UnderGround Forum >> Tattoo artist suing THQ over UFC Undisputed

frederic - 

dxgnr8 - Why doesn't he try to sue the UFC as well? After all, they are publicly broadcasting "his" image to potentially millions of people without obtaining his permission!

Holy shit, I hope this doesn't give him any ideas and he goes through with it and wins, wouldn't that be ironic for Dana after cracking down on Internet piracy!

UFC contract states that they own all likeness of the fighter for promotional purposes (such as a poster or video game). Tattoos and all.

Sam9104 - 

frederic - 

dxgnr8 - Why doesn't he try to sue the UFC as well? After all, they are publicly broadcasting "his" image to potentially millions of people without obtaining his permission!

Holy shit, I hope this doesn't give him any ideas and he goes through with it and wins, wouldn't that be ironic for Dana after cracking down on Internet piracy!

UFC contract states that they own all likeness of the fighter for promotional purposes (such as a poster or video game). Tattoos and all.

The problem, I suppose, is that the fighter themselves will not own the tatto and therefore can't give the rights to the UFC.

Wtf? I althought thought it was Jabba the hut (Seriously)

thatsme - It isn't a frivolous lawsuit. You guys have been brainwashed by corporate loving Republicans.

Believe you me, they will quickly take your ass to court if you tried to publish music sing a song that BMG owned or publish a comic book character that Marvel Comics owned.

So you are saying that it frivolous for him to sue those guys for publishing work that he owns?

I'm sorry but its ridiculous that he is suing over something that is on someone else's body. Regardless of whether or not he put it there. 

Jump Kick -  Same people who were bitching about napster being shut down. It's a pretty strait forward concept in copyright law that the artist owns rights to his original creative work of art.

yellow wrkahlc -

Jump Kick -  Same people who were bitching about napster being shut down. It's a pretty strait forward concept in copyright law that the artist owns rights to his original creative work of art.

No and no. This isn't like Napster at all. He didn't copyright the tattoo when he originally drew it and placed it on Condit's body. He did AFTER the fact the he saw he could make some money. Anyone can see he's only doing it to cash in, or at least attempt to do so. The judge will hopefully see that, and tell this guy to start having his clients sign contracts SAYING they can't sign over the likeness before Escobedo even places thw artwork on their body. It's only fair.

Jump Kick - 

yellow wrkahlc -

Jump Kick -  Same people who were bitching about napster being shut down. It's a pretty strait forward concept in copyright law that the artist owns rights to his original creative work of art.

No and no. This isn't like Napster at all. He didn't copyright the tattoo when he originally drew it and placed it on Condit's body. He did AFTER the fact the he saw he could make some money. Anyone can see he's only doing it to cash in, or at least attempt to do so. The judge will hopefully see that, and tell this guy to start having his clients sign contracts SAYING they can't sign over the likeness before Escobedo even places thw artwork on their body. It's only fair.

You don't know the first thing about copyright law. Copyright was established the moment the artist affixed his original work of art on Conduit's body.

But it seems to me the VAST majority of people consider a tattoo a work for hire--not a commissioned art work.  The reasonable expectation of the parties should factor into the analysis. 

If the tattoo "artist" is taking this position--which seems to me contrary to the understanding of the vast majority, he should be required to get a written contract. 

I understand that the law might shift the burden to the recipient--but in this context, do not agree with that shift.

Macedawgg - 

Jump Kick - 

yellow wrkahlc -

Jump Kick -  Same people who were bitching about napster being shut down. It's a pretty strait forward concept in copyright law that the artist owns rights to his original creative work of art.

No and no. This isn't like Napster at all. He didn't copyright the tattoo when he originally drew it and placed it on Condit's body. He did AFTER the fact the he saw he could make some money. Anyone can see he's only doing it to cash in, or at least attempt to do so. The judge will hopefully see that, and tell this guy to start having his clients sign contracts SAYING they can't sign over the likeness before Escobedo even places thw artwork on their body. It's only fair.

You don't know the first thing about copyright law. Copyright was established the moment the artist affixed his original work of art on Conduit's body.

But it seems to me the VAST majority of people consider a tattoo a work for hire--not a commissioned art work.  The reasonable expectation of the parties should factor into the analysis. 

If the tattoo "artist" is taking this position--which seems to me contrary to the understanding of the vast majority, he should be required to get a written contract. 

I understand that the law might shift the burden to the recipient--but in this context, do not agree with that shift.

Tolstolobic - 

HexRei -

Tolstolobic -  It depends on commercial rights if one can make money of other people's work.

Because Escobero's little tattoo on Carlos' in-game character is going to be selling LOTS of copies of the game, right? Maybe Carlos' hairstylist should be suing too.

Because its in content in their game they sell.

Ah, America.

chaplinshouse - This just in: Usain Bolt files lawsuit vs Condit and Jackson in superior court

Macedawgg - 

Jump Kick - 

yellow wrkahlc -

Jump Kick -  Same people who were bitching about napster being shut down. It's a pretty strait forward concept in copyright law that the artist owns rights to his original creative work of art.

No and no. This isn't like Napster at all. He didn't copyright the tattoo when he originally drew it and placed it on Condit's body. He did AFTER the fact the he saw he could make some money. Anyone can see he's only doing it to cash in, or at least attempt to do so. The judge will hopefully see that, and tell this guy to start having his clients sign contracts SAYING they can't sign over the likeness before Escobedo even places thw artwork on their body. It's only fair.

