throbber
Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 1 of 38. PageID #: 9211
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`JAMES HAYDEN,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`2K GAMES, INC. and TAKE-TWO
`INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC. ,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:17-cv-02635-CAB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
`2K GAMES, INC. AND TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 2 of 38. PageID #: 9212
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS .................................................................................... 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`THE TATTOOS...................................................................................................... 4
`
`TAKE-TWO’S NBA 2K VIDEO GAME SERIES ................................................. 7
`
`TAKE-TWO’S USE OF THE TATTOOS IN NBA 2K .......................................... 8
`
`PLAINTIFF AND THE MARKET FOR TATTOOS ............................................ 9
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 11
`
`I.
`
`TAKE-TWO’S USE OF THE TATTOOS WAS FAIR ....................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`Factor One: Take-Two’s Use Is Transformative and Its Profits Are
`Not Attributable to the Tattoos ................................................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Take-Two’s Use of the Tattoos Is Transformative ....................... 11
`
`The Commercial Use Sub-factor Is Of Little Weight Here .......... 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Factor Two: The Tattoos Are Not Creative and Were Published ............. 15
`
`Factor Three: Take-Two’s Copying Was Reasonable In Light of Its
`Purpose ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`D.
`
`Factor Four: Take-Two Has Not Harmed the Tattoos’ Markets ............... 18
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TAKE-TWO’S USE OF THE TATTOOS WAS AUTHORIZED....................... 21
`
`TAKE-TWO’S USE OF THE TATTOOS IS DE MINIMIS ................................ 24
`
`TWO OF THE TATTOOS ARE UNPROTECTABLE AND, IN ANY
`CASE, PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY ........... 27
`
`V.
`
`PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO CERTAIN REMEDIES ........................... 29
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 3 of 38. PageID #: 9213
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alexander v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`489 F. Supp. 3d 812 (S.D. Ill. 2020) ..............................................................................1, 23, 25
`
`Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust,
`755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).......................................................................................................18
`
`Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.,
`804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015)...............................................................................................15, 18
`
`B2B CFO Partners, LLC v. Kaufman,
`787 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (D. Ariz. 2011) .....................................................................................30
`
`Bell v. Worthington City Sch. Dist.,
`No. 18 Civ. 961, 2020 WL 2905803 (S.D. Ohio June 2, 2020).........................................17, 18
`
`Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.,
`448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006)............................................................................................. passim
`
`Blanch v. Koons,
`467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006).....................................................................................................20
`
`Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Ltd. P’ship,
`737 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Ltd. P’ship,
`No. 08 Civ. 397, 2011 WL 5445947 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2011) ...................................................20
`
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 569 (1994) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Castle v. Kingsport Publ’g Corp.,
`No. 19 Civ. 92, 2020 WL 7348157 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2020) .................................12, 15, 17
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Compass Homes, Inc. v. Trinity Health Grp., Ltd.,
`No. 13 Civ. 647, 2016 WL 3406054 (S.D. Ohio June 21, 2016).............................................29
`
`Consumers Union of U.S. v. Gen. Signal Corp.,
`724 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1983)...................................................................................................16
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 4 of 38. PageID #: 9214
`
`Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp.,
`630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980).....................................................................................................16
`
`Dyer v. Napier,
`No. 04 Civ. 408, 2006 WL 680551 (D. Ariz. Mar. 16, 2006) .................................................30
`
`EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corp.,
`49 F. Supp. 3d 1210 (N.D. Ga. 2014) ......................................................................................30
`
`Est. of Smith v. Cash Money Records, Inc.,
`253 F. Supp. 3d 737 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ......................................................................................20
`
`Foad Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Azzalino,
`270 F. 3d 821 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Gloster v. Relios, Inc.,
`No. 02 Civ. 7140, 2006 WL 1804572 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2006) .............................................30
`
`Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) .............................................................................................2, 15, 18, 21
`
`Gordon v. Nextel Commc’ns & Mullen Advert., Inc.,
`345 F.3d 922 (6th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................24, 25, 27, 29
`
`Gottlieb Dev. LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
`590 F. Supp. 2d 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................................................26
`
`Great Minds v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc.,
`886 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2018).......................................................................................................21
`
`Hofheinz v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. 00 Civ. 3802, 2001 WL 1111970 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001) ...........................................13
`
`I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver,
`74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................................22, 23
`
`ITOFCA, Inc. v. MegaTrans Logistics, Inc.,
`322 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................24
`
`Johnson v. Jones,
`149 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................21, 29
`
`Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,
`336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................13, 17
`
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................12, 16
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 5 of 38. PageID #: 9215
`
`LimeCoral, Ltd. v. CareerBuilder, LLC,
`889 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................24
`
`Mahavisno v. Compendia Biosci., Inc.,
`164 F. Supp. 3d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2016) ...................................................................................22
`
`Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc.,
`967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................29
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publ’g Co.,
`158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998).......................................................................................................1
`
`MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., Inc.,
`89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................27
`
`Monster Commc’ns, Inc. v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc.,
`935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)...........................................................................................13
`
`Murphy v. Lazarev,
`589 F. App’x 757 (6th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................21
`
`Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Handgun Control Fed’n of Ohio,
`15 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................11
`
`New Name, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co.,
`No. 07 Civ. 5034, 2008 WL 5587487 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2008) ............................................30
`
`Núñez v. Caribbean Int’l News Corp.,
`235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................................17
`
`Photographic Illustrators, Corp. v. Orgill, Inc.,
`953 F. 3d 56 (1st Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................22, 23, 24
`
`Psychopathic Recs., Inc. v. Anderson,
`No. 08 Civ. 13407, 2009 WL 2591385 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2009) ......................................27
`
`Reinicke v. Creative Empire, LLC,
`38 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ......................................................................................23
`
`Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp.,
`147 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 1998).....................................................................................................26
`
`Sarl Louis Feraud Int’l v. Viewfinder Inc.,
`627 F. Supp. 2d 123 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ................................................................................14, 20
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 6 of 38. PageID #: 9216
`
`Sartor v. Walters,
`No. 06 Civ. 11, 2006 WL 3497856 (W.D. La. Dec. 5, 2006) ..................................................30
`
`Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................16, 17
`
`SOFA Ent., Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................12
`
`Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc.,
`449 F. Supp. 3d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) .............................................................................. passim
`
`Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc.,
`No. 16 Civ. 724, 2016 WL 4126543 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016) ...............................................29
`
`Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc.,
`No. 16 Civ. 724, 2018 WL 1626145 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2018) .......................................25, 26
`
`Stephens v. Hayes,
`374 F. App’x 620 (6th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................11
`
`Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM–Pathe Commc’ns Co.,
`24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................1
`
`Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P.,
`756 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2014).....................................................................................12, 15, 18, 19
`
`Tresóna Multimedia, LLC v. Burbank High Sch. Vocal Music Ass’n,
`953 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................24
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................................27, 28
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ..............................................................................................................................21
`
`17 U.S.C. § 412 ..............................................................................................................................29
`
`17 U.S.C. § 501 ..............................................................................................................................21
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504 ..............................................................................................................................29
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 7 of 38. PageID #: 9217
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Tattoos are forms of self-expression as they are permanent parts of one’s likeness, like
`
`scars and freckles. As they are part of the body, any realistic depiction of a tattooed person,
`
`whatever the visual medium, will necessarily show their tattoos. What to get tattooed is up to the
`
`inked person, and meaningful to them. For LeBron James, Tristan Thompson, and Danny Green
`
`(the “NBA Players”), three professional NBA basketball players, their tattoos are personal and
`
`permanent parts of their appearance. As Mr. James explained, “my tattoos are part of my body
`
`and my likeness, and I have the right to have my tattoos visible when people or companies depict
`
`what I look like.” Decl. of LeBron James (“James Decl.”) ¶ 10.
