The NBA 2K Lebron James tattoo case has been dismissed.
This dismissed case focuses on Lebron James’ tattoos, which were made by tattoo artist Jimmy Hayden. Unfortunately for him, all this legal action that has taken seven years has been for naught.
As reported by Polygon, Jimmy was originally suing for six tattoos, but a judge decided he could only sue for two tattoos.
A few years later, a jury has now decided that NBA 2K publisher Take-Two has an “implied license” to use those tattoos. That implied license stems from Take-Two licensing James’ likeness from the NBA Players Association.
Jimmy’s argument was this was about his trademarks. But Take-Two pointed out that a verdict in his favor would set precedents on how people’s likenesses could be licensed moving forward.
Think of this like how certain NFL video games had the NFL license, and could use the names of the teams, but couldn’t use the names of the players. Complicating these matters could make it harder to license likenesses overall. Some people may argue that that should be the way things are, but in this case, the court says no.
We reported on a similar lawsuit all the way back in 2016, and it was clear even then that the messiness of these lawsuit rulings were not creating a clear consensus.
The 2016 case, filed by Solid Oak Sketches, concerns the player likenesses in the NBA 2K video games. Lebron James and Kobe Bryant, and other players, had their tattoos recreated in game, but the tattoo artists claimed that they were owed permissions and/or royalties for their work appearing in the video game. Take-Two won that case, after a judge declared that the tattoos were fair use.
But there are other cases where the tattoo artists won, such as Christopher Escobedo beating THQ in court over Carlos Condit’s tattoos appearing in UFC Undisputed 3. Take-Two also lost a case just like this, against tattoo artist Catherine Alexander, over her tattoos on Randy Orton appearing in the WWE 2K video games.
Of course, each court looks at the finite details and merits of each case differently, but this latest verdict means tattoo artists don’t clearly know whether they should get compensation in situations like this.
Maybe it really is a situation where every case is just going to be different. For now, the issue has not become so serious that it has led to players getting their tattoos or other personal details removed or edited when they appear in video games.
