# Commercial Photography & Models With Tattoo's



## donny1963

Here is a subject that is in the courts today, there are tons of court cases being tried in civil  litigation, that may interest you photographers who plan to publish their work.

The Subject is Models with Custom Design Tattoo's, this doesn't apply to Flash Art Tattoo's
Lets say a model has a unique design tattoo on her body, and She is to appear in Vogue Magazine or some other publication commercial print,  and the picture of the model is taken, and the
Custom Tattoo Is Displayed.

This could cause a problem for Vogue Magazine or who ever intends to publish such photography.
WHY?
Well the Model can sign a model release to get her picture published, but what about the Ink Art?
the artist who designed this ink and placed it on the model is the original copyright holder of this art, So can the publishing company legally print this picture with the tattoo art showing without expressed permission of the tattoo artist With out a lawsuit?

Right now the answer is unknown, because this very same type of case is now in civil federal court.
it seems a famous model had her picture published in the nude, with this tattoo art clearly displayed..

The argument in court is the tattoo artist didn't give this publishing company permission rights to print such art that the tattoo artist owns..

So if the courts go in favor of the tattoo artist this could change Commercial photograph and Even Movie & TV for ever, no movie production would legally  be able to cast an actress or actor in a move or TV show with any of their custom art tattoos' displayed with out paying off the tattoo artist..

Now so far the lawyers are fighting this out, one lawyer is saying the tattoo artist should not be able to invoke copyright's for printing such art on a canvas they don't own,

Such as a human being, and such art was printed on a person for public display and forfeits all copyright ownership in that aspect,  Just as in a case back in 1979 came up where a graffiti artist took Gabe Kaplan, the creator of welcome back kotter tv show to civil court claiming the graffiti was his art work and didn't get permission to record this on film for public broadcasting.

The federal case was take out in 1979, the actual recording of the graffiti was recorded in 1974
this graffiti was drawn on a subway car in the begining of the intro of the Tv Show.

The graffiti artist lost the case, where the judge claimed that the artist had no claim to any created art for the reason that the art was created on a canvas that this artist didn't own, also the fact that the artist created the art on a public venue where it was intended to be displayed in public making any recording or photography of such art fair use.

This argument may take a play in Body art where the artist does not own the canvas ( human being) and intended for public display and making any recorded video or photograph a fair use even tho the picture would be used commercially.

Welcome back kotter tv show had created an intro for the TV show where 90% of it was recorded in public in the city of New York making any such recorded film fair use.
Such Body Art may be seen in the same manor..

How ever if the courts favor in the tattoo artist case, this could change photographing models or casting actors / actress in Movies or TV show with such body art in display..

For instance, jason statham  has appeared in many motion pictures, and has some custom body art, will the artist of such ink be able to claim Damages for having them appear in these movies with out express written permission, time will only tell what the outcome will be..

NOTE: they was a law suit just like this, with Mike Tyson, where is body art on his face was re-created on another actor for a move ..

he man who gave *Mike Tyson* his distinctive facial tattoo has
sued Warner Bros. over the similar-looking facial art on *Ed Helms*' character in the upcoming _The Hangover: Part II_.

So what will happen, Can a photographer take a picture of a model in the nude with her custom tattoo's showing in the picture with out the dangers of being taken to civil court?
as i said time will tell, and this may change the way commercial photography with models who have tattoo's forever..


----------



## john.margetts

In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.

Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.


----------



## smoke665

donny1963 said:


> The graffiti artist lost the case, where the judge claimed that the artist had no claim to any created art for the reason that the art was created on a canvas that this artist didn't own, also the fact that the artist created the art on a public venue where it was intended to be displayed in public making any recording or photography of such art fair use.



So a model/actress/actor that regularly poses in the nude could be considered a "public venue"???  How many exposures would be considered enough to make it "public", and by extension couldn't the model/actress/actor's entire body then risk coming under a "public venue" claim?


----------



## donny1963

smoke665 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The graffiti artist lost the case, where the judge claimed that the artist had no claim to any created art for the reason that the art was created on a canvas that this artist didn't own, also the fact that the artist created the art on a public venue where it was intended to be displayed in public making any recording or photography of such art fair use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a model/actress/actor that regularly poses in the nude could be considered a "public venue"???  How many exposures would be considered enough to make it "public", and by extension couldn't the model/actress/actor's entire body then risk coming under a "public venue" claim?
Click to expand...


Not exactly public venue, how ever tattoo artist should not be able to claim copyright of such art o ones body if it happens to be in the photograph is the question.

one of the reason as i stated would be that the Art was intended to be displayed, lets say a girl or a guy gets a tattoo on his face or his neck,  the artist would be creating such art to be displayed, that' would be the art's intention just as some one draws art on a wall or bridge, (graffiti)  just because it was photographed, the artist can't claim copyright breach.

An emerging but largely unsettled issue in copyright in the United States regards photographers taking pictures of people with tattoos and then selling the image.  The problem is that the tattoo artist designed and has some copyright protection over the design, and you using that design in the photo may be a violation of copyright in some situations.

Most photographers are unlikely to face this situation, but it can happen, and it's best to understand the issue first.

The short answer to this question is that it's entirely unsettled in case law, depends on facts of each individual use, and we just don't know.  While there are certainly guiding principles and best practices, the truth is that we don't know how photographers can use tattoos in photographs while staying out of trouble. 

*BEST PRACTICES FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS*

this area of law is far from settled, so it's difficult to know what is and is not okay.  The following are the business practices that I personally am going to follow regarding tattoos in my photos.  I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, so you're best to confer with your own counsel licensed to practice in your own jurisdiction before making the decision for yourself.  This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice.


If you photograph someone famous with tattoos, get a release from the tattoo artist first before publishing the photos.  Why?  Because famous people are magnets for lawsuits, and you don't want to be caught in the middle.
Don't publish photos that feature a tattoo as a central feature of the photo.  You're much less likely to run into disputes where the tattoo is only an incidental part of the image.
Never take the tattoo design and put it on another medium.  For example, don't take a couple's heart tattoo designs and use it on a wedding album.
Watch out for tattoos that feature an obvious infringement of another's rights.  For example, a tattoo of the Nike swoosh or a famous person's likeness or a batman symbol.  That drags yet another party into the fight over the copyright, and likely a party with deep pockets and a strong desire to protect the mark, image, or likeness.
Don't sell photos with tattoos as stock.  You never really know where a stock photo is going to end up.  It could be in a movie, on a billboard, on the packaging for a product, etc.  Photographers should hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to selling photos as stock because the image could be very widely distributed, and in a way that you cannot control.  Many stock agencies will not accept photos with tattoos for this reason.
Don't get paranoid.  You're extremely unlikely to run into trouble if you're following these best practices.

*RASHEED WALLACE AND THE NBA*

Rasheed Wallace, the NBA star, was featured on a Nike commercial discussing his tattoo.  That tattoo had been designed by tattoo artist Matthew Reed, who took issue with images depicting that tattoo.  One significant factor in this case that would differ from that of a typical photographer situation is that the videographer animated the drawing of some of the tattoos, thus creating a derivative work.

For photographers and videographers, this case would directly answer the question of whether or not you can photograph someone with a tattoo and profit off the images.  This case was unlike the Hangover case where the design was taken from Mike Tyson and put on another person.

Unfortunately, this case also settled out of court–giving photographers no precedent to follow.

*CONCLUSION*
It will be interesting to see how the law figures out these interesting questions about photographers and tattoos.  It's a complicated dance of the rights of multiple parties.

However, this is unlikely to become an issue for most photographers as long as you follow the best practices listed above.


But the question still remains what will happen in the situation of photographer taking a picture of a model with any such tattoo displayed
in the photography and be published?​


----------



## donny1963

john.margetts said:


> In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.
> 
> Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.



Not really clear cut, i would be careful of photographing a person with such tattoo art displayed , and then publishing the picture you could end up in court as others have, and settled out of court..


An emerging but largely unsettled issue in copyright in the United States regards photographers taking pictures of people with tattoos and then selling the image. The problem is that the tattoo artist designed and has some copyright protection over the design, and you using that design in the photo may be a violation of copyright in some situations.

Most photographers are unlikely to face this situation, but it can happen, and it's best to understand the issue first.

The short answer to this question is that it's entirely unsettled in case law, depends on facts of each individual use, and we just don't know. While there are certainly guiding principles and best practices, the truth is that we don't know how photographers can use tattoos in photographs while staying out of trouble. 

*BEST PRACTICES FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS*

this area of law is far from settled, so it's difficult to know what is and is not okay. The following are the business practices that I personally am going to follow regarding tattoos in my photos. I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, so you're best to confer with your own counsel licensed to practice in your own jurisdiction before making the decision for yourself. This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice.


If you photograph someone famous with tattoos, get a release from the tattoo artist first before publishing the photos. Why? Because famous people are magnets for lawsuits, and you don't want to be caught in the middle.
Don't publish photos that feature a tattoo as a central feature of the photo. You're much less likely to run into disputes where the tattoo is only an incidental part of the image.
Never take the tattoo design and put it on another medium. For example, don't take a couple's heart tattoo designs and use it on a wedding album.
Watch out for tattoos that feature an obvious infringement of another's rights. For example, a tattoo of the Nike swoosh or a famous person's likeness or a batman symbol. That drags yet another party into the fight over the copyright, and likely a party with deep pockets and a strong desire to protect the mark, image, or likeness.
Don't sell photos with tattoos as stock. You never really know where a stock photo is going to end up. It could be in a movie, on a billboard, on the packaging for a product, etc. Photographers should hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to selling photos as stock because the image could be very widely distributed, and in a way that you cannot control. Many stock agencies will not accept photos with tattoos for this reason.
Don't get paranoid. You're extremely unlikely to run into trouble if you're following these best practices.

*RASHEED WALLACE AND THE NBA*

Rasheed Wallace, the NBA star, was featured on a Nike commercial discussing his tattoo. That tattoo had been designed by tattoo artist Matthew Reed, who took issue with images depicting that tattoo. One significant factor in this case that would differ from that of a typical photographer situation is that the videographer animated the drawing of some of the tattoos, thus creating a derivative work.

For photographers and videographers, this case would directly answer the question of whether or not you can photograph someone with a tattoo and profit off the images. This case was unlike the Hangover case where the design was taken from Mike Tyson and put on another person.

Unfortunately, this case also settled out of court–giving photographers no precedent to follow.

*CONCLUSION*
It will be interesting to see how the law figures out these interesting questions about photographers and tattoos. It's a complicated dance of the rights of multiple parties.

However, this is unlikely to become an issue for most photographers as long as you follow the best practices listed above.


But the question still remains what will happen in the situation of photographer taking a picture of a model with any such tattoo displayed
in the photography and be published?


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> Now so far the lawyers are fighting this out, one lawyer is saying the tattoo artist should not be able to invoke copyright's for printing such art on a canvas they don't own,


This is a very stupid argument.  Why do the B Law school grads get these cases?  The lawyer has chosen to argue a case that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to win.

Common sense be darned.


----------



## KmH

john.margetts said:


> In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.
> 
> Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.


Copyright and Trademark are different things.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Good luck copyrighting clothes, signs, logos:
What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf


> *What Is Not Protected by Copyright*?
> . . . • titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
> • ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration . . .


----------



## table1349

Well considering that the Maori could have sued the Tyson's tattoo artist for using their ancestral tattoo art, I agree that is about as stupid of argument as there ever was.


----------



## smoke665

donny1963 said:


> the Art was intended to be displayed



And we agree. Wasn't trying to be argumentative, just to illustrate that there's always a Pandora's Box when judges get involved in "interpreting" law. We all know to well, how certain rulings of the past few months, have actually resulted in legislation from the bench, constructing an interpretation beyond the scope of the original law.


----------



## JonA_CT

Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?


----------



## donny1963

JonA_CT said:


> Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?


the article is public domain  it's everywhere lol


----------



## donny1963

gryphonslair99 said:


> Well considering that the Maori could have sued the Tyson's tattoo artist for using their ancestral tattoo art, I agree that is about as stupid of argument as there ever was.



Not really that stupid,  it's in the courts now, this is all going to depend on how the judges interprets the copyright laws in this issue.
The choice they make could effect on how Models or actors are published on print or film.
If the courts side with tattoo artists, then any one's photograph published with art on the body showing, would not only have to get a release
from the models or talent, they would also need one from the tattoo artist..


----------



## donny1963

KmH said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> 
> In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.
> 
> Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright and Trademark are different things.
> United States Patent and Trademark Office
> Good luck copyrighting clothes, signs, logos:
> What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office
> https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Not Protected by Copyright*?
> . . . • titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
> • ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Well tattoo art can be covered in copyright's just as pictures are.
When is something become a copyright? the minute it is created, like a picture the, minute the picture is taken the copyright applies, you don't have to register it..

Posted  : Who owns your ink? Tattoos are at the heart of lawsuits involving celebs, artists and even coffee shops


*Copyrighted art you wear on your skin*
*If a creation is copyrightable, the default legal standard is that the person who created it owns it.*

*To receive copyright protection, a creation must meet three requirements: It must be a work of authorship, it must be original and it must be fixed. Under widely accepted theory, tattoos can meet each requirement.*

*First, the term “work of authorship” includes art. Tattoos, by nearly every interpretation, can be considered art under the law.*

*Second, regarding originality, courts require that a work be independently created and be “minimally creative.” The Supreme Court has held that most things “make the grade quite easily” under this very low bar. Therefore, tattoo artists who design tattoos themselves will almost always meet this requirement.*

*Third, “fixation” requires that the work be created on something that a person can see and perceive more than momentarily. Tattoos by their very nature (and to some people’s chagrin) are permanently placed on human skin and can be seen by someone nearby.*

*Given these basic requirements, a tattoo can be protected by copyright law, and the creator of that tattoo owns the resulting rights. These rights include the ability to keep others from displaying, reproducing or creating new works based on the original tattoo or one that is substantially similar. This would include things like photos, videos and artwork that use the tattoo.

Corporate shill or tattooed trademark violator?

Under trademark law, nearly anything can be a trademark, including words, names, symbols or devices. Trademarks are used to protect the trademark owner’s goodwill and reputation developed through the trademark and to help the public identify where products and services come from.

In some cases, people decide on their own to ink themselves with their favorite company brands. Some corporate trademarks make for popular tattoos among brand loyalists, including the Harley-Davidson crest, Ironman “M-Dot” and Nike swoosh. In other instances, companies encourage employees to tattoo themselves with the corporate trademark by offering financial benefits. In either case, individuals with trademark-based tattoos can find themselves exposed to an infringement lawsuit.

A trademark infringement claim requires showing that:

1) the tattooed person is using a reproduction or copy of the trademark; 2) the tattooed person is in commerce without permission; and 3) the use is likely to cause confusion.

Under this standard, nearly anyone with a trademark-based tattoo could be subject to a trademark lawsuit.
*


----------



## JonA_CT

donny1963 said:


> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> the article is public domain  it's everywhere lol
Click to expand...


Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.

I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.


----------



## donny1963

JonA_CT said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> the article is public domain  it's everywhere lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.
> 
> I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.
Click to expand...


It's not plagiarism, one would have to claim they are the original writer, and  i did no such thing..  #2 publish it commercially,
artacles posted on the internet are always reposted and even copied to facebook timelines all the time, News and media don't generally get offended and pissed off and could care less lol
here is an example of claiming original writing, many tv shows and media Quote things famous people written, why don't they get in trouble? because they are quoting them and not claiming to be the one who said it first, they even state the name of the original quoter / write  at the end of it.. this make is fair use.. learn the laws of fair use and plagiarism. 
lol


----------



## JonA_CT

donny1963 said:


> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> the article is public domain  it's everywhere lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.
> 
> I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not plagiarism, one would have to claim they are the original writer, and  i did no such thing..  #2 publish it commercially,
> artacles posted on the internet are always reposted and even copied to facebook timelines all the time, News and media don't generally get offended and pissed off and could care less lol
> here is an example of claiming original writing, many tv shows and media Quote things famous people written, why don't they get in trouble? because they are quoting them and not claiming to be the one who said it first, they even state the name of the original quoter / write  at the end of it.. this make is fair use.. learn the laws of fair use and plagiarism.
> lol
Click to expand...


