We have some of the dumbest laws ever.
NBA2K developers getting sued over using player tattoos in game..
- Thread starter AtomicUse
- Start date
you're only paying for a service(getting it put on you). you're not paying for THEIR art.
Think of it like this. Say they draw the same picture they are about to put on your arm, but on a piece of paper. and sign it. Thats their copywritten material. just because its on you, doesnt change that fact unless you come in with your own design. then if thats the case its your copywritten material.
you wouldnt say that, if someone were selling some artists paintings and didnt get permission from the artist to sell them and not paying the artist. This is the exact same thing. you dont pay for the art work when you get a tat. you pay for them putting artwork on you. its a service. the art belongs to them. whether its on a piece of paper, in a comic book, on the wall in a museum. doesnt matter. still their artwork. you cant steal people's artwork in this country. and thats a good thing.
basketball reasons
All Star
What about tattoo artists who use trademarked images like mickey mouse or like CM punks pepsi tattoo? Why isnt it a two way street?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the selling point of the game has nothing to do with a tattoo. If I paid for the artwork and it is on my body. I now own the likeness of my body and whatever you see on my body. It's a stupid rule.
beenz
Rap Guerilla
if madden could get away with it, they'd bypass the entire NFLPA.
You guys are fukking idiots sometimes.
James Gordon
Superstar
Aint this a b 
What about tattoo artists who use trademarked images like mickey mouse or like CM punks pepsi tattoo? Why isnt it a two way street?
I could be wrong, but I would imagine that Disney and Pepsi don't really see the benefit of going around and suing every tattoo shop that uses their copyrighted images.
basketball reasons
All Star
I agree, my points that copyright laws are arbitrary and convoluted as hell and need a massive reform. tattoo artists shouldnt be owning part of a persons likeness just because they drew the image. If someone were to sell a painting with an original lebron james tattoo, sure, sue them. Theyre directly profiting off it. But why are they allowed to own part of an individual's likeness, after getting paid thousands for the commission? Why doesnt fair use come into play here?
But isn't a t-shirt or shoes or a headband with whatever logo a part of their likeness as well? Only difference between that and a tattoo is you can't take it off. A decision hasn't been reached so we can't say what will come into play or not. People sue for all kinds of silly, frivolous, or straight up legal shyt all the time.
and that limb will break.
there was a time when REAL shoes were not in the games
there was a time when real accessories were not in the game.
do you know how they got Nike, reebok, etc in the game? They paid them
Those are not real life shoes. So why did they have to pay nike and nem? because its their copywritten designs.
you would surprised how many people cried about having the proper shoes in the game then cried about accessories not being on point. then talking about the fake tats they use to put on them and them not being legit. this is why they started putting the real tats on them. because it was a request by those that play their game. now ask me if i care about a tat? is it a nice touch? sure. do i like the shoes now that their there? YEP. did i ask for them? NOPE. they could all have no namer kicks for all i care. as long as the game play is on point. but thats me. i dont speak for ALL 2k lovers.
so i would advise you to get off that limb. lol
if fair use comes into play for tats. then it should come into play for all nike, reebok, addidas, etc., shoes and accessories in the game. They paid them for their designs. since in a game its not the real thing. its only the artwork(design) of the real thing.
the tattoo artist does not own the persons body. They own the artwork ON their body. they dont own the canvas. they own the art ON the canvas.
it is a two way street. if some tat artist uses a trade marked symbol, logo, etc technically either He or the person that requested the tat is liable to pay for the use of the copywritten image. The issue is, they(tat artist and/or the person getting the ink put on them Hopes no one from one of those big companies come knocking on the door looking for a check. because if they did, they would be well within their rights to collect.What about tattoo artists who use trademarked images like mickey mouse or like CM punks pepsi tattoo? Why isnt it a two way street?