<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;thq&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:39:34 PST</pubDate>
<title>Tattoo Copyright Strikes Again: Tattoo Artist Sues THQ For Accurately Representing Fighter's Tattoo In Game</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/07502921303/tattoo-copyright-strikes-again-tattoo-artist-sues-thq-accurately-representing-fighters-tattoo-game.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/07502921303/tattoo-copyright-strikes-again-tattoo-artist-sues-thq-accurately-representing-fighters-tattoo-game.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ About a year and a half ago, we wrote what we thought was just a fun <i>theoretical</i> post about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/03173713822/who-owns-copyright-tattoo.shtml">copyrights in tattoos</a>.  The general point was that if a tattoo artist creates a new and unique design, then, technically, they're the one who gets the copyright.  And that can lead to some awkward legal issues.  Of course, it barely took three weeks before that "theoretical" question became real, when a tattoo artist who had done Mike Tyson's famous tattoo <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/16000214087/guy-who-did-mike-tysons-tattoo-sues-warner-bros-copyright-infringement.shtml">sued</a> Warner Bros. because the character Ed Helms plays in <i>The Hangover 2</i> ends up with a similar (though not identical) tattoo.  WB eventually settled that case to make it go away.
<br /><br />
As a bunch of folks have sent in the news that tattoo artist Christopher Escobedo <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-27-tattooist-sues-thq-for-replicating-ufc-fighters-ink-without-permission" target="_blank">has sued video game company THQ because they accurately depicted UFC fighter Carlos Condit</a> in the game UFC Undisputed 2010.  Condit has a prominent "lion" tattoo which is replicated in the game.  You can see the tattoo here:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/vOQqV"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/vOQqV.jpg" width=350 /></a>
</center>
None of the news reports we've seen have posted the actual legal filing, so we've <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/535960-escobedo-v-thq.html" target="_blank">posted it here</a> and embedded it below.  There are a few things worth noting.  The game came out in 2010.  Escobedo created the tattoo in 2009... but <i>did not register it</i> until February 24, 2012.  That may <i>significantly</i> limit Escobedo's ability to collect.  Specifically, if you want to ask for <i>statutory damages</i> (up to $150,000), registration has to occur within 3 months of the work being published <i>and</i> prior to infringement.  In this case, neither happened -- which is why Escobedo is asking only for "actual damages."  And that's going to make this case difficult for him.  He's claiming that he wouldn't have licensed the image, which is how he's going to argue for really high damages, but a court might not buy any real or significant "damage" to the copyright being used in the game.
<br /><br />
Honestly, much of this feels like the artist is using this more as a way to get publicity, rather than as a way to win a lawsuit.  After all, the lawsuit got attention... because the artist <a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/11/prweb10144896.htm" target="_blank">issued his own press release</a> about it.  That press release mentions the Mike Tyson tattoo case, suggesting that some people saw that and started looking for other opportunities to use tattoo cases to sue big companies, hoping for easy settlements.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/07502921303/tattoo-copyright-strikes-again-tattoo-artist-sues-thq-accurately-representing-fighters-tattoo-game.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/07502921303/tattoo-copyright-strikes-again-tattoo-artist-sues-thq-accurately-representing-fighters-tattoo-game.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/07502921303/tattoo-copyright-strikes-again-tattoo-artist-sues-thq-accurately-representing-fighters-tattoo-game.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ownership-society</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121207/07502921303</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Video Game Exec Claims Used Games 'Cheat' Developers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For whatever reason, every few months or so, yet another clueless video game company exec spouts off about how the used video game market is somehow unfair or hurting video game developers.  We've seen it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090403/0212534367.shtml">again</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090606/1226365155.shtml">again</a> and <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090606/1226365155.shtml">again</a>.  However, since a whole bunch of you keep submitting the story that Cory Ledesma from THQ has made the downright laughable claim that <a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330" target="_blank">the used video game market "cheats" developers</a>, it seemed worth discussing.
<br /><br />
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, basic economics and the customers THQ is failing to serve.  On the law, Ledesma and others should familiarize themselves with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine" target="_blank">the First Sale doctrine</a> before making silly statements.  On economics, repeated studies have shown  that a healthy secondary market for products actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050728/0216218.shtml">significantly helps the primary market</a>.  If you take more than a second and a half to think about it, it's easy to understand why.  If there's a healthy secondary market for products, it <i>reduces the risk</i> for the buyers in the primary market.  That is, if they buy the product and don't like it, they know they'll be able to resell it and recoup some of their losses.  That makes it effectively <i>cheaper</i> for them to buy the primary product, increasing the number of sales.  On top of that, the secondary market also helps in markets like video games in acting as a good way to segment the market, and get new buyers into a game or series of games.  I'm sure many of the folks who are now buyers in the primary market, at one time purchased an earlier game in a series used.  How is it that so many video gaming execs have so much trouble recognizing these basic concepts?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lets-learn-you-some-economics</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100824/11142810761</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>