tattoo's! copyright infringment,or compliments (to the chef)

[cossie451]

Anyone got any thoughts on the subject of wether or not tattoos of other artists images is -a)A blatent copyright infringment,or-b)A compliment of the highest order ?I personally go with the latter,let me know folks :scratch:

[Vampyro]

as long as money isnt made im sure its ok

[PsychicWarVeteran]

as long as money isnt made im sure its ok

So be sure to pay your tattoo artist with beer! :P

Regarding tattoos based on his characters, Mike [broken link]once quipped, "No royalties required. But when you've finished with the skin, send it to my children..."

By the way, did you see the [broken link]Moorcockian Tattoo Art in the Image Gallery?

[cossie451]

ta2's

Not sure it matters if money changes hands or not,the fact is its a copy,and to offer the oppotunity of copying without profit is slightly sour grapish to me,either way the original owner is'nt making any profit.thats not to say I agree with folks running hundreds of copies off on the computer and knocking them out at a profit,I don't,but in the case of tattoos I feel the tattooist is'nt wrong in asking for payment because love,skill and respect has been employed,not just on the side of the artist,but the client aswell for trusting someone who is in many cases a total stranger to emblazen the image/s on thier skin,therfore paying far greater homage to the original artist. :) As for the ta2's in the gallery,I'm off to check em out now! :clap:

[Anonymous]

I feel the tattooist is'nt wrong in asking for payment because love,skill and respect has been employed

I feel the creator of whatever the tatoo is of - Michael Moorcock in the case of Elric, Walt Disney in the case of Donald Duck - isn't wrong in asking for payment because love,skill and respect has been employed

[spaced_moorcock]

I suppose it's how you view copyright infringement and how far you want to take it.

I personally believe it is a form of compliment to the original artist if someone is using their images for tattoos. As long as the tattooist credits the original artist with the idea then I'd been fine with that. Only when the tattooist claims to have created the image in the first place do you have a problem.

[cossie451]

ta2's

Yes I agree that for the original piece payment should be made to the creator,in the case of "copies"(by this i don't mean-scans,moulding etc,this does,I agree need permission)ie tattoos,murals even grafitti I believe "credit" should clearly be given to the original artist.All to often in magazines the collector is named,and the tattooist,but never the name of the images original owner,this,I feel would be a "royalty" of sorts by way of advertisment through credit.emulation is a natural thing(monkey see,monkey do!).The best way to learn anything is by copying someone,or something else. :)

[cossie451]

ta2's

Well said that citizen,credit where credits due,but not constant payment for something you chose to put out in the public domain. :clap:

[PsychicWarVeteran]

Re: ta2's

...in the case of tattoos I feel the tattooist is'nt wrong in asking for payment because love,skill and respect has been employed...

Well, that was why I added the :P to the end of my comment. I was kidding around. Though I will say that employing love, skill and respect is no excuse for copyright infringement.

That said, I did find a comment in another online forum about this topic that I think sums up things pretty well:

There is a copyright to the artist on every piece of art. If you were to take the poster and reproduce exact copies multiple times, and sell them to make a profit, that would be copyright infringement. If you buy the poster, take it to your artist and have him/her translate it to your skin, it's personal use.

If your artist were to take the poster, hang it on the wall in the shop, and offer it repeatedly to his/her clients as flash, that would be copyright infringement.

[Whiskers]

Safeway has a sugar image of Mickey and numerous other commercial characters that they put on top of children's birthday cakes. They were eventually compelled to license these edible advertisements.

[cossie451]

ta2's

Well summed up,I agree,I'd still be interested to hear any other thoughts. :)

[Mikey_C]

It's a flattering tribute to a writer or artist for someone to want to have one of their creations as part of their body. And most tattooists are, as far as I know, self-employed artisans not tied to any big corporation. So I would probably feel disappointed by the creators demanding payment - although legally it is an interesting question as far as copyrighted images are concerned and the holder of the copyright probably is entitled to a cut of any profits made.

In connection with this, I read an interview in a tattoo mag with a woman who had her specially-commissioned angel-wings copyrighted as she did not want other tattooists to rip off the design. The copyright symbol is actually tattooed on to her skin along with the image...

[DeeCrowSeer]

In connection with this, I read an interview in a tattoo mag with a woman who had her specially-commissioned angel-wings copyrighted as she did not want other tattooists to rip off the design. The copyright symbol is actually tattooed on to her skin along with the image...

That is interesting... for me it sort of straddles that line between clever and pointless... obviously there's no reason why the wings shouldn't be regarded as a copyright-able work, but to have a copyright symbol on your body seems a bit too cyberpunk to me for some reason. How odd (my reaction, not the woman's decision).

Imagine how rich she'd be if Bettie Page could get 50 cents for every tattoo of her out there...

[Michael Moorcock]

Poor Betty didn't even get 10 cents for every PICTURE of her ever published. I don't know who did make the money because I'm pretty sure my friend Rick Klaw's grandfather didn't either. He was her main photographer. But that's the pinup/porn biz for you.

[cossie451]

ta2's

In relation to the lady with the "copyrighted"angel wings,Q:-How does she intend to enforce the copyright,did she say?And who would own the rights?,the artist,or the wearer? As for "betty Page"(god bless her!)that famous image has indeed been tattooed countless times and still has the same impact for me every time I come across it(so to speak!) To you Mike, It's a crying shame Betty made no money from those photo's!,but as you said its the way it is in such industries, which to a degree the body art field is also part of!Are you tattooed yourself Mike?