Author Topic: Tatoos (Read 9236 times)

Pixart · « **on:** October 29, 2008, 11:17 »

This may sound like a stupid question... but before I waste my time do I need an artist's release for a tatoo that is rather prominent in a photo?

bittersweet · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2008, 11:36 »

le_cyclope · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2008, 11:54 »

Do you mean a release from the one who did the tatoo or a release from the model?

I'm curious...

Claude

Pixart · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2008, 12:10 »

The model would be released, but that tatoo is pretty prominent.

But if they are rejecting graffiti for no release, it's the artwork by a tatoo artist on the model that I am wondering about.

It is very prominent, it's just too big to ignore or I wouldn't question.

Although the artwork would be a work-for-hire, no? But what if it comes from a tatoo artist's own catalogue?

bittersweet · « **Reply #4 on:** October 29, 2008, 12:53 »

You will need a model release for the person you are photographing. You will need a property release from the artist whose work is appearing in your image. You cannot sell an image of someone else's artwork without their permission. Sorry my other answer wasn't very clear.

hali · « **Reply #5 on:** October 29, 2008, 13:17 »

pixart, not an expert, but based on 2nd hand information, i should guess both a property and model release.
based on what Alamy told me colleague . even if your image is of a pair of feet , no face visible, if there is a tatoo, you need both model release and property release,
as it is easily linked to the model.
i think she said, PR too. if not, you can restrict it to editorial usage only.

bittersweet · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2008, 13:27 »

hmmm... maybe Leaf put me on mute and I just don't know it yet.

hali · « **Reply #7 on:** October 29, 2008, 13:45 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 29, 2008, 13:27

hmmm... maybe Leaf put me on mute and I just don't know it yet.

not to worry, you were not on mute by leaf.
my eyes were not working this morning before coffee, when i posted my answer to pixart.

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** October 29, 2008, 15:39 »

Interesting, I just read this to my husband, who has a tattoo, and who is part of our modeling crew.
He said his tattoo was fine to be released by just his signature on the model release, because the tattoo was his design, he created the drawing, the tattoo artist just inked it for him.
So, if the art is the original art created by the person who is getting the tattoo done, doesn't that just make it an expression of the model instead of the tattoo artist?
And what if the tattoo was a trademarked image? I'm thinking Woodstock or Snoopy or Mickey Mouse, but certainly not traced, because they are, say, smoking or drinking, etc.? What would you have to do then? I see a mess of headaches if this gets picked down deep enough...
There are also a lot of generic tattoos out there. I'm thinking tribal art, lettering, etc. How do you differentiate between original/needs artist signature, and generic?
We always understood the rule to be the tattoo would make the PERSON recognizable, so if there was a tattoo in the image, the person would need to be released.

Pixart · « **Reply #9 on:** October 29, 2008, 17:13 »

My first instinct is likely correct, thanks for backing that up. I guess even if DT, BS and 123 accept it, they really shouldn't. I know that it will not be accepted at FT because the newborn in it is naked and I'm pretty confident it would be rejected at StockXpert and IS for Dad's tatoo. So, not worth my approval rating I guess.

It is rather interesting though isn't it? Especially RGebbie's comments.

sam100 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 29, 2008, 17:16 »

Only model release should do it.
The tatoo"er was payed for his work, he worked for hire lets say... by accepting the money from the guy being tatoo"ed he gave up rights on the drawing.

Patrick H.

litifeta · « **Reply #11 on:** October 29, 2008, 17:23 »

what's their reasoning behind rejecting graffiti?

Most places I know it is illegal. Not sure about overseas, but here in Australia it is illegal to make a gain from an illegal activity. Therefore the artist has no right to claim a benefit.

hali · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2008, 19:06 »

Quote from: litifeta on October 29, 2008, 17:23

what's their reasoning behind rejecting graffiti?
Most places I know it is illegal. Not sure about overseas, but here in Australia it is illegal to make a gain from an illegal activity. Therefore the artist has no right to claim a benefit.

good point.

going back to MR. but slightly OT,
i noticed that some micro sites you mentioned are less sticky than others.
however, Alamy is more careful about MR, and suggests editorial usage if no MR is available.
, as they indicated, "even for a pair of hands".
perharps Alamy being in UK (or perharps, being not quite micro), may have something to do with the difference in the MR strictness.

bittersweet · « **Reply #13 on:** October 29, 2008, 20:46 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 29, 2008, 17:16

Only model release should do it.
The tatoo"er was payed for his work, he worked for hire lets say... by accepting the money from the guy being tatoo"ed he gave up rights on the drawing.

Patrick H.

Are you basing this on anything other than a guess? You are absolutely wrong.

sam100 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2008, 01:52 »

When you photograph a man or woman wearing a Prada outfit..... do you need a property release from Prada .?.. no.
Same goes for tatoes, you paid them, you own them, in fact .. tatoes are part of your body now, a jewel that is hard to remove.

Patrick H.

crazychristina · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2008, 02:21 »

There's a difference between owning an artwork and owning the copyright to an artwork. If you buy a Van Gogh painting you do not become the copyright owner. Luxury vehicles are no-no on some sites. Maybe recognizable designer clothes should be too.

sam100 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2008, 02:27 »

Quote from: averil on October 30, 2008, 02:21

There's a difference between owning an artwork and owning the copyright to an artwork. If you buy a Van Gogh painting you do not become the copyright owner. Luxury vehicles are no-no on some sites. Maybe recognizable designer clothes should be too.

And in a few years from now the only thing left to photograph is naked people... every peace of clothing, jewelry, furniture in the setups etc.. etc.. has been designed by a designer...:-)

Patrick H.

bittersweet · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2008, 05:30 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 30, 2008, 01:52

When you photograph a man or woman wearing a Prada outfit..... do you need a property release from Prada .?.. no.
Same goes for tatoes, you paid them, you own them, in fact .. tatoes are part of your body now, a jewel that is hard to remove.

Patrick H.

So this is your opinion. The OP did not ask for opinion. He asked whether he would need a property release to sell royalty free images with a tattoo featured as a prominent part of the image. The answer is still yes, regardless of whether you agree with the reasoning behind it or not. Of course the OP is free to test your theory. That would, however, be contrary to his original goal of not wishing to waste time.

leaf · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2008, 06:43 »

Well there seems to be people who 'know the answer' on both sites of the fence.. hmm..

I posted this question on the istock forums
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=78903&page=1

hopefully a reviewer or someone can give us something concrete.

rene · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2008, 07:02 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 29, 2008, 17:16

Only model release should do it.
The tatoo"er was payed for his work, he worked for hire lets say... by accepting the money from the guy being tatoo"ed he gave up rights on the drawing.

Patrick H.

Mine opinion too.
How anybody can claim rights to somebody's body part ? Slave system is back ?
Today more and more models (including proffessional tops) have tatoos. Do you realy thing that photographers have to asks proprerty release from tatoo artist for each photo session ?

bittersweet · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2008, 07:23 »

Quote from: rene on October 30, 2008, 07:02

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 29, 2008, 17:16
Only model release should do it.
The tatoo"er was payed for his work, he worked for hire lets say... by accepting the money from the guy being tatoo"ed he gave up rights on the drawing.

Patrick H.
Mine opinion too.
How anybody can claim rights to somebody's body part ? Slave system is back ?
Today more and more models (including proffessional tops) have tatoos. Do you realy thing that photographers have to asks proprerty release from tatoo artist for each photo session ?

What?? Nobody is claiming rights to the body part. If the artwork is a primary element of the photo which is going to be SOLD, then one has to assume that the primary reason for purchasing will be photo will be due to the tattoo. I really "thing" that a royalty free license to someone else's artwork is going to require a property release. If it is some generic barbed wire or something that every tattoo artist in the world does, then perhaps there are some sites that will let it through. However, if it is an original, and it is an integral part of the shot, it is going to require a property release at istock.

sam100 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2008, 10:22 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 30, 2008, 05:30

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 30, 2008, 01:52
When you photograph a man or woman wearing a Prada outfit..... do you need a property release from Prada .?.. no.
Same goes for tatoes, you paid them, you own them, in fact .. tatoes are part of your body now, a jewel that is hard to remove.

Patrick H.

So this is your opinion. The OP did not ask for opinion. He asked whether he would need a property release to sell royalty free images with a tattoo featured as a prominent part of the image. The answer is still yes, regardless of whether you agree with the reasoning behind it or not. Of course the OP is free to test your theory. That would, however, be contrary to his original goal of not wishing to waste time.

And I answered Nope, see above .. i've submitted pictures with tatooed men, never needed a model release for the tatoo.

Patrick H.

Karimala · « **Reply #22 on:** October 30, 2008, 11:24 »

Well...I just had an entire series of photos of a tattooed guy accepted by SS and StockXpert (yes...StockXpert!) and none of them required a property release from the artist. As you can see in this particular photo, the tattoo is a key element.

Karimala · « **Reply #23 on:** October 30, 2008, 11:33 »

Quote from: litifeta on October 29, 2008, 17:23

what's their reasoning behind rejecting graffiti?

Most places I know it is illegal. Not sure about overseas, but here in Australia it is illegal to make a gain from an illegal activity. Therefore the artist has no right to claim a benefit.

Some graffiti is actually commissioned artwork and perfectly legal. There is just no way for reviewers to determine whether the graffiti in a photo is a commissioned work or the result of illegal activity.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #24 on:** October 31, 2008, 08:15 »

I sell some all the time - but I don't have to worry, since I designed them myself.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Tatoos (Read 9236 times)

Pixart

bittersweet

le_cyclope

Pixart

bittersweet

hali

bittersweet

hali

RGebbiePhoto

Pixart

sam100

litifeta

hali

bittersweet

sam100

crazychristina

sam100

bittersweet

leaf

rene

bittersweet

sam100

Karimala

Karimala

graficallyminded

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors