Elizabeth L Perez wrote:
I think it's because the photographer is automatically the one with the copyright, unless there's a contract stipulating the the photographer gives up his rights (in this case to the makeup artist). If you mean trademarking a look, it gets a little dicey.

Here's an example of why that's not the case:

A photographer takes a pic of painting. He owns the copyright to that pic, but cannot sell posters because the copyright to the painting is owned by the original artist.

So since MU is not treated the same way, legally, MU is not considered "art"?

Chi - Rue99 Photography wrote:

Here's an example of why that's not the case:

A photographer takes a pic of painting. He owns the copyright to that pic, but cannot sell posters because the copyright to the painting is owned by the original artist.

So since MU is not treated the same way, legally, MU is not considered "art"?

I think the better question is: Is MU considered art?
Legally, are you serious?

Michael Siu wrote:
As in the other post, You may fall under the work for hire rule.    Work for hire does not have rights to the images, even if you were the assistant to the photographer who pushed the button to take the picture.

Work for hire doesn't matter.  The only time I have copyright to my makeup work is if I took the picture that made the work permanent.  I could also pay a photog for copyright.  But on collaborative tests, I hold no copyright.  Neither does a fashion stylist.

C and J Photography wrote:
Makeup is more of a tangle because there is case law defining it as generally not copyrightable.

Really? If so, that's the answer to the question. If there are details online, that would be great if you could point it out.

C and J Photography wrote:
Makeup is more of a tangle because there is case law defining it as generally not copyrightable.

Could you please cite the case to which you are referring, because I have been unable to find any case law that supports that statement.

Amy Allen MUA wrote:
Wasn't there a thread a while ago asking whether you could copyright a hairstyle?

yes

I can't find it, though.

Here are others

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 6794&page=

https://modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=41706&page=

Michael Siu wrote:
As in the other post, You may fall under the work for hire rule.    Work for hire does not have rights to the images, even if you were the assistant to the photographer who pushed the button to take the picture.

In the absence of a written agreement, no work is ever considered a work for hire.

C and J Photography wrote:
Tattoos generally are copyright the designer in preference to the ink applier.

The ink on the skin is an new embodiment of the design, with a new author of the original work. So, it is a derivative work with the author of the design having the most leverage.


Now, if it came from a book where the purchase of the book provides a license, you'd have to see what that license said to have certain knowledge of how expansive the tatoo artist's rights are, but there are always going to be some.

If there isn't a law that automatically transfers rights to the tatooee, there should be. I ahve all the respect in the world for people's IP, but this is an unusual case and shouldn't follow the same laws as everything else.

POGraphix wrote:
Makeup Artists who design a work (i.e., for movies etc.,) can get recognition and awards for their work and are credited (as you are on MM) for creating the look.  The best a MUA can do is to get a high-quality print for their book from the photographer.

You can't copyright makeup but you can create your own style (like Kevin Aucoin, for example) and have a book that is filled with your "art".

More importantly, as someone pointed out earlier, as a MUA; you work is by its very nature - a work for hire - and you don't have any claim to it. 

Disney, for example, is famous for great stuff created by its world of 'imagineers', artists and all sorts of creative types.  They can't even get a copy of their work in their own portfolio because Disney keeps its work for hire to itself.  Remember when the tattoo shops were underfire for creating unlicensed Disney tattoos?

In any case, the easiest solution to having your make up artistry your own - is to create the make-up and then take the photo yourself.  It is the only way you will own that image.

I have had (and allowed) make up artists to take photos of their work for their own use.

Good Luck!!

If you work for someone who hires you, it's not a work for hire.

Work for hire means that there is signed paperwork in place to automatically transfer rights. IF there's no signed paperwork, then they don't transfer.

Disney will own all the rights to work created by people who work for them in one of two ways. THey are automatically owned by the employer if the employee is a full time staff employee. Freelances and contractors will be covered by work for hire agreements. The work for hire concept exists to cover freelancers and contractors.

Chi - Rue99 Photography wrote:
I've always wondered why MUAs and stylists don't have the same legal right to their work as any other artist. Is it because MU/styling is not as distinguishable or not legally considered art? 

In a related thread, tat artists may be given the right to treat their work as art. Just curious if anyone had the answer regarding makeup artists.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=338619

You do. No one may copy your work without your permission. Imitate, is not copying. Pressing your face on to a canvas would be a copy/duplication of the work - especially if you used that like an ink stamp to apply it to another canvas or face. My guess is that's not realistically practical. But if I wanted to be some kind of Andy Warhol and follow you around to all of your shoots, get the model to press her face into my canvas after you'd left and then go sell that canvas at a gallery in Soho, you'd have a good case.


At a photo shoot, your art, the creative work that you are authoring is the make up, not the photograph. A photograph can be a derivative work and I'm sure people will be along to bring up the whole "what if you photograph the side of a building?" example.

There are two things that need to be determined. One is who is the author and two is whether or not it's an original or derivative work.

Copyright law has made it extremely simple. Whoever presses the button, owns the work (you could have a work for hire agreement with an assistant who could press the button and the photographer would still own the work.

So at a shoot the MUA's work is the make up, not the photograph.

The angle with which to pursue some form of joint ownership would be through a claim that a photograph is a derivative work.

In the end it's all kind of moot. What do you need to have copyright ownership for? Anything you could want can be put in place through a usage agreement.

Do you want to be able to use the photo in your port? Do you want to be able to resell it? Do you want 20% of the photographer's income?

You don't need the copyright to get any of that, just a written contract where those items are agreed to. Or you can have a contract that gives you part of the ownership, whatever you want.

The only catch is, you need leverage. You need to be providing something so special and so valuable that the person hires doesn't laugh at you, hang up the phone and call someone else. But if you're in a position where they'll give you whatever you want, you can document it through percentage of copyright ownership or usage agreement.


There is one very small difference - recourse in a lawsuit. If you're a copyright holder, you sue for infringement. If you have a useage agreement, you sue for breech of contract. Seeing as the vast majority of photo shoot s don't end in lawsuits, this is most likely insignificant.

C and J Photography wrote:
Tattoos generally are copyright the designer in preference to the ink applier.

also, the main reason tattoo artists have copyright is because it's also their traditional drawing that they then translated into tattoo...

it's like taking a painting or a drawing and saying you did it. same thing.
the tattoo artist designed it on paper first, and then put it into ink.

makeup artists can't really say "well i was the first one to ever think of putting purple on one side blah blah blah..." there really isn't any proof, unless like stated, it was specifically created for stage or something along those lines.

paul cameron wrote:
intellectual property anyone..?

You cannot copyright an idea. Common makeup styles are just that: common. Yes, an electrician is skilled, no they don't hold a copyright when they install wires, because it is standard thing they do.

Unless you are an innovator, or the storyteller, you have nothing.

sometimes I'MM kinky wrote:
Why don't MUAs/stylist have rights to their work?

For the same reason set painters don't own own a piece of a feature film. The person commissioning the work and making the overall decisions owns the copyright. If you think that is you, then you need that stipulated in a written contract with the photographer. It is assumed that makeup artists are work for hire. Get it in a contract if you want a different outcome. However, I know as I photographer, I would just hire another makeup artist. You don't have enough power to demand ownership rights.

will someone cite some case law, or statute regarding whether or not a MUA has some legal right to part of the product, rather than speculate.

C and J Photography wrote:
Related to the Cats Makeup copyright infringement case:

Favoring the MUA Candace Anne Carell copyright:

http://www.sddlaw.com/RealTime.cgi?case … 7Cdocument

http://www.sddlaw.com/RealTime.cgi?case … 7Cdocument

My suggestion is to be familiar with successful cases. Not only to reference them, but to understand what facet of the makeup design rendered it trademarkable or copyrightable. The case will spell out the details that enabled a sustainable claim.

Let me put it this way, If the makeup is not unique, there is nothing to trademark. 

The Lanham (trademark) Act: (This gets updated periodically, check for a more current version before relying on it.)

http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip … nham43.htm

The Sherman Act: (This addresses issues such as restraint of trade. also allways good to verify current law before relying on it.)

http://www.apeccp.org.tw/doc/USA/Policy/sherman.html

We can look at copyright of a Photograph for reference.

Suppose I shoot a picture of the Seattle Skyline. A large international company, perhaps Macroswift, decides to use it in a huge ad campaign. I offer the image license for, Hmmm, One Million Dollars... They walk away from the table. Later I see the image in their ads and press them for my money. They produce undisputable evidence they had the image shot by another photographer. Do you really think I can copyright the idea of shooting the skyline from a certain spot and with certain equipment settings? Only if my image is truly unique.

Now if I had shot a picture of Hammering Man and was selling that, I can imagine losing an infringement case to the sculptor.

thanks for the links...so looks like a MUA can indeed hold copyright to a specific design

pullins photography wrote:
will someone cite some case law, or statute regarding whether or not a MUA has some legal right to part of the product, rather than speculate.

Pulling out random case laws is just as bad as speculation. If you really want an answer to this, you need to find an intellectual property lawyer. But seriously, they're going to say the same thing I am: If it isn't original, it isn't protected.