5 years ago
9
Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos. That’s a Problem for Video Game Developers.
Sports video games strive for realism by closely replicating real-life players, but digitally reproducing their tattoos has led to court fights over ownership rights.
Continue Reading
https://www.nytimes.com
Join the Discussion
I question how the use of the tattoo's in a game are not covered under fair use, the person they are on is a part of a much larger body of artwork and in theory, that means the tattoos are technically a derivative of the original work because they aren't the focus of the work.
Why is it, that the companies that broadcast games aere allowed to be copying the art in their broadcasts?
Incidental use isn't copyright infringement?
Unless trademarks or TV shows or music appear in a video.
Reckon the judge in the case I linked above disagrees with you. The notion of incidental use is important, as well as a formidable defense against accusations of copyright infringement. Like any form of self-defense, you've gotta have nerve to rely on it. The example that always leaps to my mind is the game series "The Getaway," in which turn of the century Central London is recreated all the way down to a remarkably complete assortment of cars you'd be likely to find in that period and setting. Now guess how many carmakers the developers got licensing from.
All of them?
Zero. Zilch. Nada. Null. Empty set. Bupkis. Nil. Denied. Naught. Nix. None. Nihil. Not any.
I guessed wrong
It sounded like they reasoned the more cars they put in the game the more 'incidental' each was.