Who Really Owns Your Tattoo?

[strickj]

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?

I absolutely follow what you;re saying. But surgery is not art. It will never be art.

Even if we did call boobs and boob jobs art, the surgeon would simply be altering the original, not creating an original.

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?

No. You never loose any control or the ability show your body or a body part because someone's art is on it. You can always cover it up. Kat Von D with no tats

and another NWS-underwear

[Guest Sprowse]

You guys are so close to actually understanding this topic.

I've leave you to contemplate this for tomorrow:

Is there a legal difference between the tattoo art inscribed on one's skin and REPRODUCING that art into another medium in a for-profit venture? Can an artist claim a copyright on a non-original or un-unique work (if that's even a word?)

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sprowse

[Guest Sprowse]

One other thing about the Barker lawsuit:

1) A pending lawsuit neither demonstrates case law, nor creates evidence of any points. Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time.......it doesn't mean they have any basis in the law.

2) Read this link Courthouse News Service It seems to infer that the art in question was PUBLISHED in a magazine, and that is the basis for the copyright lawsuit.

Reading this link:http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/08/Blink182.pdf would make one question if tattoos actually have anything to do with this lawsuit at all, except for the fact that the plantiff is a tattoo artist.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sprowse

[Guest Jamie]

I absolutely follow what you;re saying. But surgery is not art. It will never be art.

Tattooing is a form of surgery... one that wasn't allowed in Tn for the longest time.

Even if we did call boobs and boob jobs art, the surgeon would simply be altering the original, not creating an original.

"Art" is a rather subjective term... and a tattoo is nothing more than an alteration to a person's skin color. Usually a very localized one, but still nothing more than a change in skin pigment at best.

I've seen some women that prior to enlargement pretty much had nothing but the "place markers" for where they were supposed to be. In effect, what they ended up with was entirely man-made. Only the skin that covered them was original.

No. You never loose any control or the ability show your body or a body part because someone's art is on it. You can always cover it up. Kat Von D with no tats

and another NWS-underwear

My point exactly... you can no longer show it "as is"... you either get permission for it to be seen, or you cover it with something... even if it's only makeup. Or "digital" makeup. You can no longer simply do as you wish, any way you wish, and any time you want.

Seriously... people go on about the "slippery slope" with some gun laws... I see one with this stuff as well. And it's far worse than any 2A infringement.

I'd hate to see a time when folks were obligated to "conceal carry" a damned tattoo, of all things...

[strickj]

You guys are so close to actually understanding this topic.

I've leave you to contemplate this for tomorrow:

Is there a legal difference between the tattoo art inscribed on one's skin and REPRODUCING that art into another medium in a for-profit venture? Can an artist claim a copyright on a non-original or un-unique work (if that's even a word?)

What, like a congee (sp?) or tribal trampstamp?

I'd say not because art has to be original (or at least different) to be considered copyrighted. A cookie cutter off the wall tat is not what I would call an original work of art.

Although, an off the wall tat that's altered in a way that makes it easily recognizable may fall into that category.

One other thing about the Barker lawsuit:

1) A pending lawsuit neither demonstrates case law, nor creates evidence of any points. Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time.......it doesn't mean they have any basis in the law.

2) Read this link Courthouse News Service It seems to infer that the art in question was PUBLISHED in a magazine, and that is the basis for the copyright lawsuit.

Reading this link:http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/08/Blink182.pdf would make one question if tattoos actually have anything to do with this lawsuit at all, except for the fact that the plantiff is a tattoo artist.

The Baker case was just the first one that I came to. There were others... but the OP was already getting pretty long so I didn't post anymore.

2) Yes, publishing someone's artwork without written permission is an infringement. It's also an infringement to copy that artwork, put it on a shirt and sell it commercially (reproducing). Whichever he did doesn't really matter.

[Guest Jamie]

You guys are so close to actually understanding this topic.

I understand it just fine... but we're having a conversation, and I'm presenting ideas and possibilities that may not have occurred to other folks yet.

Again, it's one of those "Okay, fine... but where could/might this eventually lead" sort of things.

[Guest nosnos]

My brother in law sells a lot of stock photography. You either have to provide a release from the artist, or photoshop them out.

--------

[strickj]

Jamie, I'm not going to continue to debate on whether or not surgery will ever be considered art or can ever be copyrighted. You have already stated that you don't care what the laws are so trying to explain the laws and why they are laws to you is just wasting my time.

Call it a "slippery slope" all you want. Surgery is not and will not ever be considered art.

My point exactly... you can no longer show it "as is"... you either get permission for it to be seen, or you cover it with something... even if it's only makeup. Or "digital" makeup. You can no longer simply do as you wish, any way you wish, and any time you want.

Sure you can. If you're in that celebrity category, then simply ask for complete rights to the art before you get it. It only takes getting permission once.

If you don't like that, then don't put someone's artwork on your body... or cover it up if an infringement is possible.

Easy-peasy!

[Guest Jamie]

J ....is just wasting my time.

Well we can't have that, now can we?

Y'all carry on... I'll find someplace else to talk.

[Guest nosnos]

Y'all carry on... I'll find someplace else to talk.

Intellectual property laws really haven't been expanding lately. Rather, technology is making it easier to ignore them and there is an ever increasing culture of disrespect towards them. People refusing to acknowledge the value of a copyright is whittling away at my (and many others') ability to make a living.

--------

[DaveTN]

People refusing to acknowledge the value of a copyright is whittling away at my (and many others') ability to make a living.

What do you do?

[Guest nosnos]

Music industry. I'm a recording engineer.

The problems in the music industry are many, but the way that digital music is so easily shared isn't helping. I'm not going to wring my hands about the good old days of the music business, because I think the future is good.

But a lot of people don't ever even consider the important role intellectual property plays in our economy. It enables profit. Profit drives progress.

--------

[strickj]

Well we can't have that, now can we?

Y'all carry on... I'll find someplace else to talk.

No need to do that. But this whole conversation is about intellectual property, copyright laws and how they apply to all art. Everyone should at least read the laws that apply to the conversation before commenting on them.

I wouldn't comment on a gun law without at least reading the law first

At any rate, I hate that this thread kinda turned into a debate. I just thought it would be interesting to bring up the fact that tattoos can hold copyrights that the barer does not own.

It's something that will never affect 99.99999999999+ percent of us with tattoos ayway. The chances of me being sued over my tattoos is about the same as me getting sued for using a screen capture from a movie as my avatar. Probably less

[NRA]

I wouldn't comment on a gun law without at least reading the law first

Well said and I see way to many opinions and you know what they say about opinions.......................

[DaveTN]

But a lot of people don't ever even consider the important role intellectual property plays in our economy. It enables profit. Profit drives progress.

They don’t care.

They don’t care about how our manufacturing base impacts the economy. What makes you think they would care about how the music industry impacts our economy?

Sure profit drives progress, but there will always be someone there to do it. Maybe not at the wages you make, but there are plenty of people in India that will do it.

Some are more than happy to bring a Recording Engineer from India or China that will work for about a quarter of what you want. Then when you lose your job he’ll move into your house. Of course this is based on the assumption that you aren’t already a Recording Engineer from India or China.

I just saw a thread on here today where someone was saying that he didn’t care about supporting local gun stores; all he wants is the lowest possible price. That attitude seems to be pretty common; it’s why our economy is collapsing.

Everyone wants to keep profits high when it’s their industry. But everyone else just cares about the end cost of their CD/DVD/Picture/Music. And if they can illegally download it they are more than willing to give you a speech about why they aren’t a thief.

[Guest nosnos]

They don't care.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh well....

I guess at the end of the day the only thing to do is buy more guns!

--------

[G27]

*bump*

‘Hangover: Part II’ can open despite Mike Tyson face tattoo lawsuit, judge says « Entertainment

[Guest friesepferd]

well ya. generally when you get a tatoo you sign a contract and many wil state something along those line.

really, i get it. someone paints a picture on you, you dont want someone else to profit by taking pictures of it and selling it...

same as you cant make prints of a painting and sell them.

personally, I only have one tat, and its on my ring finger

[Guest db99wj]

I saw this and the Hangover is the first thing I thought of, I saw the news piece about the pending lawsuit. Didn't realize that Strick was predicting the future.

[Guest texas308]

I don't see my TA getting pissed for havin mine displayed as my signature but hey, stranger things have happened...

[Caster]

I don't see my TA getting pissed for havin mine displayed as my signature but hey, stranger things have happened...

Mine either.

[strickj]

I saw this and the Hangover is the first thing I thought of, I saw the news piece about the pending lawsuit. Didn't realize that Strick was predicting the future.

Ask me about the rapture

[bajabuc]

I have a friend who designed, and colored her tattoo. She went to her favorite tattoo artist and said this is what I want. He did it. Several weeks later she saw the identical tattoo on a girl in a Pole club. The tat is *very distinctive*, enough so it could be an idenifier in a lineup. She was upset, very. She went to the artist who said, "I inked it, It's my tattoo." She said "I drew it, it's my design... I have the dated and signed original drawing." Who owns the tat?

[vontar]

I have a friend who designed, and colored her tattoo. She went to her favorite tattoo artist and said this is what I want. He did it. Several weeks later she saw the identical tattoo on a girl in a Pole club. The tat is *very distinctive*, enough so it could be an idenifier in a lineup. She was upset, very. She went to the artist who said, "I inked it, It's my tattoo." She said "I drew it, it's my design... I have the dated and signed original drawing." Who owns the tat?

I would belive the artist, at least that is my opinion.

In that case I would say the inker, was just coping a design, was not producing orignal artwork.

(kinda like a photo copier)