Author Topic: The next nightmare comes true. Release needed for tatoo (Read 22559 times)

Axel Lauer · « **on:** April 16, 2014, 11:59 »

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?

---
admin edit: updated title

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:11 »

I'd say that's pretty prominent artwork. What's the difference if it is drawn on paper or skin?

ppdd · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:13 »

If these people had tattoos of your photos, you would want a release required, right? The tattoo artists, if it's assumed that they hold the copyright to the design (I'm not sure if they always do, but it's certainly original art in many cases), should have some control of where their art is displayed.

I see a disturbing trend in this forum that dismisses the value of art other than photography. People decry the slighted devaluing of photography but are continually angry that they can't take advantage of other art forms.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:24 »

You really dont know the difference between a more or less documentary photo of a painting (which can be considered as a copy) or a photo of a model which has a tatoo she paid for (which can be considered as a own, new artwork)

?
Sean, this really surprises me!
If this would be true than the tattooartist would have a kind of sovereign power above the person the tattoo is on.
The model paid for a tattoo and after that she is not free anymore to do what she wants??
this is the most weird concept / idea i have ever heard of (beside timetravel)

@ppdd
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 (Schöpfungshöhe 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??

bunhill · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:32 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 12:24

If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself

The hypothetical painting of your photograph may breach copyright however. Exactly the same as a photograph of a photograph or a traced vector.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:34 »

Quote from: bunhill on April 16, 2014, 12:32

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 12:24
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself

The hypothetical painting of your photograph may breach copyright however. Exactly the same as a photograph of a photograph or a traced vector.

NOT TRUE
read some courtsentences or this one:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he)

ppdd · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:38 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 12:24

You really dont know the difference between a more or less documentary photo of a painting (which can be considered as a copy) or a photo of a model which has a tatoo she paid for (which can be considered as a own, new artwork)?
Sean, this really surprises me!
If this would be true than the tattooartist would have a kind of sovereign power above the person the tattoo is on.
The model paid for a tattoo and after that she is not free anymore to do what she wants??
this is the most weird concept / idea i have ever heard of (beside timetravel)

@ppdd
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 (Schöpfungshöhe 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??

First, tattoo designs are copyrightable: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/tattoo_artists_are_asserting_their_copyright_claims/

Second, by the same logic, I can do anything I want with a painting I purchased? Not true.

It seem that SS has a clear concern about this issue.

bunhill · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:43 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 12:34

NOT TRUE
read some courtsentences or this one:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he)

Conceivably Germany has different rules. But I do not speak German and therefore cannot comment on the article.

Stock agencies need to account for lowest common denominator international regulation and therefore you are going to need a property release when you include someone else's design in a photograph. Someone owns the design of every tattoo ultimately - whether it is an identifiable logo or not.

And reference your previous point: No the models do not necessarily own the rights to what is inked on their skin. The Coca Cola or Apple logo for example. The same for anything less identifiable too.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #8 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:46 »

Been like this with SS for YEARS!

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63537&highlight=tattoos

That thread dates back to 2009!

Where have you been?

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 11:59

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?

Mantis · « **Reply #9 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:52 »

It's been that way on a few sites in the last 3-4 years. Tattoos are taboo!

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #10 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:52 »

@ppdd and bunhill,
i appreciate your contributions a lot but i would appreciate it more if you would read what i have wrote - even if it is not my motherlanguage i am writing in.

once again:
1: documentary photo of a painting (which can be considered as a copy)
2: photo of a model which has a tatoo she paid for (which can be considered as a own, new artwork)

This is not a documentary copy-shot of the tattoo!!
http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg

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

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/

one more to think about:
Who is the copyrightholder of a fashionshoot with a prominent make-up, a hightower-haircut and a prominent outfit??
The coiffeur?
The make-up-artist?
the fashion-designer?
No, its the photographer.
The idea of Co-Copyright-holders is just a theory and has never ever become judged in practice.
Simplified you can say that its the person who pulls the trigger on the camera who owns the copyright
Indepentend from the number of assistents (light, make, style tec) he has

btw: we europeans dont have a copyright

@sean locke
what would you say if your lighting-assistent claims the copyright on your pictures (we all know that the light is the most important on an photograph)??
You like that idea?

grsphoto · « **Reply #11 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:55 »

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.....

SNP · « **Reply #12 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:57 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 11:59

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.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:57 »

Quote from: bunhill on April 16, 2014, 12:43

The Coca Cola or Apple logo for example.

Not relevant.
Model does not pay Coca-Cola or Apple for using their logo - but she did that with the tattooartist.

and one more:
If this would be true than the tattooartist would have a kind of sovereign power above the person the tattoo is on.
The model paid for a tattoo

Ron · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:58 »

A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #15 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:58 »

Quote from: SNP on April 16, 2014, 12:57

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 11:59
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??

Axel Lauer · « **Reply #16 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:00 »

Quote from: Ron on April 16, 2014, 12:58

A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.

You hit the nail

Ron · « **Reply #17 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:01 »

Calm down now, just a normal discussion going on

bunhill · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:08 »

Quote from: Ron on April 16, 2014, 12:58

A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.

Not necessarily. Because a design may be either copyrighted, trademarked or both. It's obvious if the design is well known logo but less obvious in most cases. Therefore you can see why the agencies need to take a one-size-fits-all cautious approach.

I could hire you to tattoo the Apple logo on me. But neither you nor I could sign a property release for that.

Ron · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:13 »

Quote from: bunhill on April 16, 2014, 13:08

Quote from: Ron on April 16, 2014, 12:58
A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.

Not necessarily. Because a design may be either copyrighted, trademarked or both. It's obvious if the design is well known logo but less obvious in most cases. Therefore you can see why the agencies need to take a one-size-fits-all cautious approach.

I could hire you to tattoo the Apple logo on me. But neither you nor I could sign a property release for that.

Yeah, thats obvious. I said its not strange to think I didnt say it was definite. But my tattoo on my back is my design and the artist tattooed it. Its unique, and I told what to tattoo, so technically I own the copyright to my own tattoo

bunhill · « **Reply #20 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:24 »

FYI - there is a related debate with respect to who owns the copyright to graffiti.

A graffiti artist might have acted illegally and the property owner may not have been best pleased. But in many countries the graffiti artist would still ultimately probably be ruled to own the rights to the work. Because copyright law is neutral with respect to how an art work came to exist or what it is painted on.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #21 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:34 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 16, 2014, 12:11

I'd say that's pretty prominent artwork. What's the difference if it is drawn on paper or skin?

The difference is that, while no one can claim the authorship of the tattoo except the artist who's created it, ALL the other rights belong to the person who has paid for it.

The tattoo is nothing more than a commissioned work, where the person who has paid for it can do whatever he wants except saying that it was made by John when it was in fact made by Joe.

If a company contracts you to photograph an event, they own all the rights except authorship over the photos unless stated otherwise. The same with wedding photos, where the married couple own all the photos.

The only problem I would consider is if the depiction of the tattoo is defamatory to the artist. Other than that there's no case.

And why should a tattoo be any different especially if it's painted over the body of someone else. Wouldn't that be a limitation of the individual liberties of the individual?!

Why should a tattooed person not be allowed to be a model, despite being the owner of ALL the rights over the tattoo? You may allow your house to be used in an advertisement, but not your body?! Does this make any sense?

At least in Portugal the Code for Author's Rights make a distinction between Authorship and Ownership. As mentioned earlier the only right an artist preserves is the Authorship. Other than that the Owner can do whatever he wishes with the work. Even set it on fire...

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #22 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:36 »

Quote from: bunhill on April 16, 2014, 13:24

FYI - there is a related debate with respect to who owns the copyright to graffiti.

A graffiti artist might have acted illegally and the property owner may not have been best pleased. But in many countries the graffiti artist would still ultimately probably be ruled to own the rights to the work. Because copyright law is neutral with respect to how an art work came to exist or what it is painted on.

But if the owner of the wall paid for the graffiti, the artist would have absolutely no rights except claiming authorship. Just like a wedding photographer.

The person who paid owns all the rights.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #23 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:39 »

Quote from: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 12:52

one more to think about:
Who is the copyrightholder of a fashionshoot with a prominent make-up, a hightower-haircut and a prominent outfit??
The coiffeur?
The make-up-artist?
the fashion-designer?
No, its the photographer.
The idea of Co-Copyright-holders is just a theory and has never ever become judged in practice.
Simplified you can say that its the person who pulls the trigger on the camera who owns the copyright
Indepentend from the number of assistents (light, make, style tec) he has

Germany law would require that you get a release from the make-up-artist and fashion-designer. I don't have the time to find a link for you but I'm sure you can find the info.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #24 on:** April 16, 2014, 13:39 »

Quote from: grsphoto on April 16, 2014, 12:55

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The next nightmare comes true. Release needed for tatoo (Read 22559 times)

Axel Lauer

Sean Locke Photography

ppdd

Axel Lauer

bunhill

Axel Lauer

ppdd

bunhill

ruxpriencdiam

Mantis

Axel Lauer

grsphoto

SNP

Axel Lauer

Ron

Axel Lauer

Axel Lauer

Ron

bunhill

Ron

bunhill

StockPhotosArt.com

StockPhotosArt.com

Eyedesign

StockPhotosArt.com

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors