NBA2K developers getting sued over using player tattoos in game..

[Ironman]

Holy shyt

 

[Rekkapryde]

whats next? barbers suing for displaying their fades on players? I mean its "their" work, right? fukk outta here with this shyt

technically they could

 

[PortCityProphet]

Edit: some of u trting to explain the current laws. I think those laws need to be re-wrote.

Do frats sue when those stamps/brandings are used?

What if I cut u across the face, leave a scar, and the scar is used in a gm. I can sue? That scar was my art.

The alphabet can't be copyrighted, but the letters in a certain order can.
And a scar doesn't fall under created material.
The laws make perfect sense, just cause you don't understand them doesn't mean they need to be rewritten.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Wait what? How can this be legitimate in common sense terms?

Does the papparazzi, or newspapers or other media have to pay when they photo people wearing a recognizable brand?

No. They are taking a picture. They own the photo. They are not recreating or copying the artwork on said person. The art is already there. In a video game they have to go in and draw the work on a blank likeness of a player. That image of the tattoo doesn't come on the video game version of the player it has to be COPIED onto him. Hence copyright infringement

 

[PortCityProphet]

Then going forward, 2K just needs to find a lawyer and then create a similar tattoo image, but different enough to not get sued. Like how it's done in music.

Might as well just draw some dark colored squiggles on nikkas arms

 

[keepemup]

No. They are taking a picture. They own the photo. They are not recreating or copying the artwork on said person. The art is already there. In a video game they have to go in and draw the work on a blank likeness of a player. That image of the tattoo doesn't come on the video game version of the player it has to be COPIED onto him. Hence copyright infringement

Are you sure they draw the image or is it digitized according to photos and algorithms?

And photos are digital copies these days that can, and I'm willing to be 99% of the time, are manipulated reproductions. I Couldn't they simply manipulate the image to remove said branding or otherwise face a copyright lawsuit as well, if the former is allowed?

 

[He Who Posts Well]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Are you sure they draw the image or is it digitized according to photos and algorithms?

And photos are digital copies these days that can, and I'm willing to be 99% of the time, are manipulated reproductions. I Couldn't they simply manipulate the image to remove said branding or otherwise face a copyright lawsuit as well, if the former is allowed?

It doesn't matter how they draw it or digitize it onto the video game they are still recreating someone's idea onto a blank canvas (player model).
And I don't understand what you're asking on the second question. Are you talking about changing photos and taking tats off or changing them on 2k?

 

[keepemup]

It doesn't matter how they draw it or digitize it onto the video game they are still recreating someone's idea onto a blank canvas (player model).
And I don't understand what you're asking on the second question. Are you talking about changing photos and taking tats off or changing them on 2k?

I'm implying that since images are already digitally manipulated what is the distinction between one form of manipulation and another.

I say that to say this, can't it be claimed that the work of an artist on the body of individual x is now part of the person? And that whatever methods are used to reproduce an image of the individual, the goal is still to reproduce the individual.

If a surgeon performs a special and distinct technique of rhinoplasty and a digital artist recreates an image of said face with nose in-tact, can the doctor sue that his work has been copied?

This seems very petty to me.

 

[Tony D'Amato]

The alphabet can't be copyrighted, but the letters in a certain order can.
And a scar doesn't fall under created material.
The laws make perfect sense, just cause you don't understand them doesn't mean they need to be rewritten.

N1gga please, shut yo bama azz up

 

[JordanwiththeWiz]

These n*ggas don't even own the tattoos on their own bodies wtf

I'm a little disappointed in my n*gga Bron this not a good look for a powerful black man like him

 

[PortCityProphet]

I'm implying that since images are already digitally manipulated what is the distinction between one form of manipulation and another.

I say that to say this, can't it be claimed that the work of an artist on the body of individual x is now part of the person? And that whatever methods are used to reproduce an image of the individual, the goal is still to reproduce the individual.

If a surgeon performs a special and distinct technique of rhinoplasty and a digital artist recreates an image of said face with nose in-tact, can the doctor sue that his work has been copied?

This seems very petty to me.

the distinction is that 2k is using the exact copy of the tats. they are copying and recreating the artwork.
if i take a picture of LeBron and I edit his tats and him in anyway there's 0 anybody can do because I own that photo. I can do what I want to it. I could sell it and make billions off of it if I wanted because it's my picture and i'm not physically copying the artwork of anybody else onto another canvas. when someone gets a tat their body is considered a canvas. listen to talk amongst tat artist they call people canvases.
medical work isn't really copyrighted it's patented like an invention. That recreation should be ok if the person oks it because it's physically their body.
and yes it's very petty by the tattoo artist but it's a come up and they have a very very strong case.

 

[keepemup]

the distinction is that 2k is using the exact copy of the tats. they are copying and recreating the artwork.
if i take a picture of LeBron and I edit his tats and him in anyway there's 0 anybody can do because I own that photo. I can do what I want to it. I could sell it and make billions off of it if I wanted because it's my picture and i'm not physically copying the artwork of anybody else onto another canvas. when someone gets a tat their body is considered a canvas. listen to talk amongst tat artist they call people canvases.
medical work isn't really copyrighted it's patented like an invention. That recreation should be ok if the person oks it because it's physically their body.
and yes it's very petty by the tattoo artist but it's a come up and they have a very very strong case.

Interesting. I think I've extracted all I can from this thread. Thanks for the info.

 

[PortCityProphet]

N1gga please, shut yo bama azz up

nikka go play ball boy for the Clippers and go get yourself knocked out

 

[PortCityProphet]

Interesting. I think I've extracted all I can from this thread. Thanks for the info.

no problem