51–60 of 90 posts
If I hire someone to paint a portrait, and pay him it's mine isn't it? $5 or $5 million, that was the price agreed. Why is the tattoo any different?
https://www.thoughtco.com/who-owns-copyright-of-a-painting-2...
The reality of copyright law is that strictly applied pretty much everyone breaks it. Some infractions are worth enforcing, most are not.
"Lawyers generally agree that an implied license allows people to freely display their tattoos in public, including on television broadcasts or magazine covers. " Seems to me that the digital representation of someone is just another way of displaying themselves. If it's legal to do it in photos and videos, it's legal to do it in 3D models. But even without that, I think it's unethical to claim ownership to any part…
If it's legal to do it in photos and videos, it's legal to do it in 3D models. Perhaps it ought to be by extension but apparently it's far from a settled matter. I mean, our copyright laws are full of weird seeming-contradictions. Games companies pay to license an athlete's likeness, but photographers don't? Photographs of a sculpture are copyright-protected, but photographs of tattoos aren't? Architecture with an ex…
Lets get weirder. Can a plastic surgeon own the rights to someone's nose? It's basically a sculpture.
It’s almost like intellectual property is an absurd injustice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely, if they agree that they maintain freedom of their likeness for photos and video, how does that not extend to any medium where the person is expressly licensing their likeness? You aren't reproducing Lionel Messi's tattoo, you are reproducing Lionel Messi . I'm also not surprised it largely isn't the artists themselves, it seemed weird that a tattoo artist would go after high profile clients after the fact…
A tattoo artist doing this seems to me to be a good way to damage that artist's reputation. Why get a tattoo from an artist who has demonstrated willingness to sue over representations of you??
If I hire someone to paint a portrait, and pay him it's mine isn't it? $5 or $5 million, that was the price agreed. Why is the tattoo any different?
If you commission a single work from an artist, then he retains the copyright (unless your contract says otherwise).
So before you spend that $5 million commissioning a painting, have your lawyer look over the contract... likewise, before you get that $50 tattooed bunny on your ankle, read the paperwork, if the artist hasn't signed over the copyright to you, then he owns it.
Shouldn't purchasing the tattoo transfer the rights to the person being tattooed?
purchasing a work of art usually does not give you the rights to reproduce the piece.
This sounds ridiculous to me. So if someone snaps a photo of him or he is on TV the tattooist is going to get royalties? That goes for anyone else that is tattooed as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the USA and most countries.
Purchasing art does not give me the right to copy and resell it, Ok; but contracting an artist surely gives me the right to copy and resell the art? Or are you saying that the contract must explicitly state what formats are included in the contract?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are suggesting that since it’s legal for me to share a fanphoto of myself and Mike Tyson, then by extension I should be allowed to use his likeness in a 3D model in a computer game. If rights did really get passed on that loosely, then celebrities would have no way of monetizing their own brand.
> You are suggesting that since it’s legal for me to share a fanphoto of myself and Mike Tyson, then by extension I should be allowed to use his likeness in a 3D model in a computer game. No, that's not what they're suggesting at all, and you're conflating two separate things here. Using someone's likeness in a commercial work is already legally protected (in the most economically important jurisdictions anyway) and…
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 difference? That Darth Vader belongs to someone other than the tattoo artist? If that's the argument then why does the tattoo artist have to give up their design but Disney does not when it's drawn on someone?