MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » Noob Jack City

[Sakara=Excitement]

Carlos Condit's tattoo artist sues THQ for 'stolen' artwork in UFC Undisputed 3 video game - MMAmania.com

You can thank S. Victor Whitmill for setting the precedent.

The world-renowned tattoo artist sued Warner Bros. last year for using the artwork splattered across Mike Tyson's face -- without permission -- for the Hangover II motion picture. Fans of the comedy will remember "Stu" woke up looking like "Iron" Mike after a long night of debauchery in Thailand.

Now, Chris Escobedo is following suit (literally).

The owner of Elite Tattoo claims THQ used his work without permission for its UFC Undisputed 3 video game. Specifically, the lion digitally recreated and featured on UFC welterweight Carlos Condit, who failed to secure written assignment after getting inked.

Prom the law offices of Jaburg|Wilk:

Pay to play.

Condit saw his name in lights earlier this month as one half of the main event at UFC 154 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, where he failed in his bid to unify the 170-pound titles opposite reigning division champion Georges St. Pierre, who returned from injury to secure his rightful place upon the throne.

Escobedo's attorneys did not specify the damages sought for their copyright infringement suit and Whitmill's case was "amicably resolved," which translates into "undisclosed sum." UFC Undisputed 3 was released back on Feb. 14, 2012 for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

[The8thPlague]

Weak.
Just another dude trying to get some free money.

My girlfriend was on Miami Ink and has a very large leg piece done by Chris Garver.
She also models a lot and has had her images used in many magazines and publications.
Although the tattoo artist is usually credited in most of these I would find it very odd for him to try and sue either the publication or photographer for using "his" image if he wasn't credited.

[LefthookStcrook]

Soo why doesnt he have a problem with Carlos fighting on PPV and Carlos/Zuffa making a bunch of money?

Millions of people are seeing "His" tattoo on TV, but yet he isnt getting paid. Does he get a % of Carlos money if he does a photo-shoot?

Give me a break I hope Zuffa rips this fool a new ass.

[rivethead]

People often believe that they own the images that are tattooed on them by tattoo artists. In reality, the owner of the tattoo artwork is the creator of the work, unless there is a written assignment of the copyright in the tattoo art.

I didn't pay close attention to the Hangover lawsuit, but I was under the impression that the artist had gotten Tyson to sign a statement giving him [Whitmill] ownership for the piece in return for doing it for free. It might not have been a signed statement, but I think it was at least an overt, clearly-stated agreement beforehand. If I'm accurate--and I'll freely admit I might not be--that would be the exact opposite of what this guy is trying to state with the above nonsense.

If the artist came up with 100% of the piece--idea through execution--and got the subject to sign a contract giving up reproduction rights, I'm entirely fine with the concept.

I'm not fine with the statement the author has made above. My personal experience with the industry is that it's far more full of backbiting divas than you'd expect, and this just makes it worse.

rh

[Sakara=Excitement]

In the Hangover's case, the tattoo design was replicated without permission.

But his lawsuit was allowed to move forward, and Warners apparently felt worried enough about its chances that its lawyers said in a court filing earlier this month that the studio would digitally alter the facial design for the DVD release.

the boxing champ signed a release form in 2003 giving the rights to the tattoo to Whitmill's Paradox Studio of Dermagraphics

[The Donosaur]

I own my tattoos!

[Sniggles]

This law is pretty insane and should only apply when the tattoo is the center of focus rather than the individual it is on.

For The Hangover, the law makes sense.

In this case, it does not.

[rabidsponge]

Originally Posted by Sakara=Excitement

In the Hangover's case, the tattoo design was replicated without permission.

thats a good point, its not like they put condits tattoo on someone else

i really dont understand a lot of this lawsuit business, whats the difference, as someone said, from the tattoo being seen on ppv, in the primetime specials, photos, but when its in a video game theres a big issue?

[Sniggles]

Originally Posted by rabidsponge

i really dont understand a lot of this lawsuit business, whats the difference, as someone said, from the tattoo being seen on ppv, in the primetime specials, photos, but when its in a video game theres a big issue?

I didn't think of that.

Very true.

[rivethead]

Originally Posted by rabidsponge

thats a good point, its not like they put condits tattoo on someone else

i really dont understand a lot of this lawsuit business, whats the difference, as someone said, from the tattoo being seen on ppv, in the primetime specials, photos, but when its in a video game theres a big issue?

I think the issue is they had to hire an artist to render it for the graphic skin.

But I still think there is tremendous difference between that and the Tyson case.

I think it's may well come down to copywrite issues, were a public image is fair game for reproduction if 20% of it is changed.

rh