Wrestler Randy Orton is n’t a party to Alexander v. Take-Two Interactive Software, a federal copyright litigation in Illinois.
But his tattoo are.
U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle denied a request by the publication of WWE 2K to overturn a jury’s decision from 2022, which found that Take-Two and another plaintiffs had violated Catherine Alexander’s rights by using her tattoos without permission in video games. However, Yandle accepted Take-Two’s request that the jury’s$ 3,750 injuries remain annulled because Alexander lacked evidence to support her claim.
The event stems from Orton hiring Alexander to paint six tattoos—including cultural signs, a Bible poetry, a bird and a skull—between 2002 and 2008, and Alexander obtaining a trademark for five of those tattoo. WWE paid Orton for the right to employ his name, image and likeness and Take-Two, in turn, paid WWE to employ Orton’s NIL in wrestling video games.

The main legal issue is whether Alexander’s copyright statements survive when the tattoos, which altered Orton’s colour, became part of his body and therefore portion of his presence. Take-Two contends that because he paid Orton to pen him, Alexander gave her an implied license to show her tattoos.
The firm also argued that the motion’s protection of good use was in dispute. Fair use permits reproducing in certain circumstances, such as when the imitating alters a copyrighted work. Take-Two’s use of the tattoos by Orton was undoubtedly revolutionary because Take-Two is using them to create a usable and reasonable video game avatar of Orton while Orton obtained the makeup to reveal his identity and expression. Participants in video games can also alter that image to improve their scores and unlock additional in-game achievements.
Jurors in 2022 interpreted good apply different in this environment. They found Take-Two had infringed on Alexander’s rights.
In her buy, Yandle determined jury reached a fair verdict. She noted Take-Two included the tattoos in the game to accurately depict Orton’s likeness as well as” for their expressive value,” as opposed to” for news reporting or academic study.” By that, she meant that video game players may get their tattoo on a fictional fighter they create. If the purpose of the tattoos was only to recreate Orton, the” Create-A-Superstar” feature presumably would n’t allow his tattoos to be repurposed for inclusion on other wrestler avatars.
Yandle even underscored Alexander’s evidence about her” creative and expressive work” to design tattoo. According to the judge, those efforts go against what she says will gain more rights protection. Take-Two’s claim that it was necessary to precisely copy each tattoo did n’t appeal to Young and also did n’t appeal to him. The wrestler design feature and information that the defendants “previously altered tats of athletes to avoid infringing on others ‘ intellectual home” “belied” that argument, Yandle claimed.

However, Yandle sided with the plaintiffs on a different point of contention. The prosecutor granted Alexander’s$ 3, 750 problems honor on the grounds that he “failed to provide proof of the tattoo ‘ value.” So, jurors were left with no choice but to “engage in unfair debate in giving problems.”
According to Yandle’s assertion in her ruling, rights owners are entitled to recover real damages and subpar profits from infringement. But those proprietors, as plaintiffs, may show a causal nexus between the copyright and alleged economic damage.
The prosecutor argued that Alexander “presented no information at test” that logically explained her owe of$ 3,750. One of her professional witnesses suggested that the tattoos were responsible for a portion of the game’s sales and profits because Orton was “needing his tattoos” and “needing to have his inked.” However, that hear did not verify this assertion with empirical evidence or statistics analysis. Alexander’s personal testimony also proved difficult. She claimed that she had not obtained a tattoo for use in another channel and that Orton’s tattoos had prevented her from identifying any businesses or customers she had lost.
Both Alexander and Take-Two was appeal Yandle’s judgement to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and, possibly, both have grounds to further dispute. On the subject of good usage, Alexander defeated Take-Two, but he emerged with no money. Take-Two is not required to give Alexander, but it may be concerned that its honest use security at the trial court level failed. Another tattoo actor who inked a fighter ( or an athlete in another 2K game ) may sue and face greater success if they can objectively prove problems. Moreover, Alexander’s path to problems was limited in a way that different tattoo artists may not experience. In 2018, had she been able to file for a lawsuit under the terms of copyright law, she would have been able to recover attorney’s fees and statutory damages ( or 750 to 30 000 for each copyright work infringement, but up to$ 150, 000 if the infringement was willful ), rather than actual damages and poorly gotten profits, both of which are difficult to prove in this context.
One of the a number of copyright infringement cases involving the reproduction of tattoo in a sporting video game is Alexander v. Take-Two. In part because the scar artists knew their designs, which were inked on popular athletes, would be officially designed, a New York federal judge sided with Take-Two in a dispute involving LeBron James and other people in NBA 2K in 2020.