I feel intent should matter, is the intent to show the tattoo art? or to make a likeness recognizeable? Mike Tyson has a tattoo on his head, is the intent to convey a likeness of Tyson? or to sell the tattoo as a brand in itself(t shirts and such as a logo)? I mean is it fair use?
Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
81–90 of 90 posts
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
This with the other article doing some troll logic mental gymnastics trying to convince us that dance moves/choreography should be copyrightable[1] (or intellectual property) really brings out the point how absurd the notion of IP/copyright is. When will we see that the whole thing is a sham and needs to be abandoned? https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/20/18149869/fortnite-dance-...
When will we see that the whole thing is a sham and needs to be abandoned? Never, as long as there's enough people getting $$$ from it (and have the power to influence such decisions.)
To be fair they could also push it far enough to lead to a collapse by competitive disadvantage from choosing stability over progress.
That has happened before at very least once when Commodore Perry came a-knocking with a gunship to Japan.
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially since it escapes taxation. If you taxed IP like you do real property, we would see quite a different system form.
Income generated from IP, such as licensing fees, do get taxed, though. Are you referring to the lack of excise-like taxes on IP?
I'm thinking of the same way that land you owned is taxed even if it isn't being used for anything, with a tax partially based on how much the market values the land (so land that is nowhere interesting is barely taxed while land that is highly desired is highly taxed).
This way, a company couldn't just hold onto an IP and no do anything unless it wanted to keep paying the taxes, and the higher the demand for the IP the higher the taxes.
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can. You record a high definition video of items and can possibly determine the sound waves from the movement of the items. I've already seen demos of this tech where you can restore the majority of a transcript of a visually recorded conversation.
You technically can, but then it becomes illegal in most states.
Is there any case law on this? Given it is a recording of video, not audio, how does the law treat the ability to convert video into audio? This would make most video recordings where audio is illegal to also be illegal, if it is so directly applied.
Another fun legal question is what happens if I add fake audio to a video where the video is legal but the audio isn't, but I use legal audio recordings to fake the voice of the person I videotaped? Does it matter if the injected audio is close enough to what was originally said (say I remembered the words while I recorded the video)?
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially since it escapes taxation. If you taxed IP like you do real property, we would see quite a different system form.
I wrote up a proposal for just that and sent it to Dianne Feinstein. I'm still waiting to hear back.
She'll hold onto it until it's convenient to expose, just like she did with the Blasey-Ford allegations.
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
You technically can, but then it becomes illegal in most states.
Is there any case law on this? Given it is a recording of video, not audio, how does the law treat the ability to convert video into audio? This would make most video recordings where audio is illegal to also be illegal, if it is so directly applied. Another fun legal question is what happens if I add fake audio to a video where the video is legal but the audio isn't, but I use legal audio recordings to fake the voic…
I assumed the post I responded to discussing actually converting it to audio rather than merely recording something that could theoretically be converted to audio. In that case, it's just a different type of photo-microphone, which is well established as audio recording.
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? Especially the flamebait kind. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18770963 also breaks the site guidelines. If you could please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
I do not notice that space at the beginning of the line act like a pre tag. Sorry for that. For the rest I do not think having posted anything more "flamebait" than the article itself and certainly not violating any site guideline. Few times I use all capitals to emphasis a single world more than simple ' ' or '_', veeeery rarely I use all caps for very few worlds as I do in the real world when I civilly and polity I…
By HN standards, that comment was unsubstantive ideological flamebait. We have a lot of experience with what kinds of comment degrade discussion quality here, and that is one of the worst kinds. We ban accounts that post like that, so please just don't.
On HN the idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
purchasing a work of art usually does not give you the rights to reproduce the piece.
But purchasing the time for a person to create a work for you generally does give you the rights, as a work for hire. Thus temporary tattoos would be copyrightable, but permanent ones that are created only once should not.
> But purchasing the time for a person to create a work for you generally does give you the rights, as a work for hire
AFAIK, this still needs to be explicitly stated in the agreement/contract. by default the creator always owns the IP they create (in the US). this is why software companies have to explicitly state that they will own the product of your work when they hire you.
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem that simple. If I get a tattoo of Star Wars or R2D2 or Iron Man there's arguably something not 100% "It's now mine to do whatever I want with". I'll get a tattoo of Darth Vader on my back, take a picture, print it on a cereal box and sell Darth Vader cereal. If you agree (maybe you don't) that I shouldn't be able to sell cereal with a picture of my Darth Vader tattoo on the box then what's the differe…
> If I get a tattoo of Star Wars or R2D2 or Iron Man Did you have a license to get those as tattoos in the first place? My understanding would be that the original sin there would be getting that tattoo of an IP at all without permission, even if such things commonly fly under the radar (unless there is some legal right to get any tattoo regardless of IP). The remedy there would presumably be to get sued and have to…
Wow, you completely and utterly missed the entire point of everything I wrote and just made up strawmen
Disney creates design (action 1). Someone puts it on human skin (action 2). Someone uses that image of the tattoo on a person as promotion (action 3).
Most people would agree even if you tattoo Darth Vader on your body you can't use Darth Vader on your body for promotion it belongs to Disney
Change action 1 to the same person as action 2. Why does the tattoo artists not get the same rights as Disney? Nothing changed except replacing Disney with Tattoo artist. In fact let's add a 3rd case. Tattoo artist hires friend to design tatoo. Why is this friend not afforded the same rights as Disney?
AFAICT the law is on the side of the person that created the art (or owns the copyright in the art if the person that created it transffered their rights). If you tattoo Darth Vader on yourself the person who owns the rights to Darth Vader doesn't suddenly lose their rights. Instead, you irresponsibly used someone else's IP. Nothing changes if that IP holder is suddenly not Disney.
This is true for normal contracts, at least in the USA. If you contract an artist to draw something for you, unless you specifically get them to sign away all their rights in the art via the contract they retain those rights.
https://www.google.com/search?q=artist+retain+rights+unless+...
You could argue the person paying for the tattoo as a reasonable expectation that the tattoo now belongs to them, not the tattoo artist. But that doesn't seem to fit with normal case law. If you pay your buddy $100 to make a logo for your new youtube video you may think you're done. The logo is yours. But AFAICT unless you specifically signed a contract your buddy would actually still own the rights to that logo regardless of the fact that you paid him. See all the links that google search brings up. Even though most poeple would say common sense says the artist has no rights, you paid them, case law says otherwise. Without a specific contract saying otherwise you don't own it even if you paid.
Re: Athletes Don’t Own Their Tattoos – a Problem for Video Game Developers
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not notice that space at the beginning of the line act like a pre tag. Sorry for that. For the rest I do not think having posted anything more "flamebait" than the article itself and certainly not violating any site guideline. Few times I use all capitals to emphasis a single world more than simple ' ' or '_', veeeery rarely I use all caps for very few worlds as I do in the real world when I civilly and polity I…
By HN standards, that comment was unsubstantive ideological flamebait. We have a lot of experience with what kinds of comment degrade discussion quality here, and that is one of the worst kinds. We ban accounts that post like that, so please just don't. On HN the idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
IMO sometimes a bit of "flame" is needed. Imaging a society that works only with kind interactions with anyone perfectly working "in the system" toward an excellent life is the real basic step on any dictatorship movement. And these are not my own ideas, perhaps the Candid by Voltaire depict perfectly well that scenario. Perhaps Victorian era prove it really well at society scale.
However I know that I'm on a proprietary platform so not a democracy, not a really free shared place (regardless of efforts HN stuff can put in appear to be free and friendly) and than I can choose to comply or go. I consider this really sad for our society at a whole.
So sorry, perhaps I'll keep commenting on in case I do not have to "flame" a bit, perhaps I'll stop commenting at all. I have no doubt that you work hard to keep HN informative and clean and I can imaging how hard it can be in the present time when anyone, being essentially powerless so without responsibilities, leave any brake apart and simply vent frustration in inflammatory text just "to fight".
However it's a fight not toward a better world but toward windmills because the sole way of being really in harmony is being really free, no enlightened dictator with no matter how good it's intentions are, and even in that case sometimes not-so-clean confrontation will still happen.
Have a nice day.