Copyright again

nilhg

Another strange one, probably won't directly affect most photographers but just wondering what might happen on a commercial shoot if a model has a tattoo? Would you need a release form for the model and another for his/her tattoo?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/media/21tattoo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

magicbastarder

If a tattoo clearly violates copyright — say, exactly reproduces a Keith Haring drawing or an Annie Leibovitz photograph without permission — could a court order it removed?

an interesting point; does copyright law allow the court to order the destruction of the copy?

punchdrunk

how is this even remotely possible to police?

should fender sue MTV for every music video to ever feature a fender guitar?
should landrover sue every Hollywood film studio who have used the discovery in an action sequence?

where would it end?

On a related note, there's a wrestler called CM Punk who has a large Pepsi logo tattoo on his left shoulder;






But in official WWE promo shots....







It's removed. I believe he also has a 'cobra' logo on his other shoulder which gets the same treatment. The action figures and videogame counterparts also have it removed.

magicbastarder

punchdrunk wrote: »

should fender sue MTV for every music video to ever feature a fender guitar?

well, fender would welcome that because a) it means that someone has had to buy a(nother) fender to put it in the video, and b) it's an ad for more fenders, for free.

a tattoo is a one-off, in the sense that someone else appearing with the same tattoo does not mean the artist has made more money from provision of that particular one, and also is not necessarily going to get any extra business as a result - it's an ad for that tattoo, not that tattoo artist.

punchdrunk

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, fender would welcome that because a) it means that someone has had to buy a(nother) fender to put it in the video, and b) it's an ad for more fenders, for free.

a tattoo is a one-off, in the sense that someone else appearing with the same tattoo does not mean the artist has made more money from provision of that particular one, and also is not necessarily going to get any extra business as a result - it's an ad for that tattoo, not that tattoo artist.

very true,hadn't thought of it in that sense

AnCatDubh

An interesting one. Assuming an original design is in question; then it is a creation which creative types/artists are entitled to the protection of copyright.

Where Tyson himself appears in the movie it isn't a problem as the design is applied to Tyson as is an original albeit incidental part of Tyson's appearance. This, the same rationale that you couldn't in any practical sense, object to every time Tyson has been photographed that permission isn't required.

The issue that I think the tatoo artist has a strong point about is where his design has been recreated and applied to another individual without the permission of the creator and thus lawful copyright holder. This strengthened even further - not that it needs strengthening - by the fact that it is integral to the creation of further creative works being the plot of the film.

Yes, I think the guy has a strong point. They can argue whether the design is actually a recreation or not.