Watch NBA greats Scottie Pippen and Robert Horry hit the virtual court, while the Lopez Brothers (Brook and Robin) settle their brotherly differences on the consoles. Jadakiss and Busta Rhymes performances, too? Here's a quick recap of the madness that ensued at 2K's launch party.
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.
EA Sports doesn’t seem too concerned about 2K getting the rights to an NFL game of their own.
As everyone anticipates the release of Madden 22, we’re also waiting for news on another football game that is on the way. 2K Games, the developers of the dormant but never forgotten NFL 2K franchise, have their own NFL game on the way. Announced back in 2020, 2K has been working on an arcade-style football game with the NFL license. When it releases it will be the first game to use the NFL license not developed by EA since ESPN NFL 2K5.
You know what would be even better? Do I really have to say it? Don't even get me started.
Of course EA aren't concerned publicly. Give up the license so that others can make a game and see if that lack of concern still applies. They say more football games are good for the industry. But they are the very reason there's a lack of them.
I haven't bought a simulation football game since NFL 2K5 which I still have on the OG Xbox. That should give clues on what I think of EA, the NFL and the license. And, I'll never buy a game just because it's the only one on the market undeserving of purchase. Playing an arcade game I'm hoping will be good will never make me go out and buy Madden. And that's being nice about it.
I'd like to see Sega start making sports games again. I hate EA to the core and I refuse to support them unless it's a title I care about which is really rare.
EA spent 1.5Billon$$$ to keep the NFL License Sim to them for anther 5years. This is just EA saying There new game is to arcadey to compete with us.
blitz was always more fun than madden, so here's hoping sega can pull off making a fun game
im a 10000 years old and forgot about that, despite working with people from sega currently.
