Tattoo artist successfully sues 2K for replicating their designs on a WWE 2K wrestler

From VGC: "A tattoo artist has successfully sued 2K Sports and its parent company Take-Two Interactive for including her designs in WWE 2K video games.

Catherine Alexander filed the lawsuit in 2018, claiming that her tattoo designs had been used without her permission in WWE 2K16, WWE 2K17 and WWE 2K18.

The tattoos in question are original tribal-style designs Alexander applied to WWE superstar Randy Orton’s upper back and arms in real life."

[Software_Lover]

......... Some of these lawsuits I just don't get.

[CobraKai]

I don’t either. On can argue that she owes Orton for being the canvas to show her artwork. I personally feel that since money was exchanged between her and Orton, that the issue should be if Orton wants his tattoos showcased or not.

[roadkillers]

Very confusing… so Pepsi has no issues with Punk having a tattoo with Pepsi symbol with him being in all of these promotions.

Can you get sued for using WD-40 in a movie? At what point do you own something. Too confusing.

[LostinthePANIC]

I can understand the artist's point of view and the ruling was more than fair:

"The jury determined that Alexander was entitled to $3,750 in damages. It also determined that since none of the game’s profits came as a direct result of her tattoos being included, she wasn’t entitled to any further compensation."

[Rainbowcookie]

That is nothing to be honest. It does make it harder for authentic Orton to be included in wrestling games in the future. She will probably try to to push for more. I wonder how the amount was worked out.

[Bobertt]

She won't get more because they ruled even though they included the tattoo in the game they didn't profit off it because no one bought the game just because of her tattoo. The $3750 is for using it without having the rights to it.

[P_Bomb]

Ridiculous. Especially if she spent more on legal fees.

[andy85]

Any decent tattoo artist wouldn't replicate a design anyway so why does it matter? It's his body 😂 this is a poor ruling because now it opens the can of worms of every famous person in games having to be edited or some tattooist will sue.

[MrBaskerville]

But could also result in companies having to pay artists for using their work, which is a good thing. It's unusual, but why should a tattoo have less worth than a painting, song or a logo?

[Adrian_v01]

Getting a tattoo is usually expensive. I'd argue the person paying for the tattoo to be made on his body is owner of all rights for said tattoo.

[RauLeCreuset]

"It's unusual, but why should a tattoo have less worth than a painting, song or a logo?"

It's not about having more or less worth. Rights don't exist in isolation and are balanced against other rights in a society. This is why death threats can get you locked up despite being a form of speech.

The decision here gives undue consideration to the artist's copyright, with the implication being that it should trump Orton's right to his own likeness*. The very act of tattooing someone inherently relinquishes control over how that particular copy of the art is displayed. Rather than recognize this, the decision goes against precedent to suggest receiving a tattoo effectively transfers the rights to one's image to the tattoo artist or copyright owner of the tattoo.

*I'm assuming Orton gave permission for his likeness to be used in the games. The article didn't state otherwise.

[monkey602]

Oh no! This leads us down a very bad path

[jwillj2k4]

Oh cool, now just wait for clothing companies to start suing anyone that fashions their product for any type of entertainment purpose even if the brand isnt visible to the audience. And why stop there? Who cut your hair? What brand of toothpaste did you use before showing those pearly yellows? Let’s just sue everyone for displaying products to the public.

[FPS_D3TH]

This is a really odd ruling. So does that mean she has part ownership of Randy Ortons body then since she needs to be compensated any time he decides he wants to participate in anything using his likeness? I feel like it should be pretty easy to determine that Orton paid the artist for this design so she’s already been compensated and that he is the rightful owner. Unless of course getting a tattoo now means the tattoo owner has a stake in whatever and whenever your likeness is used. Sounds pretty damn ridiculous

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

The Tattoos are part of a Wrestler’s likeness. A tattoo artist can’t claim the image of person who has consented to their likeness being used in a game.

[Dragonopolis]

So now a tattoo artist owns the body of sports star or actor ???? This ruling only hurts the tattoo industry not help it. Now actors and sport stars hell even musicians will need to pause before getting a a tattoo because now they need the get the artist permission to visual display their bodies on media?

If the tattoo artist wants full controll of their art then stop putting it on people and place it on their own bodies or their own canvas

[gerbintosh]

Correct me if I am wrong but people pay tattoo artists to put an image on their body. If it is a unique image, created for that person, then wouldnt the person being tattoed own the copyright since they are paying?

[Inverno]

Part of me wants to laugh at 2k cause screw Take Two, but this is some next level legal mumbo jumbo stupidity.

[Krimmson]

Reminds me of when a tattoo artist sued THQ over Carlos Condit's tattoo in UFC Undisputed 3. He won $22,500.

https://bleacherreport.com/...

[rlow1]

This is different than an art piece because it’s on a human body. This person paid the artist for the tattoo and he or anyone else should be able to do anything they want with it. It’s services rendered.

It’s like saying you can’t own your own skin. Was their an agreement between the two saying if the tattoos were in any kind of media that ownership belonged to the Artist. By that logic, any photo taken of said person, that a royalty should be paid. So is the person tattooed liable to the day they die? A hostage to someone else, that you don’t own your skin?

Ridiculous ruling and honestly the most stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. Hope he repeals on principle, because this crap is getting out hand.