`
`Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc. is directly on point. 449 F. Supp. 3d 333,
`
`343–45 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). There, Solid Oak asserted that it was copyright infringement to depict
`
`NBA players with their tattoos in the same NBA 2K video games at issue here. Solid Oak sought
`
`to upend the expectations of tattooed players depicted in NBA 2K, who understood that they
`
`would be permitted to display their tattoos as part of their likenesses. The Solid Oak court
`
`granted summary judgment for Take-Two on multiple independent grounds, holding that NBA
`
`players, including Mr. James, may be accurately depicted with their tattoos in NBA 2K.
`
`Specifically, it found that such use was (a) fair, (b) authorized, and (c) de minimis.1
`
`Like Solid Oak, based on the undisputed facts in this record, Plaintiff’s claim fails as a
`
`matter of law for four independent reasons.2 First, Take-Two’s depiction of the Tattoos is fair
`
`
`1 The only other case involving the accurate depiction of people with tattoos is Alexander v. Take-Two Interactive
`Software, Inc., where the Court denied summary judgment. 489 F. Supp. 3d 812 (S.D. Ill. 2020). Alexander,
`however, did not even address Solid Oak, and involved a WWE wrestling game implicating distinct factual and
`legal issues that are not at issue here, including what the court viewed as a factual dispute surrounding the
`creation of those tattoos and uncertainty of the existence of the de minimis use defense in the Seventh Circuit.
`2 As Plaintiff’s direct infringement (Count I) claim fails, its indirect infringement (Count II) claim necessarily
`fails too. Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West Publ’g Co., 158 F.3d 693, 706 (2d Cir. 1998); Subafilms, Ltd. v.
`MGM–Pathe Commc’ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 8 of 38. PageID #: 9218
`
`use, as each of the four fair use factors favors Take-Two:
`
`• As to the first factor (the “purpose and character of the use”), Take-Two uses the six tattoos
`
`at issue (the “Tattoos”) for a different, transformative purpose. Whereas Plaintiff’s purpose
`
`was to adorn the NBA Players’ bodies with their self-expression, Take-Two’s purpose was to
`
`accurately portray the players. Moreover, two of the Tattoos are covered by the players’
`
`jerseys, and all of the Tattoos appear smaller than they do in real life, appear only fleetingly,
`
`among innumerable other elements, and always on the bodies of the NBA Players.
`
`• As to the second factor (the “nature of the work”), the Tattoos are, at best, entitled to thin
`
`copyright protection as they were created at the direction and approval of the players,
`
`comprise common tropes, and were copied from pre-existing works.
`
`• As to the third factor (the “amount and substantiality of the portion used”), depicting the
`
`Tattoos was necessary to achieve Take-Two’s purpose of creating a realistic game. Even so,
`
`as noted above, the Tattoos appear smaller than they appear in real life, are hard to make out,
`
`and the two largest are covered up by the players’ jerseys such that they are unidentifiable.
`
`• As to the fourth factor (the “effect of the use on the potential market”), there is no market for
`
`accurately depicting tattoos in a video game—no witness in this case has ever heard of a
`
`tattoo licensed for such use—so their inclusion in NBA 2K does not harm a cognizable
`
`market. Nor is there a potential market as NBA players have appeared in NBA 2K with their
`
`tattoos since at least 2001, without payment to or objection from tattooists. Further, as the
`
`Supreme Court recently confirmed in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., this factor must
`
`“take into account the public benefits the copying will likely produce.” 141 S. Ct. 1183,
`
`1206 (2021). Here, Plaintiff admits that he has not lost any sales, whereas Take-Two’s use
`
`of the Tattoos has created an important new creative product that would not exist otherwise.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 9 of 38. PageID #: 9219
`
`Plaintiff is attempting to chill tattooed people’s ability to depict themselves as they wish in
`
`media.
