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
Friday, October 07, 2022
A St. Louis Jury Just Ordered a Video Game Company to Pay a Tattoo Artist Whose Designs It Copied, Setting a Major Legal Precedent
Artnet News: In a landmark intellectual property case with wide-ranging creative ramifications, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc have been ordered to pay former tattoo artist Catherine Alexander $3,750 in damages by an Illinois district court.
7 comments:
Alex Reinard
said...
This is definitely a landmark case, as the article says. It addresses a topic that has never really crossed my mind, at least in this context. I think that this problem is really unique because of the nature of the art itself. Of course, you can't paint a painting of the Mona Lisa and call it your own, but it's a little more unclear with video games and tattoos. To begin, I would say that a tattoo becomes part of a person's look, or identity. Of course, game designers want to faithfully recreate a person from real life, which would intuitively include tattoos - but that tattoo was still designed by someone else, and is still their art and intellectual property. At the end of the day, though, I'm glad that Illinois ruled in favor of Alexander. I think it's more righteous to support the original artist than the company that copies them.
This is a fascinating case. I thought about it this way - if someone always wore a shirt that had a copyrighted design on it, and then they were animated in that shirt, the media would be copyrighted, because on a shirt or not, it’s a visual reproduction of something copyrighted. So technically, by those same standards, tattoos work the exact same way. Though, considering the ruling that the tattoos weren’t “integral to the games as a whole,” an entire extra layer of deliberation is added. Is one of the selling features of a game having a famous wrestler? If so, are those tattoos essential to his accurate depiction? In that case, those tattoos are technically essential to the game’s presentation, and therefore subject to copyright. And if Kat Von D was sued for a photo-realistic tattoo, is it because she was an influencer? If you were to get the same tattoo and you weren’t famous, would you still be persecuted if someone found out?
This is a complicated matter. I see both sides and do not see anyone “winning” this situation. Tattoo artists deserve recognition and compensation for their art being used but media companies need to be able to create accurate art affordably. Will professional photographs be required to pay for the use of the image of the tattoos on those that have them? It sets a weird precedent for how tattoos are acknowledged as separate from the person they are on. However, art is art and tattoos are art that deserves to be properly credited. This then makes me question, will it open the door for plastic surgeons and piercing artists to make the same financial compensation claims as they have altered the appearance of body thus created an image of art of their own making. I do not have an answer, just a hope that artists respect artists and all are able to continue making art.
Talk about a legal Pandora’s box! I think intellectual and artistic property of creators is super important, without a doubt. This case, or series of cases it seems, gets a little… murky, at least to me. Victor brought up a great point about the people depicted in these realistic sports games: where do they come into this picture? I’m sure they get compensation from the game design companies (or should, in all likelihood). However, this is making me ponder about tattoos and their connection to the body they are on, and the person whose body it is. For example, my tattoo is my tattoo. It was drawn by my best friend and done by an artist downtown. I will always credit Mila with the work they did, but I think that there is a distinction to be made between someone’s art being on your body versus, say, buying a painting. Something for me to ponder…
I’m so glad this is not only being talked about now, but precedents are actively being set to protect the work of tattoo artists. This whole thing really frustrates me because first of all WWE definitely knew exactly what they were doing especially since they came in with an initial offer of $450, which I believe is insulting considering how big of a company that is. Additionally, I’m sure that is only a fraction of what the tattoo costs. It just baffles me that some people don’t truly consider tattoos art and it’s very clear by this conversation. I’m curious if the wrestler has any opinions or has weighed in on the discussion at all considering it’s talk about how he is presented. This article also makes me think of all the tattoo designs brought in from pinterest and if there will be more talk of copying tattoos on a more local level.
It’s too bad Alexander had to go through that much trouble because of an oversight by the video game people that they might be infringing on copyright. Artist’s original work being stolen and used by bigger companies without being able to do much is a frequent issue within the original art industry. I think tattoos are seriously “murky” as the article says grey area when it comes to copyright because people get everything under the sun tattooed on them–best example being disney characters. While famous disney characters are used everywhere and cannot be stopped from being put on instagram artists posts and people’s legs as a tattoo, it’s still a copyright issue. With the video game company I think it was on them to realize what they had done and that digital platforms of entertainment should have revised protocol for situations like this when the digital world tries to recreate the real world.
Huh, interesting. This opens broader questions into artistic rights surrounding tattoos and ownership of those designs. If a client pays for a tattoo, wouldn't they then own the design? Unless the artist is in the habit of having their artwork copyrighted... then does a client "lease" the design? What if a fan wants another tattoo artist to ink them with a similar tattoo? It truly is all very "murky", especially when you get into the realm of tattoo artists inking clients with copyrighted images. And would this even be a big deal if the person in question was not a celebrity? I think paying royalties to the original artist is definitely the moral thing to do, and precedent protects future artists, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.
