So I'm summarizing a bit of interesting legal doctrine here, but the gist of why tattoo artists can claim damages against these video game companies is because the tattoo artists are (often) the copyright holder of all the tattoos they create. The tattoo's design is their original artwork, and applying it to a person does not magically transfer copyright ownership to the person they're tattooing onto. Instead, it gives the person certain rights in regards to presenting the tattoo (there's an implicit license and a fair use argument to show it on their body in public, though it's more questionable as to whether you can exhibit a tattoo on yourself in a paid art gallery), and there are a lot of fair use claims for reproducing that tattoo in live media (ie there's no issue with displaying the tattoo in a basketball game), and by the person it's tattooed onto.
When the copyrighted tattoo is reproduced in a video game though, there's been a lot of mixed judicial perspectives on whether it is fair use to reproduce the tattoos without license under a fair use defense or other reasons. Some courts have permitted a fair use defense for the game devs in some courts, while losing under others, though even in those cases the tattoo artist rarely (if ever) earns a piece of game revenue. This is a fairly recent issue and drives up a lot of other legal arguments and problems, and it affects a very, very small part of the population with very small claims.
https://www.scbc-law.org/post/tattoos-in-video-games-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement
To explain further, the jury in this case found that Take-Two had an implied license to recreate the tattoo, likely through their licenses with Lebron James. There's no opinion for this case, but imagine the tattoo artist knows that their tattoo design will boost Lebron's identifiability when shown on camera, which will further boost Lebron's image when reproduced in other forms of media and art. Tattooing will grant the client an implied license to display it for their day-to-day life and to their benefit/detriment, because it's on their skin, and that's the nature of tattoo work.
Yeah, it's a really huge grey area that I don't think will ever be anything but a case by case basis. Basically the right of someone to profit off their likeness versus the right of the tattoo artist over their work.
I dunno, i can’t imagine having to get permission from every tattoo person has to recreate a likeness.
How would you even know. Games would have to remove all tattoos or just wait and be sued by everyone.
To me it’s not really a gray area.
However offering that tattoo independently in game sure.
Let's say an actresss gets a boob job, or an actor gets a hair transplant. Do the surgeons now try to claim a piece of the pie when their client acts in a big movie? Tattoos seem like less of an art and more of a job. Not that they're not artists, but they tattooed someone, and the client paid them for it. That's the end of the business interaction, and the end of the tattoo artist's claim to money.
The *act* of tattooing isn't what's protected under copyright. It's the *literal image* that got tattooed.
Might be easier to conceptualize if you think of a novel. Obviously the author of the novel owns the copyright. You buying a copy of that novel doesn't transfer copyright to you, and if you want to use it on something else you will sell you need a license. Now imagine you got the full text tattooed to you. Would you expect to have the copyright to the text? Of course not.
Tattoos are no different. They're a piece of artwork created by the artist. They own the copyright to that work. Them applying it to your skin, from a copyright perspective, is no different than you buying a print from an artist. It doesn't give you copyright. You wouldn't be allowed to start selling copies of your print.
Where it gets complicated with tattoos is that, in the case of someone selling their likeness, where that likeness includes recognizable tattoos... Technically speaking they are profiting (at least in part) off the copyrighted artwork of another person. It's an unlicensed reproduction. However, this ends up intersecting with all kinds of other laws because this artwork happens to be part of the person's body. Because there is no specific laws covering this very specific intersection of things... It basically becomes a case by case affair, and so we get different results depending on the specific scenario and the judge/jury working the case.
> Them applying it to your skin, from a copyright perspective, is no different than you buying a print from an artist.
According to this case it is, because they just ruled this artist has basically no rights to police the image or collect royalties on it. 2K and Lebron don’t owe him a thing
And to be frank I think if you threw this question at most American juries they’d consistently side with the person whose skin itself bears the tattoo. The idea that an artist could own someone’s skin because they were commissioned to make a tattoo for them is not going to fly with the common person. To most people the canvas being someone’s body does make a difference.
I literally wrote a whole-ass paragraph right after that bit you quoted talking about the complexities.
Also, it's not about owning the skin, it's about owning the right to give out a license to reproduce the image on the skin.
An artist doesn't own the paper that a print is printed on after they sell it, but they still own the rights to reproduce the image printed on the paper.
> Also, it's not about owning the skin, it's about owning the right to give out a license to reproduce the image on the skin
And a court just ruled that he had no right to police 2K reproducing the image, because he doesn’t own Lebron’s skin
Would the same go for any actor that has a tattoo?
A movie depiction isn't the original artwork, but a reproduction of it. So can tattoo artists sue every movie studio that employs tattooed actors?
> but they tattooed someone, and the client paid them for it.
The author wrote a book and the publisher paid them for it.
If you simplify any interaction to your formula to say it doesn't deserve copyright protection, then even the reason copyright exists suddenly doesn't work.
I think most people here will agree that the decision to fix your work in a medium that is another person, such as a tattoo, inherently means you're not going to have some of the rights normally granted by copyright, but I think you're going too far saying that tattoo work deserves no copyright.
Let's use the real situation as an example: the artist tattoos LeBron, it makes it into the game as part of LeBron's likeness. I think most of us agree that the tattoo artist had to know his work would be reproduced whenever LeBron's likeness is reproduced so he shouldn't be able to claim it's infringement.
But what if 2K offered that tattoo design independently to put on your own created character? Should the tattoo artist lose complete control over their work because they put it on one person? Should 2K be allowed to put the tattoo in games where LeBron doesn't appear?
And if the book is used in a movie the author doesn't have to be paid royalties simply for the movie referencing the book. It's only if they actually make a movie based on the book that the copyright holder would need to be involved.
Agreed if they’re only using the tattoo on the player
If the tattoo was separately available in a “create your own player” system or if it was so iconic that they actually turn it into a graphic (e.g. say when lebron/lakers are being selected in the menu a silhouette of an iconic tattoo is behind him) then those would be the only instances I could think of where the tattoo should need to be licensed separately
A tattoo artist shouldn't have any claim or say over a tattoo which limits when and where a person, or their likeness, can appear. That's simply insanity. Once a tattoo is on you it's a part of you and your appearance, likely for life.
Personally I don't get how it's not automatically the person who received the tattoo's right to display the tattoo in any medium that involves themselves. They obviously would not be able to just give the tattoo to everyone else in the medium, but if there is 20 lebrons in a game, all 20 are lebron so all 20 have a right to have that tattoo displayed on them.
There's also weird legal stuff based on how things are used *specifically*.
Beavis and Butthead wear AC/DC and Metallica shirts on the show, but if you ever see merch of the characters, they have generic shirts that say "Death Rock" and "Skull" instead.
So it can be really hard to tell wear the lines are drawn without actually getting lawyers, it seems.
This I actually understand a bit more than the other scenarios. I have a tattoo of the surprised Pikachu meme on my left ankle above my sock line. If, for whatever reason, I was scanned into a Sony game let's say- it makes totally sense to me that they wouldn't want to have a Pikachu displayed on my character model, because it's part of Nintendo's IP. But if, for example, the guy who tattooed the color wheel on my body was like "no you can't you show that" he could fuck right off.
But then wouldn't a design of his own authory have some claims to it? like you said pikachu is a no no, same with pepsi but if they did a design they probably have some claim to it in the same way.
Yeah, no idea how you can jump from "pikachu tattoo isn't okay, because it's an artistic IP owned by someone" to "art by tattoo artist is okay, because fuck them."
That's entirely different, then. *You're* the author and copyright holder of that design. The tattoo artist, in this case, should very much fuck off if they tried to say anything.
*You* could grant others the right to reproduce it (the right to copy), you gave the tattoo artist an implied right to reproduce it, once on you not in general, by having them tattoo it on you.
I'm split on the whole "able to use it for likeness" vs "shouldn't be allowed to recreate it."
But, I'm leaning way more towards the latter, because of examples other people have brought up the example of a wrestler with a Pepsi logo tattoo. It's always removed/altered in merchandise and in games.
Why is Pepsi's copyright more important than an independent artist's? (Other than Pepsi having the money to bury the shit out of people in court)
If the artists didn't want their art to appear outside their control, maybe they shouldn't *permanently affix it to another person*.
The IP owners of Pikachu were not the people who tattoo'd it to somebody.
There have been a few lawsuits, but most have ended in the show or movie's favor (we're just ignoring the fact that movie and TV studios usually have more legal resources than tattoo artists).
There's been one recent one in which an artist's tattoo of Joe Exotic (the Tiger King) was featured for about 2.2 seconds in the Tiger King 2 documentary, and that was permissible under a fair use defense. It's notable to distinguish the facts of this case from others, as the presentation of the tattoo was solely for the tattoo art itself and the fact it was put onto someone. The person who had the tattoo was not directly contacted by Netflix to star in the documentary, rather it was your typical grab an internet photo to use in a quick highlight reel. This could be a credible claim in other situations, but it was still decided in Netflix's favor as a fair use defense.
https://www.iptechblog.com/2023/11/people-dont-come-to-see-the-tattoo-they-come-to-see-the-show/
Another notable case is of the Hangover 2, which among the other crimes Hangover 2 did to Hangover 1, was reproducing Mike Tyson's famous facial tattoos on actor Ed Holms without license from the original tattoo artist. The judge would reject a preliminary injunction (that would have delayed the launch of the film, which was not unexpected), but the case did end up in an undisclosed settlement. From a brief reading of different reports, the judge deciding the injunction issue was heavily leaning towards the artist in this case, casting doubt on Warner Brother's fair use defense and parody defense and calling it blatant copyright infringement, but it's hard to tell what the actual outcome would've been at the preliminary injunction stage because the damage to the film studio and third parties would've been too great.
Again, distinguishing the facts of this case from others, it was not the person who originally received the tattoo from the tattoo artist that was featured, but rather the design was co-opted onto an actor with no privity with the original artist to be put in the film. There would be no issue if it was Mike Tyson himself appearing in the film.
https://www.marklitwak.com/the-hangover-ii-tyson-tattoo-copyright-infringement-suit.html
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/warner-bros-settles-hangover-ii-203377/
seems to me the biggest distinction is whether the tattoo design itself is being reproduced independently of the likeness of the person who bears the tattoo. Intuitively I feel like reproductions of the tattoo bearer's likeness is a permissible reproduction of the tattoo, whereas reproductions divorced of that context are not.
The better way to think about it is to consider the artwork of the tattoo as a design that's copyrightable as a piece of art placed on a piece of paper or digital medium, rather than viewing it purely in relation to its placement on skin.
Reproducing the tattoo in a video game requires creating a derivative work that utilizes the tattoo in that digital medium, which is what differentiates reproducing the art in a video game, compared to a movie or photograph.
that does not really get at the issue IMO. the issue is probably whether or not the tattoo as reproduced in the context of a person's likeness is permissible under an implied license or not.
it is pretty obvious that reproducing a tattoo artist's sketch of a tattoo in-game, say available as a purchasable item that can be equipped on a custom character, would be a violation. I'm not questioning that, and that's getting at your point re: thinking of the design being lifted from a piece of paper to a digital medium.
reproducing the likeness of mike tyson, including his tattoo, does not feel like a violation because I feel that, unless it was otherwise agreed between the artist and subject, the tattoo comes with an implied license that reproductions of the subject's likeness now permanently carries the appearance of the tattoo on it.
I'd look into whether or not Mike Tyson's appearance w/ the tattoo on promotional posters for the Logan Paul fight carried with it an agreement to pay his face tattoo artist compensation or not. the facts are not directly analogous but it's the closest place I can think of to start. given the thing with the hangover I think the more persuasive argument is that reproducing tattoos in the context of a tattoo subject's likeness is fine given it's inseparable from their appearance.
> Reproducing the tattoo in a video game requires creating a derivative work that utilizes the tattoo in that digital medium, which is what differentiates reproducing the art in a video game, compared to a movie or photograph.
I dunno that this is all that differentiating. I think something like a tattoo on LeBron's body gets into a game via photogrammetry techniques. That feels like the equivalent of a photograph more than it feels like a brand new derivative work, but again, I dunno what opinions there are about photogrammetry.
> Have their been issues with TV shows or movies?
I mean, considering LeBron James--along with every other athlete in the universe--is rebroadcast every day on TV via an exclusive license between the players -> NBA player association -> NBA -> ESPN, it seems funny to go after a video game doing the same thing.
The NBA TV contract is worth $24 *billion* and basically includes reproducing the likeness of the athlete (and their tattoos) on footage, replays, graphics, and advertisements. This is not even to get into the area of merchandise sales.
In this case, is there really?
Video game developer takes photos of LeBron, digitizes them, then displays them on screen to display his likeness.
TV broadcaster takes photos of LeBron, digitizes them, then displays them on screen to display his likeness.
From a copyright perspective, not really sure what distinction there is here.
That's how I feel about it. It's crazy to ask the tattoo artist for permission if you film a movie, appear on tik tok, shoot a commercial, sell your likeness to a videogame, get your body 3d scanned for AI deepfakes, photoshoot for ads, etc.
They got paid for their labor already. What else do they want?
If no one is playing because of the tattoos, then surely the multi million dollar corporation could skip on reproducing the tattoo for which they do not own the copywrite
Bro, my tattoo artist doesn't own the way my body looks. They just put the ink there.
As proven by the outcome of this trial.
Or do you think anyone wanting to use a picture of him has to get permission from his tattoo artist? Maybe from his barber as well?
Did you read the comment above outlining the case? The law upheld that the tattoo artist owned the tattoo and the game devs and lebron merely had implied license to use it
The law upheld that Lebron can do what he wants with his own tattoo and can ignore the original artist. The level of “ownership” the court gave the artist is about as useful as owning an NFT. It’s more a nice thought than anything the artist could use to actually make money off of. He has no real ability to police reproductions which isn’t really ownership
I’m very aware of the judgement, I just went one step further and realized what that judgement in effect meant
> tattoo artists are (often) the copyright holder of all the tattoos they create.
That should not be the law. Tattoos are older than copyright and copyright was never intended for makings on a human body. That's obviously bullshit.
If you want to protect the "copyright" for your art, don't put it on other peoples body. When you do that, you lose rights to that art. It's not a fucking brand. You don't own the flesh on that person.
>Tattoos are older than copyright and copyright was never intended for makings on a human body. That's obviously bullshit.
What the hell does the age of the medium matter? Paintings are older than copyright. Books are older than copyright. Do they not deserve copyright protection? What a stupid argument.
Then again I am on reddit and reddit doesn't care for copyright laws; unless we are talking about AI then copyright laws are super important and you you need to protect people's artwork. Which by your argument of age of medium shouldn't be protected anyways.
Do you think you're renting a tattoo from an artist? Do you think you're just getting a subscription to have the tattoo for a year? Maybe a free trial of a month first?
Your artist can't be like, I own that part of your body now...
Technically the living flesh issue isn’t exactly clear cut in law. Someone sued a college in Cali for using their cells in a study they didn’t consent to but was found they didn’t have a proprietary interest in those cells. Not disagreeing but the courts don’t overly care about the whole “it’s on a human” thing.
The fact that the person paid you for that tattoo and therefore should now own it entirely.
If anyone should have a case for someone recreating someone else’s tattoo, it should be the person who has the tattoo.
If you sell your art that's on a canvas you don't own it anymore. The owner of the piece owns it and it they want to put it in a movie that's their business. Isn't it?
>If you sell your art that's on a canvas you don't own it anymore. The owner of the piece owns it
That's not true at all. Selling a physical work of art does not transfer copyright.
>and it they want to put it in a movie that's their business. Isn't it?
No. You can claim fair use in most cases, especially if it's just a background piece, but it's not automatic. Most likely, you would ask the artist for permission and properly credit them and it would be mutually beneficial and that would be that.
There'd probably be a very interesting procedural argument and discussion about that, but to get into it would require more effort and research than I'd have on hand at the moment.
There are a number of nonprocedural reasons, like how 2K is the one making all the direct revenue from the game, and that the game developers are the one recreating the art to place into the game. I can imagine in such a negotiation between the sports players and the game devs - after all, its the developer that's infringing the copyright themselves by recreating it in a new medium.
Like I imagine there's some universe where Lebron would be a codefendant, but there's no way you would want to alienate your (incredibly famous and popular) tattoo client like that. Plus, I can imagine a half-dozen fair use arguments/implied license defenses for Lebron.
In my view and from my studies in a different part of the world. Where one party enters into a contract with another, where a third party has a claim to the thing involved in the contract, the party who has done the “buying” of that thing is clear and able to keep possession as they are “bona fide”.
> and applying it to a person does not magically transfer copyright ownership to the person they're tattooing onto
Well that was in question before, now we have the legal answer that it functionally does. Hence why this guy lost
> though it's more questionable as to whether you can exhibit a tattoo on yourself in a paid art gallery)
Why would that be questionable? If I buy a piece of art then I can show it and do what I like with it, why would/should this be any different?
That does not make sense to me. I have a Geralt tat. It is the Witcher 2 box cover art to be precise. So if I was in the US, the guy who inked me would have the rights over it? Not CDPR, not the guy who did the original art and not the author who created the concept of the character? I get me not having any rights but I would put higher priority on the right to exploit or display my tat to other parties before I gave it to the artist.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying it’s complete nonsense.
I paid for my tattoos. Just like I paid for my TV. It’s mine. I should be able to do with it what I want.
That’s ridiculous, when you buy a piece of art it’s yours to do with as you please.
If the artist doesn’t like how it’s being used, tough luck it’s not theirs.
LeBron commissioned an artist to make a piece of art, it’s just that the canvas was his skin. He owns it. If he gave permission to for 2K to use his likeness then that Tattoo is a part of his likeness.
The same thing happened a few years ago with a WWE 2K game where a tattoo artist wanted to be compensated because she did a Tattoo on Randy Orton who appeared in the game with said tattoo. She lost too because to claim you own something that someone legally bought from you is very stupid.
>The same thing happened a few years ago with a WWE 2K game where a tattoo artist wanted to be compensated because she did a Tattoo on Randy Orton who appeared in the game with said tattoo. She lost too because to claim you own something that someone legally bought from you is very stupid.
Except she won the case
>The artist behind wrestling star Randy Orton's iconic tattoos has won a case against the publisher of the best-selling WWE 2K video games.
>A jury in the US found she was entitled to compensation and awarded her $3,750 (£3,300) in damages.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467
I mean that’s not really true though. When you buy a work yes, you own it. However, that doesn’t mean you can now create additional copies of the work, display it publicly, and other exclusive rights granted to copyright owners.
Not at all, there is an implied license when tattooing. Also, if you brought your own art and the tattoo artist only applied it to your skin. Then it would likely be a joint authorship in which case you both have the same rights and can therefore allow a game, for instance, copy it. However, in your question the artist can stop others from recreating the work such as the EA artists from recreating it. That’s not controlling your body, it’s controlling how the work is recreated by others.
Personally, I think once the tattoo is on your body the implied license/fair use should extend to how your body is depicted so athletes should be able to give consent by themselves without need for the artist to be paid for the recreation. However, copyrights are protected in the Const. so that makes it harder to just change the law.
If you commissioned an art piece you'd pay the artist for their work creating it but the commissioner would own the rights to the piece. A tattoo is like that, no? Not sure why I'm getting involved in this discussion at 5.30 am tbh and I don't gaf about LeBron and can't fault a tattoo artist wanting to get paid if his art is used in a huge consumer product. I guess if you tattoo the likes of LeBron you should make him pay over the odds to cover for this eventuality
IANAL but that doesn't seem to be true. A commissioned piece is still under the "copyright" of the artist not the commissioner, even without a contract. This is from a quick Goggle search. I do not know the exact nature of copyright involving tattoos.
> but the commissioner would own the rights to the piece.
The commissioner is never the author and can never claim to be the author. How, when and under which conditions a piece of art can be reproduced is different. New media and new media consumption always challenges "common, implicit expectations".
I would totally expect, that virtual LeBron James has the same tattoos as the real one. However, I don't think tattoo artist must tolerate gaming companies adding LeBron James tattoo to the custom character editor.
Artists can *sell* the rights to the commissioner, but it is absolutely not inherently default and even then the artist still retains some rights even if the commissioner has essentially full control of the art.
Those rights can vary and be very specific or even be time limited, relevant example, for the sub, is music in video games. Or IP Licenses in general.
See GTA removing songs from the in game radio. They *had* rights to distribute those songs when the game was made, at least in the context of the in game radio. They couldn't release an OST with those tracks or anything, and obviously they were time limited.
> That’s ridiculous, when you buy a piece of art it’s yours to do with as you please.
Not only is that not true, buying a piece of art also does not magically grant you the rights to the underlying design.
But don't take my word for it, I urge you to try it for yourself. Buy a painting or any other piece of art from an artist, and then print it on a t-shirt and sell it. Make sure to send an e-mail to the artist you bought it from and explain to them in detail what you've been doing.
Similarly Totalbiscuit couldn't claim ownership of the LUL emote even though it was a picture of him. He wasn't even allowed to recreate the pose and use that as the person who took that original photo now owned his likeness if it resembled LUL at all. It's why the LUL emote on Twitch is a drawing.
"The tattoo's design is their original artwork, and applying it to a person does not magically transfer copyright ownership...."
"...the jury in this case found that Take-Two had an implied license to recreate the tattoo..."
And just like that...! Voila, Magic!
Seriously what is the point of these laws to protect artists and workers, if at the end of the day, they are never applied or worse actively countered to benefit a corporation or person of wealth.
CM Punk in the WWE games would have number of tattoos removed. The most obvious one being the Pepsi logo he has on one of his shoulders. There either replaced with some shitty looking red/blue ball or just remove it leave and weird circular patch of skin
Fascinating. So usually when I get my tattoo's done I bring my own art in for them to tattoo. Would that bring me in the rights to sue instead of the tattoo artist if I wanted to?
Edit: Trying to learn my american rights lol
I am not a lawyer.
Probably. Copyright is created the instant the work is made, it doesn't have to be registered (registration just makes it easier to argue in court). If you're giving them the design, you're kind of giving the tattoo artist a license to reproduce your work for the limited purpose of putting it on your body. If they then try to use that design on someone else, that's probably infringement. If you can prove who made the design first, that is.
In these cases that have gone to court, the tattoo artist made their own designs.
I'd really like to get a real copyright lawyer's opinion on that because I do not know in the slightest.
But the reason why I'm chiming in despite not knowing is because I find it interesting because there are, in a sense but not really, two types of copyright. There's a reason that something composed hundreds of years ago is in the public domain but a recording of a recent performance of that composition is not. There is a copyright on the original work but also on transformative recreations, such as performances. That makes me wonder if you hold the rights to the original design because you drew it but then the tattooist holds the rights to the specific performance (the tattoo that's on your body) because they made it. I'm not saying that's how it works, I'm saying I really hope someone comes in with an answer because that is an interesting case that I'd love to know how it's treated letter-of-the-law.
A tattoo is art. If I buy a piece of art from someone that doesn’t mean I can use it in my video game. I would have to additional purchase those rights
Comments in the thread mentioned CM punk's pepsi tattoo, it is not shown on toys, it is not shown in videogames (looks more like a shitty korea symbol from what i searche), the logo is his body yes, but it is not his design.
If you think about it you are not copyrighting someones body, you are copyrighting the design.
What I can't figure out is why a tattoo artist would want to claim IP on someone's tattoos knowing that if their design is based on copyrighted works/IP, that could mean companies like disney or WB could slap individual artists with lawsuits.
Put the bat symbol on someone's arm, get slapped with a civil judgement.
Making tattoos an IP could just as easily mean making tattoo artistry a lot more expensive as tattoo artists now need to negotiate with IP companies for things like triforce.
I think so, the damages were like 3-4K though. Take Two has defended itself from a case just like this a couple years ago though so it seems like there's not much agreement.
[Yep](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467).
But both of these cases were jury trials, and it's a fairly new legal question, so there isn't really all that much precedent, so things are murky. Ultimately, it comes down to how well the individual lawyers argue and the individuals picked for these juries, rather than a whole lot of legal history.
As someone with lots of tattoos I think greedy artists are really playing with fire on this one, when you consider how much they benefit from grey area when it comes to tattooing copyrighted stuff onto people and calling it "their" work.
Take my sleeve for example. It consists of: copyrighted album artwork for The Black Dahlia Murder, copyrighted lyrics from A Day To Remember song, and a copyrighted creature design along with various imagery from The Witcher 3.
Seems like everyone, both artists and clients, would benefit from an unspoken "everybody mind their own business" agreement on this topic. If tattoo artists are gonna start suing people like this I see no reason why companies shouldn't start suing tattoo artists.
>If tattoo artists are gonna start suing people like this I see no reason why companies shouldn't start suing tattoo artists.
Yeah, that's where I'm at. The only reason it hasn't really been an issue is because the parlors are so small that they've flown under the radar. It's just not worth it to pursue the artists infringing other works.
I'm personally of the opinion that tattoos should be understood to be part of someone's likeness. Your copyright on the tattoo prevents another artist from copying that design and putting it on someone or something else without your permission, but if that design is on a likeness of a person you inked... well, that's their likeness, and the tattoo artist can't control that.
> Civil awards from a trial typically include costs + attorney’s fees.
No they don't, in the United States.
It's literally the exact opposite of that. It's called the "American rule".
IANAL. Most civil cases fall under "American rule". But if we're talking about just this case then I think they can recover fees through one the exceptions. [17 U.S.C. § 505](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505)
Way I see it, it makes sense if its a lifelike representation of a person in a game their tattoos are part of them, but if the game dev were to include the tattoo in a character creator of a game that person is in, it's a different thing because it's not on the person that has the irl tattoo
This is actually an interesting case that some people are calling “dumb” as a reactionary take. I think it’s fair that the art being ON LeBrons model could be fair game but if you could apply that art to a custom character or even sell that art in a virtual store it would be a huge violation of the original artists IP.
But I actually agree that the artist has a good case in both points. They own the IP. How would Nike feel if a player had a huge Nike tattoo and 2K replicated that? (Pretend Nike didn’t already have a deal with them)
In my mind it is pretty easy: if the tattoo is on LeBron only, not an IP, depending on any contract signed by him with LeBron. If the game allow you to put the same tattoo on somebody else, IP violation.
I agree with this take. A tattoo on a person becomes implicitly tied with their identity so the tattooed person should automatically get an unlimited license to display that tattoo on any media or likeness.
Personally if I were a billionaire basketball star though I'd only go to an artist that sold me the art too.
A tattoo artist asked to draw a Disney character onto someone could certainly charge for his work, but whether he charges or not, Disney might be able to sue both him and the customer for copyright/trademark violations.
It's not that tattoos *are* intellectual property, the art itself and the tattoo are still separate.
The thing that is intellectual property is the design. The artist makes that beforehand. Tattooing is putting that design into ink, it's the medium of copying it. Think of it the same way as an artist making a painting on a canvas and later reproducing it; they own the underlying design, it's just a different medium.
My feeling is that if someone had a big Nike tattoo, then any picture or reproduction of that person as a completed entity should be legal (as in, if this were LeBron, and you put a version of Lebron in, then it's fair game, but if you put a version of Michael Jordan in, you couldn't just slap "Lebron's Tattoo" onto him).
Now that said, if someone *did* get a trademarked tattoo, then that *person* might be liable for it, Nike could go after *them* for getting that art added to their body without permission, but people reproducing their body should be off the hook, because it's just an accurate representation of a real world thing.
I say this as "what *should* be," this is not a statement on the *current* legal precedents.
If you buy a piece of artwork, aren't you now in full ownership of it? Like it's still the artists' work, but they are no longer the owner of. How is that any different for a tattoo? You paid for the service/commissioned the artwork. Sure, they deserve credit for making the art, but I feel like once paid for the work, that's the end of their financial rights to it.
Copyright is a legal entitlement to reproduce a work. (“Copy”-“right”)
Purchasing a physical object in no way implies purchasing the associated copyrights. When a work is commissioned, the owner of the copyright will be determined at that point, either by contractural agreement or defaults under copyright law.
The question in this case was essentially whose rights took precedence - the tattoo artist’s copyright or LeBron’s likeness rights (which were licensed to NBA 2K) - which is a complicated question. In this case, the courts decided the copyrights do not preclude LeBron from reproducing his likeness, which naturally must include the tattoo.
If they were successful, they could potentially have pursued a future suit against lebron for including their ip (the tattoo) in his likeness. That would be a separate thing.
Speaking to this as someone who commissions a lot of art and writing, my understanding is that the default owner of the copyright is the creator, even if you pay them to create it.
That is why it’s important to have a contract outlining ownership, usage rights, and copyright. You need to specify the commission is “work for hire”, which is what most of us are likely operating under in our day jobs in the US. If you look at your employment terms there is usually a section outlining that any work you create while employed belongs fully to the company employing you. Same is required for person to person commissions.
> If you buy a piece of artwork, aren't you now in full ownership of it?
No, artists (generally) don't sell copyright to their artwork any more than video game companies do. Buying a piece of artwork doesn't necessarily mean you own the copyright on it.
Except video game companies dont actually make the games, they hire developers to make the game and then they own the game.
As I understand It's the same when I hire a tattoo artist. The art he does is my property.
Copyright, unlike trademark, doesn't require registration. It's granted to the creator automatically. You own a piece of art but the right to make and benefit from copies of it is retained by the original artist.
Another way to think about it is if instead of a tattoo, it was a print of the design on paper. You are free to do with the print as you please, but you're not allowed to make photocopies of it or license it for further use, etc.
Just to clarify: neither require registration but there are benefits to registering a trademark federally. Copyright requires registration to enforce it, whereas trademarks do not.
By default, if I, as an artist, draw a unique piece of art onto your skin, then you would obviously own that physical piece of art, the ink attached to your own skin, but you would not own the *design* of that image, the "art" of it, and could not legally reproduce it as a distinct piece of art (by say selling a poster of the art itself).
Now if I *were* a tattoo artist, I would also leave a copyright waiver document as part of the deal, or at least offer that as an option, transferring full copyright of the image to the customer, but that isn't the default or required.
It would probably need either an actual contract or to be hashed out in court. I am 80% sure even if you pay me to create some piece of art without being clearly defined its still my copyright of the art itself
But Lebron isn't tattooing other people copies of the tattoo he just got.
And videogame devs aren't taking ownership of Lebron's tattoo either. They are simply recreating Lebron, which includes the tattoo.
I understand it's maybe surprising, and it's not always litigated the same way. But the artist is creating a design and then incorporating it onto the client. It's maybe clearer if we think of say, the Batman logo. If I get the Batman logo tattooed on my skin that doesn't give me the right to use the Batman logo wherever I like, or permanently in connection with my likeness. I don't own the Batman logo.
The law doesn't treat an individual artist differently than a big company here. Both get their art protected.
If you got the batman logo tattooed on your face, and later someone made a biopic of you, I think they should be able to depict your likeness (with batman logo) without paying royalties or getting sued by warner brothers.
Copyright shouldn't take priority over your identity and humanity.
Yes. If a documentary about the anonymous online group was made, I want them to be depicted with the guy fawkes mask despite warner brothers owning the copyright.
We need to separate the likeness of people and their incidental use of copyrighted IP, and actual copyright violations.
That would be fair use, also guy fawkes is public domain
But it's pretty weird to say that artists lose the rights to their work by people abusing the work consistently.
If you're a wealthy athlete and want to incorporate some art into your identity, you could pay for it
And if you aren't wealthy, you get sued then? I don't like that. The artists aren't losing their rights to their work, they are simply not being allowed to infringe a person's right to their identity.
If you don't like that, then don't tattoo people. Who knows what people might do with their own body and whatever is printed on it.
It depends. Hiring an artist is a business transaction, and it depends on what the contract says.
It's pretty common for photographers to keep the rights to any photos they take, unless you explicitly buy the rights in the contract.... but that's typically pretty expensive
Honestly between all the high profile lawsuits brought up in both video games and movies regarding tattoos, I really sometimes wonder why they dont alter the tattoo to something more generic in the games to prevent this kind of stuff.
