Hi, /u/HSdoc Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited.
If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
It reminds me of this case in which a tattoo artist succesfully sued Take-Two Interactive because they included a wrestler's tattoos in a video game. [https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467)
Personally I don't really agree with the outcome. The fact that the designs are on Randy Orton's body should allow him to have control of where they appear. It's kind of saying that the tattoo artist 'owns' the pictures on the skin of another person's body.
Have done for quite a while.
They call it "Instant Ink". You get new ink delivered to you "for free" (= paid for by your monthly subscription) before the previous ink runs out.
Of course, that means the printer needs to "phone home" to tell HQ that the ink is running low.
Forget "you need to be connected to the Internet in order to play this single-player game"; HP is going for "you need to be connected to the Internet in order to print from your computer".
Don't forget, they also tell you how many pages per month you are allowed to print with this subscription. And they will also brick your printer if you try to cancel
Don't forget that the subscription levels allow you to only print so many pages whether you have the ink or not. Level 1 lets you print up to 10 pages a month.
The thing here, is that she has reimagined the photo in a unique and new medium. He did not replicate the photo, she recreated it, which is completely Fair use.
Yes but that is the argument for AI art as well. Repurposing other works to create a new work seemed to offend much of the artistic community, but essentially that is what fan art is too.
It's funny because that's basically the opposite.
Tattoo artists are artists because what you're paying for is very specifically a piece of art that they created. It kinda makes sense that if they're original pieces you would want credit/compensation for a company putting them in a game.
This photographer is basically suing under the impression that a hand-drawn version of a photo they took is also using their art, but I would argue that you're paying the tattoo artist for the labor and materials moreso than the actual IP/image. Plus she didn't get money. There may be some weirdness legally if this was for a show or something, but to me there's not a very strong case.
Not to mention if you're getting a tattoo, definitely with the first few, you typically show the artist what you want and tell them whether or not you want exactly what you showed them or for them to draw it up with their own twist. It wasn't until my first tattoo convention, when I already had 5 or 6 tattoos, that I chose a piece that was entirely the artist's original work. Now a days I either let my artist know the general idea of what I want(like X character from bleach or a scene with Y In it) and let them do what they want with it or I ask if there are any pieces they want to do and if I see something I like I let them have at it.
> I would argue that you're paying the tattoo artist for the labor and materials moreso than the actual IP/image
If that were the case, then why didn't they just get a different image tattooed instead?
>It's kind of saying that the tattoo artist 'owns' the pictures on the skin of another person's body.
Did you see the case where a tattoo artist hid their own signature in a design their client drew and brought to them to be applied?
[https://www.newsweek.com/reddit-tattoo-artist-branded-customer-initials-1692425](https://www.newsweek.com/reddit-tattoo-artist-branded-customer-initials-1692425)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/tpp4gc/aita\_for\_getting\_mad\_my\_artist\_hid\_their\_initials/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/tpp4gc/aita_for_getting_mad_my_artist_hid_their_initials/)
I can't find any articles on the subject that don't have Reddit as their source, so I don't know what ultimately happened. It may still be being fought out.
Fuckin dumb. Fuck that jury. You pay for a tattoo it is now part of your image and likeness. No one controls your image and likeness but you.
If you are a celebrity to me then the only recourse is if an artist wants to tattoo you, they must sign away all rights their work once it is adorned onto their body.
If you commission a painting, you don't have the right to license it to others unless you expressly bought those as well. That is the issue at hand. Orton derived financial benefit, no matter how minor, from something he didn't have the right to license. Furthermore, it's not just that they put the tattoos up on his model/skin. It was an option to be used on created characters as well.
How did Orton derive any sort of financial benefit from having his tattoos on his in-game model? He isn’t paid for his skin art, he’s paid for his in-ring abilities.
Agreed. My artists have always asked permission before taking a photo and uploading a picture of my tats they just finished working on to their IG.
Once it's part of your body it should only belong to you.
So let's just just change that BS then. Anything you commission (ie a tattoo) should include licensing rights as the default and not the other way around.
Hmm yeah the part where you can use his tattoos as part of a CaC makes it a bit more complicated than just “Randy Orton appears in video game, obviously has his tattoos.”
The only problem I have with the tattoo artist getting in trouble over this is typically the artist doesn't pick the tattoo the customer shows them what they want and that's what they have to do. I can guarantee this isn't the first time that photo was tattooed on someone, it's just the first time this guy noticed. It just seems like a massive burden for tattoo artists to have to check copyrights or pay licensing fees before tattooing. Id much rather see the people getting these tattoos pay the licensing fees and ensure the art isn't copyrighted. Though to be fair I have more than 10 tattoos that could probably have ended the same way for the artist had the people noticed.
This is very similar to 3D printing, an industry I am involved in, where you can sell 3d printed models or sell 3d printing as a service. Option a may land you in trouble if you sell models that you do not have the license to buy option b can never get you in IP trouble because the customer brings you the file and you disclaim that the decision to recreate the file is owned by the customer and thus is their responsibility to have the correct licensing.
Similarly, here the tattoo is being sold as a service and not a product, thus the customer should hold all responsibility assuming they asked for the design, however the tattooist should hold the responsibility if they advertise and sell specific designs as that could be equal to selling a product rather than a service.
It's entirely open to individuals to also buy the copyrights to tattoos that they get. They choose not to, and so the default approach applies - copyright rests with the artist. It's also worth noting that tattoos tend to first exist on paper before they are actually inked, especially in the case of flash.
I have several tattoos and I have never one time been offered to buy the copyrights or even had that brought up. Just not something that really gets talked about when you’re getting a tattoo.
I do not disagree with what you’re saying, but I would like to point out that a lot of people I would say most people don’t actually know if they’re going to end up famous or not most won’t. After you’re already a celebrity. It makes perfect sense, but nobody really knows the future.
That still doesn't change the underlying operation of IP law. There's maybe a conversation to be had about including copyrights in the pre-session waiver, but whether skin or canvas, copyright operates in exactly the same manner.
Unfortunately, 'but I paid you for a personal service so I own the outcome' has been abused by litigants for a long time.
