Tattoo Copyright?

[kheebl]

I see this all the time on Facebook and on people walking around. How do tattoo artists do copyright artwork and not get in trouble? Bikers all the time have the HD logo tatted on them. I am big into tattoos myself but all of my artwork is custom drawn up. Are tattoo artists excluded from copyright infringement? Sorry I know this has nothing to do with signs but I have been thinking about this for awhile every time I see it done.

 

[player]

Some people get paid to get logos tattooed to their bodies.

 

[kheebl]

Some people get paid to get logos tattooed to their bodies.

I do remember Back a few years ago when that was popular. But most of the people I see I doubt they are getting paid to get the logo tattooed on them.

 

[scott pagan]

or from the tattoo artists view... https://www.wired.com/2011/05/human-flesh-copyright/

 

[Gino]

Very interesting subject.

I don't think the canvas being used matters as to you own it or not, but if the actual tattoo is being violated in copyright issues. Whether it's on skin or a piece of wood, you still are using something which....... did you get permission to copy or not ??

 

[MikePro]

good lord, just imagine the precedent that would set....
every type foundry will want to claim rights to elements of every celebrity's tattoo'd surface that finds its way in the national spotlight (ads, events, news, whatever). I mean, it's THEIR typeface right? ....and now some celebrity basketball player that has it on his sleeve is in a Nike Ad, or in a WarnerBros. movie, so what's to stop them from suing as well?

Just like the example in the link above: a replication, and not even an exact one at that, getting sued over displaying the "original art" on Mike Tyson's face in the HangoverII movie is a stretch... but most people will just sue anyways, in hopes of a settlement.

ultimately, it should boil down to intent & revenue generated from reproduction. tattoo artists don't advertise they do HD logos, they just do whatever you want them to per contract. No merchandising profit is being made here, nor is there any shaming of the logo in the public eye... so who should care, m'right?

 

[klmiller611]

This was one from 2015:

http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/r...cle_fabf3556-42f6-5b65-95ff-0a5dbb7ad111.html

I don't totally recall, but I think it was settled with a cash payment.

Ken

 

[MikePro]

and further down the rabbit-hole of the link above, Universal Studios actually owns the rights to a green frankenstein face with a flat-forehead... yet the tattoo artist is allowed to sue because his derivative-work includes a monocle?

Much like logo design...tattoo artist was contracted to do said derivative-work, so technically wouldn't it belong to the client who then uses it to create merchandise for his business?

 

[rjssigns]

Deep pockets theory in play here. That's why H-D, et. al. don't go after tattoo shop owners. Nothing to be gained. Universal on the other hand has the resources to pay you to shut up and go away if you bring suit.

Class dismissed.

 

[Fred Weiss]

According to one article I read online, the problem with getting a definitive answer to the various issues involved is that there is currently no case law or court decisions. Every suit ever filed has either been settled or dropped.