There are many great features available to you once you register at Neowin, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the front page
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of experience on hard & software issues, gaming and recreational activities, and more
  • Access to the Neowin IRC - you could make a friend from across the world and talk to them live
  • Access to Neowin contests & subscription offers and forums that are not open to guests/li>
  • It's simple, and FREE! · Register here

Tatoo artist stakes a claim on Rasheed's arm


 Share

Recommended Posts

A Portland man who put a tattoo on the right arm of Detroit Piston Rasheed Wallace is suing to stop the forward from displaying the work in ads for Nike basketball shoes.

Matthew Reed from TigerLilly Tattoo and DesignWorks claims he owns the copyright for the design of the tattoo. Reed's lawsuit wants the Nike ad featuring Wallace and the tattoo off the air and the Internet, as well as damages.

The following statement from Nike: "Rasheed Wallace fairly compensated Mr. Reed when he received the tattoo in 1998. Rasheed is entitled to display the tattoo in any manner he wishes. We will vigorously defend our right and Rasheed's right to use the tattoo."

:wacko:

Lots o' links

http://www.detnews.com/2005/pistons/0502/15/sport-90697.htm

http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0502/15b.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/ESPNSports/story?id=505426

Pictures:

http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo/celeb-wallace.htm

Has anyone seen the Nike Ad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy should just ask for a credit somewhere on the advert. I've seen some in the UK (for pringles I think), where the artist and song title are mentioned in text on the screen. It would be a bit of free advertising for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well then he should have put a copyright sign on the tattoo and made wallace sign a contract before putting the ink on him. the guy has no right as its his (wallace) body and he (artist) was compenstated for the design when it was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well then he should have put a copyright sign on the tattoo and made wallace sign a contract before putting the ink on him.  the guy has no right as its his (wallace) body and he (artist) was compenstated for the design when it was done.

585511109[/snapback]

I agree with that. Although im sure the Lawyers will try to spin things towards the tatoo artist's advantage. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tattooist should 'go spin', but I'd be interested in finding out how this goes as my girlfriend has a tattoo that we use as her logo when she's out singing (posters, cd's etc.).

Anyone know of any cases like this in the UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:no: <sigh>

The tattoo artist is confused. I have 15 tats, for the record, and when I pay for a tattoo I am comishioning art from an artist. From that moment on *I* own that art and may dow with it as I please.

The suit is without merit and the basketball player will have the ability to file suit against the artist for frivolous lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tattooist should 'go spin', but I'd be interested in finding out how this goes as my girlfriend has a tattoo that we use as her logo when she's out singing (posters, cd's etc.).

Anyone know of any cases like this in the UK?

585515492[/snapback]

No, in general, it's only American's who mindlessly sue each other! :p

Edited by Axel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is a nice tatt.

585513251[/snapback]

I agree, it is a super nice tat, really tastefully done.

IMO the players of the NBA have some of the worse tattoos literally known to man on them, and I always though before the commercial (which by the way is an amazing commercial and I love it) that Rasheed's work was possibly the nicest and most tasteful on any player.

This is retarded on the artist's behalf to say the very least.

It would be the equivalent of every tattoo artist suing any rock start because when they played live or filmed a video you could see their tattoos.

I think the guy just wanted some more clients or something, but going about it this way is the dumbest way in the world because who would want to work with him now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.