It all comes down to a cases to cases question. If the tattoo is the relevant part of the marketing, then yes, the tattooist gets a cut.

That is his job after all.

That, of course, only works for tattoos that are unique enough to warrant a distinction. I would guess not many tattoos are affected by this.

I'm not aware of the Chinese government asserting a copyright over Chinese culture.

Then again, I know nothing about how IP law works in China. :p

It's complicated. Just leave it as this. But also Graffiti is copyrighted, but if the graffiti is in a public place, you can sell pictures of that Graffiti made on that spot, but you cannot replicate the design.

Copyright is complicated, people.
They don't have any.

But they made an "exact replica", which is recreating the design. It is not an image of the tattooed body part.
A part of a body is no property at all (as long as it is attached).

And we are talking about the design here. The recreated the design without permission. Which is a breach of copyright.

He may actually be right legally, but I still have the feeling this is just wrong.

The dude who does his hair should get a cut too at this point then.

Once the design is part of my body it is part of me, part of my image and public.

So, Nail Art its not owned by the person, too?

No. The design belongs to the creator.

It does not affect you in any way. But if you want to recreate that design or use that design for marketing, the creator gets a cut. That is how copyright works. When pictures are made, a tattoo can hardly make any problems, as it is seen as a part of the likeness of the person. But we are not talking about pictures here, we are talking about recreating an "exact replica".

The ink is your property. If you could it out, the skin is your property, but not the design.

Edit:

A thought of "picture problem" of a tattoo I can think of is when a picture shows an unknown person in which the tattoo is the actual centrepiece of the marketing. Like only showing a biceps with an awesome tat on it.

But what if you gave guidelines? (Make this red and this here bigger.) Don't you have co-author rights then?

From what I see in the pictures, they only reproduced the boxer's tatooed body part.
In my opinion, THQ would only be in the wrong if they made a reproduction of the tattoo itself, without it being attached to anyone's body.

Still, I suppose I could be wrong since my legal expertise is nil when it comes to US copyright law, which I suppose applies here.
I can't help but feel this is morally wrong though. Art on someone's body just shouldn't be exploitable for financial gain by anybody except the body's owner.

Does Elvis' hairdresser own the rights to his distinctive haircut too? Should he get money anytime someone copies it?

Once that creator makes his art a part of my body he loses control of what I do with it, including licensing my likeness to THQ. You cannot change my mind on that, it is extremely obvious to me.

The law certainly has no room for common sense. It may not be an image of the actual body part, but it's a virtual representation of exactly that body part, including the design that happens to be inked on said body part. The only reason the tattoo is there is that it is in fact there on that person in real life. Now, if they had made a feature in the game where you could put different tattoos on the fighters, and included that design in the available library, then yes, I'd agree the artist should be compensated. In that case, they would be making money off that specific design. In this case however, they are making money off a person's likeness, with his permission. When you get a tattoo, it becomes part of your likeness, which is owned by you and nobody else.

Still, copyright law is probably on the side of the artist in this case, stupid as it is. Let this be a lesson to you all: if you get a tattoo, you may lose complete ownership of your own likeness.

It depends. How much you actually did with the design.
I think that is actually the issue here, they need to create the design and then apply it to the body. If it would be less "exact", there wouldn't be an issue. That is at least how I understand the article.

It is somewhat of a technicality that the artist might be using, but those technicalities need to be protect, as they can be used to create loopholes to guile artists out of their work.
That is exactly what is not happening.

Copyright is extremely complicated and you must look a countless little things. There is a reason basic law takes years to study.
It isn't about the likeness, it's about the design.

Anyway, I pretty much said everything. I'm now going to kill some dudes with my tattoos. (bonus cookies for whoever gets the game ;-) )

Sure but owning the design to the point you control what I do with my body is absurd. You forfeit that when you put it on my body.