¿Cuál es la frontera de reclamo en caso que no haya suscripción de un contrato de cesión de derechos de autor patrimoniales del autor del tatuaje hacia quien lo tiene en su cuerpo?
Indudablemente, hay una consideración referida a que si el tatuador realiza una creación en una parte visible de un atleta muy fotografiado, no puede decir que ignora que le sacarán fotos a su torso o extremidades (o donde sea que esté el tatuaje, siendo una parte del cuerpo usualmente a la vista en su actividad deportiva).
Algo diverso es la reproducción del tatuaje con una definida intención comercial, de aplicación en productos que se colocan en el mercado.
Pero hay zonas grises, que - incluso - se van interpretando alternativamente a medida que hay usos de mayor frecuencia.
Es el caso de las tatuajes de jugadores de algún deporte colectivo cuya imagen, integrada a la de los restantes jugadores del equipo, se utiliza para videojuegos. Como el tatuaje compone la identidad de imagen de ciertos jugadores - especialmente los más conocidos - es de lógica que se luzcan al menos una referencia a los mismos en la reproducción "formato videojuego", digamos, de la figura del jugador.
Eso se discute en la sentencia citada por esta nota, en Estados Unidos de Norteamérica: "Solid Oak Sketches, LLC v. 2K Games, Inc. et al., No. 16-CV-724-LTS-SDA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53287 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), the Southern District of New York."
Al caso por el tamaño y la escasa precisión con que podían figurar en el cuerpo de la versión videojuego del jugador en cuestión (Lebron James) el tribunal no consideró admisible el reclamo del titular de derechos de autor del tatuaje.
MORALEJA: si se va a hacer un tatuaje, hágale firmar a su tatuador una cesión de derecho de propiedad intelectual. Especialmente en el caso de jugadores u otros players cuya imagen pública pasa a estar relacionada con estas creciones intelectuales de terceros que toman por "lienzo" al cuerpo humano...
No es el primer conflicto que vemos al respecto. Evidentemente, en torno a las imágenes en cuestión, resultó muy ponderada - en mi opinión - la sentencia dictada.
"To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show that the defendant copied the work and that a substantial similarity exists between the defendant’s work and the protectable elements of the copyrighted work. The defense argued substantial similarity could not be established because the use of the tattoos in the video game was de minimis – that any similar elements are so trivial that the copying does not rise to the level of actionable substantial similarity."
"In granting summary judgment, the Southern District of New York determined no reasonable factfinder could find the fleeting tattoos in NBA 2K were substantially similar to those owned by Plaintiff. Although the entire tattoos are visible in the game at certain angles, the tattoos are much smaller on the computer or television screen compared to their real-life size, and they appear merely as “visual noise.” The tattoos appear on three of the 400 possible players in the game, and are neither visible during average gameplay nor are they depicted separately from the Players. Additionally, the tattoos are not displayed with enough detail for an average lay observer to identify the subject matter of the tattoo; they are out of focus and often look like undefined dark shading on the Players’ arms. The Plaintiff did not provide any evidence supporting the proposition that a user’s selection of focus and camera angles makes the tattoos more prominent. Therefore, the court found that any similarity was de minimis."
"The Court found that the original tattoo artists who created the design necessarily granted the Players nonexclusive licenses to use the tattoos as part of their likeness — the Players requested the tattoos, the tattooists created the tattoos and delivered them to the Players, and the tattooists understood and intended the Players to distribute the tattoos as part of their likeness by appearing in public, on television, etc. Since the Players received implied licenses to use, distribute, and display the tattoos as part of their “likeness,” the Defendants had the right to use the tattoos to depict the Players because the Players gave the Defendants permission to use their likeness. And on that basis, the Court also dismissed the infringement claims.
Finally, the Court addressed Defendants’ arguments that their use of the tattoos in the video game is fair use. The Court weighed four factors in finding fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Lebron James' Tattoo Design Owner Copyright Infringement
Otros links:
https://www.nintenderos.com/2020/03/take-two-gana-la-demanda-que-solid-oak-sketches-le-interpuso-por-los-tatuajes-de-lebron-james-en-nba-2k/
https://www.viaxesports.com/take-two-gano-demanda-por-tatuajes-de-lebron-james-en-nba-2k/
Link sobre los tatuajes de Lebron James
https://www.marca.com/baloncesto/nba/2020/07/11/5f095b64e2704edaa68b4595.html
https://www.milenio.com/deportes/extra-cancha/lebron-james-el-significado-de-todos-los-tatuajes-del-basquetbolista
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario