PDA

View Full Version : Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos. That’s a Problem for Video Game Developers.



RBP
12-28-2018, 11:25 PM
When LeBron James bounds down a basketball court, he is both a transcendent athlete and a prominent palette for dozens of tattoos. His mother’s name, Gloria, rests on a crown on his right shoulder and his forearms bear a portrait of his son LeBron Jr. and 330, an area code for his hometown, Akron, Ohio.

Although those tattoos have personal connections, they may not truly be his.

Any creative illustration “fixed in a tangible medium” is eligible for copyright, and, according to the United States Copyright Office, that includes the ink displayed on someone’s skin. What many people don’t realize, legal experts said, is that the copyright is inherently owned by the tattoo artist, not the person with the tattoos.

For most people, that is not a cause for concern. Lawyers generally agree that an implied license allows people to freely display their tattoos in public, including on television broadcasts or magazine covers. But when tattoos are digitally recreated on avatars in sports video games, copyright infringement can become an issue.

“Video games are an entirely new area,” said Michael A. Kahn, a copyright lawyer who represented the designer of the face tattoo on the boxer Mike Tyson. “There is LeBron James, but it’s not LeBron James. It’s a cartoon version of him.”

https://i.imgur.com/EwCHOLk.jpg

Electronic Arts, a game developer and publisher, recreates more than 100 tattoos in its FIFA and UFC games, including the colorful sleeve on the right arm of the soccer star Lionel Messi and a heart-eating gorilla on the chest of the fighter Conor McGregor. Yet only a handful of players in its Madden football games are depicted with their real-life ink.

Spokesmen for Electronic Arts did not respond to requests for comment. The company faced a copyright infringement lawsuit after the cover of the game NFL Street included an illustration of the running back Ricky Williams and some of his tattoos, but the artist withdrew his claim in 2013.

Players’ unions, many of which license the players’ likenesses to video game publishers, and sports agents have advised athletes to secure licensing agreements before they get tattooed. Artists have an incentive to sign rather than pass up a client who could be a billboard for their work.

Gotti Flores said he has spent at least 40 hours tattooing the N.F.L. receiver Mike Evans, one of the few players with tattoos in Madden. He was surprised, he said, that he had to give permission for his work to be reproduced in the game.

“Really it didn’t even matter to me,” said Mr. Flores, who signed a waiver for no compensation. “It was dope to have my tattoos on there.”
Editors’ Picks
Left to Louisiana’s Tides, a Village Fights for Time
Tales From the Warhol Factory
She Was Exonerated of the Murder of Her Son. Her Life Is Still Shattered.

Not all tattoo licensing happens so amicably.

At least three lawsuits have been filed against Take-Two Interactive, a game developer and publisher, and a subsidiary, 2K Games. A federal court ruling in any of the cases could have a ripple effect among sports video games, which emphasize realism.

The company Solid Oak Sketches obtained the copyrights for five tattoos on three basketball players — including the portrait and area code on Mr. James — before suing in 2016 because they were used in the NBA 2K series. The following year, an artist sued because the Gloria tattoo on Mr. James, among others, was included in the same franchise. And in April, another artist sued because her tattoos on the wrestler Randy Orton had been included in several iterations of WWE 2K.

Shawn Rome and Justin Wright, two of the three tattoo artists who licensed their work to Solid Oak, said they had been deceived by its founder, Matthew Siegler, and never desired a lawsuit. He approached them with a plan to incorporate their tattoo designs into a clothing line, they said, but it went nowhere.

“He’s just poaching on artists,” Mr. Rome said.

Before filing its lawsuit, Solid Oak sought $819,500 for past infringement and proposed a $1.14 million deal for future use of the tattoos.

Mr. Siegler did not respond to requests for comment. His primary lawyer, Darren Heitner, said that Take-Two used the copyrights without permission, and that Mr. Siegler wanted to be fairly compensated. Peter C. Welch, associate general counsel for Take-Two, said he could not comment on pending litigation. A spokeswoman for 2K Games said it does not comment on legal matters.

https://i.imgur.com/eU8qUh5.jpg?1

Solid Oak’s lawsuit amounts to a shakedown and copyright trolling, said a law professor, Christopher Jon Sprigman, who teaches about intellectual property at New York University.

“They shouldn’t be allowed to tell LeBron James that he can’t make deals to license his likeness,” he said. “The ability of the celebrity, or really anyone, to do that is an element of their personal freedom.”

Take-Two has argued in court papers that Solid Oak’s tattoos are seen rarely, fleetingly and hazily in the NBA 2K games, but the judge rejected a motion for dismissal in March.

A verdict for either side would set an important precedent on how the owner of a tattoo copyright can enforce it, said Yolanda M. King, an associate law professor at Northern Illinois University who has extensively studied the issue.

Determining actual damages is difficult in copyright cases, however. In a lawsuit against the game developer and publisher THQ, which dissolved in 2013, a tattoo artist sought $4.16 million after his tattoo was used in the UFC Undisputed games. A bankruptcy court judge decided that the tattoo, a lion on the right side of the fighter Carlos Condit, had a value of $22,500, and the parties reached a confidential settlement.

Although video game companies already pay to license copyrighted music, they may want to avoid the cost — as well as the logistical burden — of negotiating with hundreds of artists for rights to their tattoos.

“From a business perspective it would be more feasible to strip them from the game, or to put some type of designs in the public domain on their bodies,” Professor King said.

That would be a departure from the mission of publishers like 2K Games, which has tried to replicate basketball players as closely as it does their teams’ uniforms, playbooks and arenas.

“My tattoos are a part of my persona and identity,” Mr. James wrote in a declaration of support for Take-Two and 2K Games. “If I am not shown with my tattoos, it wouldn’t really be a depiction of me.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/style/tattoos-video-games.html

Hal-9000
12-29-2018, 06:05 PM
There is a point here, similar to the Carlton dance and Fortnite using it.

But wouldn't the original tattoo be released to the person getting it as part of the payment transaction, then it's up to the player to give permission for his 'total likeness' to game developers?

I don't see how the tattoo artist retains rights.

Godfather
12-29-2018, 07:35 PM
There is a point here, similar to the Carlton dance and Fortnite using it.

But wouldn't the original tattoo be released to the person getting it as part of the payment transaction, then it's up to the player to give permission for his 'total likeness' to game developers?

I don't see how the tattoo artist retains rights.

Ya I haven't spent much time thinking about it but you pay for the artist's work... don't you now own it?



Any creative illustration “fixed in a tangible medium” is eligible for copyright, and, according to the United States Copyright Office, that includes the ink displayed on someone’s skin. What many people don’t realize, legal experts said, is that the copyright is inherently owned by the tattoo artist, not the person with the tattoos.

I just don't get how they came to that conclusion. Tattoos are expensive and you're placing them on your own medium (your body). How can a tattoo artist intrinsically retain the rights to that... If I pay a graphic designer to make a logo for my new company, do they own it? I know copyright law is complex but this seems goofy.

RBP
12-30-2018, 03:26 AM
Ya I haven't spent much time thinking about it but you pay for the artist's work... don't you now own it?




I just don't get how they came to that conclusion. Tattoos are expensive and you're placing them on your own medium (your body). How can a tattoo artist intrinsically retain the rights to that... If I pay a graphic designer to make a logo for my new company, do they own it? I know copyright law is complex but this seems goofy.I had to get a copyright release for my wedding photos. On your corporate example, the corporation includes release from the designer.

If you buy an artist's work, yes you own THAT piece of artwork. But that doesn't give you the right to reproduce the artwork for commercial gain.

Just how I was thinking it through... It will be an interesting legal trail to follow.

Hal-9000
12-30-2018, 06:46 AM
I had to get a copyright release for my wedding photos. On your corporate example, the corporation includes release from the designer.

If you buy an artist's work, yes you own THAT piece of artwork. But that doesn't give you the right to reproduce the artwork for commercial gain.

Just how I was thinking it through... It will be an interesting legal trail to follow.

My old job was associated with the printing industry, both presswork and digital print. Part of it was corporate creation projects like designing new logos, headers and company related graphic tags.

I knew a dude quite well in the artwork dept (he sold me my first pc, a 486). I remember he said after they designed and sold let's say a company logo, the company paid and now owns the logo.

This example is probably different than the situation in the story, so I'll just shut up now.


:lol:

RBP
12-30-2018, 06:52 AM
My old job was associated with the printing industry, both presswork and digital print. Part of it was corporate creation projects like designing new logos, headers and company related graphic tags.

I knew a dude quite well in the artwork dept (he sold me my first pc, a 486). I remember he said after they designed and sold let's say a company logo, the company paid and now owns the logo.

This example is probably different than the situation in the story, so I'll just shut up now.


:lol:

It's germane because "Trudeau" brought up that example. Those transactions normally involve a release of copyright.

Hal-9000
12-30-2018, 06:58 AM
It's germane because "Trudeau" brought up that example. Those transactions normally involve a release of copyright.

Yeah Justin is a smart cookie in business affairs.

We made a mint creating shit for clients. Now most of the same work can be done on relatively simple graphics programs, as opposed to back in the day where our art people would do physical mock ups, photograph them, create plates, then run it on a press. No one could do that work at home or in their office.

Godfather
12-30-2018, 08:18 AM
'Justin' :lol: You fucks

RBP
12-30-2018, 01:08 PM
:P

DemonGeminiX
12-30-2018, 01:27 PM
The inherent problem with all of this is assuming that the artist retains any semblance of ownership after money has changed hands. No. You commissioned the artist to do the work, the work was done, the money was paid, and I'm sorry Michelangelo, but the Church doesn't owe you anymore than what they've already paid for your work now that they're charging people to see The Last Judgment, so fuck off.

