Studio sues makers of 'NBA 2K16' for using player tattoos

[Dohc-WP]

Sports video games attempt to offer an experience that's as lifelike as possible, which includes details like players' tattoos. NBA 2K16 is a title that does just that, and the pursuit of accuracy may land it in legal trouble. Take-Two, the parent company of 2K Sports that makes the basketball game, was hit with a lawsuit this week from the designers that created some of the big-name players' tattoos. Solid Oak Sketches, LLC claims that Take-Two should have to pay up for using the artwork in the game. Tattoo copyrights don't exist, but Solid Oak argues that the "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works" of the artists should be protected by law.

The company wants Take-Two to stop using the artwork and is seeking up to $150,000 per infringement. The images in question include eight tattoos on the digital likenesses of LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Eric Bledsoe, DeAndre Jordan and Kenyon Martin. Solid Oak says it already tried to negotiate a licensing agreement with Take-Two for the sum of $1.14 million to no avail. That's a hefty sum to be able to include the ink on LeBron's arm for those free throw close-ups.

Source: Engadget

[Solitude]

That's just plain crazy in my opinion.

[Wlad]

Yeah, it's really stupid. You would think the artists would be happy that they get some exposure, but no they want exorbitant amounts of money.

[DarkStarZA]

I also thought that's crazy, but then I read a better article and it's not that crazy any more

ESPN reports that the company in question is Solid Oak Sketches, who has a deal worked out with certain NBA players so that they own the copyright on many of their tattoo designs. In this case, they claim that Take-Two has used eight different designs without their permission on Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, DeAndre Jordan, Eric Bledsoe and Kenyon Martin in the 2K series. Examples include a child’s portrait found on LeBron, and butterflies on Kobe.

The way this is supposed to work is that if an athlete appears to promote something, in this case a video game (this is especially significant with LeBron on the cover of NBA 2K14), there’s supposed to be a separate rights deal worked out with Solid Oak to ensure the tattoo designs can be shown with the proper permissions.

and

It may sound a bit silly offhand, but the players know the deal, Solid Oak has a right to copyright their design and make that kind of deal, and according to them, Take-Two knew about the deal, and simply chose to ignore it.

Solid Oak maintains that they actually offered Take-Two a license for the designs for $1.2 million. It might make sense as to why Take-Two wasn’t exactly leaping at that price, but allegedly they ignored it completely. Solid Oak says the fact that Take-Two received that offer made it clear that this was supposed to be a negotiation over legally owned property which Take-Two simply blew off.

The amount might be a bit crazy, but it does make sense in a way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco.../#386f0abf6f1e

[Wlad]

I don't understand how they can copyright on a tattoo on someone else's body (I understand that the actual copyright is on the design, but still). I have Witcher and Borderlands tattoos. Should I now pay a fee to CDProjekt RED and 2K because I have their copyrighted material on my body? Fuck that noise.

[tpex]

I also thought that's crazy, but then I read a better article and it's not that crazy any more



and



The amount might be a bit crazy, but it does make sense in a way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco.../#386f0abf6f1e

Wow, that is an interesting deal, I wonder what perk the players get out of it?

[Graal]

I don't understand how they can copyright on a tattoo on someone else's body (I understand that the actual copyright is on the design, but still). I have Witcher and Borderlands tattoos. Should I now pay a fee to CDProjekt RED and 2K because I have their copyrighted material on my body? Fuck that noise.

The difference is commercial and private use. Your tattoos aren't part of a product used to make money. Having Solid Oak's intellectual property in a commercial product is a big no-no. If you were to make a game where you are a character and you have the tattoos on your body in the game, then CDProjekt would have grounds to sue you.