Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
Randy Orton’s Tattoo Artist Sues Take-Two For Using Her Designs In WWE Games
kotaku.com: Take-Two and World Wrestling Entertainment are headed to trial after a judge ruled WWE 2K games copied the work of an artist responsible for some of pro wrestler Randy Orton’s tattoos.
11 comments:
Gabriela Fonseca Luna
said...
There is no way to properly handle creative rights, simply because of the nature that it is so reliant on not only the design itself but the artist and how much they would like to safeguard. I don’t think there is a certain right way to go about it, but I do think they should listen to the artist. As a business, it makes sense for their desire to capitalize on the faces of it. I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but in this case, it is about protecting the artist’s rights as the creator. In my opinion – and again, I do not think this can be standardized but going off of what the article described – I think it’s fine that they added it in the videogame. As long as the artist was credited in the end and had some say as to how that was portrayed in the game. Regarding the sleeve, however, I do see why the upheaval. That is the WWE directly capitalizing on a work that is not theirs to sell. Either way, I hope that the outcome is favorable to the artist since they are the most affected.
My roommates lately turned into this huge WWE fan and watches it all the time and buys the merchandise and stuff, so this article hits close to home. I weirdly enough don't know if the tattoo artist has that big of a case here. Look, I think that she saw that she has really cool art and being paid to see it in different places would be a good paycheck for her. The fact of the matter is, how different is it from getting a tattoo then going to model, does the tattoo artist get a share of the profits that you make by taking a picture of your body? Yes, it's complicated because technically the tattoo was reproduced by other artists to put into this video game but once you put your art on someone else's body, its their body, and their skin. I think having some more comprehensive laws in place regarding body art and copyright would be pretty helpful because I have a hard time believing the artist in this case.
This is a fun article because it is something I never saw coming- a tattoo artist wants a portion of sales because her tattoo design, inked on WWE wrestler Randy Orton, are included on his character in the new video game. Typically, I would like to argue on the side of the artist and making sure that proper credit is given where credit is due, but this tip toes the line of “Ridiculous” to me. I am of the conclusion that she was fully paid when her tattoo was completed by Randy Orton- at that time, he paid her for her work and for her design and then it became a part of his skin and body. Then, it has become a part of his image and he is no longer indebted to her. How ridiculous would it be for Ruby Rose to have to pay all of her tattoo artists after she is featured in a magazine or TV role? Should I tag my tattoo artists in every Instagram photo I post for the rest of my life? It seems like a sad attempt at a cash grab, given that there are hundreds of tattoo artists who have tattoos displayed in movies, magazines and video games like Madden. If I was a tattoo artist, I would be delighted to see it in the game, and not feel that I somehow need to be compensated again for something that I have already produced. If the video game had asked her for a copy of the design to help them render Randy, I would understand, but that is not the case.
While I do feel the line between an artist suing a live actor for showing their tattoos in a movie is a bit fuzzy, I agree with the artist here that they should have absolutely compensated her for using her design in a video game. The line I think that is crossed here is that a live actor/wrestler/model’s tattoo is already drawn and permanent, while a video game character has to have the design drawn by someone who is not the artist. Someone who is not the artist drawing the tattoo, to me, feels and sounds like some type of plagiarism and blatant lack of respect for the original artist. I personally believe that when someone gets a tattoo on them it becomes a part of their body, not belonging to anyone but themselves. If that person were to be in a movie and the tattoos was showing a designer could not be compensated for their design again because they were already compensated for the design by the actor themselves. However, since a live actor cannot be in a video game and has to be reproduced/drawn, their tattoos are no longer a part of their body but a design that belongs to the artist. This is my personal opinion, but I am extremely open to hear any tattoo artists’ opinions on the matter.
Yeah, usually I am all for supporting the artist. I agree that maybe Catherine Alexander should be credited for the tattoo designs. But paid? I am not too sure about that. Catherine is not losing money of the design being replicated in the game. I do not think Take-Two is making money BECAUSE of the tattoo art. Rather, they are making money because Randy Orton sold his likeness. Take-Two is making money because of that. The likeness happens to include these designs. Again, I do think Catherine Alexander should be credited. I have a feeling that there probably will be a compromise somewhere where she is given a credit and maybe some money for sales. To me, this lawsuit just seems silly. I wonder if tattoo artists who work on models feel the same way that Catherine does? I would be very interested in reading more opinion pieces from both sides.
