Some Potential Damages in NBA 2K Tattoo Lawsuit Have Been Dismissed

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake

Aholbert32, out of curiosity... If you were part of the 2k legal team, and let's say there wasn't that technicality for dismissal. How would you approach this case? Or is there not even a case for 2k? Is there even a legitimate argument in favor of 2k? Is there even a way (i.e. loophole or whatever the technical term may be) that the attorneys for 2k can take? Does 2k simply concede and make a deal with the plaintiff?

This case? They don't have much of an argument. They lucked out that the artist didn't register the copyright until after 2k first used the tattoo. That significantly reduces the potential damages.

Now that damages have been reduced, I'd recommend that they offer the tattoo artist a nominal settlement (5-10k) in exchange for him dropping the case and giving 2k the right to use the tattoo from here on.

Then I would suggest that 2k reviews every tattoo in its database and determine which ones need to be licensed. After that try to track down the artists and offer small license fees or change the tattoos enough so that they wouldn't have a claim.

[Pokes404]

I can't think of a dumber reason to be out close to a billion dollars than a tattoo lawsuit. I'd prefer to have the real tattoos in the game, but if it's going to be a giant hassle (and a potential financial liability), just slap some generic tattoos on these guys and move on.

[HowDareI]

I was just thinking, almost every person I know with a tattoo (and by almost I mean literally everyone) has worked with their artist in a collaborative effort on the design.

I mean, it's going onto someone's body forever so it has to be done.

Not just that, people go in with drawings/ideas/sketches whatever you can name and hand them to the artist and say "expand on this"...

So couldn't that technically be a defense on 2K's side? Wouldn't that mean the tattoo artist isn't doing 100% original work or does that not matter?

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by HowDareI

I was just thinking, almost every person I know with a tattoo (and by almost I mean literally everyone) has worked with their artist in a collaborative effort on the design. I mean, it's going onto someone's body forever so it has to be done. Not just that, people go in with drawings/ideas/sketches whatever you can name and hand them to the artist and say "expand on this"... So couldn't that technically be a defense on 2K's side? Wouldn't that mean the tattoo artist isn't doing 100% original work or does that not matter?

As with any case the facts matter. If I go to a tattoo parlor and bring him a design of a star and he says "Lets make it blue and put a line through it"...its a collaborative effort and he cant claim sole ownership in the design of the tattoo.

If I go to a tattoo parlor and select a tat from one of their designs (which a lot of people do), the copyright belongs to the tattoo artist.

[downsouth]

If i was a star player i would make the artist sign a waver. The tattoo would be worth nothing if it wasnt on LeBrons arm. Perhaps in exhange for a photo of me with the tatt for the artist to use promotionally.

[BA2929]

Quote: Originally Posted by downsouth

If i was a star player i would make the artist sign a waver. The tattoo would be worth nothing if it wasnt on LeBrons arm. Perhaps in exhange for a photo of me with the tatt for the artist to use promotionally.

Anyone who gets a tattoo should be able to purchase the rights to the art from the artist. If the artist won't allow it, then find another person to do it for you.

Same goes with wedding pictures and things like that. You do not own those pictures unless you purchase the rights to them.

Make sure if you hire someone to take pictures/paint a picture/do a tat that you buy the rights to it from the artist. I'm not entirely sure why these athletes with all this money aren't able to figure this out.

The tattoo artists were well within their rights to sue 2k for using these tats without permission.

If anyone is still confused by this, here is a good article written about this issue:

http://www.inkedmag.com/articles/who-owns-your-tattoo/

[strawberryshortcake]

@aholbert32 or anyone else in the tattoo industry, or have gotten a tattoo,

Why don't tattoo parlors have a waiver form for ALL client/tattoo artist themselves to sign prior so issues like this doesn't come crawling back if the recipient wants to get their body along with the tattoo replicated artistically for commercial use, whether the person gets bitten by the famous bug or not?

Shouldn't somewhere along the lines with court cases revolving around tattoos have sparked some type of change in the tattoo community? Why isn't there some type of legal document or law passed to get behind the eight ball?

The tattoo artist can have the client sign a legal document specifying that the client may not have the tattoo replicated in other forms or alter for commercial use? If the client wants to be able to do as she/he pleases with the tattoo in the future, a different document can be signed. Have both documents available to the client. Only when the client has an understanding then should the procedure take place because (enter percentage) of clients probably doesn't even realize this could potentially be an issue down the line.

Don't have a tattoo, and don't plan to get one, but if I did, prior to hearing about the Madden and 2k tattoo cases, I didn't think much of it. I figured once I got a tattoo, it was pretty much mines.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake

@aholbert32 or anyone else in the tattoo industry, or have gotten a tattoo, Why don't tattoo parlors have a waiver form for ALL client/tattoo artist themselves to sign prior so issues like this doesn't come crawling back if the recipient wants to get their body along with the tattoo replicated artistically for commercial use, whether the person gets bitten by the famous bug or not? Shouldn't somewhere along the lines with court cases revolving around tattoos have sparked some type of change in the tattoo community? Why isn't there some type of legal document or law passed to get behind the eight ball? The tattoo artist can have the client sign a legal document specifying that the client may not have the tattoo replicated in other forms or alter for commercial use? If the client wants to be able to do as she/he pleases with the tattoo in the future, a different document can be signed. Have both documents available to the client. Only when the client has an understanding then should the procedure take place because (enter percentage) of clients probably doesn't even realize this could potentially be an issue down the line. Don't have a tattoo, and don't plan to get one, but if I did, prior to hearing about the Madden and 2k tattoo cases, I didn't think much of it. I figured once I got a tattoo, it was pretty much mines.

Some tattoo artists do that. They have each person sign a release that releases them from any claims related to the tattoo and states clearly that if its an original tat, the tat is owned by the artist.

With that said, its not really the tattoo artist's responsibility to make sure that the person getting the tat knows their belongs to them.

Keep in mind this is an issue that rarely if ever comes up. It effects 1% of the population. There isnt a situation the average person will have to deal with. Most people dont have the avenues to exploit a tattoo commercially like with a video game. So its really a non issue for most people.