NBA2K developers getting sued over using player tattoos in game..

[TheKang]

Saw a documentary about that McDonalds hot coffee lady/lawsuit...ish was no joke

 

[jerniebert]

and that limb will break.
there was a time when REAL shoes were not in the games
there was a time when real accessories were not in the game.

do you know how they got Nike, reebok, etc in the game? They paid them
Those are not real life shoes. So why did they have to pay nike and nem? because its their copywritten designs.

you would surprised how many people cried about having the proper shoes in the game then cried about accessories not being on point. then talking about the fake tats they use to put on them and them not being legit. this is why they started putting the real tats on them. because it was a request by those that play their game. now ask me if i care about a tat? is it a nice touch? sure. do i like the shoes now that their there? YEP. did i ask for them? NOPE. they could all have no namer kicks for all i care. as long as the game play is on point. but thats me. i dont speak for ALL 2k lovers.

so i would advise you to get off that limb. lol

Shoes and accessories are removable. Tattoos are not. They are a permanent part of your body.

 

[semtex]

be property brehs

 

[rapbeats]

Shoes and accessories are removable. Tattoos are not. They are a permanent part of your body.

its irrelevant. they dont own the canvas they own the art. what part of that
dont you understand?

if you give me a piece of paper you've purchased from Staples. its Your paper. but if i draw on it. its my artwork. that i have given to you. if someone else takes a picture of you holding up my artwork and tries to sell it as a complete picture. i can ask for a cut since my artwork is apart of said picture. even though the paper i drew on was your paper. its not about the canvas. tattoo artists do not OWN people's bodies. they own their artwork.Unless its something you created and gave to them to duplicate on your body. then its your artwork. you've commissioned them to put it on your body.

 

[jerniebert]

its irrelevant. they dont own the canvas they own the art. what part of that
dont you understand?

if you give me a piece of paper you've purchased from Staples. its Your paper. but if i draw on it. its my artwork. that i have given to you. if someone else takes a picture of you holding up my artwork and tries to sell it as a complete picture. i can ask for a cut since my artwork is apart of said picture. even though the paper i drew on was your paper. its not about the canvas. tattoo artists do not OWN people's bodies. they own their artwork.Unless its something you created and gave to them to duplicate on your body. then its your artwork. you've commissioned them to put it on your body.

I understand what you are saying about the artwork. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. To me it’s stupid. I believe if my body looks a certain way than that’s the way it should be portrayed. I’m not talking about clothes or stuff that is removable.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

I agree, my points that copyright laws are arbitrary and convoluted as hell and need a massive reform. tattoo artists shouldnt be owning part of a persons likeness just because they drew the image. If someone were to sell a painting with an original lebron james tattoo, sure, sue them. Theyre directly profiting off it. But why are they allowed to own part of an individual's likeness, after getting paid thousands for the commission? Why doesnt fair use come into play here?

but they don't


i wish you guys would wrap your head around the concept here... they are NOT suing the nba players... they are NOT saying one word about a person's likeness... they NOT saying where and when you can display yourself, or they own you, or any of the other shyt y'all want to make up


the law is the law because you have to cover ALL aspects.


SIMPLE TERMS:


you draw a picture... you own that picture... that's the law... period


now you can put that picture anywhere you want... a billboard.. a piece of paper.. ON YOUR MOM'S ARM


nothing and nowhere that you place that picture, can suddenly mean, it's someone's else's RIGHT to own that picture... NOTHING except your permission





what's tripping y'all up is, b-b-b-b-b-b-but i paid for the tattoo... YES you paid to have a man draw HIS picture on YOUR arm... you did not pay to OWN the picture.. you didn't pay to put that picture on a billboard, or a house, or your other friend's arm, OR A VIDEO GAME...

you didn't own it, to sell it to a video game.

IF disney wanted to, they could sue the fukk out of people... it's not cost effective for them to do that.. now go try opening up a store, and sell some disney shirts without permission... go put mickey in a video game and try to sell it... b-b-b-b-b-b-but.. nah.. they getting that bread






these dudes are petty as fukk... but they probably don't have much money... they see a game out selling BILLIONS of dollars... and here is your damn artwork, all up in the game, on the cover, in the advertising... and you know good and damn well you OWN it, never gave permission for them to COPY it, never gave permission for them to SELL it... and then one of the selling points is "look at us. we have the players with all their tats and ARTWORK"




nah bro... that's MY artwork... you gonna have to come up off some bread