IPB
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Tattoos Copyright, Video recordings of your face are illegal?
nezumi
post Jun 6 2011, 02:06 PM
Post #26


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



QUOTE (Ghost_in_the_System @ Jun 5 2011, 07:58 PM) *
I think the real issue will not be 'is a tattoo art' as the article suggests, but rather 1) who owns the copyright of a tattoo (Which by all rights should be the artist)


I would disagree on the first point. The designer owns the rights to the design initially, but when they consent for it to be tattooed onto a person, that implies consent to transferring that art to being part of that person's likeness, and therefore under the full control of the person being tattooed. It would take a pretty well-paid lawyer to successfully argue a person no longer has a right to his own likeness because someone painted on his face.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ghost_in_the_Sys...
post Jun 6 2011, 02:42 PM
Post #27


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 433
Joined: 12-May 11
Member No.: 29,932



That or a very good lawyer writing up the agreement for the tattoo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

But the problem is that the movie isn't using Mike's likeness, they're using his tattoo, entirely apart from any other part of his likeness. Now, if the character that had gotten the tattoo had taken other lengths to imitate Mike Tyson, such as having his skin darkened or having plastic surgery to look more like him or something else, then it might be considered part of using his likeness.

It's kind of like if an artist allows an art gallery to use her art as part of an art exhibit. Now obviously they're allowed to include pictures of her art and such in advertisements for the exhibit. But if the art gallery suddenly starts selling prints of that piece of art without permission, they're breaking copyright. Mike is allowed to let people use the tattoo as part of his total likeness, but can't allow people to use his tattoo independent of himself and his likeness.

This is also like buying a print from an artist. You are allowed to display the print you bought and such, but you aren't allowed to give other people permission to copy it. In this case, the print just happens to be on someone's face.

Personally I have to say that Mike was fairly... lacking in foresight when he got a tattoo on his face that he didn't have full ownership of, or wasn't in public domain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 11:35 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.