MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The next nightmare comes true. Release needed for tatoo  (Read 16738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2014, 13:41 »
0
I cannot speak for Portugal. But in many countries the photographer owns the copyright to wedding photos unless there is a contract to the contrary.



« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2014, 14:20 »
+5
It may be that the agencies just find it easier to demand a release than having to find out on every occasion 1) whether the matter in the tattoo is a registered trademark or copyrighted material 2) whether it is straight "work for hire" or was there some contractual provision that left copyright with the artist.

The economics of microstock do not allow for detailed research in cases of doubt, so the agencies generally apply the precautionary principle and reject stuff unless the photographer provides good reason for them not to. If you must use tattooed models, it's up to you and the model to produce the paperwork they want - regardless of whether it is strictly needed or not. Those are their rules and they have them for a reason.

There are plenty of other areas where they are over-cautious and reject images that are almost certainly not going to create problems.

« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2014, 14:23 »
+3
By they way, I don't see "skin art" listed in the listing of "work for hire".
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Just because you pay someone for a service doesn't mean you own the art.  Same as hiring a photographer to shoot your wedding, in lieu of a contract saying copyright is transferred.

Ron

« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2014, 14:24 »
-2
I do if I told him what to tattoo.

« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2014, 14:27 »
+2
I do if I told him what to tattoo.


Why would that be different that telling your wedding photographer what to shoot?  It's the act of creation and originality, not the definition of the source material.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raustiala-tattoo-copyright-20131006,0,3026228.story#axzz2z4yNTAyu

Ron

« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2014, 14:30 »
-1
Its my idea and design, the tattooist just uses a tool to translate it to my skin

« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2014, 14:31 »
0
Its my idea and design, the tattooist just uses a tool to translate it to my skin

And the photographer just uses a tool to translate it to a piece of paper.  I'd argue there's more skill in the act of translating an idea successfully to someone's skin than capturing a photo.

Ron

« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2014, 14:32 »
0
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot

« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2014, 14:34 »
-1
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot

That's not the same as saying "I want this Superman logo on my arm", unless you're picking the ink, choosing the needle, dialing in the settings, etc.

timd35

« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2014, 14:47 »
+1

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2014, 15:01 »
0
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/06/hangover-tattoo-dispute-ed-helms-hangover-2-tattoo.html


That situation is different from what we're talking about, because the tattooer did not sue Mike Tyson for appearing in the movie with a tattoo of his authorship. As far as I can tell he would have no case since Tyson owns the tattoo, and above all his own body.

The tattooer has no rights over anyone else's body. And this applies to a model in a photo shoot. It would be surreal if it was given permission for a tattoo artist to command the life of others, and their way of living. That would not stand in any court in the world.

The issue of the case mentioned is closer to plagiarism. The studio used his design and copied it to the face of another person. In that case there could be a violation of authorship, but not ownership. A simple case of plagiarism. But not more than that I think.

The agencies may be careful with this issue because of cases like the one mentioned earlier about a tattoo of a disney character. Since the agencies cannot determine if the tattoo is an original work or a copy of somebody else art - Disney characters, coca-cola and apple are easy, but what about the rest? - they take the cautious approach.

« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2014, 15:09 »
0
I was doing a commercial shoot/ television series and the model showed up with a new Tattoo.... a disney Character.... she was sent home.

This was 12 + years ago.....

That is a completely different case. The problem is not the tattoo, but the character depicted in it which is protected by copyright.


So if the artwork is created by Disney it has copyright, but if the artwork is created by someone else it doesn't have copyright?   

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2014, 15:10 »
0
Another interesting read....

http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/commentary/copyrighting-tattoos-97374498/


Just read that article and it coincides with most of my comments.

« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2014, 15:15 »
+2
The tattooer has no rights over anyone else's body. And this applies to a model in a photo shoot. It would be surreal if it was given permission for a tattoo artist to command the life of others, and their way of living. That would not stand in any court in the world.

You seem to be disinclined to give the tattoo artist the rights he is due regarding promotional use of his art, merely because the choice of medium is skin instead of canvas.  No one is saying the recipient can't go to the store or do whatever he likes.  We're discussing using the artwork on their body as a focal point for a commercial use.  If they are someone who uses their body for this kind of thing on a regular basis, they should know enough to secure the proper permission for a custom piece of work.

timd35

« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2014, 15:21 »
+2

Quote
So if the artwork is created by Disney it has copyright, but if the artwork is created by someone else it doesn't have copyright?

I think the issue is copying a character or unique design versus a common subject such as a flower

« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2014, 15:24 »
+1

Quote
So if the artwork is created by Disney it has copyright, but if the artwork is created by someone else it doesn't have copyright?

