Inked: Tatted Up Freaks

Hugh Mann profile , 13 Sep 5: More than demonstrating any perceived negative extreme of copyright, perhaps it is more importantly one more indication that tattoos are kinda dumb, and really worth thinking twice about before asking some guy to jab you repeatedly with a needle filled with a foreign substance in a manner that will mark you so prominently and permanently.

In any case, if you're going to have yourself marked that way, it sure doesn't seem unreasonable that you should be the one responsible for any issue that arises for someone else as a result. And if the argument is that the NFLPA should be able to easily prevail against any such copyright claim, then the tatted-up players shouldn't have any problem with signing up to release and indemnify the NFLPA and all other relevant parties. This is only one of the many absurdities that copywrong law creates. At some point it will be too much, and a new paradigm will force the copywrong concept into the Museum of Incredibly Stupid Ideas.

To begin with, I bet you approve of and support the NFL. But NFL exists only by special legislation. It's a money machine that'd otherwise be illegal under anti-trust. This is not a free market under capitalism; it's a monopoly given to The Rich and their corporations. This has nothing to do with the everyday uses of copyright that directs deserved income to creators.

The confusion has become so complete that it's beyond correction.

Saturday, March 17

So i shot down lawyers so now you going to just handwave "greed", saying that copyright is just a symptom. Well then, since I am just as capable of being a greedy bastard as Bill Gates, how can we eliminate greed from every person on the planet so your copyright utopia can press on. Or perhaps, we can modify copyright law such that it can continue to funnel money to artists while recognizing fair use and de minimus use in a stronger and broader context so that anomolies and greed stop being a weekly feature?

Ninja profile , 16 Sep 4: Kevin W , 13 Sep 5: In an ever visibly increasing world of liability issues, how can one make themselves look more unemployable?? Try this on for size: Legally, it's the artists who are at risk -- realistically, the NFLPA, the NFL, or any of the media corporations would death-march-litigate any tattoo artist who sought to enforce a copyright into financial destitution. In actual practice, it can be tough to determine who owns a tattoo copyright. Eric gets his artist friend Erin to work up a tattoo design.

Eric has direct input into the initial design efforts over multiple drafts, and bottled beers , but Erin has the talent. They are friends and there is no formal agreement. Eric gets a digital file from Erin, makes his small modifications, prints mockups of a variety of sizes, and considers where to locate the tattoo. Artist Dawn applies the tattoo, working in part from a trace, and adding her own small touches, and also contributes later touch-up work. Arguing legalisticly, Eric, Erin, and Dawn could all own pieces of the resulting layers of copyrights -- but the only people who would profit from trying to work out the details are scumbag lawyers.

MrWilson , 13 Sep 7: I came here to bring this up. The assumption going on in this whole discussion is that the tattoo artist necessarily is the copyright owner, but it doesn't seem so clear. Between the concept of derivative works, the Bridgeman Art Library v. They are being paid expressly to ink as near a reproduction as possible of another work. I have a tattoo that I designed and brought to the tattoo artist. He scanned it and printed it to tattoo tracing paper and then traced the design with his needle on my skin.

He had no creative input on the tattoo itself. His participation was mechanical in nature. While I appreciate his participation, he can't claim copyright on the design when he only acted as a human printer.

All tatted-up and no place go? Think (and ink) again

Oppositely, we don't say that a person can't claim copyright on a design that they create on a computer and then printed out simply because the printer was the "creator" of the print out of the design. The printer is merely creating a derivative work. But it seems that, in the case that the tattoo artist is actually the copyright holder, any tattoo artist would necessarily be granting a perpetual license to their paying customer for the display and even reproduction of the work, unless they had their customers sign a specific statement to the opposite.

But even then, that clause would be unconscionable because you can't enjoin someone's free speech through the act of displaying a tattoo that they chose to get, which is indeed clearly an expression that would be protected by the first amendment. Anonymous Coward , 13 Sep 7: You were generally on track until your last paragraph. As you aptly note, there is always the possibility that the inker is merely replicating the work of others.

Of course, if the adds some to the work that is in and of itself creative and separable from the original work, then the inker would in the first instance hold the rights to the separable work. You are also correct re the tat you designed since the inker is nothing more than a repro machine. As for perpetual license, obviously persons can always enter into contracts where they assume unusual obligations and receive unusual rights under the circumstances.

If such a writing was in place reallocating the copyright "default", then you comment may very well have merit.

Under the "default" however the only thing a tat-ee would get is a copy of the work, just like if they bought a book. This is associated with the rule in equity known as the First Sale Doctrine. Despite what the law says, how can you logically argue that an artist who holds the copyright can apply a tattoo without granting an implied license for public display? Otherwise, you'd argue that it's the customer who granted an implied contract to surrender the personal right to public display a patch of his own skin! Sorry, but you must pick one or the other, you can't have it both ways.

MrWilson , 14 Sep I'm running into Poe's Law here with your last paragraph. You seem to be arguing what the law says and then applying it to unconscionable scenarios that, in a court, would likely be ruled against. Cutting off your skin to sell your copy of a work on eBay isn't likely your only allowed usage of your copy. But also, mentioning that absurd scenario sounds like a parody of a copyright extremist's perspective. If a person who commissions a tattoo requires the permission of the artist more than the implied license that comes with the artist accepting the commission, then hairstylists and makeup artists could start suing celebrities for showing up in public without paying them more.

Assigning display rights to body parts is indeed a form of slavery. You can't place a lien on a person's body. You can't repossess the tattoo or the hairstyle or the makeup application. You can't force someone to destroy a part of their body using copyright claims. Copyright can't trump the First Amendment. But even then, you don't have to call on the First Amendment. It's just physically impractical because no reasonable person would expect that they couldn't go out in public without concealing a tattoo the copyright of which belongs to someone else.

Reader Comments

No court would rule that you have to cover your tattoos in public. If the tattoo artist willingly provides their services, a perpetual license to display the work is implied. DogBreath , 14 Sep 5: I'm about halfway through the Aaron Perzanowski article linked to above. It's really good, though necessarily limited in scope not much about trademark law and tattoos, or about the commercialization of Ed Hardy and Sailor Jerry after death.

A fool of absolute blithering proportions. As far as I'm concerned, they are now slave stamps that don't come off. Apr 7, Want a new tattoo? There's an app for that. So naturally, we here at Team Revelist decided to try it out.

• The Spaghetti-Slurping Sewer Serpent;
• Denial, Deceit, Discovery;
• Thursday, March 15.
• NFL Players Association Freaks Out About Tattoo Copyrights.

Before getting "tatted," you'll have to draw a square smiley face on the area you want to place the art. Don't worry, this won't show up in the final image. Then, select the image you want, and the app places it!

inked-up - a queer bod mod community

Our beauty expert Alle went all out with a chest tattoo because why the hell not? One of us obviously needed to do a tramp stamp, so Brittany volunteered as tribute. We think she should get this spaceman inked permanently. Logan went for an aquatic neck tattoo. This paper planes tat is perfect for Mel, who already has a pencil on her other forearm. Our news queen Mandy tried out this subtle heart. I've been wanting to ink my thighs as of late, so I tried it out with this little floral design. Last but certainly not least, Jess went for a geometric wolf.