How LeBron James’ Tattoos Could Affect Baseball | Hacker News Reader

How LeBron James’ Tattoos Could Affect Baseball

fangraphs.com

38 pointssnacktaster14 comments

> LeBron has some awesome ink. It’s a part of his brand, and so back in 2015, those tattoos were included in the computerized depiction of LeBron created for the NBA2K video game. [...] Ordinarily that wouldn’t have been a big deal, except that it led to a lawsuit being filed by Solid Oak Sketches, LLC, against the video-game makers, for copyright infringement.

So they're supposed to put LeBron in the game with no tattoos or fake different tattoos? If someone had a special haircut, could the hair stylist copyright the haircut? If someone had a special makeup job, could the makeup artist copyright the makeup job? I don't see how this makes sense. I can understand a design being copyrighted, but once it's applied and inseparable from a person, the copyright can still apply?

edit: So nobody would be able to take photos to make posters, coffee mugs, etc, if the subject has any copyrighted design implemented on their body, unless they pay a licensing fee to the copyright holder?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

Taking photos is one thing. Distributing these for profit is another - you need to obey several laws, including copyright law and various privacy laws.

> If someone had a special haircut, could the hair stylist copyright the haircut?

I imagine this would hinge on whether hair can be considered a tangible medium.

> If someone had a special makeup job, could the makeup artist copyright the makeup job?

I see this as the same issue as tattoos - even though makeup is generally considered a temporary thing, that doesn't minimise the copyright applicability - assuming that skin is considered a tangible medium.

Similar body issues: Piercings, studs, etc where the overall arrangement and application may be considered a unique work of art.

I'd be interested to know if the absence/removal of something would constitute a work of art being recorded in a tangible medium - i.e a particularly unique style of hair plucking (eyebrows, say).

It's also important to note that fashion design is not eligible for copyright protection, despite the fact that a logo placed on a shirt is eligible. Would a hairstyle or makeup be considered as a product design, or a logo design?

I'm curious how this applies to televising games. At the start of many televised games, they mention their copyright disclaimer that rebroadcasting or recording without consent is prohibited.. While I don't want this case to succeed because of what it will mean for the industry, its pretty hilarious to see the media and giant corporations that all hide behind copyright getting sued for infringement, and arguing fair use, etc..

> So they're supposed to put LeBron in the game with no tattoos or fake different tattoos?

I assume the company claiming copyright ownership just wants $$

Well, of course. What I'm wondering is what's the logically defensible legal defense argument?

There are two distinct questions at play. One is whether the tattoos are copyrightable. The second is what counts as fair use if the tattoos are copyrightable. Even if they decide tattoos are copyrightable, there might still be a ton of fair use categories to be decided on a case by case basis. I'd imagine that even if copyright applies to any of your examples, fair use is probably super broad in them.

Seems like a tattoo would fall under commissioned artwork, which seems like the rights should belong to the commissioner, not the artist. Unlike a canvas, you don't just suddenly wake up with tattoos, unless there's much alcohol involved.

The most interesting part to me here is the fair use aspect. I don't know much law, but this page [0] seems to suggest that fair use is actually really flexible and maybe hard to predict. It will be really interesting to see what happens here.

[0] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/...

This will have 0 effect on baseball, unless you count slightly changing the way baseball video games are produced.

It's still a crazy of copyright maximalism at work. It's hard to get worked up about with so many more pressing issues up for grabs today, but even copyright maximalism is a symptom of a larger problem of the neoliberal world order having an unstoppable drive to monetize and marketize everything. This is new, unsettled law because tattoos were always a fringe weirdo outsider thing that would never ever land in a court. Now that tattoos have become mainstream and rich people (LeBron James in this case) have them, we have to fit it into this crazy framework we've invented to let multinational corporations make money on mouse cartoons. If we don't, there may be dire consequences like setting a precedent that not every cultural practice can be owned and charged for, and that property rights are possibly not the most fundamental rights in a free society.

My plan is that you settle and then pay their licensing fee. At which point you've got the right to show the tattoos so you use that right. Create a new basketball player called LeBron Jame's Solid Oak Sketches LLC tattoos. It's just LeBron Jame's tattoos on an invisible person. It's the worst player and gets constant heckling from the audience.

LeBron doesn't seem to like where the whole thing is going, so that means he's also likely to play ball if you bring him some more interesting ideas. Create a LeBron James with a different set of tattoos by a tattoo artist you explicitly hire for this purpose. Advertise this artist a lot. Make sure the new artist has the staff to be able to completely consume all of Solid Oak Sketches LLC business.

Make a campaign mode where LeBron James has all of his tattoos stolen by a wizard. You have to win a bunch of games to get them back, but they come back slightly altered such that they are no longer legally Solid Oak Sketches LLC IP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com