Nope, nope, and nope.

They attribute their sources which you didn't do.

I've already wasted more of my time than I should have...but you seem to be suggesting that a picture of someone's tattoo has more copyright protection than written intellectual property. Again, ironic.


----------



## donny1963

JonA_CT said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> the article is public domain  it's everywhere lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.
> 
> I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not plagiarism, one would have to claim they are the original writer, and  i did no such thing..  #2 publish it commercially,
> artacles posted on the internet are always reposted and even copied to facebook timelines all the time, News and media don't generally get offended and pissed off and could care less lol
> here is an example of claiming original writing, many tv shows and media Quote things famous people written, why don't they get in trouble? because they are quoting them and not claiming to be the one who said it first, they even state the name of the original quoter / write  at the end of it.. this make is fair use.. learn the laws of fair use and plagiarism.
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, nope, and nope.
> 
> They attribute their sources which you didn't do.
> 
> I've already wasted more of my time than I should have...but you seem to be suggesting that a picture of someone's tattoo has more copyright protection than written intellectual property. Again, ironic.
Click to expand...

Ironic or not, i doubt they will complain...
So the topic is moot..


----------



## donny1963

JonA_CT said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> the article is public domain  it's everywhere lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you can find it every where, doesn't mean that it is "public domain" and free to be used without attribution. If you were submitting this "analysis" or whatever in any sort of professional or education setting, it would be considered plagiarism.
> 
> I could care less because people post stuff on the internet they hold no rights to constantly...but it's particularly ironic in this case because you are copyright rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not plagiarism, one would have to claim they are the original writer, and  i did no such thing..  #2 publish it commercially,
> artacles posted on the internet are always reposted and even copied to facebook timelines all the time, News and media don't generally get offended and pissed off and could care less lol
> here is an example of claiming original writing, many tv shows and media Quote things famous people written, why don't they get in trouble? because they are quoting them and not claiming to be the one who said it first, they even state the name of the original quoter / write  at the end of it.. this make is fair use.. learn the laws of fair use and plagiarism.
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, nope, and nope.
> 
> They attribute their sources which you didn't do.
> 
> I've already wasted more of my time than I should have...but you seem to be suggesting that a picture of someone's tattoo has more copyright protection than written intellectual property. Again, ironic.
Click to expand...

and i did give attribute, i posted the link to it..


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> and i did give attribute, i posted the link to it..


Including a link embedded within the text is not the same as proper attribution.


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> ..it's in the courts now, this is all going to depend on how the judges interprets the copyright laws in this issue.


"You got the wrong attorney."

"No, I got the wrong JUDGE."


----------



## donny1963

john.margetts said:


> In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.
> 
> Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.



Don't forget even tattoo artist have been taken to court in the past for Trademark infringements, i believe one was the TV show Choopers, they was a guy in the show who had a Harley Davidson Logo, and the words harley davidson, and the company "harley davidson" took the network and the creator of the show to court and settled out of court who knows what they got for damages, but harley davidson i believe was asking for 300 mill on that one..

Same thing happend years ago, Warner brothers, a tattoo artist got in hot water for Creating a Bugs Bunny with the words wha'ts up DOC above it, and that was a trademark infringement..
the way i see it i think you can't put trademark tattoos on people , like the apple symbol that the computer company uses, or Nike, or any company logo, like toyota or nissan, all these are trademarks and it believe it would be a copyright infringement to do just that with out expressed written permission by the copyright holder..


----------



## donny1963

Designer said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..it's in the courts now, this is all going to depend on how the judges interprets the copyright laws in this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> "You got the wrong attorney."
> 
> "No, I got the wrong JUDGE."
Click to expand...


unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
> Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..


You're wrong about that.  In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case.  The voters had the last word.

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately.  The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.


----------



## donny1963

Designer said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
> Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong about that.  In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case.  The voters had the last word.
> 
> In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately.  The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.
Click to expand...


----------



## donny1963

donny1963 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
> Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong about that.  In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case.  The voters had the last word.
> 
> In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately.  The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





Only in the abstract the people have the last say, Legislature can make laws but Supreme Court Judges can Just change them..
they are rare cases where judges get benched or in trouble, this is not the norm..
This hardly ever happens,  many cases where people was furious on a Judges ruling, but they was nothing any one can do about it..
Yes people can get the Legislature to change the laws  but, in the end the supreme court has the last word..
Examplel, where president trump signed an order in immigration, the Supreme courts over ruled this, they was nothing the Legislature or the president could do.

here is a quote  
 "It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor


----------



## donny1963

donny1963 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
> Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong about that.  In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case.  The voters had the last word.
> 
> In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately.  The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the abstract the people have the last say, Legislature can make laws but Supreme Court Judges can Just change them..
> they are rare cases where judges get benched or in trouble, this is not the norm..
> This hardly ever happens,  many cases where people was furious on a Judges ruling, but they was nothing any one can do about it..
> Yes people can get the Legislature to change the laws  but, in the end the supreme court has the last word..
> Examplel, where president trump signed an order in immigration, the Supreme courts over ruled this, they was nothing the Legislature or the president could do.
> 
> NOPE it's the supreme court judges who have the last word, not the Legislature's, laws are made by legislation, but many times re-decided by the judges later on..
> the last stop is always the supreme court, that is why it's called the supreme court lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is a quote
> "It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society"
> 
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Click to expand...


----------



## donny1963

Designer said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately all the judges have all the power and say, They are the last word, they are considered GOD when it comes to these issues when it hits their court rooms..
> Nothing any one can do, once the supreme makes a ruling it's pretty much written in stone..
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong about that.  In Iowa we fired ALL of the Iowa Supreme Court judges who were up for conformation (five at once) in the same year that they made some serious mistakes in a case.  The voters had the last word.
> 
> In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Legislature has the final word, even though they have not exercised that power lately.  The People (through the Legislature) have the last word.
Click to expand...



Nope not ture, the laws start with the legislature, the finale ruling is the supreme court after it was passed by legislature,  the supreme court always has the last word, that is why it's called the supreme court, LOL


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> Example, where president trump signed an order in immigration, the Supreme courts over ruled this, they was nothing the Legislature or the president could do.


You're getting your facts mixed up.


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> Yes people can get the Legislature to change the laws  but, in the end the supreme court has the last word.


Just wondering; are you a United States Citizen?  Have you studied Government?  Were you awake in class?


----------



## table1349

donny1963 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well considering that the Maori could have sued the Tyson's tattoo artist for using their ancestral tattoo art, I agree that is about as stupid of argument as there ever was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really that stupid,  it's in the courts now, this is all going to depend on how the judges interprets the copyright laws in this issue.
> The choice they make could effect on how Models or actors are published on print or film.
> If the courts side with tattoo artists, then any one's photograph published with art on the body showing, would not only have to get a release
> from the models or talent, they would also need one from the tattoo artist..
Click to expand...

No it was settled out of court.  You are behind the times.


----------



## KmH

donny1963 said:


> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else see the irony in the fact that the OP has copied and pasted information without any attribution in every post he has made in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> the article is public domain  it's everywhere lol
Click to expand...

I suspect your notion of Public Domain is  flawed.
Just because something is on the Internet does not mean it is in the public domain, regardless how many times it is copy/pasted without attribution.
Some stuff on the Internet IS in the Public Domain, but not much of it.
Public domain in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## john.margetts

KmH said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> 
> In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.
> 
> Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright and Trademark are different things.
> United States Patent and Trademark Office
> Good luck copyrighting clothes, signs, logos:
> What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office
> https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Not Protected by Copyright*?
> . . . • titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
> • ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I did start by saying "In English law" which makes your links rather moot.


----------



## donny1963

john.margetts said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> 
> In English law it is fairly clear. A photograph OF the tattoo would be a breach of copyright. A photograph of the model which incidentally includes the tattoo would not be.
> 
> Otherwise, street photography which includes all those copyright clothes and signs and such would be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Copyright and Trademark are different things.
> United States Patent and Trademark Office
> Good luck copyrighting clothes, signs, logos:
> What Does Copyright Protect? (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office
> https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> *What Is Not Protected by Copyright*?
> . . . • titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
> • ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did start by saying "In English law" which makes your links rather moot.
Click to expand...

Well again Your Point is moot, because, who cares, i'm not in England and don't care about English law , so again your point is moot to begin with lol


----------



## KmH

Ah! But.
Copyright is essentially world wide since 172 countries have signed the Berne Convention.
So it doesn't matter much where you are.



john.margetts said:


> I did start by saying "In English law" which makes your links rather moot.


Moot? Hardly.
The basis of most US law is English law.


----------



## donny1963

Designer said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes people can get the Legislature to change the laws  but, in the end the supreme court has the last word.
> 
> 
> 
> Just wondering; are you a United States Citizen?  Have you studied Government?  Were you awake in class?
Click to expand...


Well your wrong my wife happens to be a lawyer and so i  have a lawyer living in the house who is stating how wrong you are.
she told me wrote thesis  on the topic of Supreme court justice and got the highest grade in her class at harvard law school, so she told me to tell you go argue with the guru's at harvard law, And good luck with that lol..

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior, typically, for life.


KmH said:


> Ah! But.
> Copyright is essentially world wide since 172 countries have signed the Berne Convention.
> So it doesn't matter much where you are.
> 
> 
> 
> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did start by saying "In English law" which makes your links rather moot.
> 
> 
> 
> Moot? Hardly.
> The basis of most US law is English law.
Click to expand...

yeah, but not even close to what it was,  for instance our bill of rights have been amended an additional 17 times, that's, the laws and the way law is interpreted is a big difference, that is why if you go to England to practice law you must be licensed there to practice it. there is a reason for that, just because some one in England is well versed with the laws there, doesn't mean they are over here....

you can't use that argument, it's not the same thing..

if you are from England and fighting a case over here, and quote English law that would be stupid..
The Judge will say that this is the United States that doesn't apply to us..


----------



## table1349

Ever wonder why the call it "Practicing Law?"  Keep in mind that in ever court case HALF of the attorneys lose.


----------



## smoke665

gryphonslair99 said:


> Keep in mind that in ever court case HALF of the attorneys lose.



Not necessarily. Lawyers are the only profession that produce no tangible product and profit solely off the misfortune of others. As long as there are billable hours in play neither side loses.


----------



## smoke665

donny1963 said:


> Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court.



Uhhh, Point of order - there are "currently" only "8" sitting judges and it's not looking good for Trump's appointment to be confirmed anytime soon.