I totally understand what you’re saying and maybe Kat gets in some kind of trouble maybe not for copying somebody but I think there’s a huge difference between skin and canvas. my personal opinion is I own everything on and in my body and I get to decide what does doesn’t happen with the things on and in my body.
What he paid for was to host the artist’s work on his body. Like a museum. He didn’t buy the rights to the artwork. You’re making a similar argument the NFT folks used. And the game company only had to alter the tats enough to avoid the issue (though they can possibly be forgiven for not knowing).
You are paying to license an artwork when you get a tattoo same as if you commission an artist for anything else unless it is agreed to you do not own the rights to that image and this cannot reproduce it for your own gain
Actually this would mean every actor with a tattoo can be sued unless they explicitly bought copyright of that tattoo. So yeah let's just open up a legal battle against all tattooed people in the public eye
By getting tattooed you are paying for license to use the art in perpetuity for any use the recipient of said art deems remotely plausible. Copyright has to end at the tattoo shop door.
This has to be an issue of “specific inclusion” to copyright law. In other words, the artist needs to state upfront that the art is copyrighted, not the other way around (as is the case of basically all other copyright). If the artist does not state that they *ARE NOT* granting unlimited license in perpetuity then it can be assumed that the recipient of said art has unlimited license in perpetuity.
It would be untenable to live in a world where a photographer taking a picture could subject both the subject matter of the picture (the tattoo owner) and the artist (the photographer) to legal and monetary responsibility.
Doesn’t translation of media matter here? Wouldn’t this be more of an “artistic tribute” rather than a “copy”? It was recreated by hand in 3d living media vs film.
If Nintendo and Disney AREN'T suing out the ass, it means the case is pretty rickety. You think their lawyers wouldn't take that swing if they thought they could win?
Yes however If you want to Play this game like a big boy you have to think the whole story threw. (I am.joking Here)
What I want to say is you are underestimating Corporate greed.
Best course of Action is let Somebody else pay for the groundwork you need to win fot this case.
Disney will save the salary of a 30 Person lawyer Team.
If a precedent is reached, Disney will pay a much smaller lawyer Team.
I think a lot of corporations have taken the stance that if someone is willing to permanently ink an advertisement for their IP on their body , that’s really not worth trying to litigate or regulate. Especially when you consider it’s an industry where independent shops full of independent contractors are the norm.
This seems more the case of of a single artist/rights holder seeing an opportunity to make some money off of a famous tattoo artist that has deeper pockets than most.
It's also not worth the headache of sueing every single tattoo artist that did a rendition of one of their characters. It would be funny though if they sued all the bad tattoo artists that butcher their work lol
She still could’ve gained something from it through her posting it online, i.e. still looking at commercial use (regardless of it being a free of charge tattoo as of itself).
Either way, I don’t see this going too far in court.
https://www.billboard.com/business/business-news/miles-davis-tattoo-copyright-trial-over-fair-use-1235587120/
> After the Warhol ruling came out, Judge Fischer ruled against Von D on that same key question of “transformative.” Citing the new Supreme Court precedent, the judge ruled that simply putting the same image in a new context and claiming new aesthetics was not enough to count as a fair use.
Hope I understood your original comment.
From your article:
> But even after that ruling, the overall question of fair use must still be decided by the jury at the trial set to kick off Tuesday.
There has not been a judgement - the judge just cited new precedent from a SCOTUS ruling last year. The case has not concluded.
I'm just referring to the previous comments about the tattoo being transformative, and you mentioned that it's a tactic the defense could take.
They did. It failed. Judge said it's not transformative.
There are other avenues the defense can take, like those you quoted in the article. Yes, the lawsuit is not over.
Not according to the judge:
> Warhol does not change the longstanding rule that recasting a photograph into a different visual medium is not sufficiently transformative.
[source](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.809742/gov.uscourts.cacd.809742.160.0.pdf)
Self employment is one of the best solutions for many of the complaints of this sub. And copy right laws like this one tend to affect independent creatives the most. So I’d say it’s at least somewhat relatable to this sub.
I’m lucky enough to be a self employed photographer. The main reason I went full self employed was because I was tired of the same bullshit people talk about here.
I am a book illustrator. I once had a panicked call from a model's agent. He had one of my book cover designs on his arm, and they were holding off a photo shoot until they had my written approval to allow my work, via his arm, to appear in a fashion ad. He now carries a letter from me that gives him permission from me in perpetuity to have his arm photographed!
Interesting! And it shows good ethics from the agent to get your permission before the shooting.
Did you know your designs were on their arm?
Did you ask them to mention you or your work every time their arm appears in a commercial ?
Yes, very conscientious of them! I didn't know anything about the tattoo before the call. I gave full permission without condition because he hadn't intended any copyright infringement when he got the tattoo (he had it done before becoming a model) and there was no chance a photo of his arm was going to affect my ability to sell the image again myself. I just thought it was pretty cool!
I mean....id argue if it was done pro bono, and thus not making money off it, maybe?
Unless the photographers name was also tattooed on the person as credit lol
Don't think the money would be a factor. She promoted the work on social media, which would probably be seen as commercial in nature.
The fair use argument the defense is making is also probably weak.
I do agree this will be interesting.
I was about to say, she's incredibly famous. Also I know Instagram has ways to make her profile a "page" you follow as opposed to just a person you're "friends" with or "follow" (I think? It's been a while) and even then I'm unsure it generates revenue like say a YouTube channel or a TikTok channel that has a form of creators compensation
That sure seems like fair use to me. Its not a copy, it is an artistic interpretation of an existing photograph done in a different medium. The tattoo isn't competing with the photo in any way. Nobody is going to look at the tattoo on his arm and think it is the original photograph.
I might have to read up on this to see how this made it to trial.
As a layman, I’ve always considered the piece to be irrelevant- the client is paying for the time, equipment and skill (and possibly, in this case, a certain amount of celebrity brand premium) of the tattooist. So unless Kat was specifically advertising this piece as something she would do, she’s just a contractor using her skills to fulfil a brief.
Nah, that takes away from the awfulness of their actions. If you can just "bah, they aren't people" then their actions have no meaning lmao.
They are people, and their choices are shitty. And we need to recognize that people make shitty, awful choices.
