New Tattoo Copyright Infringement Case Filed By Artist Who Inked WWE Wrestler

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From Forbes:

A new lawsuit will once again test the extent that Copyright Law applies when tattoos are involved. Catherine Alexander, the tattooist who inked WWE wrestler Randy Orton, has filed a lawsuit against WWE and 2K Games (the publisher of video games such as WWE 2K) for allegedly using her designs in a commercial manner and without her consent.

Alexander makes the claim that the video games featuring Orton contain exact replications, in digital design, to multiple tattoos, including a tribal tattoo that she placed on the wrestler’s upper back, and that the use constitutes copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, indicates that Alexander even made prior efforts to come to an agreement with the WWE.

“In 2009, Plaintiff contacted WWE about the reproduction of Mr. Orton’s tattoos on various items for sale by the WWE,” states the Complaint. “WWE offered Plaintiff $450 for extensive rights to use and reproduce the tattoo designs on WWE products. Plaintiff declined WWE’s offer.”

Since then, Alexander has taken issue that multiple video games, including WWE 2K16, WWE 2K17 and WWE 2K18 have been released, prominently featuring Orton and displaying his tattoos in a manner that Alexander says is the same or substantially similar to her copyrighted works.

This is not the first Complaint that has been filed against 2K Games that claims copyright infringement. In 2016, Solid Oak Sketches, a company I represent, filed a lawsuit against the game maker for use of several tattoo designs featured on the bodies of NBA stars based on exclusive licensing agreements that Solid Oak Sketches obtained from the relevant tattoo artists. At the end of 2017, LeBron James’ tattoo artist filed a separate lawsuit against 2K Games based on alleged copyright infringement of the “Gloria” tattoo, his “Lion Design” and his shoulder stars.

. . . .

While no case in this space has gone to trial, many look to the remarks from the judge in the settled case concerning a tattoo artist’s dispute over the Hangover 2’s use of Mike Tyson’s face tattoo, who said,

Of course tattoos can be copyrighted. I don’t think there is any reasonable dispute about that.
Further, the NFL Players Association has instructed NFL players to protect themselves and receive copyright waivers or licenses from their tattoo artists.

Link to the rest at Forbes

6 thoughts on “New Tattoo Copyright Infringement Case Filed By Artist Who Inked WWE Wrestler”

  1. The lesson here? Anyone, no matter their odds of becoming famous, would be an absolute fool to get a tattoo and not demand that the artist sign over all rights to the work.

    Copyright has a well deserved place in modern law, but how on Earth did we reach the point where tattoo artists effectively claim copyright over accurate depictions of a person’s body?

  2. The leagles around here can feel free to shoot me down – but do not the famous people involved here have the basis for a counter-suit due to attempted interference with their right to license their personal image?

  3. The only copyright aspect I agree with in this post is the artist stating her designs were used on t-shirts.

    Other than that, I feel its similar to a painter who gets paid once for the sale of original artwork.

  4. So does the NBA currently pay the tattoo artist a licensing fee in order to show LeBron on the court without his tattoos blurred? I’m guessing not, but I don’t see how showing him on TV for a commercial production of basketball is any different than the Mike Tyson face tattoo case.

    • Absent a contract stating otherwise, shouldn’t be tattoos be considered work for hire? It’s not as if those guys have any “skin in the game”. 😉

      These folks keep trying to import author rights across the Atlantic and ignore that US copyright law is anchored on public good, not creator profiteering.

  5. The government *really* needs to do some copyright reform to change the law so that any works where the “tangible medium” is someone else’s body or property (where “property” is adequately specified to cover graffiti but not merchandise and the like) are not eligible for copyright protection.

Comments are closed.