davidrb
Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
http://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/d7mz4m/who-owns-tattoos
A series of court cases over the copyright of tattoos.
So, if I make a photograph of a model who sports a tattoo I would legally need a release from both the model and their inker?
`
..... first world problem ......
.
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
http://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/d7mz4m/who-owns-tattoos
A series of court cases over the copyright of tattoos.
Well...actually reading the article it is clear the issue is about the USE of the images, not the photography. Personal use or editorial use...no problem.
It is certainly good that this case didn't end up in a true decision. I am not an attorney, and have no legal training, but a decision in either direction would damage professional art of all kind. A decision in favor or the tattoo artist would limit photographers and and artist, from publishing any reproduction of the person wearing the tattoo. Consider also if a tv broadcast including the image would be required to pay a fee! I am watching the bears play the eagles, how many of the players lack a tattoo or more? How many different tattoo artist would have to be compensated? On the other hand, who actually owns a piece of art? Does the artist have first priority on his/her art? If not, than reproductions of the art could he made and sold without the approval and or payment of the artist. No one would win.
User ID wrote:
`
..... first world problem ......
.
Another reason not to have logo tattoos.
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
http://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/d7mz4m/who-owns-tattoos
A series of court cases over the copyright of tattoos.
The way I read it is shooting or displaying the tattoo is probably legal, only when you promote it or use it for promotion it enters the gray area of the law. So advertising "nude models" is fine, advertising "nude models with tattoos" could cause a legal problem if worth the tattoo artists time & effort. LOL - may have to chance Model Releases to include signatures of "your tattoo artist" and hair dresser if her do is unique enough.
We could ban tattoos. Or we could beat up the tattoo artists and lawyers with our dusty tripods. LOL Seriously, Or we could have the model sign a release stipulating the existence of a tattoo. We can also hide tattoos behind some props.
Scruples wrote:
... we could have the model sign a release stipulating the existence of a tattoo. ...
A model can't give a copyright license if someone else (the artist) owns the copyright.
Indeed! I didn't realize this becomes a sticky wicket of a problem. I am okay with providing information about the tattoo artist with a photograph of a model sporting a tattoo. It is extra work for me. Perhaps the artist may need some photography work done. That is a long shot! We could use a thread from an attorney/photographer. I believe we could use some clarification on the issue of photographic models and their tattoos.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.