Topic: Tattooist sues THQ for replicating a UFC fighter

[idolminds]

This should be an interesting case.

UFC fighter gets a tattoo. Big deal. THQ makes a UFC game that contains the likeness of that fighter, obviously including the tattoo. Now THQ is being sued because they are "recreating" the tattoo artists work and thats a breech of copyright.

Interesting case about who owns what, especially since a tattoo becomes a part of ones likeness. I can see the artist owning the tattoo design as to prevent others from giving that tattoo, or selling tshirts with it. But this is a recreation of a person, not specifically of the tattoo. And since that shits permanent they have to go together.

[Quemaqua]

Interesting. I guess I don't have this problem since I do all my own art. They should put me in the game. Who wants to play a fat white guy that makes up for his lack of physical prowess with obscene amounts of rage?

[Xessive]

Shouldn't he be suing the fighter? I think he shouldn't be suing anyone for that matter. He didn't have a problem with the tats on television or replicated on posters and paraphernalia, why is it a problem in a videogame?

[Quemaqua]

I'd guess the justification would be because those are pictures of the actual dude rather than a 3D recreation. Though the textures were probably built up from photographs. And really, I'm sure it's not about any of that. Dude's just trying to make a cash grab.

[Pugnate]

Once you put a tattoo on a person you've given away your ownership. If anyone can have a problem with THQ, it is the fighter.

People need to grow up.

[Cobra951]

It would be hilarious if inked people had to get permission from whoever inked them to have their picture taken.

[Xessive]

It would be hilarious if inked people had to get permission from whoever inked them to have their picture taken.

I was reading up on local cybercrime and cyber laws here in the UAE (during a discussion with a cyber forensics analyst) and apparently any photo you have uploaded to the internet of anyone without explicit consent can be admitted in a court of law should it ever come up in a trial. It's pretty ridiculous.

[scottws]

Actually this is an interesting question. I think tattoos are definitely art, and other types of art are protected by copyright.

That said tattoos are a little different because they are permanently attached to a person's body rather than hung on a wall or played on a stereo.

[Pugnate]

Yea you make a tattoo a permanent part of a person.

[Xessive]

[Cools!]

Haha, interesting case. Boils down to wether or not the person who got the tattoo has the right to allow someone else to reproduce it. You can probably make a case for this being work for hire and if that's the case the person who got the tattoo would own all the rights by default. So did the guy have an idea of what he wanted to get (like a drawing) or did he pick from a selection of drawings or commission the guy to create something original?

I guess you can make a case for a tattoo being a "part of you" hence you should own the right to it, but as far as art goes the medium on which an art is presented doesn't really matter. So just because you wear a Nike shirt and that's how people identify you that doesn't mean you actually own the right to the Nike logo, etc.

[Pugnate]

I guess you can make a case for a tattoo being a "part of you" hence you should own the right to it, but as far as art goes the medium on which an art is presented doesn't really matter. So just because you wear a Nike shirt and that's how people identify you that doesn't mean you actually own the right to the Nike logo, etc.

If you get a really cool haircut you like a lot... no matter how unique it is, the barber doesn't own the haircut.

[scottws]

I don't think haircuts are considered art and therefore not protected by copyright.

[Pugnate]

It is like a painting. When I buy a painting, I have ownership and could do as I please with it. When a tattoo artist draws an original tattoo on you, he has given away that piece of art. Either as a commodity or as a gift. If he was that attached he shouldn't have put it on someone's body.

Tattoo artists expecting a pay day like this need to get real.

[scottws]

It will be interesting to hear the judge's comments.  There are many ways to look at this, and the judge has to be careful how to phrase the response or it could potentially cause wide-reaching copyright issues.

[Quemaqua]

Technically a tattoo artist doesn't give away anything. Often tats are chosen from books of "flash", which are original pieces owned by the artist, and many multiple people may have the same tattoo. Obviously it's different if the piece is wholly original. Mine were all drawn by me.

[Pugnate]

Ahhh too much sound logic! I am getting a little confused.

[Cools!]

Yeah, just because you paid for it doesn't mean you own all the rights. For example, when I shoot events no matter who pays for the photos I still own all the rights.

If you get a really cool haircut you like a lot... no matter how unique it is, the barber doesn't own the haircut.

Actually they sort of do. Original haircuts, up-does, etc. are all art. Again, it doesn't matter what the medium is. A lot of haircuts, styles, are actually associated with specific stylists and salons and salons, for example, the Bob, the Rachel (from Friends), etc. I'm talking more upscale salons and not your local barber shop.

When I buy a painting, I have ownership and could do as I please with it. When a tattoo artist draws an original tattoo on you, he has given away that piece of art

Nope, unless explicitly stated, you only have basic rights, like being able to display the piece, take pictures of it, etc. You definitely don't own the right to reproduce and resell it, etc.

[Pugnate]

OK but the game wasn't selling the tattoo. It was just trying to make the fighter look more authentic.

[Xessive]

What if the UFC sue the tattoo artist and the fighter for advertising a product without a licence or prior authorization to do so? Litigation can get pretty ridiculous.

I support the artist's right to defend his work but in this case he's clearly just looking for a payday. It would be so much more productive for him to instead set up a deal with UFC and THQ for recognition of his work, which would consequentially lead to more business. Who knows, maybe that's what he tried initially but failed and so he resorted to legal action.