You don't know the first thing about copyright law. Copyright was established the moment the artist affixed his original work of art on Conduit's body.

But it seems to me the VAST majority of people consider a tattoo a work for hire--not a commissioned art work.  The reasonable expectation of the parties should factor into the analysis. 

If the tattoo "artist" is taking this position--which seems to me contrary to the understanding of the vast majority, he should be required to get a written contract. 

I understand that the law might shift the burden to the recipient--but in this context, do not agree with that shift.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

It doesn't matter what the "vast majority of people consider". It's only a works made for hire if:

(a) it falls within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 above and (b) there is a written agreement between parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

Okay, let's clear this up right.

Does Escobedo have a case?  In some twisted way, yes. It appears his work falls under this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

Condit's skin is considered a tangible medium, so Escobedo's tattoo can be considered copyrighted (I apologize, Jump Kick. You were correct.). 

Here's the thing: the tattoo in question is of a lion. Some of you are probably saying,"So what, Escobedo drew that lion, it's original in that sense." You're right about that, but unfortunately for Escobedo, THQ could easily say the tattoo isn't original enough to be copyrightable.

HOWEVER, it is the court's job to decide whether or not this was considered a work-for-hire. If so, the tattoo artist has no ground for a lawsuit (reason being Condit and Escobedo would both share the rights to the tattoo in question). One specification to this law might not be met (in writing, stating it was a work-for-hire). But, as we all know, the Judge has the final say, so this could very well be irrelevant due to the nature of the case, come court time. The lawsuit would hold ground if the tattoo was reproduced on someone/something OTHER THAN Condit. But, because THQ used Condit's likeness lawfully, they can easily argue that they were well within their rights to reproduce the tattoo since they technically "reproduced" Condit. Because of this, it could very well fall under fair use. Implied licensing was something I had originally thought of in this case, as well. The artist must have known Condit would be appearing frequently in all kinds of media, including video games.

The whole concept of copyrighting a tattoo seems strange and unruly. Sometimes, a tattoo artist DOES have reason for a suit. But in this case, I don't believe Escobedo does. The law can be very gray in cases like this. In all honesty, I'm hoping THQ wins. If Escobedo wins this case, there's no telling what happens next. it could set off a chain reaction for future installments of the UFC series, as well as other video game titles in other sports.

EDIT: I made typos.

yellow wrkahlc - 

As a fellow artist, I can see where he's coming from.

Unfortunately, it's obvious he's just trying to get paid. It's a fucking tattoo. Not a hanging piece of art work in a museum or a clothing line logo.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

 

i bet if they could find the photograph that the tattoo artist copied, theyd be right off the hook. then the photographer could sue the tatoo artist and the video game

thatsme - 

yellow wrkahlc - 

Jump Kick -  Same people who were bitching about napster being shut down. It's a pretty strait forward concept in copyright law that the artist owns rights to his original creative work of art.

No and no. This isn't like Napster at all. He didn't copyright the tattoo when he originally drew it and placed it on Condit's body. He did AFTER the fact the he saw he could make some money. Anyone can see he's only doing it to cash in, or at least attempt to do so. The judge will hopefully see that, and tell this guy to start having his clients sign contracts SAYING they can't sign over the likeness before Escobedo even places thw artwork on their body. It's only fair.

Yes and yes it is. Do you think Marvel Comics wouldn't have your ass in court if you had a website with pictures of Spiderman or the Avengers?

You are goddamn right they would because they sent me a "cease and desist" letter unless I got their permission post pictures of any of their characters.

Already retracted my statement on the bottom of last page, pally. I wasn't aware tattoos applied in that sense.

thatsme - 

yellow wrkahlc - 

Jump Kick -  Same people who were bitching about napster being shut down. It's a pretty strait forward concept in copyright law that the artist owns rights to his original creative work of art.

No and no. This isn't like Napster at all. He didn't copyright the tattoo when he originally drew it and placed it on Condit's body. He did AFTER the fact the he saw he could make some money. Anyone can see he's only doing it to cash in, or at least attempt to do so. The judge will hopefully see that, and tell this guy to start having his clients sign contracts SAYING they can't sign over the likeness before Escobedo even places thw artwork on their body. It's only fair.

Yes and yes it is. Do you think Marvel Comics wouldn't have your ass in court if you had a website with pictures of Spiderman or the Avengers?

You are goddamn right they would because they sent me a "cease and desist" letter unless I got their permission post pictures of any of their characters.

marvel comics is a money making machine through many decades.  vs..... douchebag tat guy opportunist? lol

and also funny to compare music to tats.  music profit is continual.  tat profits end when the customer pays and should only be contested if someone finds a way to make money off the tat artist's original work which is next to impossible vs music and comics.  for this asshat to succeed in this buillshit lawsuit it would have a major effect on any tats being shown by a company that makes money.  games, movies, tv, magazines, etc etc, even though the tat had NOTHING to do with a cent being passed in said media outlets, after the fact.  NO ONE made a penny off the douchey tattoo EXCEPT the tat artist!  "Wow, I'm gonna go buy that THQ mma game!!"  ---"why, is it badass?"  --"who cares!!! Carlos Condit's lion tattoo is in it!!!!"  ---- "oh SNAP son!!! put me down for one!" lol.