OOF. People are SO quick to forget that art and the creative rights to that art always belongs to the artist, regardless of its medium. This is such a niche case. I have seen so many online discussions regarding the culture of copying tattoos, all debating the ethics of this for person-to-person art translation. People seem to think that because they liked someone’s tattoo, they can just get the same one for themselves from a different artist. What they fail to realize is that these tattoos were procured and often designed by artists who were compensated a LOT of money for that particular design. What makes this case interesting is that it brings this discussion to something so much more tangible. There is so much concrete evidence someone could go after here to receive proper credit and compensation, whereas in person-to-person scenarios this is virtually impossible. I hope that the artist wins this case and helps add to a precedent of respecting creative licences in all art forms.
I used to play the wrestling video game Smackdown VS RAW 2010 where they had characters like The Rock who had body art and other various tattoos, so I have to say I am on the side of the tattoo artist all the way. The art, although shown on Randy Orton’s body, is still Catherine Alexander’s artistic property. The fact that Alexander has already dealt with a similar situation once before and was brushed off really annoys me. They did not take her creative rights seriously until she finally took them to court, which is not how WWE and Take-Two should have handled that. I am hopeful that she will get compensated for this whole ordeal, but I cannot say that I am not pessimistic. Considering that Lebron James’ tattoo artist failed in receiving money for practically the same circumstance, I am unsure whether or not Alexander will have a similar end result.
I have read a lot recently about who owns a tattoo, especially as tattoo artists are advertising themselves and their art on social media, giving anyone that can get onto Instagram access to the images of those tattoos. From there, that image can simply be brought to another tattoo artist and replicated. I think this case has a lot of questions to unpack within it, including does the tattoo artist or the person who wears that tattoo actually own that tattoo and art. When Randy Orton gave permission for his likeness to be used in the video games, he gave permission for all of him to be recreated, so in my opinion the question within this case is more about if Randy Orton had permission to give access to his tattoos. If they are part of him, then does he have the right to say to recreate them, or should that be decided by Catherine Alexander?
Personally, I have never been an avid gamer, however, I have found myself locked in on WWE matches in sports bars and at friends' houses from time to time. With this little background knowledge about the industry, I also am very aware of the performative nature of WWE and how many people call them out for being “fake wrestling.” So many WWE fighters are marketed for their likeness and I never considered how replicating tattoos for a video game may be considered stealing if the tattoo artist that created the designs in real life did not grant permission to the game developer. Creative rights are something that is guaranteed to creators however, it has always been a very murky process to claim that creative rights have been violated. In this case, Randy Ortons has some iconic tattoos on his body, and this body has been licensed to WWE, how much ownership does his tattoo artist still have since he has licensed himself for profit. I will be interested in seeing if this lawsuit actually gets off the ground or if WWE will just push a settlement.
I've found these articles on artistic infringement to be really fascinating. It really begs the question of in this digital age, at what point does an artist lose ownership of their work, if ever? Every case that is presented also seems to be very convoluted too. In this case, the artwork switched hands so many times. First from Catherine Alexander to Orton when they were put on his body, then to WWE, then to Take-Two, who finally used that artwork - or at least a recreation of it - into their games. It also asks about personal branding, as the artwork that Alexander was presumably compensated for initially by Orton then became part of his image as a pro wrestler. Are the tattoos now Orton's property, since he paid for them, or do they still belong to Alexander, with Orton's payment merely being a fee for wearing that artwork on his body? The second scenario would be my guess, but I'm no legal expert. I will say that the fact that a judge ruled that Alexander's tattoos were recreated in the games seems to be a good sign for her case. Given that the previous example of this situation was shot down due to the tattoos being "too hard to make out", the fact that the judge clearly ruled that it could be seen that the tattoos were visibly recreated means that her case may yield actual results, which would be a win not only for her, but also for other artists facing similar infringement issues with celebrities and media companies.
Intellectual property rights aren’t a very linear or straightforward thing most of the time, and this case is an example of it. I don’t think designers are often given enough credit or compensation for the work that they do and the tattoo artist has every right to be upset over this. However, like the article states, the question is, does the artist still have some amount of rights over the tattoo design that’s used in the video game? I would say, like some others have mentioned, that since the medium isn’t live and someone had to redraw the tattoo in game, theres some level of plagiarizing happening. Alexander definitely should’ve been notified that this was happening and whether or not she was okay with having them recreate the tattoo exactly or if they needed to change it. But I think it depends really on the contract that’s signed or if there are any laws in place surrounding the issue.
11 comments:
There is no way to properly handle creative rights, simply because of the nature that it is so reliant on not only the design itself but the artist and how much they would like to safeguard. I don’t think there is a certain right way to go about it, but I do think they should listen to the artist. As a business, it makes sense for their desire to capitalize on the faces of it. I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but in this case, it is about protecting the artist’s rights as the creator. In my opinion – and again, I do not think this can be standardized but going off of what the article described – I think it’s fine that they added it in the videogame. As long as the artist was credited in the end and had some say as to how that was portrayed in the game. Regarding the sleeve, however, I do see why the upheaval. That is the WWE directly capitalizing on a work that is not theirs to sell. Either way, I hope that the outcome is favorable to the artist since they are the most affected.
My roommates lately turned into this huge WWE fan and watches it all the time and buys the merchandise and stuff, so this article hits close to home. I weirdly enough don't know if the tattoo artist has that big of a case here. Look, I think that she saw that she has really cool art and being paid to see it in different places would be a good paycheck for her. The fact of the matter is, how different is it from getting a tattoo then going to model, does the tattoo artist get a share of the profits that you make by taking a picture of your body? Yes, it's complicated because technically the tattoo was reproduced by other artists to put into this video game but once you put your art on someone else's body, its their body, and their skin. I think having some more comprehensive laws in place regarding body art and copyright would be pretty helpful because I have a hard time believing the artist in this case.
This is a fun article because it is something I never saw coming- a tattoo artist wants a portion of sales because her tattoo design, inked on WWE wrestler Randy Orton, are included on his character in the new video game. Typically, I would like to argue on the side of the artist and making sure that proper credit is given where credit is due, but this tip toes the line of “Ridiculous” to me. I am of the conclusion that she was fully paid when her tattoo was completed by Randy Orton- at that time, he paid her for her work and for her design and then it became a part of his skin and body. Then, it has become a part of his image and he is no longer indebted to her. How ridiculous would it be for Ruby Rose to have to pay all of her tattoo artists after she is featured in a magazine or TV role? Should I tag my tattoo artists in every Instagram photo I post for the rest of my life? It seems like a sad attempt at a cash grab, given that there are hundreds of tattoo artists who have tattoos displayed in movies, magazines and video games like Madden. If I was a tattoo artist, I would be delighted to see it in the game, and not feel that I somehow need to be compensated again for something that I have already produced. If the video game had asked her for a copy of the design to help them render Randy, I would understand, but that is not the case.
While I do feel the line between an artist suing a live actor for showing their tattoos in a movie is a bit fuzzy, I agree with the artist here that they should have absolutely compensated her for using her design in a video game. The line I think that is crossed here is that a live actor/wrestler/model’s tattoo is already drawn and permanent, while a video game character has to have the design drawn by someone who is not the artist. Someone who is not the artist drawing the tattoo, to me, feels and sounds like some type of plagiarism and blatant lack of respect for the original artist. I personally believe that when someone gets a tattoo on them it becomes a part of their body, not belonging to anyone but themselves. If that person were to be in a movie and the tattoos was showing a designer could not be compensated for their design again because they were already compensated for the design by the actor themselves. However, since a live actor cannot be in a video game and has to be reproduced/drawn, their tattoos are no longer a part of their body but a design that belongs to the artist. This is my personal opinion, but I am extremely open to hear any tattoo artists’ opinions on the matter.
Yeah, usually I am all for supporting the artist. I agree that maybe Catherine Alexander should be credited for the tattoo designs. But paid? I am not too sure about that. Catherine is not losing money of the design being replicated in the game. I do not think Take-Two is making money BECAUSE of the tattoo art. Rather, they are making money because Randy Orton sold his likeness. Take-Two is making money because of that. The likeness happens to include these designs. Again, I do think Catherine Alexander should be credited. I have a feeling that there probably will be a compromise somewhere where she is given a credit and maybe some money for sales. To me, this lawsuit just seems silly. I wonder if tattoo artists who work on models feel the same way that Catherine does? I would be very interested in reading more opinion pieces from both sides.
OOF. People are SO quick to forget that art and the creative rights to that art always belongs to the artist, regardless of its medium. This is such a niche case. I have seen so many online discussions regarding the culture of copying tattoos, all debating the ethics of this for person-to-person art translation. People seem to think that because they liked someone’s tattoo, they can just get the same one for themselves from a different artist. What they fail to realize is that these tattoos were procured and often designed by artists who were compensated a LOT of money for that particular design. What makes this case interesting is that it brings this discussion to something so much more tangible. There is so much concrete evidence someone could go after here to receive proper credit and compensation, whereas in person-to-person scenarios this is virtually impossible. I hope that the artist wins this case and helps add to a precedent of respecting creative licences in all art forms.
I used to play the wrestling video game Smackdown VS RAW 2010 where they had characters like The Rock who had body art and other various tattoos, so I have to say I am on the side of the tattoo artist all the way. The art, although shown on Randy Orton’s body, is still Catherine Alexander’s artistic property. The fact that Alexander has already dealt with a similar situation once before and was brushed off really annoys me. They did not take her creative rights seriously until she finally took them to court, which is not how WWE and Take-Two should have handled that. I am hopeful that she will get compensated for this whole ordeal, but I cannot say that I am not pessimistic. Considering that Lebron James’ tattoo artist failed in receiving money for practically the same circumstance, I am unsure whether or not Alexander will have a similar end result.
I have read a lot recently about who owns a tattoo, especially as tattoo artists are advertising themselves and their art on social media, giving anyone that can get onto Instagram access to the images of those tattoos. From there, that image can simply be brought to another tattoo artist and replicated. I think this case has a lot of questions to unpack within it, including does the tattoo artist or the person who wears that tattoo actually own that tattoo and art. When Randy Orton gave permission for his likeness to be used in the video games, he gave permission for all of him to be recreated, so in my opinion the question within this case is more about if Randy Orton had permission to give access to his tattoos. If they are part of him, then does he have the right to say to recreate them, or should that be decided by Catherine Alexander?
Personally, I have never been an avid gamer, however, I have found myself locked in on WWE matches in sports bars and at friends' houses from time to time. With this little background knowledge about the industry, I also am very aware of the performative nature of WWE and how many people call them out for being “fake wrestling.” So many WWE fighters are marketed for their likeness and I never considered how replicating tattoos for a video game may be considered stealing if the tattoo artist that created the designs in real life did not grant permission to the game developer. Creative rights are something that is guaranteed to creators however, it has always been a very murky process to claim that creative rights have been violated. In this case, Randy Ortons has some iconic tattoos on his body, and this body has been licensed to WWE, how much ownership does his tattoo artist still have since he has licensed himself for profit. I will be interested in seeing if this lawsuit actually gets off the ground or if WWE will just push a settlement.
I've found these articles on artistic infringement to be really fascinating. It really begs the question of in this digital age, at what point does an artist lose ownership of their work, if ever? Every case that is presented also seems to be very convoluted too. In this case, the artwork switched hands so many times. First from Catherine Alexander to Orton when they were put on his body, then to WWE, then to Take-Two, who finally used that artwork - or at least a recreation of it - into their games. It also asks about personal branding, as the artwork that Alexander was presumably compensated for initially by Orton then became part of his image as a pro wrestler. Are the tattoos now Orton's property, since he paid for them, or do they still belong to Alexander, with Orton's payment merely being a fee for wearing that artwork on his body? The second scenario would be my guess, but I'm no legal expert. I will say that the fact that a judge ruled that Alexander's tattoos were recreated in the games seems to be a good sign for her case. Given that the previous example of this situation was shot down due to the tattoos being "too hard to make out", the fact that the judge clearly ruled that it could be seen that the tattoos were visibly recreated means that her case may yield actual results, which would be a win not only for her, but also for other artists facing similar infringement issues with celebrities and media companies.
Intellectual property rights aren’t a very linear or straightforward thing most of the time, and this case is an example of it. I don’t think designers are often given enough credit or compensation for the work that they do and the tattoo artist has every right to be upset over this. However, like the article states, the question is, does the artist still have some amount of rights over the tattoo design that’s used in the video game? I would say, like some others have mentioned, that since the medium isn’t live and someone had to redraw the tattoo in game, theres some level of plagiarizing happening. Alexander definitely should’ve been notified that this was happening and whether or not she was okay with having them recreate the tattoo exactly or if they needed to change it. But I think it depends really on the contract that’s signed or if there are any laws in place surrounding the issue.
Post a Comment