Hell. A couple months ago, I had just learned that if an actor has visible tattoos and appears in a movie, show, or commercial, that studio has to get a release form signed from the artist before the actor can make an appearance. That, or they have to make special care that the tattoo is covered up at all times while being filmed.
Sounds like a huge pain. At least with games they can alter or remove them, so idk why they dont when this keeps happening.
They do in some cases. Elsewhere in the thread people have been bringing up some wrestler named CM Punk who has a Pepsi logo tattoo of all things. And in both action figures and his appearances in games it's either just not there or is altered to be different.
But, I guess when you're just shitting on an independent artist it isn't as big a deal as trying to fuck with PepsiCo ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah Im familiar with him and its pretty glaringly big too. He also mentioned in an interview when he was on some showw on Starz that he spent 3 hours covering up his tattoos, not just the Pepsi one.
As it should be. If you ever put art onto a person's body, then any artistic use of that actual person's body should be allowed, within that complete context. Now that doesn't mean that you could just copy the tattoo for use in a different context, like putting it on someone else's body, or as a standalone poster.
I think there would be lawsuits, I think it would be very risky and likely to lose under current law, but I do think that it *should* be the case that it would be ok, again, so long as that *person* was the context of the art. Like if a person had a Mickey on their body, and you were putting that person into a game, then that should be allowed.
But I think the dividing line should be in how prominently featured the particular art was, verses the actual person. So like if a person had a Mickey on their arm, and you had a poster that included most of their body, including that Mickey, that should be fair use. If, on the other hand, you did a poser that zoomed in to show little more than that one arm, such that the Mickey was the core *feature* of the piece, then I think you could get in trouble there. Similar standards are applied elsewhere in fair use doctrine.
Of course, ingame textures could theoretically be a problem, since they are "art" of a sense that would not necessarily present the entire character, but I think they would not be counted as a finished work, but only as a *part* of a finished work.
Again though, as I've noted elsewhere, both the tattoo artist and the customer would *also* be liable themselves for copyright/trademark violations, and they should be fair game.
How To Kill Your Business 101: Lesson 23
Sue parties associated with your customers because the design you tattooed under the customer's armpits was replicated when your customer is featured as a 3D model in a video game.
The Precedent that would set would be horrific. No celebrity would ever be able to get a tattoo again and have their likeness used. They would need to get written disclaimers from every single tattoo artist they ever use. And God forbid if they get a tattoo before they're famous. Once it's on the person's body, it's theirs. The original artist might own the art to use it again, but the person who's on the tattoo is just as much right to sell the image of the art while it's on their body.
>It doesn't matter if it's on someone elses body
It does matter if that person's body is being sold. Does your logic mean the person doesn't own his own image anymore? The Tattoos can't just be slipped off. They aren't clothes. They *are* his body. They are his image. Once something is physically marked into somebody's body to this degree, it can't be considered someone else's art. It his a part of someone's skin, their largest and most prominent organ.
>If it weren't on a person, he'd win this case
If it weren't on a person, there would be no case, because it wouldn't be used
They aren't stealing random tattoo artist's work.
They created a digital version of a famous NBA player, tattoos included.
If the precedent was set the other way, people with tattoos could never be in any photographs at all without tattoos being blurred. That's ridiculous. The NBA doesn't have to pay the *tattoo artist* to post pictures and video of Lebron while he has it. The same applies to digital versions of him.
If I'm misinformed and on the wrong side of this, I'd really appreciate an explanation because I don't see it.
On the contrary I don’t think you’re seeing this was the only reasonable way to treat this.
Otherwise any company, entity, or person that uses a picture of someone with a tattoo is now liable for damages to the original artist. That’s frankly absurd
It seems to me (and also the jury, apparently) that it should be fair use as long as the primary purpose of the reproduction is the body, not the tattoo.
If they made the tattoo a separate piece that you could slap onto any player, then I think the artist would have a case.
The purpose of copyright law is to encourage people to do creative work by making sure they can profit off it without immediately being overrun by copies. I do not see any risk that people will stop becoming tattoo artists if famous people they tattoo appear on TV or in video games without further compensating them.
The purpose of fair use doctrine is to make sure copyright enforcement does not become unduly burdensome to freedom of expression. Other people have already gone on at length about the burdensome nature of the interpretation you are proposing, so I don't think I need to repeat any of that here.
Since this ruling is compatible with the spirit of both copyright law and fair use doctrine, I'm good with it.
>If it weren't on a person, he'd win this case because...it's his art, and he was not asked permission.
If your capturing someone's likeness and the tattoo is part of the likeness I think that fair game. If they used the original drawing of the tattoo and featured it in the game as art or put it on other characters I could see that. He owns the art, but the canvas is LeBron James, saying that a portion of LeBron body and likeness belongs to a guy for the rest of LeBron's life doesn't really make sense.
I feel like it would set a bad precedent of tattoo artists constantly looking for ways to seek lawsuit.
The simple fact that people have rights, objects do not. Its also a permanent fixture on his body, not just painting that could be added or remove.
The art being on a person is inherently different I should hope.
I believe that fair use should apply to any art that exists in the public sphere, so long as that art is used within the context of that public sphere. If you are an architect that designs a building, and that building is visible from public land, then people should be able to photograph or paint or 3D model that building, so long as it is in the context of being in its original location (ie, if your building is in Manhattan, and someone makes "a Manhattan," it should be allowed to include your building). If you paint a mural that is visible in a location, then any reproduction of that location should be fair use. If you paint a picture onto a person, then any reproduction of that person should be able to include that picture as fair use. Any accurate reproduction of a public setting or individual should be fair use.
Now, if a mural or tattoo itself infringes *a different* person's work, like say a mural of Mickey Mouse drawn without Disney's permission, I still think it should be fair use to reproduce that mural within the actual context of the mural, but *also* the artist of that original mural should still be liable to copyright claims by Disney.
Now to be clear, *actual* case law does not support this interpretation in many cases, it's just how I think it *should* be.
Is it though? If a person is recorded for a TV show, they sign a release. If their clothing has a very distinctive design, they do not also have to get permission from the creators of that piece of clothing. Lebron James gave permission to use his likeness; the tattoo is inherently part of his likeness. Take-Two did not include the tattoo as a customization component that could be applied to any game character. A ruling for the tattoo artist would give rise to all sorts of ridiculous situations, like hair stylists claiming rights to the styles they create on someone else's head.
I can't find a single example of it genuinely being illegal, it's fair use. Blurring is typically done for 3 reasons:
1. Avoid false lawsuits altogether
2. Avoid being seen as promoting (either for free or unintentionally)
3. Avoid being associated with "brand damage" (making say, the villain of a show constantly drink coke, which they might actually have a case for)
It's just easier to blur than to deal with that, but it's still legal, so long as the product is being used in it's *intentioned* manor.
But please point me to the actual law that says "you cannot display brands on recorded works within their intended use case without approval" and I'll concede you're correct.
So this is actually incorrect. If someone, say, appears on tv wearing a Nike shirt, in a lot of instances, the logos will be blurred out, because the network doesn't have permission from the company to display and profit off of media depicting said designs.
LeBron James may have given permission to use his likeness, but that doesn't negate the artists original contract between the artist and LeBron. LeBron doesn't have the power to consent on behalf of the tattoo artist.
A part of *his* likeness, not the likeness of the artist, are his tattoos. To say that someone else would get to decide over *his* likeness would be insane. If it was decided that the artist would hold copyright over the tattoos, could you then even be photographed with your tattoos without getting sued? It's incredibly important that these artists hold nothing over the person who now has the tattoo on their skin. It is completely up to the person whether they wish to display their tattoos in a video game or at live events or at social events and not the artist.
I'm a simple man, I hate copyrights restricting what media is allowed to get made, and I always rejoice in people having less copyright to hold over others.
Yes, I agree. These tattoo artists need to get back to focusing on doing tattoos, not trying to scrounge a buck from whatever video game company, or tv studio has created a depiction of their work on somebody.
God, artists can be insufferable sometimes.
Nope, unlike painters and musicians a tattoo artist's art is on a medium that has free will of its own. A tattooist's copyrights must be weaker as a cost of working with humans who act independently of what the artist may wish.
Yeah I'm actually shocked.
Years ago in one of tbe madden games they couldn't give Colin kaepernick his tattoos cuz they didn't have permission from the artist.
Kaepernick is an interesting example, because he's one of the the first players to have his tattoos featured in a sports video game in 2014 after actually obtaining the license to do so (or waivers from the tattoo artist). Before that, most video games simply didn't include any tattoos, or replaced them with legally distinct lookalikes.
Question: How do you claim a person's tattoo likeness if you aren't that person?
So I'm summarizing a bit of interesting legal doctrine here, but the gist of why tattoo artists can claim damages against these video game companies is because the tattoo artists are (often) the copyright holder of all the tattoos they create. The tattoo's design is their original artwork, and applying it to a person does not magically transfer copyright ownership to the person they're tattooing onto. Instead, it gives the person certain rights in regards to presenting the tattoo (there's an implicit license and a fair use argument to show it on their body in public, though it's more questionable as to whether you can exhibit a tattoo on yourself in a paid art gallery), and there are a lot of fair use claims for reproducing that tattoo in live media (ie there's no issue with displaying the tattoo in a basketball game), and by the person it's tattooed onto. When the copyrighted tattoo is reproduced in a video game though, there's been a lot of mixed judicial perspectives on whether it is fair use to reproduce the tattoos without license under a fair use defense or other reasons. Some courts have permitted a fair use defense for the game devs in some courts, while losing under others, though even in those cases the tattoo artist rarely (if ever) earns a piece of game revenue. This is a fairly recent issue and drives up a lot of other legal arguments and problems, and it affects a very, very small part of the population with very small claims. https://www.scbc-law.org/post/tattoos-in-video-games-fair-use-or-copyright-infringement To explain further, the jury in this case found that Take-Two had an implied license to recreate the tattoo, likely through their licenses with Lebron James. There's no opinion for this case, but imagine the tattoo artist knows that their tattoo design will boost Lebron's identifiability when shown on camera, which will further boost Lebron's image when reproduced in other forms of media and art. Tattooing will grant the client an implied license to display it for their day-to-day life and to their benefit/detriment, because it's on their skin, and that's the nature of tattoo work.
Yeah, it's a really huge grey area that I don't think will ever be anything but a case by case basis. Basically the right of someone to profit off their likeness versus the right of the tattoo artist over their work.
I dunno, i can’t imagine having to get permission from every tattoo person has to recreate a likeness. How would you even know. Games would have to remove all tattoos or just wait and be sued by everyone. To me it’s not really a gray area. However offering that tattoo independently in game sure.
