MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The next nightmare comes true. Release needed for tatoo  (Read 16739 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: April 16, 2014, 20:51 »
0
Now this make me worry. I bought vinyl backdrops for my photography. After some inspection, I think the texture and pattern printed on the vinyl are stock images. I assume the well known seller probably bought extended right for resell. Can I submit the photos taken with this backdrops to be sold as stock photos? Do I need a release or need to buy extended license from the artist too?


« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2014, 21:21 »
+1
It wouldn't be any different than a picture in a frame.  You'd need a PR.

« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2014, 22:48 »
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

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.
Not in Canada, the person who clicked the shutter owns the copyright.  Although if it was my camera and my setup I and it was a big deal, I would bring it to court.  Not that I could afford to hire a lawyer.... but....


A lot of these tattoo artists work from a "sample book" don't they?  So even they don't own that copyright - the people publishing the sample book would.  Murky, yes.  But those tattoos are usually the "hey, I'm drunk... lets go get a tattoo" kind.  Anyone I know who is serious about their tattoos work for weeks with their artists and preplan everything.

« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2014, 22:53 »
0
Here's an actual legal paper related to exactly this topic, lightly covering implied license, fair use, etc.

http://coatsandbennett.com/images/pdf/the-copyright-implications-of-tattoos.pdf

Ron

« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2014, 01:28 »
0
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'?
Its different because its not work for hire. You take a photo and copy it. In this case the OP has a MR and the agency doesnt accept it. The model, who owns the tattoo, gave permission.


Ron

« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2014, 01:29 »
0
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?

« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2014, 06:40 »
+4
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?

We aren't talking about display.  We're talking about commercial usage.  Same as you can by a poster at Target and display it where you like, but you can't use it in your stock photos.   I'm not sure why this is thought to be 'work for hire'.  We all seem to understand wedding photography isn't work for hire, but there seems to be some mental block here.

« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2014, 06:53 »
+1
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.
Yes excactly.
Its easy enough for the agencies to pass the joker to the contributors. There are images and contributors enough, so they play it safe and place the risk where it belongs. BUT let us not forget that that is also a competitive edge among the agencies. They can guarantee the images, and attract more customers.
Outsourced means that everything is outsourced, the work, the risk, the investment. The agencies just find the customers.
Thats fine enough, as long as they dont get sneaky, and begin to cheat us, like some other well known agency did.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 06:57 by JPSDK »

Ron

« Reply #58 on: April 17, 2014, 06:57 »
0
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?

We aren't talking about display.  We're talking about commercial usage.  Same as you can by a poster at Target and display it where you like, but you can't use it in your stock photos.   I'm not sure why this is thought to be 'work for hire'.  We all seem to understand wedding photography isn't work for hire, but there seems to be some mental block here.
I was just asking a new question.

Anyway, it all seems simple to you, but if you search the internet its not so 'basic stuff'.

I dont want to get into a discussion where the one that shouts the loudest is right.

I dont agree with you, lets keep it at that.


« Reply #59 on: April 17, 2014, 07:35 »
+1
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?

We aren't talking about display.  We're talking about commercial usage.  Same as you can by a poster at Target and display it where you like, but you can't use it in your stock photos.   I'm not sure why this is thought to be 'work for hire'.  We all seem to understand wedding photography isn't work for hire, but there seems to be some mental block here.
I was just asking a new question.

Anyway, it all seems simple to you, but if you search the internet its not so 'basic stuff'.

I dont want to get into a discussion where the one that shouts the loudest is right.

I dont agree with you, lets keep it at that.

If the tattoo artist draws an original image on a piece of paper, are you allowed to feature that piece of paper in an image for commercial licensing?

« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2014, 07:51 »
+1
what surprises me too is the absence of knowledge.
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself if it has a certain level (Schpfungshhe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he)
thats a fact - even in law and even in international law.
so why should i complain about that??


So... can you point me to a link that says the other way around would be totally fine? I mean if you take a picture of a painting (say, by Picasso), you believe that you have the Copyright (or Urheberrecht) in the whole piece and could commercially sell those images?

I dare you to try that.

« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2014, 07:56 »
+1
Anyway, it all seems simple to you, but if you search the internet its not so 'basic stuff'.

Hey, there's some voice of reason: Yes, it's not so "basic stuff". So it's not just a simple call of "right" or "wrong". Then why should an agency not be allowed to make their own judgements based on the risk and expected rewards?

People like the OP may or may not be right. You may or may not be right. Chances are that everyone is right when you construct the hypothetical situation in a way that suits their point. In the end, we are dealing with selling images with a license for commercial use to an unknown kind of customer in an unknown kind of location, so none of us can be sure that our judgement would work in all cases. And as Shutterstock (along with Getty/iStock) are among the few agencies who are actually giving a legal guarantee to the client, I think it's no surprise that in case of a doubt they decide not to take that risk...

Ron

« Reply #62 on: April 17, 2014, 08:02 »
0
I never said the agency cant make their own call, in fact I fully understand why they do it. But its not the law they uphold.

« Reply #63 on: April 17, 2014, 09:18 »
+1
When you buy an original painting, you buy the physical object to have and enjoy. In most circumstances you own only the artwork, not the copyright to it. That remains with the artist unless they specifically sign over their copyright to the buyer, or it was done as work for hire, or the copyright has expired.

You don't automatically acquire the right to reproduce a painting as cards, prints, posters, on t-shirts, etc, along with the painting. It's the same as when you buy a book, film, music, vase, carpet, table, etc: you're acquiring the right to own and enjoy the item but not the right to reproduce it.

or it was done as work for hire would pertain to something like a hired fresco painted in someone's home or a painted portrait.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 09:24 by etienjones »

EmberMike

« Reply #64 on: April 17, 2014, 09:45 »
0
I never said the agency cant make their own call, in fact I fully understand why they do it. But its not the law they uphold.

Sure it's the law. Unless other arrangements were made, copyright to a tattoo image resides with the artist who designed it.

The only way a model can claim copyright to a tattoo is if either a.) they drew the design entirely themselves and just hired a tattoo artist to do the ink, or b.) they had the tattoo artist sign over copyright. And even under those circumstances it is still wise for agencies to reject stuff with prominent tattoos visible. Even in a case where the model claims to have rights to the tattoo design, who knows really if that is accurate. It's very common for people to just snag designs off the web and go to tattoo shops and say "Here, put this on me."

I know Von Glitschka was having a big problem with this for a while. He'd have people email him photos saying, "Check out this tattoo I got of one of your designs!" Really those people have no right to just take his work and get a tattoo of it. A tattoo in itself is a reproduction of a copyrighted work in some cases.

EmberMike

« Reply #65 on: April 17, 2014, 09:51 »
+5

I got an email recently that someone had one of my stock icons tattooed on their arm:



It's a complicated story, the guy hired a "designer" to do a logo for his business, the "designer" gave him a stock icon and claimed it was original, the guy loved it so much he got it tattooed, then later found out it was stock and contacted me to try and work out a rights buyout.

Anyway, as it relates to this topic, suppose the guy went and did a stock shoot as a model. If that tattoo features prominently in an image, I wouldn't want those images to be used commercially without my consent. That's my design, I still own the copyright to it.

It doesn't matter that it's on a business card, a piece of paper, or someone's arm. That is still my design, and I own the rights to it.

« Reply #66 on: April 17, 2014, 10:10 »
+3
Great anecdote.


Ron

« Reply #67 on: April 17, 2014, 10:26 »
-1
I never said the agency cant make their own call, in fact I fully understand why they do it. But its not the law they uphold.

Sure it's the law. Unless other arrangements were made, copyright to a tattoo image resides with the artist who designed it.

The only way a model can claim copyright to a tattoo is if either a.) they drew the design entirely themselves and just hired a tattoo artist to do the ink, or b.) they had the tattoo artist sign over copyright. And even under those circumstances it is still wise for agencies to reject stuff with prominent tattoos visible. Even in a case where the model claims to have rights to the tattoo design, who knows really if that is accurate. It's very common for people to just snag designs off the web and go to tattoo shops and say "Here, put this on me."

I know Von Glitschka was having a big problem with this for a while. He'd have people email him photos saying, "Check out this tattoo I got of one of your designs!" Really those people have no right to just take his work and get a tattoo of it. A tattoo in itself is a reproduction of a copyrighted work in some cases.
I mean, the agencies dont follow exact law, they are tougher then the law. Same with model releases. Not all images need a MR, but they do ask for it.

Funny fact. I was recently asked by a Dutch agency to remove the model release as it wasnt needed.

Ron

« Reply #68 on: April 17, 2014, 10:28 »
-6

I got an email recently that someone had one of my stock icons tattooed on their arm:



It's a complicated story, the guy hired a "designer" to do a logo for his business, the "designer" gave him a stock icon and claimed it was original, the guy loved it so much he got it tattooed, then later found out it was stock and contacted me to try and work out a rights buyout.

Anyway, as it relates to this topic, suppose the guy went and did a stock shoot as a model. If that tattoo features prominently in an image, I wouldn't want those images to be used commercially without my consent. That's my design, I still own the copyright to it.

It doesn't matter that it's on a business card, a piece of paper, or someone's arm. That is still my design, and I own the rights to it.
But that completely backs up my earlier statements. I told the artist what to tattoo on my back, so I own it.

Shelma1

« Reply #69 on: April 17, 2014, 10:33 »
+3
It's a difficult argument. I would think many tattoo artists use stock or common imagery in their work (I don't know for sure, as I have no tattoos, but I see the same or very similar tattoos on lots of people). So who owns the copyright? The original designer of the tattoo? The artist who inked it? Lots of images here are keyworded "tattoo." (Some of mine are.) Does the photographer need a release from me and the tattoo artist then?

Uncle Pete

« Reply #70 on: April 17, 2014, 12:07 »
+1
The artwork might be protected, if it's an original design.

The ink job isn't.

I don't know why it's gotten into a deep convoluted debate. If the tattoo artist used a stock book design, it's not protected.

The agency can't know, so they ask for a release to protect themselves and AND the buyer.

This isn't really new. We can't use Graffiti either, now tell me some little criminal tagger with cans of spray paint has the rights and protection, to their art work. What's better is I'd love to see them in court, and then have them tossed for a few years or have to pay for damages for their "art".   :)

But beyond my personal feelings about destruction of others personal property, they are protected. That's the way the law works. Not always what we'd like it to be, but on a consistent basis of fairness and equal protection.

A protected original art tattoo is the same as an oil painting. The End.


It's a difficult argument. I would think many tattoo artists use stock or common imagery in their work (I don't know for sure, as I have no tattoos, but I see the same or very similar tattoos on lots of people). So who owns the copyright? The original designer of the tattoo? The artist who inked it? Lots of images here are keyworded "tattoo." (Some of mine are.) Does the photographer need a release from me and the tattoo artist then?

Ron

« Reply #71 on: April 17, 2014, 12:22 »
-1
Can the people who voted my comment down explain to me why I am wrong? Honest question, because when its my design, on my skin, why shouldnt I hold copyright? Whats different from Mike having copyright to his design?

Shelma1

« Reply #72 on: April 17, 2014, 12:34 »
0
I didn't vote you down, but if you suggested something, but the tattoo artist had to sketch it and come up with the actual design, then I would say he owns it. Not sure if that's your situation.

I remember, when I was designing clothes, I had one client who would say "I need a pair of pants," and I would sketch a bunch of designs and she'd select one and I'd sew the darned things, then she would asked for them to be lengthened or shortened. Yet she got a writeup in the NY Times Magazine and told the reporter she designed her own clothes...and the article was accompanied by a photo of all the clothes I'd designed for her. >:/ Grrrr.

EmberMike

« Reply #73 on: April 17, 2014, 12:36 »
+2
Ron I think there's a big difference between telling a tattoo artist what you want done and designing a tattoo yourself.

If I take one of my stock images to a tattoo artist, I still own the design. Someone downloads one of my stock images and takes it to a tattoo artist, again I still own the design. I tell a tattoo artist I want a leaf tattoo and he/she draws/designs it, they own the design.

Just because something is on your skin doesn't mean you own it. You own your skin, or the paper the design is drawn on, or the screen you're viewing the image on. The image itself is copyrighted by the person who created the image.

Ron

« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2014, 12:47 »
0
So if I tell the artist what I want done, I tell him I want a tribal with a radioactive sign and he draws it for me, and I pay him for it, its his copyright?


 

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