Tattoo parlor files lawsuit against video game maker for using player tattoos in game

[KentState]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

You guys complain about lawyers and then continue to prove why we need them with every post

As well as a sarcasm meter, right?

 

[JSt0rm]

As well as a sarcasm meter, right?

ok buddy. Im sorry. Come hangout with me:

http://www.cameronsworld.net/

 

[KentState]

ok buddy. Im sorry. Come hangout with me:

http://www.cameronsworld.net/

Will have to check with my lawyer since they come heavily recommended.

 

[JSt0rm]

Ill be waiting...

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is a frivolous lawsuit hoping for settlement. Which will not happen. When the person goes to the tattoo parlor and PAYS MONEY for a tattoo, that is like buying a painting. You own it now.

You do know, that if you buy an original painting, by an artist, that you DO NOT have to right to have prints made of that painting, and sell the prints.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Otherwise, it sets the precedent that the person with whom the tattoo is on would need to seek permission from the artist anytime their personal image was used for commercial reasons. Fuck that.

What about High School pictures? You know, the ones professionally taken in a studio, by a professional photographer? You do know, that just because you paid to have the pictures taken and made for you, that you do NOT own them, the photographer owns the copyright on those photos, and if you reproduce those photos, you can be sued?

 

[Phoenix86]

If you buy a print, it doesn't mean you can reproduce it. You just own the copy.

The players don't own the art, they own the copy of the art. They don't have the ability to re-license it. Go ahead and get a mickey mouse tattoo and put that in a game. See how that works out for ya.

It may seem like a silly suit but I think it has merit.

 

[Rakehellion]

Counterpoint: Tattoo parlors shouldn't be allowed to retain copyright/ownership of "artwork" they embed in peoples' skin.

Why limit it at tattoos? Once you purchase a copy of Windows you now own the rights and can duplicate it and sell it to as many people as you see fit.

 

[Rakehellion]

But that artist was already paid a fee upfront, to design something that the customer was happy with.

The artists designed it for Lebron James to wear on his skin. The artist did not design it for EA to duplicate millions of times and sell for $60 a pop.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Counterpoint: Tattoo parlors shouldn't be allowed to retain copyright/ownership of "artwork" they embed in peoples' skin.

I agree. It violates a number of other rights. The reproduction rights of a tattoo should become public domain immediately.

Any pictures or videos that include you should also become public domain immediately, unless you agreed to act in them. This includes your image, likeness, voice, or implication that it is you.

We really need to take a hard look at why and how we allow for Copy Rights. That bullshit with the Happy Birthday song should be proof enough.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...py-birthday-copyright-find-their-smoking-gun/

 

[Darwin333]

No. The persons image can be used all you want. The tattoo has become part of the persons image. What this is saying is a company can not recreate an art asset that is a direct copy of someone elses work without prior consent either via a release that the sports figure had signed by the artist OR getting the artists permission.

Well when the athlete agreed to allow his likeness to be used for his own profit wouldn't it be his responsibility to tell whoever he is selling his likeness to that part of his likeness isn't his to sell? Furthermore, since the tattoo IS most definitely a part of his likeness why wouldn't the artist be suing the athlete for selling and profiting off of something that he didn't have the right to? It seems to me that the artist has even more reason to sue the athlete than he does the video game publishers.

Beyond that, this is all getting to be friggen absurd. You can't barely do anything these days without getting sued for some sort of infringement. The game makers obviously aren't profiting from the tattoos and this is nothing but a blatant money grab by the "artists" after the game makers purchased the rights, in good faith, to use the athletes likeness. If I buy something from you and there are conditions to me using whatever it is I purchased then I expect you as the seller to list those conditions before I purchase it.

 

[Darwin333]

The artists designed it for Lebron James to wear on his skin. The artist did not design it for EA to duplicate millions of times and sell for $60 a pop.

So if I design a building that is built and sold and they use it in a movie years later they should be required to pay me royalties? Not only that but the publisher, not the owner of the building who is being paid for its use, should be responsible for finding out if the owner of the building has the right to sell its likeness? In what universe does that make sense?

If the artists win aren't the athletes in some sort of breach of contract? They sold something that they didn't have the right to sell so they should be responsible not the people who bought it in good faith.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd argue a tattoo is a work for hire. The artist no longer owns his work.

I assumed that was the case. I find it crazy as hell that this lawsuit was even allowed to go this far.

 

[slag]

So if I create a movie starring Shrek it's trademark infringement, unless I also get a tattoo of Shrek on my body?

If the CEO of Electronic Arts gets the NBA logo tattooed on his ass then he can use their trademark without paying them a dime? Maybe he should get Lebron's face tattooed on there too so he doesn't have to pay to use his likeness!

I think you would need to get permission from whoever owns the shrek trademark to get it tattoed on your body first, but I think you know that. If a tattoo artist puts a previously unlicensed work on your body and you don't sign a waiver or form, then it should belong to you. You are paying them to put it on your body and thus, are paying for the image and their time to tattoo it on. You should now own it as you paid for it and its not something you can just easily remove. It is now permanently part of your body.

Same with the NBA logo.

 

[zinfamous]

But no one is buying the product because of the tats. It's a stupid lawsuit.

Irrelevant. The company profits off of the image.

These games are the exact same game year in and year out. I think their claim to originality is how realistic they become. When LeBron has his tattoos included in the game one year, but did not the years before, I see that as a specific case of profiting off of that entity's work. Maybe not the best way to describe it, but it seems like a legit claim.

Interesting case, really.

 

[zinfamous]

I'd argue a tattoo is a work for hire. The artist no longer owns his work.

Good point, as well. From the greats, the classics and on, art has been a labor of commission. The patron pays the artist a handsome sum to create a specific piece of art--portrait of mommy, sculpture of Moses or Jesus or what-have-you, which is now owned by the patron. The work is then sold, perhaps later and many times over, on the open market with no rights of ownership recognized by the artist or the artist's estate.

I'm pretty sure that is still, more or less, how the industry operates today. Wonder why the tattoo parlor sees themselves differently? Perhaps they are trying to create this image of them being "true artists," but actually don't understand anything about being artists in the art industry?

 

[TechBoyJK]

What about High School pictures? You know, the ones professionally taken in a studio, by a professional photographer? You do know, that just because you paid to have the pictures taken and made for you, that you do NOT own them, the photographer owns the copyright on those photos, and if you reproduce those photos, you can be sued?

How about they're not the same thing?

 

[TechBoyJK]

No. The persons image can be used all you want. The tattoo has become part of the persons image. What this is saying is a company can not recreate an art asset that is a direct copy of someone elses work without prior consent either via a release that the sports figure had signed by the artist OR getting the artists permission.

No. The player owns the tattoo, not the tattoo artist. Work for hire. BS lawsuit. Won't go anywhere.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I agree. It violates a number of other rights. The reproduction rights of a tattoo should become public domain immediately.

Any pictures or videos that include you should also become public domain immediately, unless you agreed to act in them. This includes your image, likeness, voice, or implication that it is you.

We really need to take a hard look at why and how we allow for Copy Rights. That bullshit with the Happy Birthday song should be proof enough.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...py-birthday-copyright-find-their-smoking-gun/

Yeah the whole system needs reform.

What copyright needs to be for is to stop people from taking credit for other people's work, not to stop people from simply using it. Ex: I should be able to reproduce a piece of art and use it as decoration in my public building or game or any setting, but I should not be allowed to put my name on it, or sell it with my name on it. But if I sell it and give credit to original artist then that should be allowed. I'm selling the physical object which has a real material and labour value to it. Of course it's no longer an original, and I should not be allowed to mislead people into thinking it is.

Also the whole rights/licensing crap needs to go, it's just ridiculous. It's typically megacorporations (though in this case the tattoo guy) trying to generate unlimited profit off work that was already done. It's like charging someone to mow their lawn, but you already mowed your own lawn and you're selling that idea to them, not actually mowing their lawn too. But if they go ahead and mow their lawn without paying you then they get sued because you own rights to mowing lawns.

In some cases artists also actually get screwed by the whole licensing/rights concept, they are talked into signing some kind of contract and they end up not even having rights to their own work. That is basically the RIAA's model. As a music artist you are talked into signing up because of all the perks to get you marketed, but at the end, they own you and anything you make.