7 comments:
This is definitely a landmark case, as the article says. It addresses a topic that has never really crossed my mind, at least in this context. I think that this problem is really unique because of the nature of the art itself. Of course, you can't paint a painting of the Mona Lisa and call it your own, but it's a little more unclear with video games and tattoos. To begin, I would say that a tattoo becomes part of a person's look, or identity. Of course, game designers want to faithfully recreate a person from real life, which would intuitively include tattoos - but that tattoo was still designed by someone else, and is still their art and intellectual property. At the end of the day, though, I'm glad that Illinois ruled in favor of Alexander. I think it's more righteous to support the original artist than the company that copies them.
This is a fascinating case. I thought about it this way - if someone always wore a shirt that had a copyrighted design on it, and then they were animated in that shirt, the media would be copyrighted, because on a shirt or not, it’s a visual reproduction of something copyrighted. So technically, by those same standards, tattoos work the exact same way. Though, considering the ruling that the tattoos weren’t “integral to the games as a whole,” an entire extra layer of deliberation is added. Is one of the selling features of a game having a famous wrestler? If so, are those tattoos essential to his accurate depiction? In that case, those tattoos are technically essential to the game’s presentation, and therefore subject to copyright. And if Kat Von D was sued for a photo-realistic tattoo, is it because she was an influencer? If you were to get the same tattoo and you weren’t famous, would you still be persecuted if someone found out?
This is a complicated matter. I see both sides and do not see anyone “winning” this situation. Tattoo artists deserve recognition and compensation for their art being used but media companies need to be able to create accurate art affordably. Will professional photographs be required to pay for the use of the image of the tattoos on those that have them? It sets a weird precedent for how tattoos are acknowledged as separate from the person they are on. However, art is art and tattoos are art that deserves to be properly credited. This then makes me question, will it open the door for plastic surgeons and piercing artists to make the same financial compensation claims as they have altered the appearance of body thus created an image of art of their own making. I do not have an answer, just a hope that artists respect artists and all are able to continue making art.
Talk about a legal Pandora’s box! I think intellectual and artistic property of creators is super important, without a doubt. This case, or series of cases it seems, gets a little… murky, at least to me. Victor brought up a great point about the people depicted in these realistic sports games: where do they come into this picture? I’m sure they get compensation from the game design companies (or should, in all likelihood). However, this is making me ponder about tattoos and their connection to the body they are on, and the person whose body it is. For example, my tattoo is my tattoo. It was drawn by my best friend and done by an artist downtown. I will always credit Mila with the work they did, but I think that there is a distinction to be made between someone’s art being on your body versus, say, buying a painting. Something for me to ponder…
I’m so glad this is not only being talked about now, but precedents are actively being set to protect the work of tattoo artists. This whole thing really frustrates me because first of all WWE definitely knew exactly what they were doing especially since they came in with an initial offer of $450, which I believe is insulting considering how big of a company that is. Additionally, I’m sure that is only a fraction of what the tattoo costs. It just baffles me that some people don’t truly consider tattoos art and it’s very clear by this conversation. I’m curious if the wrestler has any opinions or has weighed in on the discussion at all considering it’s talk about how he is presented. This article also makes me think of all the tattoo designs brought in from pinterest and if there will be more talk of copying tattoos on a more local level.
It’s too bad Alexander had to go through that much trouble because of an oversight by the video game people that they might be infringing on copyright. Artist’s original work being stolen and used by bigger companies without being able to do much is a frequent issue within the original art industry. I think tattoos are seriously “murky” as the article says grey area when it comes to copyright because people get everything under the sun tattooed on them–best example being disney characters. While famous disney characters are used everywhere and cannot be stopped from being put on instagram artists posts and people’s legs as a tattoo, it’s still a copyright issue. With the video game company I think it was on them to realize what they had done and that digital platforms of entertainment should have revised protocol for situations like this when the digital world tries to recreate the real world.
Huh, interesting. This opens broader questions into artistic rights surrounding tattoos and ownership of those designs. If a client pays for a tattoo, wouldn't they then own the design? Unless the artist is in the habit of having their artwork copyrighted... then does a client "lease" the design? What if a fan wants another tattoo artist to ink them with a similar tattoo? It truly is all very "murky", especially when you get into the realm of tattoo artists inking clients with copyrighted images. And would this even be a big deal if the person in question was not a celebrity? I think paying royalties to the original artist is definitely the moral thing to do, and precedent protects future artists, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Post a Comment