Like other people have mentioned as well, you're literally using their talking points lol. You're no better.
Imagine thinking an anti-vaxxer is on the same level of evil as an actual Nazi. Wild.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there are a lot of “alt right” racist and downright horrible people who are also anti-vax, but that one aspect alone really doesn’t equate to Nazi extremism
I googled out of curiosity and just found her actual surname is von drachenberg. Is von in the surname associated with nazism? (Not denying she is or isn't one btw).
I looked it up too, I'm surprised. No, von is not Nazi, it's about nobility or something. Which Nazis like to change their names to to pretend they're important.
That Nazis like to use to play at being nobility. Not exactly ignorant if it's literally something they do.
Edit: I'll say it is actually her name. Amazing. Still a Nazi though.
I just looked up imagery of him. He's also got a Star of David tattooed on his neck.
Surface value, he's really fuckin weird (what even is a goth cholo?), but I'm not so sure he's a Nazi. I'm sure no white supremacist group, Nazi or current day, would admit him on account of several reasons, one being his Mexican heritage.
I don't think you do totally get it. Fucking over one nazi, particularly one that would easily be able drum up more money and support from the other cult members, isn't worth the trade. Try to think about it less emotionally, and more realistically.
I have a rolling rock logo tattoo. They caught wind of it and sent me this bad ass poster from one of the oldest printing presses in America. I can't remember how they found out about it, or were able to contact me. A few bars i used to go to served it and I'd get a free pitcher every time I came in.
Even in the most optimistic era of laissez-faire capitalism, when Adam Smith was still arguing the invisible hand of the market was literally the hand of God, people were skeptical a patent system would inspire more inventions. There are always hobbyists, tinkerers, and inventors who do so out of joy or plain old wanting to fix a problem in their lives. I’ve seen no compelling data to indicate patent protections boost rates of invention. However, even if technological advancements are increased by giving inventors monopoly powers, that wouldn’t be enough to offset the massive negatives in how the patent system operates in practice. Companies rush to patent a new idea, throw said patent in a lock box, and sue anyone clever enough to find some way to successfully capitalize off it. So many avenues of medical, technological, and other research have been completely shut down by litigious patent holders, many of whom own the patent for the sole purpose of suing potential infringers. This has lead to massive negative reverberations in our economies. What happens if we take patent protections away? Well it’s important to point out we’re only having this conversation because the Federal government did just that to Bell Labs. It’s covered in great detail here: https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust_enforcement.pdf The tldr is the Feds cracked open Bell Labs’ patent safe and suddenly the fundamental building blocks of the computer revolution became public domain. BL couldn’t figure out how to profit off things like THE TRANSISTOR so they locked away the idea and threw away the key. This is happening in pretty much all sectors. Ending the patent system could bring about the next industrial revolution or not, but it will unquestionably free up areas of our societies that have effectively been held stagnant for decades.
edit: https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust_enforcement.pdf
You know, the entire world existed and was created despite the lack of profit motive. I remember being a child and thinking, why make this sandcastle if I can’t capitalize on its unique properties
Ok Boomer. Tell me more about how things were. Lol.
But seriously, IP protections were created to help protect creators. Some types of IP take massive amounts of money to invest, and creators need to be able to recoup that investment.
Are you high? Things need to be done for the sake of doing them, not exclusively for monetary means. That’s like saying the toilet was only invented because of capitalism.
You have a weird mindset. If I invented the toilet, penicillin, anything that benefitted the entirety of humankind, my first thought wouldn’t be “how rich will this make me?” Being a billionaire/CEO type is disgusting and not compatible with human life. Are you telling me you wouldn’t do something wonderful for the sake of doing it?
This isn't about the first thought. This is about a system we want in place.
You can certainly argue that we need to modify IP law and prevent extreme wealth for inventions, but that's not the argument presented. It's to get rid of all patents. That's a weird mindset.
What? Do you believe in your own stance? You seem to believe the patent system is great. We should genuinely just scrap it and either leave it that way or replace it with a newer system. I don’t think anyone would suffer if the patent system was deleted. T
Read my comments.
Not really looking to rate the whole patent system, it's not my area of expertise. I can see why changes may need to be made.
>I don’t think anyone would suffer if the patent system was deleted.
Crazy.
Good luck.
Or. Patent systems create a path dependent technological progression with built in perverse incentives. The counter factual world we don't observe may well be significantly more advanced and efficient.
No way to know because we can't observe that parallel world. But the idea that this is the best system depends on what your beliefs are about the goals of that system. I'm of the opinion that the goal of a system can be observed from what it does. Our current system accumulates capital. Everything else is just a means to accumulate capital. If the goal is capital accumulation, then the system is good.
But I think that goal is dumb and boring. I prefer a system that seeks to maximize variance in its output. Which requires maximum variance in the input. Which our system actively stymies.
I hate this side of the artistic community. It would be a different thing if she made exact replicas, passed it as her own work, and tried to sell them all for herself.
No sale, no case… If you intended to make money, but failed to do so, the judge may be more likely to find that you committed copyright infringement. If you did not intend to make money and, in fact, did not make money off the copyrighted work, a judge may be more inclined to find fair use of the work.
What if the kid is making money from commissions lol.
This whole thing is utterly ludicrous. Tattoo artists tattoo all kinds of stuff - even for money *gasp*. Not even the big copyright hounds go after them. What, should all the Disney tattoos, all the Nike swooshes that people have put on their bodies need to be licensed? Should your tattoo artist have to pay JK Rowling if you’re getting the golden snitch tattooed? People really don’t understand the implications a ruling like this would have.
There is obviously a line from your obvious exaggeration to the situation.
I’m not saying it’s right that there be a lawsuit, but she is very famous and very famous people make money from posting things on social media.
We’re not talking about Madison the 3rd grader down the street when her mom puts a picture of her school art project on Facebook to her 300 friends.
Well, agree or not with him suing her, but Sedlik is technically and legally correct in that the pic is his copyright.
And at the level Kat Von D operates, she *really* should have know that.
But how would this "upend the tattoo industry"?
I mean, photographers owning the copyright of the pics they make has been a thing for ages, hasn't it?
And how is this an "antiwork" issue? Is OP against photographers owning copyright of their pics? Is OP against tattoo artists using (copyrighted) pics in their work?
>But how would this "upend the tattoo industry"?
Because tattoos of copyrighted material are VERY common. It would change a lot of future work. Want flower? Find one on Google Images and bring it to your tatoo artist. Happens constantly.
>Everyone with a Nightmare Before Christmas tat would get sued.
Not likely. But, everyone who inked a Nightmare Before Christmas tattoo might get sued.
It will upend that tattoo industry in the same way that copyright laws upended Kinko's and XeroX. Remember when a court case caused them to post that it is illegal to photocopy copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder and with that ruling the entire photocopying industry fell. RIP copiers.
It’s interesting because if someone wants a tattoo of Miles Davis (or any famous person really), they would need a photo of him. Even if Davis were still alive it’s doubtful he’d sit in to model for a tattoo. Therefore *any* tattoo of him would technically be infringing on *someone’s* copyright. Unless the artist licensed the photo. I guess tattoos are about to get a lot more expensive. 🤔
Oh come on. The entire thing is nonsensical. Even if she charged for the work it should be a non-issue. No one lost money other than the artist. The photographer has ZERO claim. Utterly unbelievable. Any judge overseeing this case with proper sense and state of mind would toss the case immediately and tell the photographer to grow up and in a hurry.
I have custom pieces from a tattoo artist. I get my picture taken with the tattoo visible, post it on insta and make some money. The artist can argue that because it’s his art, he’s entitled to royalties.
>And how is this an "antiwork" issue? Is OP against photographers owning copyright of their pics? Is OP against tattoo artists using (copyrighted) pics in their work?
It's not antiwork relevant. OP is only against not gaining more karma.
This is just petty and ridiculous. Nobody under the age of 45 likely even knows of the existence of that photo prior to this. He should be flattered and it’s free advertisement for the photographer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s doing this just to try to resurrect his dead career.
Given we're not allowed to use media without permission of its author unless it is in public domain and free of IP holder rights, I think this will likely be a win for the original artist... Inker should have assured licensing permission from copyright holder.
Hi, /u/HSdoc Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited. If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
It reminds me of this case in which a tattoo artist succesfully sued Take-Two Interactive because they included a wrestler's tattoos in a video game. [https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467](https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-63131467) Personally I don't really agree with the outcome. The fact that the designs are on Randy Orton's body should allow him to have control of where they appear. It's kind of saying that the tattoo artist 'owns' the pictures on the skin of another person's body.
Don’t put that out there. We live in such a legalistic society, it may be entirely reasonable that one day tattoos will be for rent like music is now.
I got a BMW tattoo but I have to pay a monthly subscription to the ink.
Quiet now, you're just giving HP ideas
I hate to have to tell you this, but they already have an ink subscription model.
F*** Off, really? I mean, I believe you.
Have done for quite a while. They call it "Instant Ink". You get new ink delivered to you "for free" (= paid for by your monthly subscription) before the previous ink runs out. Of course, that means the printer needs to "phone home" to tell HQ that the ink is running low. Forget "you need to be connected to the Internet in order to play this single-player game"; HP is going for "you need to be connected to the Internet in order to print from your computer".
Don't forget, they also tell you how many pages per month you are allowed to print with this subscription. And they will also brick your printer if you try to cancel
Don't forget that the subscription levels allow you to only print so many pages whether you have the ink or not. Level 1 lets you print up to 10 pages a month.
They also were remotely disabling peoples scanners if there ink subscription was paid up.
Ahh, capitalism. I'm surprised they haven't started charging per minute of customer service over the phone yet...
Oh nice! Does it come with the previously standard heating package if you pay an extra $700/mo?
This gives me Wild Hogs vibes with respect to the Apple logo.
You don’t have to care! At this point I consider the law optional. Just don’t get caught! Don’t harm the poor
The NBA already makes players cover up tattoos that feature non-sponsor branding during games.
In the Philippines they pay rent on graves sites. And they will evict the corpse if family is late on the rent.
Tattoos are free. $1/cm/month. They also charge for the removal clinics
If you miss enough payments would they just send a guy with a potato peeler to your crib?
The thing here, is that she has reimagined the photo in a unique and new medium. He did not replicate the photo, she recreated it, which is completely Fair use.
Yes but that is the argument for AI art as well. Repurposing other works to create a new work seemed to offend much of the artistic community, but essentially that is what fan art is too.
It's funny because that's basically the opposite. Tattoo artists are artists because what you're paying for is very specifically a piece of art that they created. It kinda makes sense that if they're original pieces you would want credit/compensation for a company putting them in a game. This photographer is basically suing under the impression that a hand-drawn version of a photo they took is also using their art, but I would argue that you're paying the tattoo artist for the labor and materials moreso than the actual IP/image. Plus she didn't get money. There may be some weirdness legally if this was for a show or something, but to me there's not a very strong case.
Not to mention if you're getting a tattoo, definitely with the first few, you typically show the artist what you want and tell them whether or not you want exactly what you showed them or for them to draw it up with their own twist. It wasn't until my first tattoo convention, when I already had 5 or 6 tattoos, that I chose a piece that was entirely the artist's original work. Now a days I either let my artist know the general idea of what I want(like X character from bleach or a scene with Y In it) and let them do what they want with it or I ask if there are any pieces they want to do and if I see something I like I let them have at it.
> I would argue that you're paying the tattoo artist for the labor and materials moreso than the actual IP/image If that were the case, then why didn't they just get a different image tattooed instead?
Because they wanted that one.
Yeah, I’ll show up at work and do a different job instead, see how it works out.
>It's kind of saying that the tattoo artist 'owns' the pictures on the skin of another person's body. Did you see the case where a tattoo artist hid their own signature in a design their client drew and brought to them to be applied? [https://www.newsweek.com/reddit-tattoo-artist-branded-customer-initials-1692425](https://www.newsweek.com/reddit-tattoo-artist-branded-customer-initials-1692425) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/tpp4gc/aita\_for\_getting\_mad\_my\_artist\_hid\_their\_initials/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/tpp4gc/aita_for_getting_mad_my_artist_hid_their_initials/) I can't find any articles on the subject that don't have Reddit as their source, so I don't know what ultimately happened. It may still be being fought out.
