Current Events > WWE/2K Games Tattoo Lawsuit - Artist Wins!

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.ign.com/articles/tattoo-artist-wins-court-case-over-wwe-2k-reproducing-their-work-in-game

A few weeks ago there was a topic about Randy Orton's tatoo artist suing 2K games because 2K had Randy's tattoos in game on his character. The tattoo artist won.

Honestly I didn't expect that but it does make sense now that I think about it. They had to actually replicate the artists work to put it in the game.
Who knows what this will mean for the future of games where real tattoos are depicted.

My original point was what if somebody had a picasso and went and held it up on National TV, could that person be sued? But I didn't actually think about how a person making the game would be creating a replica of the artwork for their purposes.

people with tattoos dont own their own body.

This should be appealed and shot down. It's insane to think the artist has any rights to an image that is on someone else's body.

I think their point was that he can go out on TV and be shirtless and show it to whoever he wants. But him having it does NOT give someone making a video game the right to reproduce it.

I have a hard time disagreeing with that.

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I think their point was that he can go out on TV and be shirtless and show it to whoever he wants. But him having it does NOT give someone making a video game the right to reproduce it.

I have a hard time disagreeing with that.

But if they have the right to reproduce him in a video game, and he got the tattoo...

Norman_Smiley posted...

people with tattoos dont own their own body.

Not what it means, but keep crying.

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I think their point was that he can go out on TV and be shirtless and show it to whoever he wants. But him having it does NOT give someone making a video game the right to reproduce it.

I have a hard time disagreeing with that.

That's BS. The videogame is reproducing the Randy Orton character from WWE programming which they own the rights to. Randy is getting paid for his likeness to be reproduced. The tattoo artist does not own any part of Randy Ortons likeness. She was paid a fee to create an image that was tattooed onto his body. He owns his body, therefore he owns that image which is part of his likeness.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

That's BS. The videogame is reproducing the Randy Orton character from WWE programming which they own the rights to. Randy is getting paid for his likeness to be reproduced. The tattoo artist does not own any part of Randy Ortons likeness. She was paid a fee to create an image that was tattooed onto his body. He owns his body, therefore he owns that image which is part of his likeness.

I mean this makes perfect sense too.
It seems like it's a tricky subject. I'm sure there will be future lawsuits that change it too.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

That's BS. The videogame is reproducing the Randy Orton character from WWE programming which they own the rights to. Randy is getting paid for his likeness to be reproduced. The tattoo artist does not own any part of Randy Ortons likeness. She was paid a fee to create an image that was tattooed onto his body. He owns his body, therefore he owns that image which is part of his likeness.

Tell that to Pepsi when they had to photoshop their logo off of Punk.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

That's BS. The videogame is reproducing the Randy Orton character from WWE programming which they own the rights to. Randy is getting paid for his likeness to be reproduced. The tattoo artist does not own any part of Randy Ortons likeness. She was paid a fee to create an image that was tattooed onto his body. He owns his body, therefore he owns that image which is part of his likeness.

And, yet, the artist owns the copyright to the tattoo. So while people own their own likeness, artists still own their own work.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yw37g7/a-lawyer-explains-who-really-owns-your-tattoos

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yw37g7/a-lawyer-explains-who-really-owns-your-tattoos

I was just going to say it would be helpful if Legal Eagle did an episode but I can settle for this.

From now on, celebrities and athletes will force tattoo artists to sign wavers relinquishing ownership rights of the tattoo design.

The best solution really would be for WWE to hire their own tattoo artist going forward.

Though it might cause a mess if they go to work elsewhere.

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I was just going to say it would be helpful if Legal Eagle did an episode but I can settle for this.

I couldn't find Legal Eagle, but here's another youtube lawyer that I like:
https://youtu.be/3ADiU1Qi53M

Collat posted...

The best solution really would be for WWE to hire their own tattoo artist going forward.

Though it might cause a mess if they go to work elsewhere.

Back in the Vince era it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm pretty sure this has been a thing for awhile. I know Madden doesn't use all the player's tats because of licensing issues. It's kinda funny and unsurprising that WWE 2K would get this wrong.

I think it should fall under fair use, so hopefully 2k wins the appeal.

The-Apostle posted...

I think it should fall under fair use, so hopefully 2k wins the appeal.

It's not fair use if it's something being sold.

Think of it this way. They can't just include a pair of Adidas shoes just because Kofi wore them as part of his ring gear. They swap them out for generic shoes to avoid paying.

How much did she win again?

How does this pertain to commissions? Does the artist hold the rights until transaction? Or does the commissioner, by logic of "were not for me the you wouldn't've in the first place"?

3750 dollars which I'm sure the lawyers took most of.

lol Weren't the court costs a lot more than that?

DirkDiggles posted...

lol Weren't the court costs a lot more than that?

I'm sure.

dib153 posted...

How does this pertain to commissions? Does the artist hold the rights until transaction? Or does the commissioner, by logic of "were not for me the you wouldn't've in the first place"?

I would think it would be the same thing. A tattoo isn't really different in that you're paying someone to put their/your idea onto a body versus canvas. Tattoo artist wouldn't have had that work either if it wasn't for the customer coming in and asking for it.

imagine having a picture tattooed on your body that someone else owns
LMAO

dib153 posted...

How does this pertain to commissions? Does the artist hold the rights until transaction? Or does the commissioner, by logic of "were not for me the you wouldn't've in the first place"?

It depends on the terms that were agreed between the purchaser and the artist, but I think in most cases, they own the image, but aren't able to reproduce it for profit.

Like you couldn't just commission something and then start selling it on t-shirts without telling them.