A look at the mobile game of WWE's first wrestling simulation. The controls is the main issue with the game but lacks in several other ways.
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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
KeenGamer: "Who is the king of the WWE 2K ring? Let's find out by ranking the series from worst to best. With the upcoming WWE 2K22 recently being delayed to March 2022, it's a good time to reflect on previous entries. Ever since Take-Two acquired the license from THQ in 2013, the champion of wrestling genres has endured many highs and lows over the past few years."
From GI.biz: "Tattoo artist Catherine Alexander has filed a complaint against Take-Two over the use of her designs in the WWE 2K series, and the case will be going to court.
Alexander was challenging the use of WWE pro wrestler Randy Orton's six tattoos that she inked, and which have been included in the games without her consent."
The precedent if something like this goes in her favor would be dangerous - imagine having to not just worry about background music in any videos you post to YouTube or wherever, but also if someone can see your tattoo.
But, if labels and musicians can control their music in that way, why can't graphic artists have any say about their work?
This has actually been an issue in the past. A tattoo artist sued THQ for putting his tattoo in their UFC games.
Carlos Condit, a welterweight fighter, has a tattoo of a Lion on his right ribcage. The artist sued THQ and when EA picked up the UFC license, they just left the tattoo out entirely.
only in the usa where a tattoo artist can sue someone (take two) for drawing someone she tattooed on (randy orton). Did she pay randy orton to have her tattoos on his body? Is randy orton her "canvas"?? Does randy orton get any money from her for "advertising" her tattoos? she deserves an rko IMO
Randy paid for the tattoos, they are on his body as his.. she dosnt have a case, she's just greedy
I agree. Since Randy paid for it, it should be up to Orton how he wants his look represented in game, not the artist.
This crap again, it's ridiculous what you can sue for. Iv'e seen this before with another artist not too long ago. It's pretty absurd imo.
Take Two should throw Randy out of the game, Randy won't get paid, Randy sues his tattoo artist for lost income, problem solved.