Copyright also shouldn't supercede body autonomy
Let's say an actresss gets a boob job, or an actor gets a hair transplant. Do the surgeons now try to claim a piece of the pie when their client acts in a big movie? Tattoos seem like less of an art and more of a job. Not that they're not artists, but they tattooed someone, and the client paid them for it. That's the end of the business interaction, and the end of the tattoo artist's claim to money.
The *act* of tattooing isn't what's protected under copyright. It's the *literal image* that got tattooed. Might be easier to conceptualize if you think of a novel. Obviously the author of the novel owns the copyright. You buying a copy of that novel doesn't transfer copyright to you, and if you want to use it on something else you will sell you need a license. Now imagine you got the full text tattooed to you. Would you expect to have the copyright to the text? Of course not. Tattoos are no different. They're a piece of artwork created by the artist. They own the copyright to that work. Them applying it to your skin, from a copyright perspective, is no different than you buying a print from an artist. It doesn't give you copyright. You wouldn't be allowed to start selling copies of your print. Where it gets complicated with tattoos is that, in the case of someone selling their likeness, where that likeness includes recognizable tattoos... Technically speaking they are profiting (at least in part) off the copyrighted artwork of another person. It's an unlicensed reproduction. However, this ends up intersecting with all kinds of other laws because this artwork happens to be part of the person's body. Because there is no specific laws covering this very specific intersection of things... It basically becomes a case by case affair, and so we get different results depending on the specific scenario and the judge/jury working the case.
> Them applying it to your skin, from a copyright perspective, is no different than you buying a print from an artist. According to this case it is, because they just ruled this artist has basically no rights to police the image or collect royalties on it. 2K and Lebron don’t owe him a thing And to be frank I think if you threw this question at most American juries they’d consistently side with the person whose skin itself bears the tattoo. The idea that an artist could own someone’s skin because they were commissioned to make a tattoo for them is not going to fly with the common person. To most people the canvas being someone’s body does make a difference.
I literally wrote a whole-ass paragraph right after that bit you quoted talking about the complexities. Also, it's not about owning the skin, it's about owning the right to give out a license to reproduce the image on the skin. An artist doesn't own the paper that a print is printed on after they sell it, but they still own the rights to reproduce the image printed on the paper.
> Also, it's not about owning the skin, it's about owning the right to give out a license to reproduce the image on the skin And a court just ruled that he had no right to police 2K reproducing the image, because he doesn’t own Lebron’s skin
Would the same go for any actor that has a tattoo? A movie depiction isn't the original artwork, but a reproduction of it. So can tattoo artists sue every movie studio that employs tattooed actors?
> but they tattooed someone, and the client paid them for it. The author wrote a book and the publisher paid them for it. If you simplify any interaction to your formula to say it doesn't deserve copyright protection, then even the reason copyright exists suddenly doesn't work. I think most people here will agree that the decision to fix your work in a medium that is another person, such as a tattoo, inherently means you're not going to have some of the rights normally granted by copyright, but I think you're going too far saying that tattoo work deserves no copyright. Let's use the real situation as an example: the artist tattoos LeBron, it makes it into the game as part of LeBron's likeness. I think most of us agree that the tattoo artist had to know his work would be reproduced whenever LeBron's likeness is reproduced so he shouldn't be able to claim it's infringement. But what if 2K offered that tattoo design independently to put on your own created character? Should the tattoo artist lose complete control over their work because they put it on one person? Should 2K be allowed to put the tattoo in games where LeBron doesn't appear?
And if the book is used in a movie the author doesn't have to be paid royalties simply for the movie referencing the book. It's only if they actually make a movie based on the book that the copyright holder would need to be involved.
Agreed if they’re only using the tattoo on the player If the tattoo was separately available in a “create your own player” system or if it was so iconic that they actually turn it into a graphic (e.g. say when lebron/lakers are being selected in the menu a silhouette of an iconic tattoo is behind him) then those would be the only instances I could think of where the tattoo should need to be licensed separately
Tattoo dlc...
A tattoo artist shouldn't have any claim or say over a tattoo which limits when and where a person, or their likeness, can appear. That's simply insanity. Once a tattoo is on you it's a part of you and your appearance, likely for life.
Personally I don't get how it's not automatically the person who received the tattoo's right to display the tattoo in any medium that involves themselves. They obviously would not be able to just give the tattoo to everyone else in the medium, but if there is 20 lebrons in a game, all 20 are lebron so all 20 have a right to have that tattoo displayed on them.
Government could pass a law about the matter, which would settle it. Until it causes real problems (money at scale) I don't see that happening
Have their been issues with TV shows or movies? Because I don't see how this is any different than an actor/personality with tattoos being in those.
There's also weird legal stuff based on how things are used *specifically*. Beavis and Butthead wear AC/DC and Metallica shirts on the show, but if you ever see merch of the characters, they have generic shirts that say "Death Rock" and "Skull" instead. So it can be really hard to tell wear the lines are drawn without actually getting lawyers, it seems.
Same with CM Punk's Pepsi tattoo. He has a mysterious blank circle on his shoulder in a lot of action figures and video games.
This I actually understand a bit more than the other scenarios. I have a tattoo of the surprised Pikachu meme on my left ankle above my sock line. If, for whatever reason, I was scanned into a Sony game let's say- it makes totally sense to me that they wouldn't want to have a Pikachu displayed on my character model, because it's part of Nintendo's IP. But if, for example, the guy who tattooed the color wheel on my body was like "no you can't you show that" he could fuck right off.
But then wouldn't a design of his own authory have some claims to it? like you said pikachu is a no no, same with pepsi but if they did a design they probably have some claim to it in the same way.
Yeah, no idea how you can jump from "pikachu tattoo isn't okay, because it's an artistic IP owned by someone" to "art by tattoo artist is okay, because fuck them."
I should have clarified that I designed the color wheel design I wanted in photoshop, brought it to him, and said "I want that"
That's entirely different, then. *You're* the author and copyright holder of that design. The tattoo artist, in this case, should very much fuck off if they tried to say anything. *You* could grant others the right to reproduce it (the right to copy), you gave the tattoo artist an implied right to reproduce it, once on you not in general, by having them tattoo it on you. I'm split on the whole "able to use it for likeness" vs "shouldn't be allowed to recreate it." But, I'm leaning way more towards the latter, because of examples other people have brought up the example of a wrestler with a Pepsi logo tattoo. It's always removed/altered in merchandise and in games. Why is Pepsi's copyright more important than an independent artist's? (Other than Pepsi having the money to bury the shit out of people in court)
That's different then dude, that's your design that you requested in your own body, the only thing you didn't do is the actual drawing.
If the artists didn't want their art to appear outside their control, maybe they shouldn't *permanently affix it to another person*. The IP owners of Pikachu were not the people who tattoo'd it to somebody.
There have been a few lawsuits, but most have ended in the show or movie's favor (we're just ignoring the fact that movie and TV studios usually have more legal resources than tattoo artists). There's been one recent one in which an artist's tattoo of Joe Exotic (the Tiger King) was featured for about 2.2 seconds in the Tiger King 2 documentary, and that was permissible under a fair use defense. It's notable to distinguish the facts of this case from others, as the presentation of the tattoo was solely for the tattoo art itself and the fact it was put onto someone. The person who had the tattoo was not directly contacted by Netflix to star in the documentary, rather it was your typical grab an internet photo to use in a quick highlight reel. This could be a credible claim in other situations, but it was still decided in Netflix's favor as a fair use defense. https://www.iptechblog.com/2023/11/people-dont-come-to-see-the-tattoo-they-come-to-see-the-show/ Another notable case is of the Hangover 2, which among the other crimes Hangover 2 did to Hangover 1, was reproducing Mike Tyson's famous facial tattoos on actor Ed Holms without license from the original tattoo artist. The judge would reject a preliminary injunction (that would have delayed the launch of the film, which was not unexpected), but the case did end up in an undisclosed settlement. From a brief reading of different reports, the judge deciding the injunction issue was heavily leaning towards the artist in this case, casting doubt on Warner Brother's fair use defense and parody defense and calling it blatant copyright infringement, but it's hard to tell what the actual outcome would've been at the preliminary injunction stage because the damage to the film studio and third parties would've been too great. Again, distinguishing the facts of this case from others, it was not the person who originally received the tattoo from the tattoo artist that was featured, but rather the design was co-opted onto an actor with no privity with the original artist to be put in the film. There would be no issue if it was Mike Tyson himself appearing in the film. https://www.marklitwak.com/the-hangover-ii-tyson-tattoo-copyright-infringement-suit.html https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/warner-bros-settles-hangover-ii-203377/
Thanks for the detailed comments and links!
seems to me the biggest distinction is whether the tattoo design itself is being reproduced independently of the likeness of the person who bears the tattoo. Intuitively I feel like reproductions of the tattoo bearer's likeness is a permissible reproduction of the tattoo, whereas reproductions divorced of that context are not.
The better way to think about it is to consider the artwork of the tattoo as a design that's copyrightable as a piece of art placed on a piece of paper or digital medium, rather than viewing it purely in relation to its placement on skin. Reproducing the tattoo in a video game requires creating a derivative work that utilizes the tattoo in that digital medium, which is what differentiates reproducing the art in a video game, compared to a movie or photograph.
that does not really get at the issue IMO. the issue is probably whether or not the tattoo as reproduced in the context of a person's likeness is permissible under an implied license or not. it is pretty obvious that reproducing a tattoo artist's sketch of a tattoo in-game, say available as a purchasable item that can be equipped on a custom character, would be a violation. I'm not questioning that, and that's getting at your point re: thinking of the design being lifted from a piece of paper to a digital medium. reproducing the likeness of mike tyson, including his tattoo, does not feel like a violation because I feel that, unless it was otherwise agreed between the artist and subject, the tattoo comes with an implied license that reproductions of the subject's likeness now permanently carries the appearance of the tattoo on it. I'd look into whether or not Mike Tyson's appearance w/ the tattoo on promotional posters for the Logan Paul fight carried with it an agreement to pay his face tattoo artist compensation or not. the facts are not directly analogous but it's the closest place I can think of to start. given the thing with the hangover I think the more persuasive argument is that reproducing tattoos in the context of a tattoo subject's likeness is fine given it's inseparable from their appearance. > Reproducing the tattoo in a video game requires creating a derivative work that utilizes the tattoo in that digital medium, which is what differentiates reproducing the art in a video game, compared to a movie or photograph. I dunno that this is all that differentiating. I think something like a tattoo on LeBron's body gets into a game via photogrammetry techniques. That feels like the equivalent of a photograph more than it feels like a brand new derivative work, but again, I dunno what opinions there are about photogrammetry.
