just had a tattoo rejection for a tiny infinity symbol.

tattoos are 'work for hire'

you go in, the buyer picks a similar design or says what he wants, and pays for it. it is work for hire. the buyer owns the copyright. there is no exception to this.

if the author buys some human skin, draws a tattoo, sells you the skin, and you graft it on your arm, then the artist owns the copyright.

copyrights are not owned by the author upon creation. if the artwork is a work for hire, it is transferred to the buyer upon creation. this is clearly written in copyright law.


when you watch a TV show, the camera operator does not own the copyright to the video, the audio guy does not own the audio, the gfx dept does not own the overlays. the person who pays for everything usually is the owner of everything. for example, Jimmy Fallon likely does not own the copyright to himself performing on SNL, or giving a monologue on his late night show. NBC owns the copyright to the video and audio.

even if the writers own the copyright to what they wrote, it is limited to the written word only and does not extend to the video performance.


I own copyrights for my music. I hired people to record the music. I had to fill out the forms, read all the laws, and declare who the copyright owner was. the copyright is transferred to me upon creation.


all tattoos are works for hire. 100% owned by person receiving it.

so you will say "but the tattoo artist owns the original design". you are correct.

but he does not own the copyright of the tattoo on your butt.

copyright only protects him from having other tattoo artists copy how work. it does not allow him to dictate how you can display it in a photo or television show. that is transformative and fair use.

in almost always every copyright case, copyright protection ALLOWS others to use the work. that is the purpose of copyright law. you cannot do a simple exact copy and resell it to compete with the original author, but you can use another author's copyrighted work if you are using it in a new way.

wake up stock sites! go take the time to read the 1 paragraph about how work for hire works in terms of copyrights and stop incorrect rejections.

if you disagree with me you are wrong and you should go learn about copyrights.

...
all tattoos are works for hire. 100% owned by person receiving it.

so you will say "but the tattoo artist owns the original design". you are correct.

but he does not own the copyright of the tattoo on your butt.


copyright only protects him from having other tattoo artists copy how work. it does not allow him to dictate how you can display it in a photo or television show. that is transformative and fair use.

close, but(t) not correct - the artist still owns the copyright - the buyer has a license to display, but not to resell -- when someone buys your image do you think they have bought the copyright to your image?

in almost always every copyright case, copyright protection ALLOWS others to use the work. that is the purpose of copyright law. you cannot do a simple exact copy and resell it to compete with the original author, but you can use another author's copyrighted work if you are using it in a new way.
..,.

if you disagree with me you are wrong and you should go learn about copyrights.

of course we disagree with you - since you're the one who needs to go learn about copyrights. 

you'rer right in one particular - there is no copyright for an infinity sign itself, but when expressed as a tattoo you might need a model release from the tattooee

This is a tricky topic actually. As a person who both does photos for stock and has multiple tattoos myself, I tried to read up on the topic of coyright with tatoos a bit and that's basically how I understand it:

Let's take the example of the infinity sign. You find an image of an infinity sign online, you print it out, go to the tattoo artist, put the image on the desk and say "Tattoo this". In this case the tattoo artist does not have the copyright to the image, not even you have it, but actually the person who drew it and put it online. Though in this case it is questionable whether something like an infinity sign can even be copyrighted. Some agencies go against their own rules here, like Shutterstock. Their rules say:

"Prominent tattoos of unique designs are unacceptable for commercial use unless accompanied by a valid property release signed by the creator of the tattoo design."

An infinity sign is not an "unique design" and the photo should have been approved either way. But note how it says "property release signed by the creator of the tattoo desig". It does not say "signed by the tattoo artist".

So, example two: I have an old tattoo that I designed myself. Nothing fancy. It's a simple tribal moon. So basically I am the copyright owner of that design, not the tattoo artist.

Example three: You make an appointment with a tattoo artist, you explain to him what you want, for example a tattoo of a parrot surrounded by tropical flowers. The tattoo artist comes up with the image from scratch - it's his artwork, his design and he is the copyright owner of it.

And then there is also example four, which is the one I could not figure out yet: I have a tattoo of my dogs - However, the tattoo was based on photos I took, so based on my copyrighted work. I don't really know how it's in that case.  Am I the copyright owner of the design? Is the tattoo artist? It's neither 100% his work nor 100% mine, so I don't really know. I think in this case I would actually be as bold and sign a property release myself. Much easier than tracking down an artist for a signature who does not even live in the same country as I do. But I think strictly speaking we both would need to sign the property release.

It may be a tricky topic but you've explained it very well I think.
In the last example (4), I'd say the photographer is the real copyright owner because the tattoo design could be considered a derivative (because it's drawn from your photo). And you could consider portrait rights, which means the dog should be paid accordingly for having his likeness put on your body as a tattoo. I believe the standard royalty commission for that would be 1 bone per week.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

https://www.andreacatton.co.uk/2016/08/owns-tattoos-tattoos-uk-copyright-law

https://copyrightalliance.org/education/qa-headlines/tattoos-copyright

https://theconversation.com/explainer-who-owns-the-copyright-to-your-tattoo-142825

https://abj.artrepreneur.com/who-owns-the-copyright-in-your-tattoo-art
 
You can disagree with that all you like, but as I've said to you before, it's their ball, their game. If they want to reject photos of blades of grass or random stones, they can. And they are, understandably, risk averse. For all they know, the tattoo itself may be a copyright infringement.

If you want to knock yourself out, accepting the risk of selling content which the major agencies won't accept, go ahead. There isn't much point in whining on msg. The stock site lawyers probably never look in here.

Right and two simple points:

1) One of the most common misconceptions is, that since the buyer commissioned the work, that they own the copyright to it. In the United States and the EU, that is usually not the case. Copyright, by default, goes to the original creator of a particular work.

2)  According to United States Copyright Law, your art is considered copyright protected from "the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

A tattoo is a work of art, created by an artist, and the work belongs to the artist, not the person who paid for it. (unless they pay for the rights) Plain and simple, any art, tattoo, drawing painting or unfortunately criminal defacing, AKA graffiti, is protected. The same laws protect our photographs.

if you disagree with me you are wrong and you should go learn about copyrights.

If we disagree with you, the message is, you should learn about copyright and the law. We know the facts.