`
`Second, Take-Two’s use was authorized. The NBA Players licensed their likenesses to
`
`the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) and NBA Players Association (“NBAPA”). The
`
`NBA and NBAPA in turn licensed the likenesses to Take-Two. The NBA Players had the right
`
`to grant such permission based on an implied license provided when Plaintiff inked them. As
`
`each player explains, and as is confirmed by tattoo expert Dr. Nina Jablonski, when a client is
`
`inked, both client and tattooist reasonably expect that the tattoo becomes part of the client’s
`
`likeness, and the client is then free to disseminate his likeness without returning to the tattooist
`
`for permission. Strikingly, at Plaintiff’s deposition, he testified that when his clients leave his
`
`tattoo parlor, they “can go about their life as they wish without needing to run back to the
`
`tattooist for permission.” Decl. of Miranda Means (“Means Decl.”) Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 156:8–
`
`13. Plaintiff never told the NBA Players that they would need his permission to show their
`
`tattoos, and they in fact did display their tattoos in numerous media outlets, including video
`
`games, without any objection from Plaintiff.
`
`Third, the Tattoos are a de minimis part of NBA 2K as they are hard to observe. When
`
`users play, they choose from hundreds of players, such that Messrs. Green, James, and
`
`Thompson often will not appear. Even when Messrs. James and Thompson are selected, their
`
`chest tattoos are covered by their jerseys. And the remaining tattoos are smaller than in real life
`
`because of the TV size on which NBA 2K typically is played. They also are blurry, obstructed,
`
`and accompanied by so many other game elements that the ordinary user will perceive them as
`
`visual noise, contributing to realism, but not a focus.3
`
`
`3 Plaintiff stresses the possibility to zoom in, but the only evidence is that an ordinary user would not do so.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 10 of 38. PageID #: 9220
`
`Fourth, the Lion Tattoo and Brother’s Keeper Tattoo are unprotectable as Plaintiff inked
`
`them from preexisting works—the Sistine Chapel, the Bible, and a playing card. And they are
`
`on the players’ chests, covered by jerseys in the game, such that there is no substantial similarity.
`
`Finally, in addition to Plaintiff’s claim failing on the merits, his request for statutory
`
`damages and attorney’s fees should be dismissed. As this Court previously held, the Copyright
`
`Act forecloses such remedies for “any infringement of copyright commenced after first
`
`[publication] of the work and before the effective date of its registration.” MTD Op. (Dkt. 17)
`
`10. Here, as the copyrights were registered after the purported infringement began, the remedies
`
`are barred. Although this Court indicated that discovery was needed to assess whether NBA 2K
`
`should be viewed holistically or if each annual release is a distinct act of purported infringement,
`
`id. at 11, discovery has established that the series should indeed be viewed holistically.
`
`Plaintiff is attempting to change copyright law to wrest control of the NBA Players’
`
`likenesses away from them (after the tattoos became permanent parts of their appearance), and
`
`create novel liability for the accurate and consensual depiction of tattooed people that the
`
`tattooist knew would be depicted. Thus, Take-Two respectfully requests that this Court grant its
`
`motion, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, and hold that he is not entitled to statutory damages or fees.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`I.
`
`THE TATTOOS
`
`The NBA Players have been professional basketball players for the NBA since 2003,
`
`2009, and 2011 respectively. James Decl. ¶ 2; Decl. of Daniel Green (“Green Decl.”) ¶ 2; Decl.
`
`of Tristan Thompson (“Thompson Decl.”) ¶ 2; Means Decl. Ex. 33 (NBA Player Profiles). Each
`
`athlete regularly appears in media bearing their various tattoos, including the Tattoos at issue.
`
`Id.; Means Decl. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 50:1–7. Their Tattoos reflect their personal expression and
`
`identity. James Decl. ¶ 9; Thompson Decl.¶ 4; Green Decl. ¶ 4; Decl. of Nina Jablonski
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 11 of 38. PageID #: 9221
`
`(“Jablonski Decl.”) ¶ 47; Means Decl. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 139:16–19.4
`
`In 2007, at Mr. James’ request, Plaintiff inked Mr. James’ mother’s name,
`
`“Gloria,” alongside a crowned lion on Mr. James’ right arm (top right) (“Gloria
`
`Tattoo”) to cover up a pre-existing tattoo of a lion. James Decl. ¶ 6; Means Decl.
`
`Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 56:11–17. Next, in 2008, at Mr. James’ request, Plaintiff
`
`inked a lion on Mr. James’ chest (middle right) (“Lion Tattoo”) by
`
`copying a lion from a playing card that Mr. James provided. James Decl. ¶
`
`8; Means Decl. Exs. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 81:25–82:13; 12 (Tovanche Tr.) 117:12–
`
`119:13. Then, at Mr. James’ request, Plaintiff inked five stars (bottom right)
`
`(“Shoulder Stars Tattoo”) across Mr. James’ left shoulder. James Decl. ¶ 7;
`
`Means Decl. Exs. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 72:8–10; 12 (Tovanche Tr.) 129:4–130:9.
`
`Around 2012, Plaintiff inked additional flames (top right) (“Fire Tattoo”)
`
`on Danny Green’s arm at Mr. Green’s request around a pre-existing tattoo of a
`
`basketball player with flames around his image, done by a different tattooist.
`
`Green Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Means Decl. Exs. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 91:3–14; 93:3–94:11; 22 (Pl.’s Resp. 1st
`
`Interrogs.) No. 1. Later, at Mr. Green’s request, Plaintiff inked clouds on
`
`Mr. Green’s right inner arm (middle right) (“Scroll Tattoo”) around a pre-
`
`existing scroll tattoo with the names of Mr. Green’s brothers, done by a
`
`different tattooist. Green Decl. ¶ 7; Means Decl. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 98:21–99:1, 99:23–100:10.
`
`Finally, in or around 2012, at Tristan Thompson’s request, Plaintiff
`
`inked the words “My Brother’s Keeper” and an image of two fingers
`
`touching (bottom right) (“Brother’s Keeper Tattoo”) on Mr. Thompson’s chest. Thompson Decl.
`
`
`4
`See also Means Decl. Exs. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 31:3–5; 12 (Tovanche Tr.) 33:21–34:21, 36:3–14.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 12 of 38. PageID #: 9222
`
`¶ 5; Means Decl. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 112:24–113:15.
`
`Each of the Tattoos was selected and approved by the NBA Players. James Decl. ¶ 5;
`
`Thompson Decl. ¶¶ 6–7; Green Decl. ¶ 8; Means Decl. Exs. 22 (Pl.’s Resp. 1st Interrogs.) No. 1;
`
`11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 75:8–22, 95:13–16; 13 (Hayden Tr.) 127:8–11, 22:17–23. And each of the Tattoos
`
`was paid for by the NBA Players. Means Decl. Ex. 22 (Pl.’s Resp. 1st Interrogs.) No. 1.
`
`When Plaintiff inked the NBA Players, he knew that they were professional basketball
`
`players who would appear on television with their tattoos. Id. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 47:11–14,
`
`49:13–17, 50:16–17, 91:25–92:9, 113:8–25, 114:12–15. Consistent with tattoo industry practice,
`
`Plaintiff agreed that, when clients leave his tattoo parlor, they “can go about their life as they
`
`wish without needing to run back to the tattooist for permission.” Id. at 156:8–13. He also
`
`admitted that he did not tell the NBA Players that they would need his permission to appear in
`
`video games with the Tattoos. Id. Exs. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 60:15–61:5, 156:3–7; 26 (Pl.’s Resp. Am.
`
`RFA) Nos. 231–233. Plaintiff has never “told a player that they needed [his] permission before
`
`appearing on television playing basketball,” never “told the NBA that they needed [his]
`
`permission to depict players on television playing NBA games showing their tattoos,” and has
`
`never “done anything to try to stop that.” Id. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 148:21–149:1. Indeed, Plaintiff
`
`has never told any player that the player needed permission to appear in any media. Id. at
`
`148:17–20, 152:3–7; id. Ex. 26 (Pls. Resp. Am. RFA) Nos. 188, 190, 192, 194, 196, 202.
`
`The NBA Players understood that they could display the Tattoos on their bodies and
`
`allow others to depict their likenesses with their Tattoos. James Decl. ¶ 10; Thompson Decl. ¶
`
`11; Green Decl. ¶ 11; Jablonski Decl. ¶¶ 34–40. Other tattooists, including Plaintiff’s own
`
`colleague, Bernardino Tovanche, agree that clients do not need their tattooists’ permission to
`
`show their tattoos in real life and in media. Jablonski Decl. Exs. 3 (Cornett Decl.) ¶¶ 16, 22; 5
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 13 of 38. PageID #: 9223
`
`(Wright Decl.) ¶ 6; 7 (G. Glatstein Decl.) ¶ 11; 8 (C. Alexander Tr.) 66:2–8; Means Decl. Ex. 12
`
`(Tovanche Tr.) 165:9–20; 168:23–169:6. Indeed, Plaintiff himself has tattoos and has never
`
`asked permission from a tattooist before appearing in photographs, videos, or commercials
`
`showing the tattoos on his body. Means Decl. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 39:4–23. And Dr. Jablonski
`
`confirmed that it is industry practice that, “[o]nce a tattoo has been inked on a client’s skin, the
`
`tattooist exercises no control over it because the tattoo itself is part of the client’s body.”
`
`Jablonski Decl. ¶ 34.
`
`II.
`
`TAKE-TWO’S NBA 2K VIDEO GAME SERIES
`
`Take-Two creates NBA 2K, a series of basketball simulation video games. Decl. of
`
`Alfredo Brody (“Brody Decl.”) ¶ 2; Means Decl. Ex. 27 (Pl.’s Resp. 2d RFA) No. 242. As
`
`explained by Take-Two’s Vice President, Head of Global Sports Marketing, Alfredo Brody,
`
`NBA 2K is a realistic depiction of NBA basketball and includes a number of elements that appear
`
`in real world NBA basketball. Brody Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Means Decl. Exs. 14 (Argent Tr.) 57:16–22;
`
`19 (Brody Tr.) 60:7–14; 1–5 (NBA 2K gameplay videos); 6–10 (NBA 2K16, NBA 2K17, NBA
`
`2K18, NBA 2K19, NBA 2K20, respectively). As explained by Take-Two’s video game expert,
`
`Dr. Ian Bogost, in NBA 2K, the “player’s typical experience will involve looking at the
`
`basketball court in a manner similar to that of a television viewer or a fan watching the game
`
`from the stands.” Decl. of Ian Bogost (“Bogost Decl.”) ¶ 56; Means Decl. Ex. 14 (Argent Tr.)
`
`80:11–18, 82:1–7; 15 (Hsieh Tr.) 60:16–25. As can be seen from recordings of NBA 2K
`
`gameplay, Means Decl. Exs. 1–5, “[a]s plays take place, including shots, throw-ins, free-throws,
`
`substitutions, fouls, and other ordinary actions of the sport, the camera view adjusts accordingly,
`
`in a manner similar to the way a television broadcast of the sport might appear.” Bogost Decl.
`
`¶ 58. Users “play action-oriented bouts of simulated basketball, either alone against the
`
`computer or with other people,” and can choose in each game from over 400 current and retired
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 14 of 38. PageID #: 9224
`
`NBA players to form teams to play against other teams. Bogost Decl. ¶ 54; Brody Decl.¶ 5.