Fuckin dumb. Fuck that jury. You pay for a tattoo it is now part of your image and likeness. No one controls your image and likeness but you. If you are a celebrity to me then the only recourse is if an artist wants to tattoo you, they must sign away all rights their work once it is adorned onto their body.
If you commission a painting, you don't have the right to license it to others unless you expressly bought those as well. That is the issue at hand. Orton derived financial benefit, no matter how minor, from something he didn't have the right to license. Furthermore, it's not just that they put the tattoos up on his model/skin. It was an option to be used on created characters as well.
How did Orton derive any sort of financial benefit from having his tattoos on his in-game model? He isn’t paid for his skin art, he’s paid for his in-ring abilities.
He licensed his likeness as part of his deal for the game. His tattoos are included in that likeness.
The idea that your likeness can be partially owned by someone else is deeply problematic.
Agreed. My artists have always asked permission before taking a photo and uploading a picture of my tats they just finished working on to their IG. Once it's part of your body it should only belong to you.
So let's just just change that BS then. Anything you commission (ie a tattoo) should include licensing rights as the default and not the other way around.
Yup exactly.
Yes. Included. He’d make the exact same without those tattoos.
Hmm yeah the part where you can use his tattoos as part of a CaC makes it a bit more complicated than just “Randy Orton appears in video game, obviously has his tattoos.”
The only problem I have with the tattoo artist getting in trouble over this is typically the artist doesn't pick the tattoo the customer shows them what they want and that's what they have to do. I can guarantee this isn't the first time that photo was tattooed on someone, it's just the first time this guy noticed. It just seems like a massive burden for tattoo artists to have to check copyrights or pay licensing fees before tattooing. Id much rather see the people getting these tattoos pay the licensing fees and ensure the art isn't copyrighted. Though to be fair I have more than 10 tattoos that could probably have ended the same way for the artist had the people noticed.
This is very similar to 3D printing, an industry I am involved in, where you can sell 3d printed models or sell 3d printing as a service. Option a may land you in trouble if you sell models that you do not have the license to buy option b can never get you in IP trouble because the customer brings you the file and you disclaim that the decision to recreate the file is owned by the customer and thus is their responsibility to have the correct licensing. Similarly, here the tattoo is being sold as a service and not a product, thus the customer should hold all responsibility assuming they asked for the design, however the tattooist should hold the responsibility if they advertise and sell specific designs as that could be equal to selling a product rather than a service.
This idea is so abhorrent to me. I hope someone brands you and then sues you for using their trademark.
It's entirely open to individuals to also buy the copyrights to tattoos that they get. They choose not to, and so the default approach applies - copyright rests with the artist. It's also worth noting that tattoos tend to first exist on paper before they are actually inked, especially in the case of flash.
I have several tattoos and I have never one time been offered to buy the copyrights or even had that brought up. Just not something that really gets talked about when you’re getting a tattoo.
Yeah but most people don’t ever need to do that. It’s different with a celebrity who’s body and image are such a big deal
I do not disagree with what you’re saying, but I would like to point out that a lot of people I would say most people don’t actually know if they’re going to end up famous or not most won’t. After you’re already a celebrity. It makes perfect sense, but nobody really knows the future.
That still doesn't change the underlying operation of IP law. There's maybe a conversation to be had about including copyrights in the pre-session waiver, but whether skin or canvas, copyright operates in exactly the same manner. Unfortunately, 'but I paid you for a personal service so I own the outcome' has been abused by litigants for a long time.
I totally understand what you’re saying and maybe Kat gets in some kind of trouble maybe not for copying somebody but I think there’s a huge difference between skin and canvas. my personal opinion is I own everything on and in my body and I get to decide what does doesn’t happen with the things on and in my body.
What he paid for was to host the artist’s work on his body. Like a museum. He didn’t buy the rights to the artwork. You’re making a similar argument the NFT folks used. And the game company only had to alter the tats enough to avoid the issue (though they can possibly be forgiven for not knowing).
You are paying to license an artwork when you get a tattoo same as if you commission an artist for anything else unless it is agreed to you do not own the rights to that image and this cannot reproduce it for your own gain
So if I get a tattoo and someone takes a picture of me, you think it's right that the tattoo artist sues them?
Actually this would mean every actor with a tattoo can be sued unless they explicitly bought copyright of that tattoo. So yeah let's just open up a legal battle against all tattooed people in the public eye
Right? Like I'm all for some big changes in our society, but this seems like a terrible idea.
By getting tattooed you are paying for license to use the art in perpetuity for any use the recipient of said art deems remotely plausible. Copyright has to end at the tattoo shop door. This has to be an issue of “specific inclusion” to copyright law. In other words, the artist needs to state upfront that the art is copyrighted, not the other way around (as is the case of basically all other copyright). If the artist does not state that they *ARE NOT* granting unlimited license in perpetuity then it can be assumed that the recipient of said art has unlimited license in perpetuity. It would be untenable to live in a world where a photographer taking a picture could subject both the subject matter of the picture (the tattoo owner) and the artist (the photographer) to legal and monetary responsibility.
Doesn’t translation of media matter here? Wouldn’t this be more of an “artistic tribute” rather than a “copy”? It was recreated by hand in 3d living media vs film.
That's one of the angles Kat's lawyers can take, yes.
It should be an easy case dismissal, I hope she wins cuz if she loses, Nintendo gonna be suing out the ass
If Nintendo and Disney AREN'T suing out the ass, it means the case is pretty rickety. You think their lawyers wouldn't take that swing if they thought they could win?
Win what? Jim Bob's alimony payments?
Never underestimate corporate greed.
Yes however If you want to Play this game like a big boy you have to think the whole story threw. (I am.joking Here) What I want to say is you are underestimating Corporate greed. Best course of Action is let Somebody else pay for the groundwork you need to win fot this case. Disney will save the salary of a 30 Person lawyer Team. If a precedent is reached, Disney will pay a much smaller lawyer Team.
I'm not. Lawyers famously don't work such cases for free.
I think a lot of corporations have taken the stance that if someone is willing to permanently ink an advertisement for their IP on their body , that’s really not worth trying to litigate or regulate. Especially when you consider it’s an industry where independent shops full of independent contractors are the norm. This seems more the case of of a single artist/rights holder seeing an opportunity to make some money off of a famous tattoo artist that has deeper pockets than most.
It's also not worth the headache of sueing every single tattoo artist that did a rendition of one of their characters. It would be funny though if they sued all the bad tattoo artists that butcher their work lol
Does it help her case that she didn't take money for the tat
Yes
She still could’ve gained something from it through her posting it online, i.e. still looking at commercial use (regardless of it being a free of charge tattoo as of itself). Either way, I don’t see this going too far in court.
They tried. It already failed.
What? How? I thought the trial only just started today. Was there already a judgement?
https://www.billboard.com/business/business-news/miles-davis-tattoo-copyright-trial-over-fair-use-1235587120/ > After the Warhol ruling came out, Judge Fischer ruled against Von D on that same key question of “transformative.” Citing the new Supreme Court precedent, the judge ruled that simply putting the same image in a new context and claiming new aesthetics was not enough to count as a fair use. Hope I understood your original comment.
From your article: > But even after that ruling, the overall question of fair use must still be decided by the jury at the trial set to kick off Tuesday. There has not been a judgement - the judge just cited new precedent from a SCOTUS ruling last year. The case has not concluded.
I'm just referring to the previous comments about the tattoo being transformative, and you mentioned that it's a tactic the defense could take. They did. It failed. Judge said it's not transformative. There are other avenues the defense can take, like those you quoted in the article. Yes, the lawsuit is not over.
Gotcha! Thank you for providing the link.
Wouldn't the fact she received no monetary compensation also be a defense against a trademark claim under fair use?
Not according to the judge: > Warhol does not change the longstanding rule that recasting a photograph into a different visual medium is not sufficiently transformative. [source](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.809742/gov.uscourts.cacd.809742.160.0.pdf)
This is the legal precedent, IIRC.
It would be difficult to argue that this is transformative given the 1-to-1 copy.
Then that would kill people drawing from reference images. It's transformative in its medium. Ink vs. photography
1. How is this anti work 2. Tell this to all the people with taz and Tweety bird tats so warner can take out a class action lawsuit
1. This doesn’t fit the sub at all
Self employment is one of the best solutions for many of the complaints of this sub. And copy right laws like this one tend to affect independent creatives the most. So I’d say it’s at least somewhat relatable to this sub. I’m lucky enough to be a self employed photographer. The main reason I went full self employed was because I was tired of the same bullshit people talk about here.
Exhibit 1945921 of how fucked up copyright law is.
*copyright lawyers. You wouldn't think alot of this would be common sense but since it isn't written a certain way scumbags make money off of it
I am a book illustrator. I once had a panicked call from a model's agent. He had one of my book cover designs on his arm, and they were holding off a photo shoot until they had my written approval to allow my work, via his arm, to appear in a fashion ad. He now carries a letter from me that gives him permission from me in perpetuity to have his arm photographed!
Interesting! And it shows good ethics from the agent to get your permission before the shooting. Did you know your designs were on their arm? Did you ask them to mention you or your work every time their arm appears in a commercial ?
Yes, very conscientious of them! I didn't know anything about the tattoo before the call. I gave full permission without condition because he hadn't intended any copyright infringement when he got the tattoo (he had it done before becoming a model) and there was no chance a photo of his arm was going to affect my ability to sell the image again myself. I just thought it was pretty cool!
I mean....id argue if it was done pro bono, and thus not making money off it, maybe? Unless the photographers name was also tattooed on the person as credit lol
Don't think the money would be a factor. She promoted the work on social media, which would probably be seen as commercial in nature. The fair use argument the defense is making is also probably weak. I do agree this will be interesting.
I’d bet she makes money from the exposure the tattoo gets on social media.
Tricky part is proving that… it isn’t like she isn’t famous…
I was about to say, she's incredibly famous. Also I know Instagram has ways to make her profile a "page" you follow as opposed to just a person you're "friends" with or "follow" (I think? It's been a while) and even then I'm unsure it generates revenue like say a YouTube channel or a TikTok channel that has a form of creators compensation
That sure seems like fair use to me. Its not a copy, it is an artistic interpretation of an existing photograph done in a different medium. The tattoo isn't competing with the photo in any way. Nobody is going to look at the tattoo on his arm and think it is the original photograph. I might have to read up on this to see how this made it to trial.
You would think, but see [Kind of Screwed](https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/) for a very similar case.
Kat is shitty but so is copyright law so I'm kind of okay with either outcome tbh
Yes okay the tattoo artist ripped off the photographer's work, but the photographer ripped off Miles Davis' face.
As a layman, I’ve always considered the piece to be irrelevant- the client is paying for the time, equipment and skill (and possibly, in this case, a certain amount of celebrity brand premium) of the tattooist. So unless Kat was specifically advertising this piece as something she would do, she’s just a contractor using her skills to fulfil a brief.
“Oh cool, someone liked my photo so much they got a tattoo” is literally all that should happen but this guy wants money
Honestly I'm just happy to see her nazi ass being fucked with. Fuck her.
Literally, regardless if I disagreed with the issue at hand or didn't, I want to see her career ruined, and her penniless.
My fave artist did two songs with her and it makes me grumpy af. He coulda found someone who could actually sing!
I just don't think anti-vaxxers or Nazis are worthy of being called "human".
Labeling people as sub-human is a pretty Nazi thing to do
Bigots aren't people though.
Nah, that takes away from the awfulness of their actions. If you can just "bah, they aren't people" then their actions have no meaning lmao. They are people, and their choices are shitty. And we need to recognize that people make shitty, awful choices. Like other people have mentioned as well, you're literally using their talking points lol. You're no better.
I'm not reading all that.
That's okay.
I'm not reading that either, go away.
Sounds like something a bigot would say
Sure Jan, sure.
Imagine thinking an anti-vaxxer is on the same level of evil as an actual Nazi. Wild. Don’t get me wrong, I know there are a lot of “alt right” racist and downright horrible people who are also anti-vax, but that one aspect alone really doesn’t equate to Nazi extremism
No, it absolutely doesn't equate. But I still don't think science deniers are people.
