k16 paid for the players likeness in the videogame.
If NBC shows a game and the player wears a nike jersey, do they have to get a licensing deal with Nike to show that game? I think not.
This is no different, the game is just accurately depicting the likeness of the player, which includes the tattoo.
you could argue it, if you had something posted or had the client sign something to that effect.
but with this case, all they have is hearsay.
And stop dodging the question: Should EA have to pay Nike to use the Nike logo in their video game?
The player doesn't own the rights to someone else's artwork.
Yes. And that isn't the same thing at all.
And stop dodging the question: Should EA have to pay Nike to use the Nike logo in their video game? Should EA have to pay money to use the NBA logo in their video game?
Isn't the artwork technically owned by the player though? I mean it's their skin, and I'm pretty sure Tattoo parlors were compensated when the player paid for it at the shop.
then isn't it the player who's on the hook.