SLE Photography wrote:
This will not apply in many cases as a) many tattoos are not "original work" (i.e. derived from flash sheets) or b) are not the original design of the artists (i.e. someone brings in their OWN design and says "put this on me"), or more importantly c) are not the FOCUS OF USE as in this case.

If you actually read the details (I did, thank heavens I read 600 words a minute or so), it wasn't simply a photo of the man where his tattoo was visible, it was an advertisement FEATURING the tattoo, with a computer-aided reconstruction of the creation of the design (which WAS an original & copyrighted work) and commentary about the design by the player.

The idea that this case would broadly apply to any tattoo that INCIDENTALLY is a part of a photo is a stretch.

rdenstudio wrote:
he it is  I just wanted to give you a heads  up the US courts say you can NOT photograph tattoos without paying the tattoos artist  so shoot me

never again will i add a post

SLE Photography wrote:
If that's what you got out of this, then you either didn't read all of it or didn't understand it.

SLE Photography wrote:
On the bright side, this might put $G out of business...

rdenstudio wrote:
photographer can not photograph tattoos


http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/ … arkins.pdf

I thought you promised not to ever post again...

you lied to us...

SLE Photography wrote:
I'll just repost what I said in the other thread before it was locked:

On the issue of the flash tats. The tat artist may not be the copyrgiht owner in the first place - BUT - there will be an underlying copyright owned by someone.

Shops buy books of designs and in doing so acquire a license to reproduce them with or without modification. That does NOT mean there is no underlying copyright in the tat as applied, or that a new copyright might not arise in the application of a stock design with alteration, modification or embellishment.

One can compare this very closely to music. There is ALWAYS more than one copyright in music. The composer will have a copyright on the musical composition; additinally there may be a copyright on the lyrics if written seperately, or, especially by someone else; lastly the performer or their producer will have acquired a performance right in the presented version. The performer, however, does not acquire rights to the underlying composition OR the lyrics in the performing of the piece though a new right [in copyright] may subsist in a recording of the actual performance [as a result of alteration, modification or embellishment]. Nor does a buyer of an authorised copy of a performed work acquire any underlying rights by way of the ownership of a particular copy of the performance. They own that purchased copy and only that copy. Just ask RIAA and MPAA.

In tats, in particular flash tats from reference books, the original artist will have a copyright in the underlying art; the publisher will have a copyright in the publication itself of that art under license [as a collective work]; the tat artist will have acquired a sub-license when the material is purchased from the publisher; and the tat artist MAY acquire a new copyright when the art is applied IF there are creative alterations to the original art that rise to the level of new art. The person to whom the tat is applied acquires no ongoing rights in the doing of the above.

Thereafter the person to whom the tat is applied can not extend a license to, say, a photographer, to reproduce any tat applied to them. They can NOT grant what they do NOT have.

To approach it otherwise is to say, for instance, that a model acquires a copyright to an image because it is a photo of them... and by extention can grant some right(s) to someone else for the reproduction, display, publication of, or something else that are exclusive rights of the copyright owner. And we know that is just not true. They can not grant what they do not own. They can only assert ownership of the single physical copy that they have, or in the case of a tat that is applied to their own pelt. They can do with that as they please. Nothing more.

If a photographer is shooting work with a commercial use objective the end user [client] would be foolish indeed not to insist on complete and exhaustive clearances being documented.

---

As a side issue thre ARE certain things that can NOT be [specifically] copyrighted, but those very same things may involve other rights in other areas of copyright law, e.g. designs or trademarks.

Example of things that can not be "copyrighted" but where other kinds of rights may subsist:

shapes - common or uncommon;
words, letters or numbers - though typefaces/fonts can be;
quotes [incorporated into other works];
commonly known information [though copyright as database rights may exist in the particular arrangement of that information];
names - names or pseudonyms of individuals (including pen name or stage name) - also names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the name of a group of performers) [United States Copyright Office Circular No. 34];
titles of works;
advertising slogans;
short phrases;
colours;
ideas, procedures or methods;
useful designs as opposed to applied art [United States Copyright Office Circular No. 103];
formulas, algorithms [United States Copyright Office Circular No. 31];

Studio36

Visions by Dan wrote:
I wander what would happen to a tattoo artist's business if he/she tried to sue someone. What are they going to do for income when people are too scared to go to that tattoo artist if he/she loses in court.

Nothing like short-sightedness and biting the hand that feeds you.

THe stupidity level of this concept is quite high.

rdenstudio wrote:
he it is  I just wanted to give you a heads  up the US courts say you can NOT photograph tattoos without paying the tattoos artist  so shoot me

never again will i add a post

rdenstudio wrote:
photographer can not photograph tattoos


http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/ … arkins.pdf

AndrewG wrote:
I thought you promised not to ever post again...

you lied to us...

why are you posting this again? Is this really necessary..... especially after the thread got locked???

rdenstudio wrote:
photographer can not photograph tattoos


http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/ … arkins.pdf

Ya right! haha

rdenstudio wrote:
photographer can not photograph tattoos


http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/ … arkins.pdf

As I read through the case, this isn't "photographer can not photograph tattoos," but, "People with tattoos can not have them photographed."

So, I suppose what this really means is that the tattoo artist owns the body of the person with the tattoo, unless that person has a signed release from the tattoo artist.

The primary defendant was never any of the photographers involved, but the person with the tattoo.  In turn, the photographer/publicizing company that is getting sued can sue the person with the tattoo for signing a fraudulent release.

And all of that is IF this holds up, which is pretty unlikely considering work for hire.

Dobias Fine Art Photo wrote:
And all of that is IF this holds up, which is pretty unlikely considering work for hire.

Merely paying to have a tat applied does NOT establish a WMFH any more than merely paying for a photographer to photograph you does. In the US there are, even for WMFH, very specific requirements INCLUDING an agreement IN ADVANCE to starting the work, AND that at some point MUST be commited to writing, to the effect that the work is a WMFH.

Studio36

JoJo Suicide wrote:
Next step... cake decorators copyrighting ‘happy birthday’

The phrase "Happy Birthday" falls within the groups of things things that can NOT be copyrighted, or does painting a house IN GENERAL but that changes if the painter creates a graphic, such as graffiti art, as part of the painting of the house. The graffiti itself may indeed carry a copyright.

Studio36

JoJo Suicide wrote:
Next step... cake decorators copyrighting ‘happy birthday’

studio36uk wrote:
The phrase "Happy Birthday" falls within the groups of things things that can NOT be copyrighted, or does painting a house IN GENERAL but that changes if the painter creates a graphic, such as graffiti art, as part of the painting of the house. The graffiti itself may indeed carry a copyright.

Studio36

I was being rather facetious

JoJo Suicide wrote:
I was being rather facetious

I sensed that but around here everyone else might not.

Studio36

AcmeStudios wrote:
I believe the song "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted.

I'll save that for another thread.

Why not drop it in right here:

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

HAPPY BIRTHDAY... WE'LL SUE

Claim: The song Happy Birthday is protected by copyright

Status: True

---

But it may not be true everywhere. In some countries music copyrights expire in as little as 50 years.

Studio36

Visions by Dan wrote:
I wander what would happen to a tattoo artist's business if he/she tried to sue someone. What are they going to do for income when people are too scared to go to that tattoo artist if he/she loses in court.

That's ridiculous.  That's like saying a photographer should never enforce his copyrights in court for fear people will be "scared" of his work.

studio36uk wrote:

The phrase "Happy Birthday" falls within the groups of things things that can NOT be copyrighted, or does painting a house IN GENERAL but that changes if the painter creates a graphic, such as graffiti art, as part of the painting of the house. The graffiti itself may indeed carry a copyright.

Studio36

Agreed.  A tat is original artwork (someone's art, even if not that of the person applying the tat) and it would make sense that it is subject to copyright.

Visions by Dan wrote:
I wander what would happen to a tattoo artist's business if he/she tried to sue someone. What are they going to do for income when people are too scared to go to that tattoo artist if he/she loses in court.

Frank McAdam wrote:
That's ridiculous.  That's like saying a photographer should never enforce his copyrights in court for fear people will be "scared" of his work.

What is being missed is the inobvious point that the tattoo is put on a PERSON, not on paper, or intangible, non-civil-rights, non-citizenship holding, item.

I've thought about this for years, and it is an issue that will have to be eventually decided either by popular opinion (in the courts) or by a decision at the highest level (of the courts).  What about people who get a copyrighted character or phrase on their body?   Who is the actual infringer?  The tattoo artist who knew better -- or should have -- as a "professional" -- or the person, as a "victim."

For a tattoo artist to claim the _rights_ on a PERSON is akin to slavery, or at the least, indentured servitude.  If the person getting the tattoo was not fully informed of such things, the "contract" is invalid.

Slavery is not legal in any form, so the "hold" over a person, that is not imposed as a legal measure (eg: probation, parole, etc) would not be legal. 

Such attempt to block a person from fair use, and profit on their own likeness, or body would result in counter suits, and clog the courts with idiotic suits that reek of slavery, indenturedness, violation of civil/human rights, etc.   

I'm pretty sure no one wants to go there.

Also, as pointed out, it's death to the tattoo field to try to do this -- but maybe it's time.   Everything goes in cycles, and I'm sure that a lot of the 18-20-somethings will regret the "toxic" ink they got as "kids" when older.   I can't believe the stuff being put on skin, in very visible places.   

Whether you like tattoos or not, anything that goes "mainstream" is going to have to go through a shakeout.  I'm not against tattoos in principle, but they should be harmonious with the person/body not simply plastered on it.

As economic times get bad, people try anything to make a buck.

So, putting it all together, it's not surprising this is happening now.

Regardless of "opinions" on this, the final decisions will inevitably be tested in court, and possibly with the intervention of Congress.   

It will eventually come down to "Can someone own or claim the rights to a piece of a person?" 

Logic has nothing to do with this issue, nor does common sense or even fair play.

It will come down to greed vs human/civil rights.  Hopefully, greed won't win.

Scott

JoJo Suicide wrote:
I was being rather facetious

That's 'way too many syllables for this forum.

Frank McAdam wrote:

That's ridiculous.  That's like saying a photographer should never enforce his copyrights in court for fear people will be "scared" of his work.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges here. My photograph is not on someone's body and I am not going to be trying to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body after I photograph them.

BodyartBabes wrote:
What is being missed is the inobvious point that the tattoo is put on a PERSON, not on paper, or intangible, non-civil-rights, non-citizenship holding, item.

You (try to) make the point that because the art is applied to another person's skin that it can't or shouldn't be copyrighted, and I'm pretty sure that's not true.  The copyright laws were written in an attempt to disregard the media format -- in general, a work of art is copyrighted when it is recorded in some format or another, and a tattoo qualifies.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

You (try to) make the point that because the art is applied to another person's skin that it can't or shouldn't be copyrighted, and I'm pretty sure that's not true.  The copyright laws were written in an attempt to disregard the media format -- in general, a work of art is copyrighted when it is recorded in some format or another, and a tattoo qualifies.

Not to disrespect tattoo artists and their rights, but I'll take my chances.

Blue Ash Film Group wrote:
How many of these threads will we have to endure?

4????

Visions by Dan wrote:
You are trying to compare apples and oranges here. My photograph is not on someone's body and I am not going to be trying to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body after I photograph them.

No, you're going to tell them what can and can't be done with your photographs after you take them.  If you can't see the parallel, whose fault is that?

AcmeStudios wrote:
I believe the song "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted.

I'll save that for another thread.

It is.

Ultra Magnus wrote:
Looks like models, male and female, are going to have to get releases and licensing from their tattoo artists now?  I don't see how this can stand up in court.

If the photos are to be used commercially, it sounds like it does stand up. If I were a tattoo artist, I'd say it makes perfectly good sense. The vast majority of the population may disagree, but interpretation of the law is not decided based on the majority.

If this is really true, it will spread around the tat artist community like wildfire.

DigitalArticulation wrote:
This is just stupid.. I have been in many tattoo parlors and 95% of the ink work on the walls is a copy of someone else's work (marilyn, HD logos etc) .. So for a tattoo artist to copy someone else's work, and then claim it's theirs is utterly silly.

It defies logic.. If  model gets a tattoo she can't show it off to anyone with a camera  ?? Gah..

Next, you can't be photographed if you use Suave shampoo ..

Actually, you cannot photograph someone using Sauve shampoo for commercial use in most cases. With some exceptions, you generally need their permission to do so.

Chi - Rue99 Photography wrote:

If the photos are to be used commercially, it sounds like it does stand up. If I were a tattoo artist, I'd say it makes perfectly good sense. The vast majority of the population may disagree, but interpretation of the law is not decided based on the majority.

If this is really true, it will spread around the tat artist community like wildfire.

It certainly will.  The wildest of wildfires.  Tattooees will be getting signed releases from their tattoo artists before the first needle touches the skin.  I can already see the new threads.