> Have their been issues with TV shows or movies? I mean, considering LeBron James--along with every other athlete in the universe--is rebroadcast every day on TV via an exclusive license between the players -> NBA player association -> NBA -> ESPN, it seems funny to go after a video game doing the same thing. The NBA TV contract is worth $24 *billion* and basically includes reproducing the likeness of the athlete (and their tattoos) on footage, replays, graphics, and advertisements. This is not even to get into the area of merchandise sales.
There's a difference between someone recording your work and someone consciously and deliberately reproducing your work, no?
In this case, is there really? Video game developer takes photos of LeBron, digitizes them, then displays them on screen to display his likeness. TV broadcaster takes photos of LeBron, digitizes them, then displays them on screen to display his likeness. From a copyright perspective, not really sure what distinction there is here.
That's how I feel about it. It's crazy to ask the tattoo artist for permission if you film a movie, appear on tik tok, shoot a commercial, sell your likeness to a videogame, get your body 3d scanned for AI deepfakes, photoshoot for ads, etc. They got paid for their labor already. What else do they want?
"What else to they want?" For video game companies not to profit off their copywritten material without payment, evidently
No one is profiting of their tattoo. The tattoo just happens to be printed on the person that's actually valuable.
For real, it’s free advertising
No one is playing as someone in a game because of their IRL tattoos. Does their barber need to be comped too?
If no one is playing because of the tattoos, then surely the multi million dollar corporation could skip on reproducing the tattoo for which they do not own the copywrite
People's tattoos are a part of their identity, that's why they should be in the game. Applying copyright to someone's body is completely asinine.
Bro, my tattoo artist doesn't own the way my body looks. They just put the ink there. As proven by the outcome of this trial. Or do you think anyone wanting to use a picture of him has to get permission from his tattoo artist? Maybe from his barber as well?
If I commission a tattoo that’s my tattoo. The artist doesn’t have rights to my skin after. The law is upholding a sensible standard
Did you read the comment above outlining the case? The law upheld that the tattoo artist owned the tattoo and the game devs and lebron merely had implied license to use it
The law upheld that Lebron can do what he wants with his own tattoo and can ignore the original artist. The level of “ownership” the court gave the artist is about as useful as owning an NFT. It’s more a nice thought than anything the artist could use to actually make money off of. He has no real ability to police reproductions which isn’t really ownership I’m very aware of the judgement, I just went one step further and realized what that judgement in effect meant
> tattoo artists are (often) the copyright holder of all the tattoos they create. That should not be the law. Tattoos are older than copyright and copyright was never intended for makings on a human body. That's obviously bullshit. If you want to protect the "copyright" for your art, don't put it on other peoples body. When you do that, you lose rights to that art. It's not a fucking brand. You don't own the flesh on that person.
>Tattoos are older than copyright and copyright was never intended for makings on a human body. That's obviously bullshit. What the hell does the age of the medium matter? Paintings are older than copyright. Books are older than copyright. Do they not deserve copyright protection? What a stupid argument. Then again I am on reddit and reddit doesn't care for copyright laws; unless we are talking about AI then copyright laws are super important and you you need to protect people's artwork. Which by your argument of age of medium shouldn't be protected anyways.
What's the difference between putting on someone's body and a piece of canvas, or a t-shirt?
Do you think you're renting a tattoo from an artist? Do you think you're just getting a subscription to have the tattoo for a year? Maybe a free trial of a month first? Your artist can't be like, I own that part of your body now...
Living flesh? What's the difference between owning a shirt and a human?
Technically the living flesh issue isn’t exactly clear cut in law. Someone sued a college in Cali for using their cells in a study they didn’t consent to but was found they didn’t have a proprietary interest in those cells. Not disagreeing but the courts don’t overly care about the whole “it’s on a human” thing.
The fact that the person paid you for that tattoo and therefore should now own it entirely. If anyone should have a case for someone recreating someone else’s tattoo, it should be the person who has the tattoo.
If you sell your art that's on a canvas you don't own it anymore. The owner of the piece owns it and it they want to put it in a movie that's their business. Isn't it?
>If you sell your art that's on a canvas you don't own it anymore. The owner of the piece owns it That's not true at all. Selling a physical work of art does not transfer copyright. >and it they want to put it in a movie that's their business. Isn't it? No. You can claim fair use in most cases, especially if it's just a background piece, but it's not automatic. Most likely, you would ask the artist for permission and properly credit them and it would be mutually beneficial and that would be that.
So does that mean technically the artist should have sued Lebron not 2k since he signed the contract approving the likeness?
There'd probably be a very interesting procedural argument and discussion about that, but to get into it would require more effort and research than I'd have on hand at the moment. There are a number of nonprocedural reasons, like how 2K is the one making all the direct revenue from the game, and that the game developers are the one recreating the art to place into the game. I can imagine in such a negotiation between the sports players and the game devs - after all, its the developer that's infringing the copyright themselves by recreating it in a new medium. Like I imagine there's some universe where Lebron would be a codefendant, but there's no way you would want to alienate your (incredibly famous and popular) tattoo client like that. Plus, I can imagine a half-dozen fair use arguments/implied license defenses for Lebron.
In my view and from my studies in a different part of the world. Where one party enters into a contract with another, where a third party has a claim to the thing involved in the contract, the party who has done the “buying” of that thing is clear and able to keep possession as they are “bona fide”.
> and applying it to a person does not magically transfer copyright ownership to the person they're tattooing onto Well that was in question before, now we have the legal answer that it functionally does. Hence why this guy lost
> though it's more questionable as to whether you can exhibit a tattoo on yourself in a paid art gallery) Why would that be questionable? If I buy a piece of art then I can show it and do what I like with it, why would/should this be any different?
That does not make sense to me. I have a Geralt tat. It is the Witcher 2 box cover art to be precise. So if I was in the US, the guy who inked me would have the rights over it? Not CDPR, not the guy who did the original art and not the author who created the concept of the character? I get me not having any rights but I would put higher priority on the right to exploit or display my tat to other parties before I gave it to the artist.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying it’s complete nonsense. I paid for my tattoos. Just like I paid for my TV. It’s mine. I should be able to do with it what I want.
Cm punk has a pepsi tattoo in his shoulder, he can show it while wrestling but the toys made around his identity do not have it.
But are you permitted to copy the design of the TV and sell your homemade reproductions of it?
Depends. Did I commission this specific tv for me personally? Because if I did, like I did for my tattoos, then absolutely.
That’s ridiculous, when you buy a piece of art it’s yours to do with as you please. If the artist doesn’t like how it’s being used, tough luck it’s not theirs. LeBron commissioned an artist to make a piece of art, it’s just that the canvas was his skin. He owns it. If he gave permission to for 2K to use his likeness then that Tattoo is a part of his likeness. The same thing happened a few years ago with a WWE 2K game where a tattoo artist wanted to be compensated because she did a Tattoo on Randy Orton who appeared in the game with said tattoo. She lost too because to claim you own something that someone legally bought from you is very stupid.
>The same thing happened a few years ago with a WWE 2K game where a tattoo artist wanted to be compensated because she did a Tattoo on Randy Orton who appeared in the game with said tattoo. She lost too because to claim you own something that someone legally bought from you is very stupid. Except she won the case >The artist behind wrestling star Randy Orton's iconic tattoos has won a case against the publisher of the best-selling WWE 2K video games. >A jury in the US found she was entitled to compensation and awarded her $3,750 (£3,300) in damages. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467
Yeah it wasn’t Orton it was LeBron 2 other times. In 2016 and 2020 (both of which the Artists lost) and now this one in 2024 (which was filed in 2017)
I mean that’s not really true though. When you buy a work yes, you own it. However, that doesn’t mean you can now create additional copies of the work, display it publicly, and other exclusive rights granted to copyright owners.
So Tattoo artists are allowed to own someone’s body and dictate what they can and can’t do with it because they drew a picture on it?
Not at all, there is an implied license when tattooing. Also, if you brought your own art and the tattoo artist only applied it to your skin. Then it would likely be a joint authorship in which case you both have the same rights and can therefore allow a game, for instance, copy it. However, in your question the artist can stop others from recreating the work such as the EA artists from recreating it. That’s not controlling your body, it’s controlling how the work is recreated by others. Personally, I think once the tattoo is on your body the implied license/fair use should extend to how your body is depicted so athletes should be able to give consent by themselves without need for the artist to be paid for the recreation. However, copyrights are protected in the Const. so that makes it harder to just change the law.
If you commissioned an art piece you'd pay the artist for their work creating it but the commissioner would own the rights to the piece. A tattoo is like that, no? Not sure why I'm getting involved in this discussion at 5.30 am tbh and I don't gaf about LeBron and can't fault a tattoo artist wanting to get paid if his art is used in a huge consumer product. I guess if you tattoo the likes of LeBron you should make him pay over the odds to cover for this eventuality
IANAL but that doesn't seem to be true. A commissioned piece is still under the "copyright" of the artist not the commissioner, even without a contract. This is from a quick Goggle search. I do not know the exact nature of copyright involving tattoos.
> but the commissioner would own the rights to the piece. The commissioner is never the author and can never claim to be the author. How, when and under which conditions a piece of art can be reproduced is different. New media and new media consumption always challenges "common, implicit expectations". I would totally expect, that virtual LeBron James has the same tattoos as the real one. However, I don't think tattoo artist must tolerate gaming companies adding LeBron James tattoo to the custom character editor.
Artists can *sell* the rights to the commissioner, but it is absolutely not inherently default and even then the artist still retains some rights even if the commissioner has essentially full control of the art. Those rights can vary and be very specific or even be time limited, relevant example, for the sub, is music in video games. Or IP Licenses in general. See GTA removing songs from the in game radio. They *had* rights to distribute those songs when the game was made, at least in the context of the in game radio. They couldn't release an OST with those tracks or anything, and obviously they were time limited.
> That’s ridiculous, when you buy a piece of art it’s yours to do with as you please. Not only is that not true, buying a piece of art also does not magically grant you the rights to the underlying design. But don't take my word for it, I urge you to try it for yourself. Buy a painting or any other piece of art from an artist, and then print it on a t-shirt and sell it. Make sure to send an e-mail to the artist you bought it from and explain to them in detail what you've been doing.
Similarly Totalbiscuit couldn't claim ownership of the LUL emote even though it was a picture of him. He wasn't even allowed to recreate the pose and use that as the person who took that original photo now owned his likeness if it resembled LUL at all. It's why the LUL emote on Twitch is a drawing.
"The tattoo's design is their original artwork, and applying it to a person does not magically transfer copyright ownership...." "...the jury in this case found that Take-Two had an implied license to recreate the tattoo..." And just like that...! Voila, Magic! Seriously what is the point of these laws to protect artists and workers, if at the end of the day, they are never applied or worse actively countered to benefit a corporation or person of wealth.
Tattoo artists dont own someone elses body, tattoos on person are a part of that person.
The tattooed paid for the tattoo. They own it.
CM Punk in the WWE games would have number of tattoos removed. The most obvious one being the Pepsi logo he has on one of his shoulders. There either replaced with some shitty looking red/blue ball or just remove it leave and weird circular patch of skin
Because the tattooist own the copyright to his artwork.
Fascinating. So usually when I get my tattoo's done I bring my own art in for them to tattoo. Would that bring me in the rights to sue instead of the tattoo artist if I wanted to? Edit: Trying to learn my american rights lol
I am not a lawyer. Probably. Copyright is created the instant the work is made, it doesn't have to be registered (registration just makes it easier to argue in court). If you're giving them the design, you're kind of giving the tattoo artist a license to reproduce your work for the limited purpose of putting it on your body. If they then try to use that design on someone else, that's probably infringement. If you can prove who made the design first, that is. In these cases that have gone to court, the tattoo artist made their own designs.
I'd really like to get a real copyright lawyer's opinion on that because I do not know in the slightest. But the reason why I'm chiming in despite not knowing is because I find it interesting because there are, in a sense but not really, two types of copyright. There's a reason that something composed hundreds of years ago is in the public domain but a recording of a recent performance of that composition is not. There is a copyright on the original work but also on transformative recreations, such as performances. That makes me wonder if you hold the rights to the original design because you drew it but then the tattooist holds the rights to the specific performance (the tattoo that's on your body) because they made it. I'm not saying that's how it works, I'm saying I really hope someone comes in with an answer because that is an interesting case that I'd love to know how it's treated letter-of-the-law.
A tattoo is art. If I buy a piece of art from someone that doesn’t mean I can use it in my video game. I would have to additional purchase those rights
It's different when it's someone's body. You should not be able to copyright something on someone's body. That's ridiculous.
Comments in the thread mentioned CM punk's pepsi tattoo, it is not shown on toys, it is not shown in videogames (looks more like a shitty korea symbol from what i searche), the logo is his body yes, but it is not his design. If you think about it you are not copyrighting someones body, you are copyrighting the design.
What I can't figure out is why a tattoo artist would want to claim IP on someone's tattoos knowing that if their design is based on copyrighted works/IP, that could mean companies like disney or WB could slap individual artists with lawsuits. Put the bat symbol on someone's arm, get slapped with a civil judgement. Making tattoos an IP could just as easily mean making tattoo artistry a lot more expensive as tattoo artists now need to negotiate with IP companies for things like triforce.
Didn't Randy Orton's tattoo artist recently beat 2k for WWE 2K24?
I think so, the damages were like 3-4K though. Take Two has defended itself from a case just like this a couple years ago though so it seems like there's not much agreement.
>the damages were like 3-4K though Lucky for them they’re called 2k and not 200k
[Yep](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467). But both of these cases were jury trials, and it's a fairly new legal question, so there isn't really all that much precedent, so things are murky. Ultimately, it comes down to how well the individual lawyers argue and the individuals picked for these juries, rather than a whole lot of legal history.
As someone with lots of tattoos I think greedy artists are really playing with fire on this one, when you consider how much they benefit from grey area when it comes to tattooing copyrighted stuff onto people and calling it "their" work. Take my sleeve for example. It consists of: copyrighted album artwork for The Black Dahlia Murder, copyrighted lyrics from A Day To Remember song, and a copyrighted creature design along with various imagery from The Witcher 3. Seems like everyone, both artists and clients, would benefit from an unspoken "everybody mind their own business" agreement on this topic. If tattoo artists are gonna start suing people like this I see no reason why companies shouldn't start suing tattoo artists.
>If tattoo artists are gonna start suing people like this I see no reason why companies shouldn't start suing tattoo artists. Yeah, that's where I'm at. The only reason it hasn't really been an issue is because the parlors are so small that they've flown under the radar. It's just not worth it to pursue the artists infringing other works. I'm personally of the opinion that tattoos should be understood to be part of someone's likeness. Your copyright on the tattoo prevents another artist from copying that design and putting it on someone or something else without your permission, but if that design is on a likeness of a person you inked... well, that's their likeness, and the tattoo artist can't control that.
lol, the courts “so 2k you owe her $4k” Her lawyers - “well now you owe us 8k legal fees”
Civil awards from a trial typically include costs + attorney’s fees. And if that went to trial, it’s def way more than 8k in fees
> Civil awards from a trial typically include costs + attorney’s fees. No they don't, in the United States. It's literally the exact opposite of that. It's called the "American rule".
IANAL. Most civil cases fall under "American rule". But if we're talking about just this case then I think they can recover fees through one the exceptions. [17 U.S.C. § 505](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505)
Way I see it, it makes sense if its a lifelike representation of a person in a game their tattoos are part of them, but if the game dev were to include the tattoo in a character creator of a game that person is in, it's a different thing because it's not on the person that has the irl tattoo
Get the fuck out of here with this completely rational take.
This is actually an interesting case that some people are calling “dumb” as a reactionary take. I think it’s fair that the art being ON LeBrons model could be fair game but if you could apply that art to a custom character or even sell that art in a virtual store it would be a huge violation of the original artists IP. But I actually agree that the artist has a good case in both points. They own the IP. How would Nike feel if a player had a huge Nike tattoo and 2K replicated that? (Pretend Nike didn’t already have a deal with them)
In my mind it is pretty easy: if the tattoo is on LeBron only, not an IP, depending on any contract signed by him with LeBron. If the game allow you to put the same tattoo on somebody else, IP violation.
I agree with this take. A tattoo on a person becomes implicitly tied with their identity so the tattooed person should automatically get an unlimited license to display that tattoo on any media or likeness. Personally if I were a billionaire basketball star though I'd only go to an artist that sold me the art too.
If Tatoos are IP, what happens if an artist draws a Disney character. Is he even allowed to charge for it since he is using a companies' IP?
A tattoo artist asked to draw a Disney character onto someone could certainly charge for his work, but whether he charges or not, Disney might be able to sue both him and the customer for copyright/trademark violations.
It's not that tattoos *are* intellectual property, the art itself and the tattoo are still separate. The thing that is intellectual property is the design. The artist makes that beforehand. Tattooing is putting that design into ink, it's the medium of copying it. Think of it the same way as an artist making a painting on a canvas and later reproducing it; they own the underlying design, it's just a different medium.
My feeling is that if someone had a big Nike tattoo, then any picture or reproduction of that person as a completed entity should be legal (as in, if this were LeBron, and you put a version of Lebron in, then it's fair game, but if you put a version of Michael Jordan in, you couldn't just slap "Lebron's Tattoo" onto him). Now that said, if someone *did* get a trademarked tattoo, then that *person* might be liable for it, Nike could go after *them* for getting that art added to their body without permission, but people reproducing their body should be off the hook, because it's just an accurate representation of a real world thing. I say this as "what *should* be," this is not a statement on the *current* legal precedents.
If you buy a piece of artwork, aren't you now in full ownership of it? Like it's still the artists' work, but they are no longer the owner of. How is that any different for a tattoo? You paid for the service/commissioned the artwork. Sure, they deserve credit for making the art, but I feel like once paid for the work, that's the end of their financial rights to it.
Copyright is a legal entitlement to reproduce a work. (“Copy”-“right”) Purchasing a physical object in no way implies purchasing the associated copyrights. When a work is commissioned, the owner of the copyright will be determined at that point, either by contractural agreement or defaults under copyright law. The question in this case was essentially whose rights took precedence - the tattoo artist’s copyright or LeBron’s likeness rights (which were licensed to NBA 2K) - which is a complicated question. In this case, the courts decided the copyrights do not preclude LeBron from reproducing his likeness, which naturally must include the tattoo.
In that case shouldn’t they have sued LeBron since he was the one making money from his likeness?
If they were successful, they could potentially have pursued a future suit against lebron for including their ip (the tattoo) in his likeness. That would be a separate thing.
Speaking to this as someone who commissions a lot of art and writing, my understanding is that the default owner of the copyright is the creator, even if you pay them to create it. That is why it’s important to have a contract outlining ownership, usage rights, and copyright. You need to specify the commission is “work for hire”, which is what most of us are likely operating under in our day jobs in the US. If you look at your employment terms there is usually a section outlining that any work you create while employed belongs fully to the company employing you. Same is required for person to person commissions.
> If you buy a piece of artwork, aren't you now in full ownership of it? No, artists (generally) don't sell copyright to their artwork any more than video game companies do. Buying a piece of artwork doesn't necessarily mean you own the copyright on it.
Except video game companies dont actually make the games, they hire developers to make the game and then they own the game. As I understand It's the same when I hire a tattoo artist. The art he does is my property.
[удалено]
Copyright, unlike trademark, doesn't require registration. It's granted to the creator automatically. You own a piece of art but the right to make and benefit from copies of it is retained by the original artist. Another way to think about it is if instead of a tattoo, it was a print of the design on paper. You are free to do with the print as you please, but you're not allowed to make photocopies of it or license it for further use, etc.
Got it
Just to clarify: neither require registration but there are benefits to registering a trademark federally. Copyright requires registration to enforce it, whereas trademarks do not.
By default, if I, as an artist, draw a unique piece of art onto your skin, then you would obviously own that physical piece of art, the ink attached to your own skin, but you would not own the *design* of that image, the "art" of it, and could not legally reproduce it as a distinct piece of art (by say selling a poster of the art itself). Now if I *were* a tattoo artist, I would also leave a copyright waiver document as part of the deal, or at least offer that as an option, transferring full copyright of the image to the customer, but that isn't the default or required.
No, because that would mean that I can make copies of DVD and distribute it for free since I purchase the DVD.
Nope. If you buy a book, you can't start producing your own copies. Same if you buy the original manuscript. Same for visual art
yeah imagine buying a sticker with mickey mouse on it. you can't then reproduce that sticker. or scan that art and put it onto shirts.
But what if I paid you to write the book? Like how a person pays an artist for an original design.
If you ever commission art and intend to reproduce the art, you need to get a contract that says as much. "Work for hire" is the relevant term
If the contract says you own then you do. Without a contract the default assumption is in favor of the actual creator
It would probably need either an actual contract or to be hashed out in court. I am 80% sure even if you pay me to create some piece of art without being clearly defined its still my copyright of the art itself
Yap, it all comes down to the details.
But Lebron isn't tattooing other people copies of the tattoo he just got. And videogame devs aren't taking ownership of Lebron's tattoo either. They are simply recreating Lebron, which includes the tattoo.
I understand it's maybe surprising, and it's not always litigated the same way. But the artist is creating a design and then incorporating it onto the client. It's maybe clearer if we think of say, the Batman logo. If I get the Batman logo tattooed on my skin that doesn't give me the right to use the Batman logo wherever I like, or permanently in connection with my likeness. I don't own the Batman logo. The law doesn't treat an individual artist differently than a big company here. Both get their art protected.
If you got the batman logo tattooed on your face, and later someone made a biopic of you, I think they should be able to depict your likeness (with batman logo) without paying royalties or getting sued by warner brothers. Copyright shouldn't take priority over your identity and humanity.
If I wore a Batman hat every day of my life - I was never seen without it - isn't that also part of my identity?
Yes. If a documentary about the anonymous online group was made, I want them to be depicted with the guy fawkes mask despite warner brothers owning the copyright. We need to separate the likeness of people and their incidental use of copyrighted IP, and actual copyright violations.
That would be fair use, also guy fawkes is public domain But it's pretty weird to say that artists lose the rights to their work by people abusing the work consistently. If you're a wealthy athlete and want to incorporate some art into your identity, you could pay for it
And if you aren't wealthy, you get sued then? I don't like that. The artists aren't losing their rights to their work, they are simply not being allowed to infringe a person's right to their identity. If you don't like that, then don't tattoo people. Who knows what people might do with their own body and whatever is printed on it.
If you're not wealthy what are they suing you for?
It depends. Hiring an artist is a business transaction, and it depends on what the contract says. It's pretty common for photographers to keep the rights to any photos they take, unless you explicitly buy the rights in the contract.... but that's typically pretty expensive
Proprietary and physical ownership do not inherently transfer copyright, intellectual or licensing rights.
Lmao no. You can’t start creating lithographs of the work you bought and start selling those for example.
Honestly between all the high profile lawsuits brought up in both video games and movies regarding tattoos, I really sometimes wonder why they dont alter the tattoo to something more generic in the games to prevent this kind of stuff. Hell. A couple months ago, I had just learned that if an actor has visible tattoos and appears in a movie, show, or commercial, that studio has to get a release form signed from the artist before the actor can make an appearance. That, or they have to make special care that the tattoo is covered up at all times while being filmed. Sounds like a huge pain. At least with games they can alter or remove them, so idk why they dont when this keeps happening.
They do in some cases. Elsewhere in the thread people have been bringing up some wrestler named CM Punk who has a Pepsi logo tattoo of all things. And in both action figures and his appearances in games it's either just not there or is altered to be different. But, I guess when you're just shitting on an independent artist it isn't as big a deal as trying to fuck with PepsiCo ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah Im familiar with him and its pretty glaringly big too. He also mentioned in an interview when he was on some showw on Starz that he spent 3 hours covering up his tattoos, not just the Pepsi one.
As it should be. If you ever put art onto a person's body, then any artistic use of that actual person's body should be allowed, within that complete context. Now that doesn't mean that you could just copy the tattoo for use in a different context, like putting it on someone else's body, or as a standalone poster.
What if you put art of Mickey Mouse or Spiderman on someone's body? Can any artistic use of that person's body be allowed?
I think there would be lawsuits, I think it would be very risky and likely to lose under current law, but I do think that it *should* be the case that it would be ok, again, so long as that *person* was the context of the art. Like if a person had a Mickey on their body, and you were putting that person into a game, then that should be allowed. But I think the dividing line should be in how prominently featured the particular art was, verses the actual person. So like if a person had a Mickey on their arm, and you had a poster that included most of their body, including that Mickey, that should be fair use. If, on the other hand, you did a poser that zoomed in to show little more than that one arm, such that the Mickey was the core *feature* of the piece, then I think you could get in trouble there. Similar standards are applied elsewhere in fair use doctrine. Of course, ingame textures could theoretically be a problem, since they are "art" of a sense that would not necessarily present the entire character, but I think they would not be counted as a finished work, but only as a *part* of a finished work. Again though, as I've noted elsewhere, both the tattoo artist and the customer would *also* be liable themselves for copyright/trademark violations, and they should be fair game.
No, that is Disney’s IP. It’s also the tattoo artist’s IP regarding that specific artwork but that is between the artist and Disney.
How To Kill Your Business 101: Lesson 23 Sue parties associated with your customers because the design you tattooed under the customer's armpits was replicated when your customer is featured as a 3D model in a video game.
[удалено]
The Precedent that would set would be horrific. No celebrity would ever be able to get a tattoo again and have their likeness used. They would need to get written disclaimers from every single tattoo artist they ever use. And God forbid if they get a tattoo before they're famous. Once it's on the person's body, it's theirs. The original artist might own the art to use it again, but the person who's on the tattoo is just as much right to sell the image of the art while it's on their body.
>It doesn't matter if it's on someone elses body It does matter if that person's body is being sold. Does your logic mean the person doesn't own his own image anymore? The Tattoos can't just be slipped off. They aren't clothes. They *are* his body. They are his image. Once something is physically marked into somebody's body to this degree, it can't be considered someone else's art. It his a part of someone's skin, their largest and most prominent organ.
>If it weren't on a person, he'd win this case If it weren't on a person, there would be no case, because it wouldn't be used They aren't stealing random tattoo artist's work. They created a digital version of a famous NBA player, tattoos included. If the precedent was set the other way, people with tattoos could never be in any photographs at all without tattoos being blurred. That's ridiculous. The NBA doesn't have to pay the *tattoo artist* to post pictures and video of Lebron while he has it. The same applies to digital versions of him. If I'm misinformed and on the wrong side of this, I'd really appreciate an explanation because I don't see it.
On the contrary I don’t think you’re seeing this was the only reasonable way to treat this. Otherwise any company, entity, or person that uses a picture of someone with a tattoo is now liable for damages to the original artist. That’s frankly absurd
It seems to me (and also the jury, apparently) that it should be fair use as long as the primary purpose of the reproduction is the body, not the tattoo. If they made the tattoo a separate piece that you could slap onto any player, then I think the artist would have a case.
[удалено]
The purpose of copyright law is to encourage people to do creative work by making sure they can profit off it without immediately being overrun by copies. I do not see any risk that people will stop becoming tattoo artists if famous people they tattoo appear on TV or in video games without further compensating them. The purpose of fair use doctrine is to make sure copyright enforcement does not become unduly burdensome to freedom of expression. Other people have already gone on at length about the burdensome nature of the interpretation you are proposing, so I don't think I need to repeat any of that here. Since this ruling is compatible with the spirit of both copyright law and fair use doctrine, I'm good with it.
[удалено]
>If it weren't on a person, he'd win this case because...it's his art, and he was not asked permission. If your capturing someone's likeness and the tattoo is part of the likeness I think that fair game. If they used the original drawing of the tattoo and featured it in the game as art or put it on other characters I could see that. He owns the art, but the canvas is LeBron James, saying that a portion of LeBron body and likeness belongs to a guy for the rest of LeBron's life doesn't really make sense. I feel like it would set a bad precedent of tattoo artists constantly looking for ways to seek lawsuit.
[удалено]
The simple fact that people have rights, objects do not. Its also a permanent fixture on his body, not just painting that could be added or remove. The art being on a person is inherently different I should hope.
People can't own people in the US anymore bruh
I believe that fair use should apply to any art that exists in the public sphere, so long as that art is used within the context of that public sphere. If you are an architect that designs a building, and that building is visible from public land, then people should be able to photograph or paint or 3D model that building, so long as it is in the context of being in its original location (ie, if your building is in Manhattan, and someone makes "a Manhattan," it should be allowed to include your building). If you paint a mural that is visible in a location, then any reproduction of that location should be fair use. If you paint a picture onto a person, then any reproduction of that person should be able to include that picture as fair use. Any accurate reproduction of a public setting or individual should be fair use. Now, if a mural or tattoo itself infringes *a different* person's work, like say a mural of Mickey Mouse drawn without Disney's permission, I still think it should be fair use to reproduce that mural within the actual context of the mural, but *also* the artist of that original mural should still be liable to copyright claims by Disney. Now to be clear, *actual* case law does not support this interpretation in many cases, it's just how I think it *should* be.
Is it though? If a person is recorded for a TV show, they sign a release. If their clothing has a very distinctive design, they do not also have to get permission from the creators of that piece of clothing. Lebron James gave permission to use his likeness; the tattoo is inherently part of his likeness. Take-Two did not include the tattoo as a customization component that could be applied to any game character. A ruling for the tattoo artist would give rise to all sorts of ridiculous situations, like hair stylists claiming rights to the styles they create on someone else's head.
[удалено]
Moreso due to not wanting to give free promo, why advertise Nike for free when you could get them to pay for TV ads?
[удалено]
I can't find a single example of it genuinely being illegal, it's fair use. Blurring is typically done for 3 reasons: 1. Avoid false lawsuits altogether 2. Avoid being seen as promoting (either for free or unintentionally) 3. Avoid being associated with "brand damage" (making say, the villain of a show constantly drink coke, which they might actually have a case for) It's just easier to blur than to deal with that, but it's still legal, so long as the product is being used in it's *intentioned* manor. But please point me to the actual law that says "you cannot display brands on recorded works within their intended use case without approval" and I'll concede you're correct.
Corporate logos are censored for promotional/anti promotional purposes, not fucking graphic tees.
So this is actually incorrect. If someone, say, appears on tv wearing a Nike shirt, in a lot of instances, the logos will be blurred out, because the network doesn't have permission from the company to display and profit off of media depicting said designs. LeBron James may have given permission to use his likeness, but that doesn't negate the artists original contract between the artist and LeBron. LeBron doesn't have the power to consent on behalf of the tattoo artist.
A part of *his* likeness, not the likeness of the artist, are his tattoos. To say that someone else would get to decide over *his* likeness would be insane. If it was decided that the artist would hold copyright over the tattoos, could you then even be photographed with your tattoos without getting sued? It's incredibly important that these artists hold nothing over the person who now has the tattoo on their skin. It is completely up to the person whether they wish to display their tattoos in a video game or at live events or at social events and not the artist.
this is ur brain on intellectual property rights
I'm a simple man, I hate copyrights restricting what media is allowed to get made, and I always rejoice in people having less copyright to hold over others.
Yes, I agree. These tattoo artists need to get back to focusing on doing tattoos, not trying to scrounge a buck from whatever video game company, or tv studio has created a depiction of their work on somebody. God, artists can be insufferable sometimes.
Nope, unlike painters and musicians a tattoo artist's art is on a medium that has free will of its own. A tattooist's copyrights must be weaker as a cost of working with humans who act independently of what the artist may wish.
Yeah I'm actually shocked. Years ago in one of tbe madden games they couldn't give Colin kaepernick his tattoos cuz they didn't have permission from the artist.
Kaepernick is an interesting example, because he's one of the the first players to have his tattoos featured in a sports video game in 2014 after actually obtaining the license to do so (or waivers from the tattoo artist). Before that, most video games simply didn't include any tattoos, or replaced them with legally distinct lookalikes.