----------



## table1349

I'm guessing that this is the quote that will answer your point of order. _ "Well again Your Point is moot, because, who cares,"_


----------



## donny1963

smoke665 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that in ever court case HALF of the attorneys lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Lawyers are the only profession that produce no tangible product and profit solely off the misfortune of others. As long as there are billable hours in play neither side loses.
Click to expand...



That's 100% correct, my wife is a lawyer, from Harvard law, she worked as an Assistant DA for 8 years and now does Divorce Law.

And she told me about a case where, her client had over $250,000.00 in cash in the bank and over 1.4 million in assets, and by the time the divorce was over after his wife got her cut from the cash and assets and paying the lawyers fees his wife ended up with $4,00.00 and her client ended up only $1500.00 when all said and done..
The lawyers ended up gaining more then the clients put together lol

Lawyers cost tons of money, more then medical cost,  at least with medical cost insurance company's can keep the cost down, with lawyers there is no insurance company to to control that...
Lawyers can bill you for just about everything they do when it comes to your case, even a phone call or filing a form or transportation cost.. They tally up that bill faster then you can say holy ****..

They generally get a retainer for thousands of dollars and often drain it before the case is over lol


----------



## table1349

This.

Keep in mind there are no Lawyer Jokes.  They are all true stories.


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> Well your wrong my wife happens to be a lawyer and so i  have a lawyer living in the house who is stating how wrong you are.
> she told me wrote thesis  on the topic of Supreme court justice and got the highest grade in her class at harvard law school, so she told me to tell you go argue with the guru's at harvard law, ..


I am familiar with the type of "education" that is currently being sold in law schools.  About the only thing of value received is a prestigious diploma, which is lacking the education part.  The current sad state of law schools today is that unsuspecting students are drilled and re-drilled in case law, but nobody learns anything about history, common law, or natural law.  Tell your dear wife that she paid too much for her law degree.

I would not be interested in reading her thesis simply because Harvard Law thought it was good, therefore I automatically consider it highly suspect.  No offense intended to your lovely wife.


----------



## limr

Okay, folks, why don't we stick to the subject, eh? Tattoos and copyright - will this affect your photography, aye or nay?


----------



## Designer

limr said:


> Okay, folks, why don't we stick to the subject, eh? Tattoos and copyright - will this affect your photography, aye or nay?


The tattoo artist owns the image, even though he may have sold it many times, and people are not free to copy the image to make another tattoo without permission.

However;

If a photographer takes a photo of a person with a tattoo, the photo becomes the intellectual property of the photographer.  Any visible tattoos are simply a part of the subject, similar to the clothing or jewelry he or she is wearing.

Precedent has been established in the design of a building.  The architect owns the image which no-one can copy to build another exactly the same, but the building can be photographed by anyone.

So if I were to photograph Mike Tyson, I would not try to cover up his famous tattoo, because that is how he looks.


----------



## Mashburn

Does the tattoo artist have to have some form of contract? 

What if a model good to the artist and gets a contract made up saying they are allowed to model with it and they would not sue the photographer/client/or the ones buying the image?

Sent from my XT1650 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## dcbear78

Here is where Australia's copyright systems actually works well. The creator does not automatically retain copyright here. The customer does and it needs to be assigned back with a contract. Which is of course done by photographers but not tattoo artists (maybe some rare cases). So this whole issue is mostly avoided here.


----------



## Mashburn

I'm just thinking what's it stop an artist from sueing us wedding photographers? 

Sent from my XT1650 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## smoke665

Mashburn said:


> I'm just thinking what's it stop an artist from sueing us wedding photographers?



Just so you know there is nothing you can do that will prevent you from ever being sued, when you go into business, the chances go up significantly. Had a Business Law Professor who later became my personal attorney, tell me once that in court it's not what you can say but what you can prove, and written trumps verbal every time.


----------



## jeffW

limr said:


> ... stick to the subject, eh? Tattoos and copyright - will this affect your photography, aye or nay?



I just photographed a model with prominent tattoos on her back shoulder blades, her comp card doesn't refer to the tattoos at all and I'm lucky because I had nothing to do with the selection of talent.

In my opinion all the images of her with the outfit showing the tattoos can't be used.  Not because of copyright but because they completely change the communication of the picture.  I've watched art directors remove talent from scenes for a lot less.  This model has basically ended her career in commercial modeling until she magically becomes famous.

Its naive to think that a national fashion magazine isn't aware of each little element in a picture to allow a tattoo slip by. Or that ADs aren't aware, before a light stand gets put up, that additional costs such as high end retouching will eat into their budget and therefore won't even choose that talent in the first place.


----------



## thereyougo!

donny1963 said:


> he man who gave *Mike Tyson* his distinctive facial tattoo has
> sued Warner Bros. over the similar-looking facial art on *Ed Helms*' character in the upcoming *The Hangover: Part II.*
> 
> So what will happen, Can a photographer take a picture of a model in the nude with her custom tattoo's showing in the picture with out the dangers of being taken to civil court?
> as i said time will tell, and this may change the way commercial photography with models who have tattoo's forever..



The thing that the courts should rule against is any more parts to the Hangover series.  I thought that the first film was utterly lame, and about as funny as having your arms cut off with a rusty nail.


----------



## Madison6D

Everyone choose the best photographer for their commercial photography and also model photography. You find online for a good photographer.....also you can see their online reviews.


----------



## donny1963

Designer said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, folks, why don't we stick to the subject, eh? Tattoos and copyright - will this affect your photography, aye or nay?
> 
> 
> 
> The tattoo artist owns the image, even though he may have sold it many times, and people are not free to copy the image to make another tattoo without permission.
> 
> However;
> 
> If a photographer takes a photo of a person with a tattoo, the photo becomes the intellectual property of the photographer.  Any visible tattoos are simply a part of the subject, similar to the clothing or jewelry he or she is wearing.
> 
> Precedent has been established in the design of a building.  The architect owns the image which no-one can copy to build another exactly the same, but the building can be photographed by anyone.
> 
> So if I were to photograph Mike Tyson, I would not try to cover up his famous tattoo, because that is how he looks.
Click to expand...


Not true, if a girl has a tattoo on her chest or back, and she does lets say for argument sake a nude shoot, and the tattoo is on her back and the photographer takes a picture of the model and the tattoo is in clear view, the intellectual property of the model does belong to the photographer but not the artwork on the models back and therefor the

photographer must get permission to publish this picture in any way including posting it on social media like Facebook,  the photographer MUST  get permission from the tattoo artist who owns that art work regardless, because that is re-producing this art work,

doesn't mater if it's re-produced by making another tattoo of that art work or copying in on digital media, the copyrights are quite clear, you can not re-copy, re-produce any artwork that is under copyright laws in part or the entire artwork.

just like a song if  you are doing a video and the song Stairway to Heaven is paying in the background and is clearly recorded in that video,
you can not publish that video with that song playing in the background, you MUST get permission for that by the author or who owns the copyright..

I know this, because i was watching an interview with Quentin Tarantino, and how he stated he had a song playing in the background in a scene off the radio it was suppose to be  background music,  and had to pay for the use of that song even tho the entire song was not played, it was only 1 or 2 minutes of that song, he still had to compensate the copyright holder of that song,,

Just like the Song "happy Birthday"  if you make a movie and one scene where a family is having a birthday party for some one lest say and starts to sing happy birthday in the move, company producing the move must pay the copyright holder to have that in their movie..

right now warner /chappell music owns happy brithday song, it use to be owned by the summy company, which registered a copyright in 1935,  crediting authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman who originally created that song..

Any artwork that an artist creates is considered copyright upon creation, like a photographer's work is copyrighted the minute the shutter was released and captured such art work..   the same goes with lyrics, the minute the author wrote his / her poem or song, it became implied copyright the minuted it was created or written..   The same Goes with Tattoo's it's no different, it don't just apply to re-producing it as a tattoo..

And you can't take the art work of a tattoo off someone and then re-print it on another person in a picture or animated figure either, ask mike tyson, because the artist won out of court ..

the movie company who did that settled out of court and paid the tattoo artist for that..

Same goes with Taking a picture of it,  So that is why i say be careful to any one who gets a tattoo who does modeling or any type of work where your tattoo owned by some one else is on your body can can be visible in any print or video,

because that could cause problems to who ever is trying to publish your talent and capture it and if the tattoo is present in such work you not only have to pay the person / model / actor /actress for their talent but also the tattoo artist that is on their body visible..

They have been many civil cases like this where a model's work was published, and the tattoo artist saw that and then took the publishing company to court for having their artwork in their published work..   You can not simply use any one's artwork in your own artwork and disregard their rights and claim to compensation for it..


----------



## donny1963

Teyana Taylor  performer,   and who is also a musician,  had a picture of her in a bikini published, the problem was.
The Tattoo of the Rolling Stones Logo was present on her ass, and , yes a big law suit broke out..

John Pasche is the man who created the artwork of the logo for the rolling stones back in 1969,
of course the rolling stone bought the rights to it..
Of course the publishing company had to settle for that picture..

In addition, the rolling stones took the tattoo artist to court for re-producing the rolling stones logo for a fee.
So to you tattoo artist out there putting tattoos of the Apple logo from apple  computer, or using Harley Davidson, or IBM or Microsoft.
Or any company logo, watch out, because you can end up in tons of trouble for using that art work, it's not yours, and you have
no right to tattoo on it on people for free or a fee..

12 Celebrity Butt Tattoos | Steal Her Style

Please do not post pictures to which you do not own rights. You may post a link.


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> doesn't mater if it's re-produced by making another tattoo of that art work or copying in on digital media, *the copyrights are quite clear*, you can not re-copy, re-produce any artwork that is under copyright laws in part or the entire artwork.


Can you cite the reference?


----------



## donny1963

Designer said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't mater if it's re-produced by making another tattoo of that art work or copying in on digital media, *the copyrights are quite clear*, you can not re-copy, re-produce any artwork that is under copyright laws in part or the entire artwork.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the reference?
Click to expand...

you want me to site the copyright laws?? go read them they are all over the internet , it's not my job to prove any laws to you, if you don't want to 
accept them as true then go research them yourself lol
i just stated what i researched on my own. don't take my word for it if you don't want too.  
go and photograph a model with a tattoo and publish it and then find out the hard way lol


----------



## Designer

donny1963 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't mater if it's re-produced by making another tattoo of that art work or copying in on digital media, *the copyrights are quite clear*, you can not re-copy, re-produce any artwork that is under copyright laws in part or the entire artwork.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the reference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you want me to site the copyright laws??
Click to expand...

Asking someone to provide proof of something he just claimed is entirely within the scope of natural internet behavior.  It happens with regularity, and most people are happy to provide their sources, if for no other reason than to bolster their arguments.


----------



## john.margetts

Designer said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't mater if it's re-produced by making another tattoo of that art work or copying in on digital media, *the copyrights are quite clear*, you can not re-copy, re-produce any artwork that is under copyright laws in part or the entire artwork.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the reference?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you are based, but under EU copyright law, you can include copyright material if it appears incidentally rather than as the subject of the photographer. Otherwise, it would be next to impossible to photograph in a town street.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


----------



## donny1963

john.margetts said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't mater if it's re-produced by making another tattoo of that art work or copying in on digital media, *the copyrights are quite clear*, you can not re-copy, re-produce any artwork that is under copyright laws in part or the entire artwork.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the reference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you are based, but under EU copyright law, you can include copyright material if it appears incidentally rather than as the subject of the photographer. Otherwise, it would be next to impossible to photograph in a town street.
> 
> Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Not with something like this,  if your a photographer or in the business, this is something you should probably be aware of or have some insight on..


----------



## donny1963

john.margetts said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't mater if it's re-produced by making another tattoo of that art work or copying in on digital media, *the copyrights are quite clear*, you can not re-copy, re-produce any artwork that is under copyright laws in part or the entire artwork.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite the reference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you are based, but under EU copyright law, you can include copyright material if it appears incidentally rather than as the subject of the photographer. Otherwise, it would be next to impossible to photograph in a town street.
> 
> Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


doesn't matter really where you are unless your living in IRAN or some 3rd world country that doesn't   recognize Copyright Treaty.
The *World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty* (*WIPO Copyright Treaty* or *WCT*) is an international treaty on copyright law adopted by the member states of the  world intellectual property organization (WIPO)

WIPO Copyright Treaty - Wikipedia


which means YOUR EU Laws don't matter, if your are breaking copyright laws of property of something that was created in most parts of the world.
Including the United States, your in violation, and can be held accountable..

So if you are in violation of any copyright laws of intellectual Property  Owned by some one in the United States you can still be accountable even tho your in EU.. You can't hide simply because your thousands of miles away..

If that wasn't so, then people in England or France or Germany, could re-produce music and movies created in the united states and owned in the united sates, and then profit from them...

I mean that's obvious isn't it?


And it doesn't matter if the artwork is not the focus of the subject it's still in the art work,
Just like i said if your recording a video or  making a movie and in a specific scene there is a radio playing music and lets say The Led Zeppelin song, stairway to heaven,

Then you can not print that scene and publish it as part of the movie unless you got Expressed permission, or signed a deal with the copyright holder of that song, it still simply can not be re-produced in the background or foreground as a focus of the content.. So just because your taking a picture of a model with a bikini on and modeling Sun Tan Lotion for a

 commercial shoot, and a tattoo is clearly in view in that picture, this is a violation of copyright laws infringing on the tattoo artist who created that art work, doesn't matter if that is not the reason the photo was taken it still re-printed..

there is no excuses or loophole, or rationalizing, you just simply cannot do it..


----------



## john.margetts

So I take a photograph in Lincoln High Street and there is someone in the street with a tattoo, I cannot use that photo? Nonsense. That would make outdoors photography completely impossible.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


----------



## donny1963

john.margetts said:


> So I take a photograph in Lincoln High Street and there is someone in the street with a tattoo, I cannot use that photo? Nonsense. That would make outdoors photography completely impossible.
> 
> Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


That is not nonsense, believe what you want,    art work is art work..
Now if this was taken in the streets as an editorial for news story, then that is different.
How ever that art work was created in a public venue, lets say graffiti on a train, or a brick wall out in public then that was already settled by the courts, WHen a graffiti artist tried to get a pay day from the Producers and creators of the welcome back kotter TV show, when they filmed the tv show intro of a train in brooklyn NYC,  he tried to take the tv show to court and get money for using his artwork and it did go to court an the courts ruled that you can not claim copyright artwork that was crated in a public setting on public property that was intended for public view.

Street Photography is under the frair use laws, you can take pictures of people sitting on the park bench or feeding birds or what ever in public, because that is fair use, How ever such pictures can not be used commercially for profit lets say for an advertisement, Only editorial or even art exhibits, stuff like that..
But to use commercially you can not, that would even include if you had a magazine or wanted to submit a picture to a magazine like sports illustrated swimsuit and publish a picture of a girl you took off the beach sun tanning or walking along the shore, you can't use that for that kind of commercial use..
That's why photographers get model releases  LOL

Public fair use don't include using the content for a profit , like the TV show COPS, when the tv show records a police situation and the criminals get in the video, they have to get the criminals to sign a release to air the that on tv, if they don't they have to blur their face out, that is the law, that's why some times on that TV show you see the suspect's face blured out, because they most likely refused their offer to sign the release.. 

Most of the time the suspects and criminals agree to sign it because they do pay them for it..

now if the tv show was not making any money off it, they would not need any type of release and call it an editorial or news fashion, then fair use is in tact..

So if you take a picture of a building or some sort of landscape and some one is in that picture tattoo or not, lets say they have a tattoo, you can not publish this picture as any commercial use or profit, and you would have to pay the person or persons in that picture and if a tattoo is in the mix then the tattoo artist needs to be paid as well unless he gives you permission to use it with out being paid..
Believe what you want, but you can not use any artwork and gain a profit off the picture of such artwork


----------



## limr

I believe this thread has outlived its usefulness.


----------