I think the issue is copying a character or unique design versus a common subject such as a flower

Exactly.
We should not mix up "skill" with "creation".
If the act of picking the ink, choosing the needle, dialing in the settings, etc. would be ART (instead of the creation of the image on the skin), then all sewing, embroidery, basket weaving, carpentry etc would also be ART, and therefore require a PR.  But no, it is only needed if there is a true "creation".   
My mother loves embroidery, and she's very skilled, but she only works from an example, so she's not "creating" anything.  I'm not saying such skills cannot be art, just that the act itself does not make it art.  Pottery is a great example :  you can make true pottery art, or you can just use your pottery skills to make a basic vase.  The same way a tattoo can be just a tattoo (like a word) or a piece of art.

Interesting discussion!


StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2014, 15:25 »
0
The tattooer has no rights over anyone else's body. And this applies to a model in a photo shoot. It would be surreal if it was given permission for a tattoo artist to command the life of others, and their way of living. That would not stand in any court in the world.

You seem to be disinclined to give the tattoo artist the rights he is due regarding promotional use of his art, merely because the choice of medium is skin instead of canvas.  No one is saying the recipient can't go to the store or do whatever he likes.  We're discussing using the artwork on their body as a focal point for a commercial use.  If they are someone who uses their body for this kind of thing on a regular basis, they should know enough to secure the proper permission for a custom piece of work.

This is relatively similar to photographing copyrighted architecture. If your main focus in a photo is a particular building, there could be a violation of copyright. Yet if that building is seen in a skyline of a city or a cityscape those rights cannot be invoked.

So, if the photo or filming focuses specifically in a tattoo or tattoos there could eventually be a case of copyright violation. But if the photo or filming focuses on the model, where the tattoo is a part of the "landscape" and not even the main focus I do not believe that would be considered a copyright violation.

But in the end it all comes down to who OWNS the art. And that would be the person who contracted the artist and paid for it. Again, the tattooer only owns the authorship and can only profit in cases of plagiarism (like the movie case) or eventually the use of his work in defamatory or sensitive cases at best, like having a close-up of his tattoo used in a racist or political ad.

« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2014, 15:26 »
+6
I guess this thread is a perfect example of why Shutterstock is opting to be conservative in hopes of avoiding copyright problems...

 ::)

Ron

« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2014, 15:32 »
0
I guess this thread is a perfect example of why Shutterstock is opting to be conservative in hopes of avoiding copyright problems...

 ::)
I agree with you and Paul about that, but if I sign a PR of my tattoo, I have every right to do so. If I sign the PR, shutterstock will accept it, in case the tattoo artist goes after SS, they will show the PR, the artist will come after me, and I will have no issue as I told him what I wanted and paid him to put it on me, so its fully mine. I am will even say this, if the artist chooses to put that tattoo on someone else he could well be copying my design.

« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2014, 15:39 »
+9
"But in the end it all comes down to who OWNS the art. And that would be the person who contracted the artist and paid for it."

Ownership does not indicate copyright.  You can own a Porsche, but that doesn't give you promotional rights to it.  This is basic stuff.

« Reply #46 on: April 16, 2014, 16:21 »
+2
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?

Yes, if your model is wearing a D&G coat and it is obviously a D&G coat you would need a property release.  Same with any trademarked brand of clothing.  Shoes most often create the biggest problem in this area...recognizable logos are not OK to sell commercially. 

-Mat

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #47 on: April 16, 2014, 17:17 »
-1
"But in the end it all comes down to who OWNS the art. And that would be the person who contracted the artist and paid for it."

Ownership does not indicate copyright.  You can own a Porsche, but that doesn't give you promotional rights to it.  This is basic stuff.

That is a completely different thing that cannot be compared with the tattoo issue. You are buying a vehicle and the utilitarian aspect of it, an object. You are not buying the design concept that wraps around the utility. You buy the object but a "license" for the use of the design, sort of.

In a tattoo, you are paying for a unique object custom made by you specifications. The artist have the authorship but the rights over the work cease there. If the tattoo was made in a pork skin, the artist would own all rights if he kept it. If he sells it, the same happens.

He's protected against plagiarism, but doesn't own any more rights over the work.

This is basic stuff.

« Reply #48 on: April 16, 2014, 18:08 »
+2
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy -  what a laughter....

You should never make jokes like that............

Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg

And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg

What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.

Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?


BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?


what's the big deal? just get a property release. problem solved.


On what planet are you living??


On what planet are you living? Why don't you respect the copyright of other artists who work in a different format than you have chosen? What if someone made a painting or an illustration (or a tattoo) of one of your images for example? How is that 'different'?

« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2014, 19:28 »
+1
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot

I think that if you do a little looking around, not even this is clear cut. The person pressing the button can be seen to hold the copyright in many cases. It's never simple.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3288 Views
Last post December 21, 2007, 16:49
by yingyang0
5 Replies
5375 Views
Last post April 08, 2008, 19:01
by snurder
17 Replies
11116 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 10:48
by Anyka
21 Replies
4558 Views
Last post October 10, 2012, 03:52
by ShadySue
2 Replies
2340 Views
Last post August 21, 2018, 15:02
by ForrestBrown

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle