Tattoo artist threatens to sue a famous guy for copyright infringement over photos!
casioc...@gmail.com
If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>From mirror.co.uk
"
27 June 2005
EXCLUSIVE: I OWN BECK'S TATTOO.. AND I'LL SUE
Body artist needled at bid to 'sell' his designs
By Fiona Cummins and Sharon Feinstein
DAVID Beckham faces a bitter legal battle - over who owns the rights to
his tattoos.
Body artist Louis Molloy threatens to sue Becks, 30, and wife Victoria
if they go ahead with plans to use the images in an ad campaign.
Louis, 42, who created nine of the England skipper's tattoos, claims he
owns the copyright."
Read more http://tinyurl.com/clpd5
Sheldon
a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on it?
It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to the
copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the new
hole in my head.
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120418420.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Paul Heslop
>
> "Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
> > This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
> buy
> > a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on
> it?
> >
>
> percentage every time one of their works is sold on.
>
> Seems to me a bit like a builder trying to claim a percentage every time a
> house is sold.
>
> John
The Beckhams think they own EVERYTHING. Mrs Beckham wanted a football
team to stop using the nickname 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh
Spice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
Sounds like our tattooist is just getting revenge over a pair of
pompous prats.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Nicholas O. Lindan
> If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
> pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
> infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist
Greed, greed and more greed. The really greedy ones end up
with nothing. Odd's on: 1)they won't use the tattoo in
the ad; or 2) Beckham will spend more on lawyers than tattoo
artist can afford; or 3) Another design will be Photoshopped
into the ad. If the tattoo artist wasn't so greedy he could
have signed the release for a few thousand quid and maybe
had his name in small print on all the ads.
How much does it cost to hire a commercial artist to draw
a dragon, maybe a better dragon? Well, that's what the
copyright to the tattoo is worth: why pay more?
Beckham should just tell the guy to take it back - he doesn't
want the bleedin' image.
> would I
> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?
I think if the image is somewhat central to the work, such that
change the jeans and the ad changes it's nature, Levi has a
point.
If any-ole jeans would work then Levi should be paying for 'product
placement'. Maybe the tattoo artist will end up with a bill for
having his 'brand' get prominent display.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
johnboy
>> would I
>> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
> Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?
Oh noooo! http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/pdweb/images/rickman.jpg
RSD99
"...
What if you buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a
copyright on it?
In a word ... yes.
Gordon Moat
Doesn't look like Levi's, but I think there is a quarter in her back
pocket. ;-)
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Philip Homburg
Sheldon <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you buy
>a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on it?
>
>It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
>body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
>person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to the
>copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the new
>hole in my head.
So, if a writer sells you a copy of his book, you can't start selling your
own copies of that book, but if a tattoo artist creates a work of art,
he somehow deserves less protection than other artists?
My guess is that copyright law is clear in this case: if you buy a work of
art you can't start selling reproductions of that piece of art without
the permission of the artist. (subject to various excepts listed in the
law).
Disclaimer: IANAL.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
casioc...@gmail.com
Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
would you get sued for copyright infringement?
What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
sue you for copyright infringement?
What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
design?
My opinion is *NO*.
casioc...@gmail.com
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> <casioc...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
> > pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
> > infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist
>
> Greed, greed and more greed. The really greedy ones end up
> with nothing. Odd's on: 1)they won't use the tattoo in
> the ad; or 2) Beckham will spend more on lawyers than tattoo
> artist can afford; or 3) Another design will be Photoshopped
> into the ad. If the tattoo artist wasn't so greedy he could
> have signed the release for a few thousand quid and maybe
> had his name in small print on all the ads.
>
> How much does it cost to hire a commercial artist to draw
> a dragon, maybe a better dragon? Well, that's what the
> copyright to the tattoo is worth: why pay more?
>
> Beckham should just tell the guy to take it back - he doesn't
> want the bleedin' image.
>
> > would I
> > get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> > take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
> Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?
>
> I think if the image is somewhat central to the work, such that
> change the jeans and the ad changes it's nature, Levi has a
> point.
>
Yes you're right on this. What I had in mind though weren't shots in
which a jeans would be central to the work but just a casual piece of
clothing.
I'm starting to be more sympathetic to the tattoo artist if the shots
do actually feature his tattoos as being central to the shot, rather
than being just something Beckham wears. This may though be a point of
debate unless the shot is that clear cut.
William Graham
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
> on it?
>
> It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
> body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
> person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to
> the copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the
> new hole in my head.
Be careful. Once you admit to having a hole in your head on this forum, you
will have very little chance of ever winning an argument in the
future.......
Unclaimed Mysteries
> ... what if you buy a
> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>
> What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
> in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
> sue you for copyright infringement?
>
> What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
> photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
> design?
>
> My opinion is *NO*.
>
Your opinion, while reasonable, does not come with a sackful of
BenJaM1Nz!11!. How very unfortunate.
The above examples seem harmless to all parties, but if someone's
potential revenue stream is in play, watch out.
You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
William Graham
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
> on it?
My guess is yes, because the artist might have made several hundred or
thousand prints of the original, and be involved in selling those. But if
you try to do the same thing, he can sue you for infringement of his
copyright. IOW, if I was very wealthy, I could purchase the Mona Lisa, but I
still couldn't make prints of it and sell them, just because I owned the
original.
William Graham
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42C859DE...@attglobal.net...
> johnboy wrote:
>
>> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote
>>
>> >> would I
>> >> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>> >> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>> >
>> > Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?
>>
>> Oh noooo! http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/pdweb/images/rickman.jpg
>
> Doesn't look like Levi's, but I think there is a quarter in her back
> pocket. ;-)
And that bike looks like my old Norton......A classic shot, that........
RustYŠ
> copyright issue!
No problem. Just photograph the area of skin with the tattoo on - not the
art work itself. Then have the tattoo artist visited by the Madrid mafia.
Art
the picture, it would be a fair use.
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:1RZxe.3165$aY6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Unclaimed Mysteries
> there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental to
> the picture, it would be a fair use.
Fair use is on its way to becoming, uh, "quaint and antiquated."
Skip M
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
> This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
> on it?
Yes, he does, unless he's specifically signe the rights over to the
purchaser.
>
> It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
> body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
> person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to
> the copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the
> new hole in my head.
IMO, the tattoo artist has a case here, it should be interesting to see it
develop.
>
>
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Gerrit 't Hart
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pOmdnfFb4r9...@comcast.com...
Wrong example. :-)
There was NO copyright law when the Mona Lisa was painted and anyone can
print and sell copies. Just like anyone can print and sell Shakespeare's
works.
It seems to me that if Becks wants to use the tattoos to make more money
then the artist should benefit as well, unless he signed an agreement that
he reliquishes his rights.
BTW I hate tattoos!!
Gerrit
Michael Benveniste
>If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
>copyright issue!
There is a similar suit currently pending involving NBA basketball
player Rasheed Wallace.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news/story?id=1992812
For that matter such a picture may create a trademark issue. See:
http://ringsofdesire.com/wingsregistration/index.htm
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Paul Fedorenko
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:1RZxe.3165$aY6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> ... what if you buy a
>> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
>> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
>> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
>> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
What if you buy a painting (or sculpture) for your house then take a
photograph of it for insurance purposes in the event of theft? Most
insurance companies advise that you do exactly that. It sounds like a
reasonable thing to do, but given the way some people like launching
lawsuits, one can never be sure.
johnboy
>> Oh noooo! http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/pdweb/images/rickman.jpg
> And that bike looks like my old Norton......A classic shot, that........
Close in a way. Actually is a very rare Rickman/Trident (#1329R), and is in
the history books, and is still raced in the classics at Daytona.
Unfortunately, its profound value was realized after I sold it. :( And today
the girl is a grandmother.
Unclaimed Mysteries
Check your attributions please. I didn't write that. Thanky.
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
"Bill Funk" <big...@there.com> said in rec.photo.digital: "Is this
actually part of your plan? To use tag lines to show your contempt,
while showing that you really have so little understanding?"
William Graham
"Gerrit 't Hart" <gth...@sad.au> wrote in message
news:42c8987b$0$25154$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Yes. You are right about the Mona Lisa......Way too old and out of
copyright. But it seems to me that just because your body is the "canvas"
that doesn't give you the right to sell thousands of copies of the
tattooist's work. He/she still owns the copyright on his own stuff, even if
its "painted" on your body.......
Michael Benveniste
>What if you buy a painting (or sculpture) for your house then take a
>photograph of it for insurance purposes in the event of theft? Most
>insurance companies advise that you do exactly that. It sounds like a
>reasonable thing to do, but given the way some people like launching
>lawsuits, one can never be sure.
Here's roughly how the legal analysis goes. The photograph is a
derivative work under the definitions of 17 USC 101. Therefore,
unless a limitation exists on the author's rights, it's a
potential copyright violation.
The most likely exemption to apply is "fair use." 17 USC 107
provides a four-part test for fair use.
-- The purpose and character of the use. In this case, the use
is evidenciary purposes, which would be considered a non-
commercial use. It's also likely to be an attributed use,
since the insurance company will want to know the artist's
name in order to determine value.
-- The nature of the copyrighted work. If it's an insurable
work of art, copyright law will give it a good deal of
protection.
-- The amount and substantiality of the portion used. If you
make a 1:1 photoprint of a painting, you're much more likely
to be held culpable than a 4x6" snap of a sculpture.
Finally, and according to the Supreme Court most importantly,
-- The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value
of the copyrighted work. In this case, the net effect is
probably zero.
So without an exact set of facts to work from, I suppose any
outcome is possible. Still, the fair use provisions are designed
to address exactly this sort of thing.
calc...@hotmail.com
tried to sue, I think, Steven Meisel over the Madge-as Mazzie series
(ignoring the fact Avedon shot MM as, lessee, Dietrich, Bara, Harlow,
and even Jackie Kennedy(!))
Neil Ellwood
In the UK you could because the image is out of copyright ( the artist has
been dead for more than 50 years).
--
neil
delete delete to reply
Stacey
> eatmorepies wrote:
>>
>> "Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
>> > This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if
>> > you
>> buy
>> > a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on
>> it?
>> >
>>
>> There is some discussion about that one. Some artists are trying to
>> claim a percentage every time one of their works is sold on.
>>
>> Seems to me a bit like a builder trying to claim a percentage every time
>> a house is sold.
>>
>> John
>
> The Beckhams think they own EVERYTHING. Mrs Beckham wanted a football
> team to stop using the nickname 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh
> Spice.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>
> Sounds like our tattooist is just getting revenge over a pair of
> pompous prats.
>
There we go. So there IS more to this story, wonder why this other article
left this tidbit out? What goes around comes around come to mind here!
--
Stacey
Stacey
>
> I'm starting to be more sympathetic to the tattoo artist if the shots
> do actually feature his tattoos as being central to the shot, rather
> than being just something Beckham wears. This may though be a point of
> debate unless the shot is that clear cut.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
Looks like he might just be taking a swipe at them because of this "spice
girl" crap they are trying to pull on a sports team?
--
Stacey
Keith Sheppard
buy
>>a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on
it?
copy the image. If you buy a piece of software would you expect to be able
(legally) to give copies to all your friends?
>>Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the person who got the
tattoo...
No. It's the other way round. You automatically have copyright over any
work you create and it takes a legal contract for you to transfer those
rights to another party. In the absence of a signed contract, copyright
remains with the artist.
In its simplest form, "copyright" means just what it says on the tin - the
right to copy. If Bex were just showing off his tattoos in public, the
tattooist would have no case. It's the fact that the image has been
transferred to another medium - the photo, which makes it interesting.
Legally, it's a bit of a mind bender. I think you just have to use common
sense. I can see something in the tattoo artists case if the tattoo image
is the main feature of the campaign. For example, if it was a close-up of
the tattoo with very little of Bex in shot, I think I would rule in favour
of the artist. On the other hand, if it was just a picture of Mr Beckham
upon which the tattoos just happened to be visible I'd laugh it out of
court - if not, every architect in the world should be suing anyone who's
ever photographed his buildings.