Am I or the newspaper supposed to pay royalties to the chop shop that painted my car if a picture of it ended up in the newspaper for some strange reason?

RBP
12-30-2018, 02:15 PM
The inherent problem with all of this is assuming that the artist retains any semblance of ownership after money has changed hands. No. You commissioned the artist to do the work, the work was done, the money was paid, and I'm sorry Michelangelo, but the Church doesn't owe you anymore than what they've already paid for your work now that they're charging people to see The Last Judgment, so fuck off.

Am I or the newspaper supposed to pay royalties to the chop shop that painted my car if a picture of it ended up in the newspaper for some strange reason?

I think that misses the legal question raised in the article. LeBron can show off his tatts, be in magazines, do endorsements, whatever, and the artist has no claim.

The question is whether that artwork can be reproduced in another medium and used for profit without the permission of the artist, and who gets to make that decision. The video game is not a picture of LeBron. Can LeBron license the artwork? What if that same artwork is on 10 people?

DemonGeminiX
12-30-2018, 03:27 PM
Newspaper picture of a car painted by a chop shop doesn't address that? And why does the artist have a say at all?

DemonGeminiX
12-30-2018, 03:52 PM
Let me try it this way:

You're a contract employee for an entity for a finite amount of time. You agree to perform work to produce results that the employing entity requested of you per the agreement in the contract. The entity agrees to pay you for the work that was requested. When the work is finished, the work and results of the work done belong to the entity that requested it, not the employee that was contracted to do the work.

That seems to be the case in a lot of business situations, except when it comes to today's artists, and I'm not entirely sure why. I could go to work for a software development company and write the most efficient and useful program ever created, so perfect that it would be deemed an infallible work of divine art. But, since the company was paying me to write the program, the program belongs to them. I have no claim over it, and no say as to what the company decides to do with it. The company has final say. How is it different from this: You go to a tattoo artist to draw whatever design on your body that you decided you wanted there, he does the work, and you pay him. How is it different? The work is now yours since it's on your body. You requested it. You paid for it. He can't prove that he would have done it elsewhere if you hadn't, not that it would matter at all if he could. He has no claim to your body or whatever's on it, regardless whether or not he put it there. It's your body. It becomes an identifying feature for you. You become known for it. If a likeness of yourself, your body, is to be reproduced in another medium, then that identifying feature should be reproduced as well, since it's part of you. You decided that. Not the artist. The artist should have no say in the matter. Period. Just like if Michelangelo was alive today, he would have no claim or say if the Church commissioned a photographer to take pictures of The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel for a coffee table book of Catholic religious art. Back when things were normal, the Church and Michelangelo understood what was transpiring with that transaction.

RBP
12-30-2018, 04:51 PM
The issue here is nebulous copyright assignment. That's not the case in a corporate entity, when the corporation owns the rights to your work, including inventions and patents.

But in a tattoo, the artist retains the right to reproduce the same artwork unless otherwise agreed to. So it's reasonable to conclude that the artist has retained the copyright. Otherwise LeBron James would have a copyright infringement claim against anyone with the same tattoo, which he does not. So if the artist has retained the copyright, and it is used in a purpose he did not authorize, such as a video game, they are arguing that is a copyright infringement.

It doesn't become an issue until it is used somewhere other than LeBron's body. The legal question in my mind, is does LeBron have the right to licensed his likeness including body art? Maybe. What if it was a corporate logo tattoo? Does that coporate have a right to argue the logo can't be used in the video game? As the copyright owner, they probably do. That is a little different because the tattoo wasn't authorized in the first place. Does that matter? No idea.

In the chop shop example, a picture of the car doesn't matter (by this logic), but if someone saw artwork on the car, and started a poster business using that art, the artist may have a claim.

When I do poster art (not that I have sold anything yet) I use copyright-free images only and I still credit the photographer. My position is I own the art, not the photograph.

DemonGeminiX
12-30-2018, 04:54 PM
You're right, it is nebulous. So nebulous that it's complete and utter horseshit to believe that a tattoo artist has a right to claim a copyright at all. It's ridiculous.

RBP
12-30-2018, 04:57 PM
:dunno: I have no dog in this hunt, I just thought it was a very interesting legal discussion.

DemonGeminiX
12-30-2018, 05:04 PM
There shouldn't be a legal question at all. What it boils down to is over-regulation enabling random jackasses to stick their noses in business that doesn't belong to them in an effort to try to get paid, where they shouldn't even have a foot in the door.

Hal-9000
12-30-2018, 05:58 PM
'Justin' :lol: You fucks

Apologies ahead of time if that sticks GF...

:lol: nice av