Racy Serena Williams Commercial Won’t Appear on TV

Yahoo: "A racy video game commercial featuring Serena Williams was shelved by developer 2K Sports after it was deemed too risqué for television.

The 60-second spot for "Top Spin 4" features a scantily-clad Serena playing the new video game against an actress wearing even less clothing. The matchup is billed as "the world's sexiest tennis player" against "the world's sexiest tennis gamer."

Read Full Story >>
MrDead4866d ago

Its a good add for the move, shame its banned. I didn't think it was that racy.

ChrisW4866d ago

LOL! I guess the disagrees mean that "I" should feel something about the commercial getting pulled... or better yet, that "I" should feel something for Serena Williams?

No... I just don't care! Sheesh!!!

ngecenk4866d ago

wtf! theres nothing racy about that! so black folks cant play games with white folks anymore?

Grown Folks Talk4866d ago

Only in states whose names end in Y. Everywhere else is segregated gaming.

DontShoot-Me-Bro4866d ago

Kentucky? Alberkerky or something?

I'm not from U.S so I'm just guessing off the top of my head.

ChrisW4866d ago (Edited 4866d ago )

Albuquerque, New Mexico
(city)- - - - - - - (state)

And "failing so bad" doesn't matter what country your from, because a 4th grader knows how to look up the names of states, provinces, or prefectures of any given country.

Sharingan_no_Kakashi4866d ago

The heck?

I'm not for a bunch of racey stuff but how is this any worse than AXE's ball commercial? Or Kim Kardashian's Super Bowl commercial?

Show all comments (16)

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."

Read Full Story >>
Software_Lover657d ago

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

CobraKai657d ago

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.

roadkillers657d ago

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.

LostinthePANIC657d ago

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."

Rainbowcookie657d ago (Edited 657d ago )

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.

Bobertt657d ago (Edited 657d ago )

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_Bomb657d ago

Ridiculous. Especially if she spent more on legal fees.

andy85657d ago

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.

MrBaskerville657d ago (Edited 657d ago )

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_v01657d ago

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.

RauLeCreuset657d ago

"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.

monkey602657d ago

Oh no! This leads us down a very bad path