from the not-worth-it dept
Going all the best way again to 2020, we’ve been discussing one among a sequence of copyright disputes centered on video video games and their devoted depictions of real-life tattoos inside them. Whereas the primary of those had been associated to depictions of NBA players in Take-Two’s NBA2K sequence, which the corporate usually efficiently defended, one outlier was for Take-Two’s WWE 2K sequence, by which it faithfully reproduced the tattoos on Randy Orton, a wrestler. That case went to trial, by which the jury ultimately found for the tattoo artist, Catherine Alexander. Nonetheless, the trial that took roughly 2 years and who is aware of how a lot in authorized charges to conduct in the end resulted within the jury awarding Alexander damages within the quantity of $3,750. How on this planet might that probably be value all this hassle?
Hassle that extends far past a four-figure harm sum, too. In any case, the true harm in all of that is the precedent it units. The concept somebody receiving a tattoo, artistic endeavor although it might be, would possibly abruptly lose some rights over the depiction of their very own picture and likeness is absurd. Absurd and, frankly, very problematic in terms of what is actually a play at possession over a portion of an individual’s physique.
So, when Take-Two petitioned the courtroom for movement for judgment as a matter of legislation, arguing each that the jury erred in contemplating its honest use protection and that the jury’s harm award, paltry although it is perhaps, was based mostly on undue hypothesis, I had hoped that the precedent is perhaps reversed.
It was not. The courtroom has as a substitute discovered, largely as a result of limits on what it was allowed to think about, that the jury was cheap in its discovering that Take-Two had indeed infringed upon Alexander’s copyright rights. Then again, the courtroom additionally discovered that Alexander and her witnesses offered no proof of precise or potential financial harm, and so the damages within the case have been nullified to zero.
“Alexander offered no proof at trial that will help the jury’s damages award. There was no proof of both a hypothetical misplaced license price or the worth of the infringing use to the infringer. Alexander’s knowledgeable, Dr. Jose Zagal testified that he believed a portion of the gross sales and income of the video video games had been attributable to the 5 tattoos as a result of Defendants wanted Orton as a personality in his recreation and he wanted to have his tattoos. Nonetheless, Dr. Zagal didn’t conduct an evaluation of how a lot the video video games’ gross sales or income had been attributable to the tattoos. Ryan Clark, Alexander’s knowledgeable, additionally provided no opinion concerning damages. Additional, Alexander testified that she has by no means licensed a tattoo to be used in any medium, and that she couldn’t determine any enterprise or purchasers that she misplaced as a result of Orton’s tattoos.”
As Eric Goldman rightly notes, that is no explanation for celebration. Whereas it’s a bit humorous that it took 4 years value of a authorized battle to get all the best way to a judgment that each finds that Take-Two infringed on Alexander’s copyrights however awards her exactly zero in damages, this judgment additionally additional solidifies the notion that depicting a well-known one that has tattoos is someway infringement.
All the questions round a tattooed individual’s private autonomy stay because of this.
Filed Below: catherine alexander, copyright, damages, randy orton, tattoos
Corporations: take two interactive
Source link
