Who Really Owns Your Tattoo?

[Guest nosnos]

Sure it is.

Ok. You guys offer some pretty irrefutable evidence. I stand corrected!

--------

[Guest Sprowse]

Is the law subject to common sense? I think not.

Id love to hear what "commissioned art" law you're referencing.

--------

Wouldn't it be great if there was a single, clearly written "law" that covered such things? Sure. In reality, topics such as intellectual property and copyright are covered by a number of laws, then further defined and refined by case law.

Of course, I could as my wife, who spent the last year practicing law (focused in intellectual property and copyrights) to do the research for you, but I'm guessing you wouldn't like her bill........ I must admit I cheated a bit......she fed me that answer.

Megan Fox......how many times has that chick been photographed mostly nude, showing off her tats? Do you think she has to get her tattoo artist's permission every time someone snaps a picture for a magazine?

[Guest nosnos]

If there is no formal agreement stating otherwise, does not the artist of a commissioned painting retain their intellectual property rights? I believe they do, but if you wouldn't mind asking your wife, Id be interested to hear what she says.

Say you hire me to draw you a picture of Megan Fox for your bedroom wall. I draw it. You hang it up in your house and stare at it each night as you fall asleep. Do you have the right to make copies of the drawing and sell them to all your friends? No. You don't, unless I surrendered all those rights to you.

Maybe I'm wrong.

--------

[NRA]

Does all mean I have to change my avatar?

[DaveTN]

Does all mean I have to change my avatar?

Nah… just cut a check to whoever did it.

[NRA]

Nah… just cut a check to whoever did it.

But.............. what about all the Benjamins I gave him already?

[laktrash]

let me see ...

How do deal with the guy that puts a custom paint job on your car ?

[Punisher84]

But.............. what about all the Benjamins I gave him already?

It's all about them from what I hear.

[Guest nosnos]

Don't worry, guys. Your mediocre tattoos on your pasty skin won't ever make enough money to justify a lawsuit. Plus, the artist that did them probably doesn't even understand what intellectual property rights are. I think you're going to be fine!

--------

[DaveTN]

Plus, the artist that did them probably doesn't even understand what intellectual property rights are.

I’m thinking they aren’t alone.

[strickj]

Sure it is. When we can’t post a news story because the owner of a forum has to worry about being sued; it has gone too far. (That won’t last long; it’s just the latest internet drama.)

Again, if you invented something would you want someone to rip your invention off and start profiting from it?

You may not think it's a big deal but I guarantee you that the writers and news companies that are loosing money from it do think it's a very big deal.

As far as the tattoo goes…. Once he puts it on my body he has relinquished any rights of how when or where it is displayed. Another artist might have problems if he copies my tattoo, but if I want to take a picture of my tattoo and display it on the front page of the paper I can do that; I own it.

Well, Dave, written law and case law disagrees with you. The only rights the owner relinquishes automatically (when no written terms are given) is the "implied personal use".

That is because, when you hand the owner the money and he lets you leave with the art, it is assumed that the creator understands that the person leaving with the art is going to use it.

It is also assumed, on the creator's behalf, that since the buyer if buying it personally for himself, that he is only going to use it for personal reasons. Thus the "implied personal use".

When you buy a movie from Blockbuster or WalMart, this very thing happens. You may physically own or possess that movie, but you do not own the intellectual rights to it.

Try copying a movie that you "own" to resell or your street corner and see what happens...

Oh, and putting it in the paper would be fine. Editorial publications do not need releases as they're covered by the 1st. Commercial publications are not so they do need releases.

Okay. Sure you can. And since you aren't making any money on your front page story, the artist has no motivation to sue. But if you take that bada$$ tattoo, make a lunch box out of the artwork, and start making millions, I assure you the artist will want their cut, and I think they have legal rights to sue. Its not so simple as "owning" it.

--------

That's exactly what the second case I mentioned in the OP was about. Barker got a tattoo that he liked so much that he decided to put it on a shirt in his clothing line.

Megan Fox......how many times has that chick been photographed mostly nude, showing off her tats? Do you think she has to get her tattoo artist's permission every time someone snaps a picture for a magazine?

How do you know that the photographers photographing her didn't obtain a release?

I'm sure that her legal team along with the photographers' legal teams figured this out long ago.

If she was photographed infront of, or in a building, then the photographer obtained a release from the building owner too.

Photographers know releases. It's their job to know them in detail and when how to use them. Without them, they can be sued.

let me see ...

How do deal with the guy that puts a custom paint job on your car ?

Well, if it's easily recognizable, then a photographer would need a release. You can not use the likeness of anything easily recognizable without permission from the owner. Cars, buildings, sculptures, and a million other things, all have copyrights.

Of coarse, like I mentioned in my OP, it's kind of a moot thing anyway. I've never met a tattooist, or even a body shop guy in your case, that knew anything about copyright laws. Being sued because of improper use or copyright infringement is not going to happen unless you're a celebrity or making big bucks of off someone's work.

Edited February 26, 2011 by strickj

[Guest Jamie]

So... the architects own all the buildings they've designed too?

And plastic surgeons... they now own a bunch of boobs, noses, etc?

Interesting... Not very practical, but interesting.

[Guest nosnos]

And plastic surgeons... they now own a bunch of boobs, noses, etc?

Clearly, boob jobs are not intellectual property. Its not really confusing, or impractical. Ha ha...

I guess understanding this is really, really difficult?

--------

[Guest nosnos]

I'm thinking they aren't alone.

You're right. As has been clearly demonstrated in this thread, the basics of intellectual property are beyond comprehension for many people.

--------

[DRM]

I don't think it is all that difficult to understand.

The commissioner of artwork owns *that* artwork. Generally speaking - owning *that* specific instance of artwork does not give the commissioner license to recreate that artwork and profit from it as they see fit.

The same applies to a building whose design was commissioned by an architect, or any other similar case.

[strickj]

Yeah, I don't think boobies are copyrighted... though, I wish I could hold some rights to them. Hell, I'd settle with just holding them

I don't think it is all that difficult to understand.

The commissioner of artwork owns *that* artwork. Generally speaking - owning *that* specific instance of artwork does not give the commissioner license to recreate that artwork and profit from it as they see fit.

The same applies to a building whose design was commissioned by an architect, or any other similar case.

There is no 'commissioned' clause written within copyright laws. The law states that the creator owns it and the intellectual rights to it unless otherwise expressed.

U.S. Copyright Office - What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ)

[DRM]

There is no 'commissioned' clause written within copyright laws. The law states that the creator owns it and the intellectual rights to it unless otherwise expressed.

U.S. Copyright Office - What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ)

When I come to an artist and pay him to create art based on what I want, that he would not have created without me commissioning it - am I the creator of the art, or is he?

I don't think it is a stretch to say that I created the art, and he was merely the "bricklayer" who put the "architect's" ideas into action.

Edited February 26, 2011 by DRM

[G27]

SIAP: http://legacy.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB10_2_Harkins.pdf

[strickj]

When I come to an artist and pay him to create art based on what I want, that he would not have created without me commissioning it - am I the creator of the art, or is he?

I don't think it is a stretch to say that I created the art, and he was merely the "bricklayer" who put the "architect's" ideas into action.

The closest thing to that in copyright codes is in reference to when there is a creator working for an employer. In which case, the artwork will hold shared and equal ownership between the employer and the actual creator.

In the situation of a tattoo, that would mean the tattoo artist and the owner of the tattoo shop (his employer) will hold ownership of the intellectual property rights. The person getting the tattoo is merely a customer of the artist and the shop.

Going back to the two cases mentioned in the OP, they both named both the tattoo artist and his shop (employer) as plaintiffs.

Simply paying someone to perform an act does not equate to employment.

Also, you can not copyright or hold claim to a copyright infringement to an act or an idea (telling or showing someone how to do the art).

[Guest Jamie]

Clearly, boob jobs are not intellectual property. Its not really confusing, or impractical. Ha ha...

I guess understanding this is really, really difficult?

--------

Understanding it isn't, but understanding where some people want to draw that line can be.

You start claiming tattoos are intellectual property, even though they were commissioned and paid for by someone else, then the line gets equally fuzzy for boob jobs, etc. for a number of reasons.

For the record though, I own my tattoos... They were placed there by someone else, but they were designed either in whole or part by me, and approved by me before they ever went on. The guys doing the needling had very little to do with anything other than seeing that they got where I wanted them.

There's also the fact I've had several people from different places do the work, and a person would have a helluva time proving who did what when.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Jamie

[strickj]

Understanding it isn't, but understanding where some people want to draw that line can be.

You start claiming tattoos are intellectual property, even though they were commissioned and paid for by someone else, then the line gets equally fuzzy for boob jobs, etc. for a number of reasons.

For the record though, I own my tattoos... They were placed there by someone else, but they were designed either in whole or part by me, and approved by me before they ever went on. The guys doing the needling had very little to do with anything other than seeing that they got where I wanted them.

There's also the fact I've had several people from different places do the work, and a person would have a helluva time proving who did what when.

There is no fuzzy line when you understand copyright laws. Read this PDF for what does and what does not hold copyrights. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Also see my above post (and that link explains it in depth) about "commissioning" art work and holding rights to ideas.

[Guest Jamie]

There is no fuzzy line when you understand copyright laws. Read this PDF for what does and what does not hold copyrights. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Also see my above post (and that link explains it in depth) about "commissioning" art work and holding rights to ideas.

Nah... I've got better things to do than poke around at crap I'm never gonna have to worry about. It just struck me as funny that there might be even the slightest possibility that a woman could lose the rights, so to speak, to her boobs, or any other part of her anatomy... which is what we're really discussing here.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Jamie

[laktrash]

It just struck me as funny that there might be even the slightest possibility that a woman could lose the rights, so to speak, to her boobs, or any other part of her anatomy... which is what we're really discussing here.

It kinda goes back to my buddys divorce he not bashful

after listening to what all his wife wanted who didn't work

He jumped up and " said half, half. half I'm tired of hearing this if we want to do this way I paid for her boobs and I want one of 'em

true story

[strickj]

Nah... I've got better things to do that poke around at crap I'm never gonna have to worry about. It just struck me as funny that there might be even the slightest possibility that a woman could lose the rights, so to speak, to her boobs, or any other part of her anatomy... which is what we're really discussing here.

Boobs are not intellectual property. Though, I suppose god could claim them as his intellectual property and sue a woman for altering his art

What does copyright protect?

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

No one has, nor can they ever, own your body, or a body part, because of a piece of art or a copyright. They can, however, own the intellectual rights to the art itself, even if it is in your physical possession. All of this is explained in the above link. Edited February 26, 2011 by strickj

[Guest Jamie]

Boobs are not intellectual property. Though, I suppose god could claim them as his intellectual property and sue a woman for altering his art

No one has, nor can they ever, own your body, or a body part, because of a piece of art or a copyright. They can, however, own the intellectual rights to the art itself, even if it is in your physical possession. All of this is explained in the above link.

Boobs are not an intellectual property... however, the improvements made to them by someone else could be said to be. Some might even go so far as to say it's art... You following me here?

Now, if you lose the ability to show or have photographed part of your anatomy without asking the permission of someone who's improved it with their "artwork", or having to pay them... whatever that work might be... then you have in fact given up or lost control of part of yourself. No?

Now, I'm not getting into the technicalities of the law... I really don't give a rat's ass about 'em one way or the other... but that is in fact what they're causing/doing, if they apply to tattoos. Because sooner or later, some damn fool will try to add other "personal improvements" to the mix as well, and we all know it.

And given how things are going/have gone, they'll probably succeed.