`
`Other realistic visual elements include “the movement and behavior of the crowd, the
`
`coaches, the referees, team members on the bench,” and contextual events and situations like live
`
`and televised professional basketball. Bogost Decl. ¶ 60. NBA 2K also includes auditory
`
`components such as realistic announcers and sportscasters, cheering crowds, buzzers, and other
`
`elements meant to mimic a real basketball game. Bogost Decl. ¶¶ 60–61; Brody Decl.¶ 4.
`
`III.
`
`TAKE-TWO’S USE OF THE TATTOOS IN NBA 2K
`
`To depict the NBA Players, Take-Two obtained a license to portray their likenesses in the
`
`game from the NBA and the NBAPA, which were licensed by the NBA Players. Brody Decl.¶
`
`10; Means Decl. Exs. 14 (Argent Tr.) 32:19–35:24; 34–35 (NBA & NBAPA Contracts).5 The
`
`Tattoos are “part of” the players’ likenesses, and Take-Two had the right to show the players as
`
`they look in real life, including their tattoos. Means Decl. Ex. 20 (Thomas Tr.) 132:21–133:14.6
`
`To serve its artistic purpose of simulating NBA basketball, Take-Two accurately
`
`replicates the likenesses of the NBA Players precisely, including their height, build, skin, hair,
`
`facial features, and tattoos. Brody Decl.¶ 5; Means Decl. Exs. 16 (Zhang Tr.) 28:4–22, 101:10–
`
`14; 21 (Stauffer Tr.) 22:22–23:4, 23:16–25, 124:3–8. Plaintiff himself admitted that the NBA
`
`Players would not “look like themselves” without their tattoos, and that, “to depict the player
`
`realistically you would have to have his tattoos on him.” Means Decl. Ex. 11 (Pl.’s Tr.) 142:9–
`
`143:3. NBA players have been depicted in NBA 2K games with the tattoos they bear in real life
`
`since at least NBA 2K2, which was released in 2001. Brody Decl.¶ 8; Means Decl. Exs. 23
`
`
`5
`Id. Exs. 20 (Thomas Tr.) 94:21–95:8 (“Since we started making NBA games in 1997, it has been part of our
`agreement that we’re allowed to depict the NBA players, the NBA arenas, and their trademarks in the game.”);
`14 (Argent Tr.) 36:21–37:4 (describing Take-Two’s agreement with the NBA and NBAPA).
`Id. Exs. 14 (Argent Tr.) 36:1–37:4, 140:6–22, 141:11–22 (“We’ve always understood that we had the rights to
`the players and the teams and the logos, likenesses, everything.”); 19 (Brody Tr.) 44:13–45:7.
`
`6
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:17-cv-02635-CAB Doc #: 101-1 Filed: 10/25/21 15 of 38. PageID #: 9225
`
`(Defs.’ 2d Am. Resp. Interrogs.) No. 3; 20 (Thomas Tr.) 123:2–125:1.
`
`The NBA Players are “scanned” into NBA 2K using “photogrammetry,” which involves
`
`simultaneously taking hundreds of digital photographs of a player’s body from different angles
`
`to create a resulting “texture map.” Brody Decl. ¶¶ 5–7; Means Decl. Exs. 17 (Dawson Tr.)
`
`18:15–19, 46:23–47:17, 49:21–50:6, 68:18–22; 20 (Thomas Tr.) 89:12–90:10; Bogost Decl. ¶¶
`
`20–24, Exs. 6–8. Software then “wraps” the skin around a 3D model of that player, resulting in a
`
`realistic depiction similar to what would be captured by a digital camera. Means Decl. Ex. 17
`
`(Dawson Tr.) 79:19–80:8; Bogost Decl. ¶¶ 24–26, Exs. 9–10; Brody Decl.¶ 5. The process
`
`captures a players’ detailed likeness, from facial features, to build, to “scars, stretch marks, [and]
`
`moles” to anything else on the photographed skin. Mean

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket