`
`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