Tattoo copyrights: I use a lot of models in my stock work and many have tattoos. I red somewhere that the copyright belongs to the artist and NOT the model therefore requiring a...

DTCOP Loc: Camarillo, CA

I use a lot of models in my stock work and many have tattoos. I red somewhere that the copyright belongs to the artist and NOT the model therefore requiring a property release from him. I no longer shoot tats. Not worth the time of PS'ing
Comments?????

blackest Loc: Ireland

DTCOP wrote:

I use a lot of models in my stock work and many have tattoos. I red somewhere that the copyright belongs to the artist and NOT the model therefore requiring a property release from him. I no longer shoot tats. Not worth the time of PS'ing
Comments?????

Something I haven't thought about before. There has been a few high profile cases and people when they see $$$ can get kinda greedy but a lot of tattoo artists say the tattoo belongs to the customer. So it seems the safest bet is to ensure the model has a release from the tattoo artist. They should know who did their tattoo's, if you have a copy of the release then you should be covered. There is a possibility that the model could fake the release but at least then it wouldn't be willful copyright infringement which should limit if not eliminate any damages against you.

It may be different laws where you are so ask a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I wouldn't worry about it. In the world of tattoos, there is a lot of copying going on, and nothing ever goes to court because of copyright infringement. Many tattoo artists don't even use original designs at all, but work entirely from tattoo catalogues traded among the parlors. And just think of all the tattoos of Disney characters, sports team logos, etc. you often encounter. When it comes to tattoo art, it's essentially a free-for-all.

agambrell

I think this is something to be aware of. A quick Internet search for "tattoo copyright infringement" shows there have been, and are on-going cases out there. They will probably continue as the use of tattoos increases.

Shel Loc: Lecanto FL

The copyright belongs to the artist, therefore the model needs a release to reproduce the tattoos. This is legal advice.

notsofast

Shel wrote:

The copyright belongs to the artist, therefore the model needs a release to reproduce the tattoos. This is legal advice.

Ditto on publishing photographs that have a painting, sculpture, or other artwork in the background. You must obtain releases from the copyright / intellectual property owner. This occurs sometimes in, for example, real estate and editorial photo work.

Adirpho

I discontinued using tattooed models several years ago because of copyright issues and agent, agency, and client concerns. Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly difficult to find models who are not disfigured by "tats'.

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

notsofast wrote:

Ditto on publishing photographs that have a painting, sculpture, or other artwork in the background. You must obtain releases from the copyright / intellectual property owner. This occurs sometimes in, for example, real estate and editorial photo work.

Are you saying that my da Vinci, Renoir, or, Mondigliani paintings (if I had any) would be subject to copyright and that I would need the artist's approval before I could photograph them? Same for my Fredric Remington bronze sculpture (again, if I had one). That would be impossible for these examples, since they are long-deceased.

On the other hand, I could understand that the owner of the artwork might not want to advertise that he has such items in his home by showing photos that included them. And, I certainly wouldn't want to show the world that I had something of significant value either. So, I don't think it is copyright that is at hand here. Rather, it is advertising that something of value is located where it is.

And, how does one know any particular tat-artist's work? Or, how does the tat-artist know his own work? Is it signed or photographed and registered somewhere?

notsofast

Gitchigumi wrote:

Are you saying that my da Vinci, Renoir, or, Mondigliani paintings (if I had any) would be subject to copyright and that I would need the artist's approval before I could photograph them? Same for my Fredric Remington bronze sculpture (again, if I had one). That would be impossible for these examples, since they are long-deceased.

No, I'm being reasonable and sensible...give it a try.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I would think a photo of an artwork (Tattoo or otherwise) is free from copyright infringement. Just think - a photograph of a van Gogh is not particularly valuable but the actual painting is. Of course you will need the permission of the owner to photograph a painting unless you want to have a B&E charge.

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

fetzler wrote:

I would think a photo of an artwork (Tattoo or otherwise) is free from copyright infringement. Just think - a photograph of a van Gogh is not particularly valuable but the actual painting is. Of course you will need the permission of the owner to photograph a painting unless you want to have a B&E charge.

I recently attended the local showing of some of Ansel Adam's work. It was a travelling show in the local art museum. There was no photography allowed in the exhibit area. Signs were posted and honored.

This is the general policy of the museum:

"Still photography of the permanent collection is permitted on condition that the photographs are for personal, noncommercial use.

Tripods and video cameras are prohibited. Photography of special exhibitions is not permitted unless otherwise noted. Commercial photography is not allowed, except in special circumstances. See our commercial photography and filming policy for details."

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

notsofast wrote:

Ditto on publishing photographs that have a painting, sculpture, or other artwork in the background. You must obtain releases from the copyright / intellectual property owner. This occurs sometimes in, for example, real estate and editorial photo work.

Architecture as well. The design is property of the Architect and most work (At least mine) is for the single use of the owner and no representation or commercial use is allowed. Hard to keep track of though.

Shel Loc: Lecanto FL

There seems to be some confusion as to the copyright statute. Copyrights have a limited life based on the law at the time of the creation of the work. The works of da Vinci, Renoir, etc. are not subject to copyright protection. By way of contrast, the works of Ansel Adam are likely subject to copyright protection. I have not researched the dates or copyright laws that apply to Adam's work, but the highest probability is that the protection has not expired. (I have been lead counsel in copyright infringement cases, in the Federal Courts of about a half dozen different states.)