“copyright law in the US is pretty fucked up. “

I could literally take your position at the end and say “not getting paid fairlyshould just be an expected reality with being a game developer.” See how shitty that sounds?

is she though? I was aware Randy Orton had sleeve tattoos, I wasn’t aware she was the one who did them (nor that she was apparently both the artist for his tribal one that was on his arm, and used for his trunks at one point and I imagine shirts, as well as the full sleeves). There isn’t attribution given to where he…

most of the things that we purchase are exclusively for our personal use

Having an opinion that’s different from yours isn’t being dismissive.

I don’t think people aren’t saying it’s not an issue.  Clearly as this lawsuit shows it is an issue people are having to deal with.  I think most are saying it shouldn’t be an issue and is a problem the US legal/copyright system. If you put a tattoo on someone it is now a part of their likeness. The artist should…

I also wonder if this is like having a graphic designer make you a logo or some other artist commission? Like, if I pay someone on Fiverr to make me a logo, I blow up online and keep using said logo, now I’m profiting from that imagery or at least that’s part of my brand, and my brand is what I’m profiting from. So do…

I think it’s a bit different when it comes to tattoos.

I’m usually on the side of artists, but this is ridiculous. IMO once you’ve put an image on to another person’s body, even if it’s your own face, you’ve lost all rights to that image. It now belongs to the person getting the tattoo.

If you’re an artist who has inscribed your work onto another human, and that human gives rights to their likeness, that should include those tattoos as long as they are used within the scope of that likeness.

The tattoos are part of his likeness - literally embedded in his skin - so I find it very hard to believe the artist should have any say in their reproduction as long as it is part of a representation of Randy Orton.

While true, that isn’t direct profit and only works if the game somehow points people to the tattoo artist, which I doubt they’re doing.

Agreed, it all comes down to contracts. Tattoos are weird like that. “Oh, so you commissioned this custom art piece, I reproduced the artwork *on your skin* thereby giving you a license to freely display it, but I still own the work.” Like, what? I know they removed CM Punk’s Pepsi tattoo in the games and figures…

no, but you still own your arm or leg and can have it reproduced. If this stupid lawsuit goes through then every single advertiser using models with a tattoo will be sued, every sports image, every game image. Sorry , body art falls into fair use.

Tattoo art is in a weird space though since it cannot really be copied. That art is unique to the body it was drawn on, you can put the same design on someone else and it will look entirely different.

But that also begs the question of does Take Two profit off those images? Has anyone ever bought a copy of the game SPECIFICALLY because the tattoos existed, or where those tats were a large contributing factor to their purchase decision?

Small difference: you aren’t profiting from displaying the work. Take Two profits from those images being sold as part of the game.

Yeah, US copyright law is something else. The fact that this is also true for wedding photos is similarly nuts - the idea that a person might not legally have the rights to reproduce and distribute pictures (that they paid to have taken) from their own wedding is insane to me.

So here’s a question... If I buy artwork from an artist... Am I not allowed to display that art? To take pictures of the room with the art in question without the artist’s permission? If I am, then why should tattoos be any different? ... The alternative is that this dude cannot take any photographs of himself without…

Your language, to some, is just as egregious as what they’re saying