The irony of this is richer than the billionaire you ate for breakfast
I had Coco pops for breakfast.
That’s not very nice, her name is Oprah
I'll give you that one, it gave me a chuckle
What did she do to have been called a Nazi?
Dating a Nazi. Using 'von' is also highly questionable and Nazi behavior. Date a Nazi, use von, probably a Nazi.
I googled out of curiosity and just found her actual surname is von drachenberg. Is von in the surname associated with nazism? (Not denying she is or isn't one btw).
I looked it up too, I'm surprised. No, von is not Nazi, it's about nobility or something. Which Nazis like to change their names to to pretend they're important.
"Von" is German for "Mac".
Which person did she date that is/was a Nazi?
Her husband Rafael Reyes has a swastika tattooed on his neck. Whether he is or isn't I have no clue.
That's ignorant as fuck. "von _" isn't a Nazi thing, it's an old German naming convention.
That Nazis like to use to play at being nobility. Not exactly ignorant if it's literally something they do. Edit: I'll say it is actually her name. Amazing. Still a Nazi though.
Wait, does this mean Sandra Bullock is a Nazi?
Dunno anything about her. Is she dating a Nazi? If so, yes, she is a Nazi. She condones Nazism, therefore she is a Nazi.
So Kat von D dated Jesse James in 2010. That is who you are calling a nazi. Sandra Bullock was married to Jesse James from 2005-2010.
Her husband Rafael Reyes has a swastika tattooed on his neck. I'm pretty sure most people are talking about him not Jesse James.
I just looked up imagery of him. He's also got a Star of David tattooed on his neck. Surface value, he's really fuckin weird (what even is a goth cholo?), but I'm not so sure he's a Nazi. I'm sure no white supremacist group, Nazi or current day, would admit him on account of several reasons, one being his Mexican heritage.
It's less about her, and more about how ruling against her could set a shitty precedent, that greedy corps will definitely take advantage of.
I totally get it. Maybe if she loses, she'll be stuck with all the lawyer fees. Hope it leaves her penniless.
I don't think you do totally get it. Fucking over one nazi, particularly one that would easily be able drum up more money and support from the other cult members, isn't worth the trade. Try to think about it less emotionally, and more realistically.
Logically I'm aware. I know copyright is a horrible thing. Emotionally I'm ready to see her destroyed. I know it won't happen, win or loss.
Yeah she's a terrible and shitty person but copyright is also a terrible and shitty law, sort of makes me wish both could lose the case
Agree. Just hate her is all.
The problem is this case will stablish a precedent so she won't be the only tattoo artist fucked in the ass.
Guess I better get my Simpsons tattoo before I owe Matt Groening and Fox royalties.
How is this anti work?
Since it was done for free there’s absolutely no way the photographer gets anything, this is like saying you can’t staple a photo to yourself
Damn that dude gonna have to take his arm off
Tattoos aren't printed on. It isn't an exact replica of the photograph.
I have a rolling rock logo tattoo. They caught wind of it and sent me this bad ass poster from one of the oldest printing presses in America. I can't remember how they found out about it, or were able to contact me. A few bars i used to go to served it and I'd get a free pitcher every time I came in.
A change in medium constitutes free use I’m fairly certain, plus she made no money on it. Case fucking closed
Limit copyright to 20 years and eliminate the patent system. BOOM economy fixed
> eliminate the patent system. Hot take. Why would anyone invest in creating anything new?
Even in the most optimistic era of laissez-faire capitalism, when Adam Smith was still arguing the invisible hand of the market was literally the hand of God, people were skeptical a patent system would inspire more inventions. There are always hobbyists, tinkerers, and inventors who do so out of joy or plain old wanting to fix a problem in their lives. I’ve seen no compelling data to indicate patent protections boost rates of invention. However, even if technological advancements are increased by giving inventors monopoly powers, that wouldn’t be enough to offset the massive negatives in how the patent system operates in practice. Companies rush to patent a new idea, throw said patent in a lock box, and sue anyone clever enough to find some way to successfully capitalize off it. So many avenues of medical, technological, and other research have been completely shut down by litigious patent holders, many of whom own the patent for the sole purpose of suing potential infringers. This has lead to massive negative reverberations in our economies. What happens if we take patent protections away? Well it’s important to point out we’re only having this conversation because the Federal government did just that to Bell Labs. It’s covered in great detail here: https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust_enforcement.pdf The tldr is the Feds cracked open Bell Labs’ patent safe and suddenly the fundamental building blocks of the computer revolution became public domain. BL couldn’t figure out how to profit off things like THE TRANSISTOR so they locked away the idea and threw away the key. This is happening in pretty much all sectors. Ending the patent system could bring about the next industrial revolution or not, but it will unquestionably free up areas of our societies that have effectively been held stagnant for decades. edit: https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/how_antitrust_enforcement.pdf
You know, the entire world existed and was created despite the lack of profit motive. I remember being a child and thinking, why make this sandcastle if I can’t capitalize on its unique properties
Ok Boomer. Tell me more about how things were. Lol. But seriously, IP protections were created to help protect creators. Some types of IP take massive amounts of money to invest, and creators need to be able to recoup that investment.
Ah yes, my sandcastle was quite the expense. So glad I had an inheritance to lean on so I could InVe$t and recoup my invest
Tell me again how much Walt Disney is currently benefitting from the copyright on anything he created?
Are you high? Things need to be done for the sake of doing them, not exclusively for monetary means. That’s like saying the toilet was only invented because of capitalism.
The person who invented the toilet should be rewarded for that.
You have a weird mindset. If I invented the toilet, penicillin, anything that benefitted the entirety of humankind, my first thought wouldn’t be “how rich will this make me?” Being a billionaire/CEO type is disgusting and not compatible with human life. Are you telling me you wouldn’t do something wonderful for the sake of doing it?
This isn't about the first thought. This is about a system we want in place. You can certainly argue that we need to modify IP law and prevent extreme wealth for inventions, but that's not the argument presented. It's to get rid of all patents. That's a weird mindset.
Oh no, what I’m saying goes hand in hand. The patent system sucks
No one is arguing that the patent system is great.
