Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!


>From mirror.co.uk
"
27 June 2005
EXCLUSIVE: I OWN BECK'S TATTOO.. AND I'LL SUE
Body artist needled at bid to 'sell' his designs
By Fiona Cummins and Sharon Feinstein

DAVID Beckham faces a bitter legal battle - over who owns the rights to
his tattoos.

Body artist Louis Molloy threatens to sue Becks, 30, and wife Victoria
if they go ahead with plans to use the images in an ad campaign.

Louis, 42, who created nine of the England skipper's tattoos, claims he
owns the copyright."

Read more http://tinyurl.com/clpd5

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you buy
a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on it?

It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to the
copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the new
hole in my head.


<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120418420.283679.205620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
> copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
> pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
> infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
>
>>From mirror.co.uk
> "
> 27 June 2005
> EXCLUSIVE: I OWN BECK'S TATTOO.. AND I'LL SUE
> Body artist needled at bid to 'sell' his designs
> By Fiona Cummins and Sharon Feinstein
>
> DAVID Beckham faces a bitter legal battle - over who owns the rights to
> his tattoos.
>
> Body artist Louis Molloy threatens to sue Becks, 30, and wife Victoria
> if they go ahead with plans to use the images in an ad campaign.
>
> Louis, 42, who created nine of the England skipper's tattoos, claims he
> owns the copyright."
>
> Read more http://tinyurl.com/clpd5
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eatmorepies wrote:
>
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> > This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
> buy
> > a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on
> it?
> >
>
> There is some discussion about that one. Some artists are trying to claim a
> percentage every time one of their works is sold on.
>
> Seems to me a bit like a builder trying to claim a percentage every time a
> house is sold.
>
> John

The Beckhams think they own EVERYTHING. Mrs Beckham wanted a football
team to stop using the nickname 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh
Spice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm

Sounds like our tattooist is just getting revenge over a pair of
pompous prats.

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!" )
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote

> If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
> pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
> infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist

Greed, greed and more greed. The really greedy ones end up
with nothing. Odd's on: 1)they won't use the tattoo in
the ad; or 2) Beckham will spend more on lawyers than tattoo
artist can afford; or 3) Another design will be Photoshopped
into the ad. If the tattoo artist wasn't so greedy he could
have signed the release for a few thousand quid and maybe
had his name in small print on all the ads.

How much does it cost to hire a commercial artist to draw
a dragon, maybe a better dragon? Well, that's what the
copyright to the tattoo is worth: why pay more?

Beckham should just tell the guy to take it back - he doesn't
want the bleedin' image.

> would I
> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!

Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?

I think if the image is somewhat central to the work, such that
change the jeans and the ad changes it's nature, Levi has a
point.

If any-ole jeans would work then Levi should be paying for 'product
placement'. Maybe the tattoo artist will end up with a bill for
having his 'brand' get prominent display.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote

>> would I
>> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
> Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?

Oh noooo! http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/pd [...] ickman.jpg

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" asked:
"...
What if you buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a
copyright on it?
...."

In a word ... yes.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you buy
>a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on it?
>
>It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
>body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
>person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to the
>copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the new
>hole in my head.

So, if a writer sells you a copy of his book, you can't start selling your
own copies of that book, but if a tattoo artist creates a work of art,
he somehow deserves less protection than other artists?

My guess is that copyright law is clear in this case: if you buy a work of
art you can't start selling reproductions of that piece of art without
the permission of the artist. (subject to various excepts listed in the
law).

Disclaimer: IANAL.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:
> "Sheldon" asked:
> "...
> What if you buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a
> copyright on it?
> ..."
>
> In a word ... yes.

Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
would you get sued for copyright infringement?

What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
sue you for copyright infringement?

What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
design?

My opinion is *NO*.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
> > pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
> > infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist
>
> Greed, greed and more greed. The really greedy ones end up
> with nothing. Odd's on: 1)they won't use the tattoo in
> the ad; or 2) Beckham will spend more on lawyers than tattoo
> artist can afford; or 3) Another design will be Photoshopped
> into the ad. If the tattoo artist wasn't so greedy he could
> have signed the release for a few thousand quid and maybe
> had his name in small print on all the ads.
>
> How much does it cost to hire a commercial artist to draw
> a dragon, maybe a better dragon? Well, that's what the
> copyright to the tattoo is worth: why pay more?
>
> Beckham should just tell the guy to take it back - he doesn't
> want the bleedin' image.
>
> > would I
> > get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> > take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
> Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?
>
> I think if the image is somewhat central to the work, such that
> change the jeans and the ad changes it's nature, Levi has a
> point.
>

Yes you're right on this. What I had in mind though weren't shots in
which a jeans would be central to the work but just a casual piece of
clothing.

I'm starting to be more sympathetic to the tattoo artist if the shots
do actually feature his tattoos as being central to the shot, rather
than being just something Beckham wears. This may though be a point of
debate unless the shot is that clear cut.

> If any-ole jeans would work then Levi should be paying for 'product
> placement'. Maybe the tattoo artist will end up with a bill for
> having his 'brand' get prominent display.
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
> To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
> Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
> on it?
>
> It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
> body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
> person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to
> the copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the
> new hole in my head.

Be careful. Once you admit to having a hole in your head on this forum, you
will have very little chance of ever winning an argument in the
future.......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote in part:

> ... what if you buy a
> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>
> What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
> in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
> sue you for copyright infringement?
>
> What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
> photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
> design?
>
> My opinion is *NO*.
>

Your opinion, while reasonable, does not come with a sackful of
BenJaM1Nz!11!. How very unfortunate.

The above examples seem harmless to all parties, but if someone's
potential revenue stream is in play, watch out.

You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
> on it?

My guess is yes, because the artist might have made several hundred or
thousand prints of the original, and be involved in selling those. But if
you try to do the same thing, he can sue you for infringement of his
copyright. IOW, if I was very wealthy, I could purchase the Mona Lisa, but I
still couldn't make prints of it and sell them, just because I owned the
original.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120418420.283679.205620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
> copyright issue!

No problem. Just photograph the area of skin with the tattoo on - not the
art work itself. Then have the tattoo artist visited by the Madrid mafia.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental to
the picture, it would be a fair use.


"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote in part:
>
>> ... what if you buy a
>> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
>> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
>> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
>> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>>
>> What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
>> in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
>> sue you for copyright infringement?
>>
>> What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
>> photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
>> design?
>>
>> My opinion is *NO*.
>>
>
> Your opinion, while reasonable, does not come with a sackful of
> BenJaM1Nz!11!. How very unfortunate.
>
> The above examples seem harmless to all parties, but if someone's
> potential revenue stream is in play, watch out.
>
> You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
> on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
>
> Corry
> --
> It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Top-postin' Art wrote:
> there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental to
> the picture, it would be a fair use.

Fair use is on its way to becoming, uh, "quaint and antiquated."

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net