Tattoo Artist Sues THQ for Copyright Infringement

[Fanghawk]

Tattoo Artist Sues THQ for Copyright Infringement

A digital tattoo on Carlos Condit's midriff in UFC Undisputed 3 has sparked a lawsuit against THQ.

When dealing with copyright infringement, it's worth noting that <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118884-EA-Sues-Zynga-for-Copying-The-Sims-Social>the outright copying of an entire game isn't required to attract lawsuits. Sometimes, the accidental misuse of art assets is enough to get the ball rolling, as THQ recently discovered. Arizona-based tattoo artist Chris Escobedo is claiming that an "exact replica" of his work, a tattoo of a lion specifically, appears on the digital likeness of Carlos Condit in THQ's UFC Undisputed 3. Since the tattoo is prominently displayed on Condit's midriff, Escobedo is asking the courts for all profits associated with the tattoo's use as well as damages.

"People often believe that they own the images that are tattooed on them by tattoo artists," Condit's lawyer stated. "In reality, the owner of the tattoo artwork is the creator of the work, unless there is a written assignment of the copyright in the tattoo art."

It's reasonable to assume that if copyright infringement has occurred, it probably wasn't intentional on THQ's part. Condit clearly carries the offending tattoo with him at all times and displays it publicly during non-digital martial arts competitions. The larger problem is that unless Condit had some kind of license agreement with Escobedo, many displays of the tattoo fall into a legal grey area. Condit's digital incorporation into UFC Undisputed 3 just complicates an already tricky issue.

This isn't the first time that the unauthorized copying of body art prompted a lawsuit either. Last year, Mike Tyson's tattoo artist sued Warner Bros for displaying Tyson's iconic tattoo on Ed Helm's face in The Hangover 2. Considering the number of tattoo-bearing actors and celebrities in the world today, it's unlikely this lawsuitwill be the last time that the issue goes to court.

Source: <a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-20/apple-ravensburger-general-mills-intellectual-property.html>Bloomberg, via <a href=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-27-tattooist-sues-thq-for-replicating-ufc-fighters-ink-without-permission>Eurogamer

Permalink

 

[Something Amyss]

The larger problem is that unless Condit had some kind of license agreement with Escobedo, many displays of the tattoo fall into a legal grey area.

I wouldn't say many. Maybe a couple.

 

[Xukog]

Wait...Why exactly is this worth suing over? The guy has a tattoo on him,so they have it in the game. What exactly is the problem here?

 

[Uratoh]

Wait...Why exactly is this worth suing over? The guy has a tattoo on him,so they have it in the game. What exactly is the problem here?

Escobedo and his attorney argue that since he has no agreement stating that Condit owns the image Escobedo tattooed on his midriff, the tattoo artist technically owns the image, and must be consulted/compensated for its display use.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

I imagine this is probably the sort of case that will end up being settled out of court, but I really am curious how much

all profits associated with the tattoo's use

would be determined to be.

 

[Xukog]

Wait...Why exactly is this worth suing over? The guy has a tattoo on him,so they have it in the game. What exactly is the problem here?

Escobedo and his attorney argue that since he has no agreement stating that Condit owns the image Escobedo tattooed on his midriff, the tattoo artist technically owns the image, and must be consulted/compensated for its display use.

I get it,still sounds like just another pointless cash grab.Besides,what profits would be gained from the tattoo anyway,don't think anyone buys these games to admire tattoos.

 

[Slash2x]

Patch to remove tattoo coming, he will now have a tattoo in the same spot that says "GET BENT"

In other news Tattoo artists REGULARY poach each other?s work, if not the entire tattoo then just parts of it to add into new work. So are we going to see WAVES of tattoo related lawsuits???

 

[snekadid]

This is ridiculous, Condit gave likeness rights to THQ so he could appear in the game, the tattoo is part of that likeness of Condit. This can't fall under copyright law since that specifies that the artist owns part of the persons body because of the image and has rights to it for the existence of the tattoo, which is illegal in America and the civilized world at large much like branding a person is illegal.

The only reason that Hangover 2 was a problem was because his design was used on a person he did not put the design on, which would be a infringement on the actor or on a digital representation of the actor since it is not a part of his "likeness". The artist has no case because he put that image on a living human being, it wasn't some other artist copying his work that tattooed it on Condit, it was him.

 

[Alluos]

Bullshit.
If people can get away with recreating an artist's life's work just because they copied it onto a smaller canvas with slightly off colours, then THQ can get away with recreating a real person's features onto a bunch of polygons.

 

[Avaholic03]

It's stories like this that make me want to round up all the lawyers in the world and shove them into a volcano or something. Seriously, do they not have something better to do? What's next, plastic surgeons suing movies and TV shows for displaying their work? Give me a break.

 

[Dragoon]

This ones a little weird, does that mean any one in a game with a tattoo they did in a game can sue the company? If so that's just stupid. I'd be able to understand is it was a logo or something like CM Punks Pepsi logo tattoo which they replaced in the WWE games but this is just silly.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Silly Artists!
Don't you know that only multi-national corporations can use copyright law to their advantage. And here you are thinking that they can help protect your rights as an artist.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think it's fun that it is possible to copyright a portion of a person's image because a second party had a part in crafting it. A tattoo becomes a reasonably permanent part of a person once added and to declare that the display of such things requires a license agreement seems silly. It's like a surgeon suing a because patient because they display a surgical scar of their creation.

Owning the image and owning the image as a part of a person are two wildly different concepts. The artist might have rights to the tattoo but that tattoo that is a part of a person's body? The only person who has rights to that is the person who's got to carry the damn thing around.

 

[Eleuthera]

THQ (I assume) got the rights to use Escobedo's likeness (from him or his management), so shouldn't the tattoo artist be suing them for selling 'his' art without his permission?

 

[Uratoh]

You know I can almost imagine this going to its logical extreme...

"Tiger hires attorney to sue Escobedo for unlawful use of his image."

also, Eleuthera's avatar is adorable. *feeds it a carrot*

 

[J Tyran]

So go by this logic they can sue the UFC for the TV airing and selling the DVDs of his fights? Seems absurd, how can he claim damages as well? Have his potential customers decided they would much rather gawp at the tattoo in the game rather than have it themselves?

 

[Slycne]

So go by this logic they can sue the UFC for the TV airing and selling the DVDs of his fights?

What it looks like from other cases is that there is an understood agreement between the client and tattoo artist that their work will be filmed, photographed and such, especially when the client is famous.

THQ however recreated the image, which is where the whole thing gets murky.

 

[karloss01]

Wait...Why exactly is this worth suing over? The guy has a tattoo on him,so they have it in the game. What exactly is the problem here?

Escobedo and his attorney argue that since he has no agreement stating that Condit owns the image Escobedo tattooed on his midriff, the tattoo artist technically owns the image, and must be consulted/compensated for its display use.

I would argue that the artist has to sue every form of media this Carlos Condit has had his midriff shown. otherwise it is a blatant cash grab.