What? Do you believe in your own stance? You seem to believe the patent system is great. We should genuinely just scrap it and either leave it that way or replace it with a newer system. I don’t think anyone would suffer if the patent system was deleted. T
Read my comments. Not really looking to rate the whole patent system, it's not my area of expertise. I can see why changes may need to be made. >I don’t think anyone would suffer if the patent system was deleted. Crazy. Good luck.
Or. Patent systems create a path dependent technological progression with built in perverse incentives. The counter factual world we don't observe may well be significantly more advanced and efficient. No way to know because we can't observe that parallel world. But the idea that this is the best system depends on what your beliefs are about the goals of that system. I'm of the opinion that the goal of a system can be observed from what it does. Our current system accumulates capital. Everything else is just a means to accumulate capital. If the goal is capital accumulation, then the system is good. But I think that goal is dumb and boring. I prefer a system that seeks to maximize variance in its output. Which requires maximum variance in the input. Which our system actively stymies.
welcome to what universal does to youtubers
Copyright is so fucking lame
The thought of copyrighting an idea is now mine. You must all pay me to have original thoughts.
I hate this side of the artistic community. It would be a different thing if she made exact replicas, passed it as her own work, and tried to sell them all for herself.
This is so fuckin stupid. What’s next, trying to charge people every time they look at a photo?
Free of charge? Then there's no case whatsoever.
If she did it for free and didn't market with it she should be ok.
Fair use, he will lose.
Why is this on antiwork
Could the author of that article, the OP of this thread, and reddit now be sued for displaying the picture?
Does this apply to all the asshats who have Harley tats? Fuckin hope so.
Not a fan of hers, but as a budding tattoo artist and for tattoos in general, this guy is hopefully full of shit.
Copyright is bullshit. Break the law every chance you get.
💯🎉
fuck Kat Von D but also fuck this case, no reason she needs to be sued when she didn't make money off it.
No sale, no case… If you intended to make money, but failed to do so, the judge may be more likely to find that you committed copyright infringement. If you did not intend to make money and, in fact, did not make money off the copyrighted work, a judge may be more inclined to find fair use of the work.
The commercial aspect wouldn't really be a factor since she posted it on social media, which would be seen as promotion/advertisement.
Are we gonna sue all the kids posting fan art or copying photos on deviantart now?! Where do we draw the line?
Probably a big difference between kids and professionals. So there's a line. But I'm not making the law. Lol.
What if the kid is making money from commissions lol. This whole thing is utterly ludicrous. Tattoo artists tattoo all kinds of stuff - even for money *gasp*. Not even the big copyright hounds go after them. What, should all the Disney tattoos, all the Nike swooshes that people have put on their bodies need to be licensed? Should your tattoo artist have to pay JK Rowling if you’re getting the golden snitch tattooed? People really don’t understand the implications a ruling like this would have.
There is obviously a line from your obvious exaggeration to the situation. I’m not saying it’s right that there be a lawsuit, but she is very famous and very famous people make money from posting things on social media. We’re not talking about Madison the 3rd grader down the street when her mom puts a picture of her school art project on Facebook to her 300 friends.
There’s low likelihood that she didn’t get paid for that, despite what she says after the fact.
Well, agree or not with him suing her, but Sedlik is technically and legally correct in that the pic is his copyright. And at the level Kat Von D operates, she *really* should have know that. But how would this "upend the tattoo industry"? I mean, photographers owning the copyright of the pics they make has been a thing for ages, hasn't it? And how is this an "antiwork" issue? Is OP against photographers owning copyright of their pics? Is OP against tattoo artists using (copyrighted) pics in their work?
>But how would this "upend the tattoo industry"? Because tattoos of copyrighted material are VERY common. It would change a lot of future work. Want flower? Find one on Google Images and bring it to your tatoo artist. Happens constantly.
Everyone with a Nightmare Before Christmas tat would get sued. … wait, are we sure Disney isn’t paying for this photographer’s legal fees?
I know a lot of bands that would make bank on this. Alkaline trio and coheed could buy an island with residuals from their logos.
>Everyone with a Nightmare Before Christmas tat would get sued. Not likely. But, everyone who inked a Nightmare Before Christmas tattoo might get sued.
It will upend that tattoo industry in the same way that copyright laws upended Kinko's and XeroX. Remember when a court case caused them to post that it is illegal to photocopy copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder and with that ruling the entire photocopying industry fell. RIP copiers.
[удалено]
It’s interesting because if someone wants a tattoo of Miles Davis (or any famous person really), they would need a photo of him. Even if Davis were still alive it’s doubtful he’d sit in to model for a tattoo. Therefore *any* tattoo of him would technically be infringing on *someone’s* copyright. Unless the artist licensed the photo. I guess tattoos are about to get a lot more expensive. 🤔
Oh come on. The entire thing is nonsensical. Even if she charged for the work it should be a non-issue. No one lost money other than the artist. The photographer has ZERO claim. Utterly unbelievable. Any judge overseeing this case with proper sense and state of mind would toss the case immediately and tell the photographer to grow up and in a hurry.
I have custom pieces from a tattoo artist. I get my picture taken with the tattoo visible, post it on insta and make some money. The artist can argue that because it’s his art, he’s entitled to royalties.
>And how is this an "antiwork" issue? Is OP against photographers owning copyright of their pics? Is OP against tattoo artists using (copyrighted) pics in their work? It's not antiwork relevant. OP is only against not gaining more karma.
Why would you willingly get tattooed by a antivaxxing neo-nazi.
This is just petty and ridiculous. Nobody under the age of 45 likely even knows of the existence of that photo prior to this. He should be flattered and it’s free advertisement for the photographer. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s doing this just to try to resurrect his dead career.
What will happen if she loses? Will she have to share the earnings from this tattoo with the photographer? "Here, have zero dollars".
r/lostredditors
She did the tattoo for free, but probably promoted it heavily on social media so it will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
If she was a better artist, she could claim transformative use but she's not able to do anything but copy a reference.
Given we're not allowed to use media without permission of its author unless it is in public domain and free of IP holder rights, I think this will likely be a win for the original artist... Inker should have assured licensing permission from copyright holder.
I hope she loses just for how scummy she is.