Keith
Keith Sheppard
>>and sell them, just because I owned the original.
only continues for 50 years after the artist's death), but I take your
point.
Keith
Paul Heslop
Hopefully :O))
They ARE arrogant. HE has some talent, though I doubt he is as good as
he thinks he is. SHE on the other hand, has barely any, barring being
famous.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
PTRAVEL
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
> This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
> on it?
>
I don't know the law in the UK. In the US, yes, the artist still has a
copyright in the painting, absent an express agreement to the contrary, or,
if the painter was an employee.
> It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
> body it's yours.
The copy that was created is yours. As far as I can tell, this is a case of
first impression, but the rule is: you own the authorized copy, you don't
own the content.
> Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the person who got the
> tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to the copyright on
> that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the new hole in my
> head.
Under US law, you've got it backwards. Independent contractors are presumed
to own the copyright in their work absent a prior written agreement.
>
>
> <casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120418420.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
>> copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
>> pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
>> infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
>> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>>
>>
>>>From mirror.co.uk
>> "
>> 27 June 2005
>> EXCLUSIVE: I OWN BECK'S TATTOO.. AND I'LL SUE
>> Body artist needled at bid to 'sell' his designs
>> By Fiona Cummins and Sharon Feinstein
>>
>> DAVID Beckham faces a bitter legal battle - over who owns the rights to
>> his tattoos.
>>
>> Body artist Louis Molloy threatens to sue Becks, 30, and wife Victoria
>> if they go ahead with plans to use the images in an ad campaign.
>>
>> Louis, 42, who created nine of the England skipper's tattoos, claims he
>> owns the copyright."
>>
>> Read more http://tinyurl.com/clpd5
>>
>
>
PTRAVEL
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:1RZxe.3165$aY6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
> on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
>
Absolute nonsense. Recently, Congress has been the lapdog of corporate
interests in respect to most (but not all) new copyright law that has been
enacted. However, with the exception of things like the DMCA and copyright
terms, the law remains neutral and protects the interests of the authors of
protectable expression, as it should.
PTRAVEL
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120427013.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> RSD99 wrote:
>> "Sheldon" asked:
>> "...
>> What if you buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have
>> a
>> copyright on it?
>>
>> In a word ... yes.
>
> Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
Would you get sued? It depends. Have you infringed copyright in the
painting? Yes.
>
> What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
> in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
> sue you for copyright infringement?
Could you be sued? Of course. You have, however, infringed the sculptor's
copyright.
>
> What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
> photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
> design?
>
> My opinion is *NO*.
You're right on that one -- jewelery designs are protectable as copyright.
>
PTRAVEL
"Paul Fedorenko" <pfedo...@look.ca> wrote in message
news:uB1ye.3021$Ud.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
That clearly would be fair use.
>
>
PTRAVEL
"Art" <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ta%xe.15722$pa3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental
> to the picture, it would be a fair use.
No, it would not. Fair use is a complicated equitable doctrine, codified in
the Copyright Act, that is a defense to infringement. This means that
judges get to determine whether something is fair use or not. The statute
specifices four primary factors that play a part of that determination, but
none are dispositive, and the judge may consider all of them, some of them
or none of them.
johnboy
news:3it0oqF...@individual.net...
>> Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
>> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
>> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
>> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
>> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>
> Would you get sued? It depends. Have you infringed copyright in the
> painting? Yes.
It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the painting in
the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish the value of the
painting, for example "Here is me and the painting...". Check your four
rules of fair use. Like I said, unlikely.
Andrew Haley
> eatmorepies wrote:
> The Beckhams think they own EVERYTHING. Mrs Beckham wanted a football
> team to stop using the nickname 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh
> Spice.
Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
Read the article!
Andrew.
PTRAVEL
"johnboy" <oka...@nospam.no> wrote in message
news:11cikli...@news.supernews.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3it0oqF...@individual.net...
>
>>> Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
>>> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
>>> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
>>> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
>>> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>>
>> Would you get sued? It depends. Have you infringed copyright in the
>> painting? Yes.
>
> It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the painting
> in the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish the value
> of the painting,
Absolutely incorrect, at least under American law.
Copyright infringement results from making an unauthorized copy. Period.
As for incidental reproduction, the case is not at all consistent. "Doesn't
diminish the value of the original" does not obviate copyright infringement.
Copyright vests the copyright owner with absolute contol over the
statutorily-reserved rights (of which copying is one, and preparation of
derivative works another), absent a statutory exception or fair use.
> for example "Here is me and the painting...". Check your four rules of
> fair use. Like I said, unlikely.
There are no "rules" for fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine and a
defense to infringement. Though fair use is codified in the statute, the
four factors listed are guidelines only, and non-dispositive. Moreover,
because fair use is an equitable doctrine, it is intensely fact specific,
i.e. the judge will decide each case based on the corpus of fair use
decisional law as well as traditional concepts of equity.
In any event, fair use is a _defense_ to infringement, i.e. but for a
finding of fair use, it is infringement.
>
>
Stacey
>
> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>
> Read the article!
I suggest you do the same..
"The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think she had in
some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."
She is the one trying to block this, like anybody gives a crap about the
spice girls anymore (if ever..)? Yea I bet when people see a sports jersey
from this team with "posh" on it they are going to think of "Posh spice"?
LOL! This team has been refered to as this since 1934 and now some -has
been- is trying to get some -bad press- out of it? I hope this tatoo artist
takes these jerks to the cleaners..
--
Stacey
Paul Heslop
"Mrs Beckham claimed her nickname has become globally
renowned and is a well-known trademark, in a statement from her
publicity company."
"The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think
she had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."
"Peterborough United bosses have said that there could be serious
financial repercussions for the club if they were not allowed to use
the name on merchandising.
Peterborough United Chief Executive Geoff Davey said: "The
name is part of the club's history and tradition.
"I was absolutely stunned when I got the letter. One reason was that
our claim to the use of the name 'Posh' should be challenged.
"The second reason was that someone as big as Victoria Beckham
would want to raise this particular challenge."
He added: "I think there would be financial implications in the long
term because clearly we use the words on our range of leisurewear
and on souvenirs and posters."
Peterborough chairman Peter Boizot filed the application to
trademark the club nicknames "Posh" and "The Posh" in August
1998.
According to the Peterborough United official website, the
nickname has been with the club since its inception in 1934.
But its origins are a decade earlier, when a manager from a club
which used Peterborough's London Road ground proclaimed he
was looking for "Posh players for a posh team."
Mr Davey added he hoped that "common sense will prevail in the
coming weeks", but admitted there was a possibility of litigation.
I should think as they have been around for a little while longer than
her it is THEY who have claim to the name...
johnboy
>
> "johnboy" <oka...@nospam.no> wrote in message
> news:11cikli...@news.supernews.com...
>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3it0oqF...@individual.net...
>>
>>>> Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
>>>> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
>>>> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
>>>> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
>>>> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>>>
>>> Would you get sued? It depends. Have you infringed copyright in the
>>> painting? Yes.
>>
>> It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the painting
>> in the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish the value
>> of the painting,
>
> Absolutely incorrect, at least under American law.
> Copyright infringement results from making an unauthorized copy. Period.
You know, you are the type of thinker I would love to meet in court. It
would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
> As for incidental reproduction, the case is not at all consistent.
> "Doesn't diminish the value of the original" does not obviate copyright
> infringement.
It has to do with conventions and fair use.
> Copyright vests the copyright owner with absolute contol over the
> statutorily-reserved rights (of which copying is one, and preparation of
> derivative works another), absent a statutory exception or fair use.
Hook, line and sinker.
> There are no "rules" for fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine and
> a defense to infringement. Though fair use is codified in the statute,
> the four factors listed are guidelines only, and non-dispositive.
Well of course.
Your case is nonsense. You have gone over the top. Not a pretty sight.
Andrew Haley
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
>> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
>> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>>
>> Read the article!
> I suggest you do the same..
> "The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think she
> had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."
If Victoria Beckham had been trying to trademark "Posh" your complaint
might have some justification. But she was not trying to trademark
"Posh" -- they were. You were totally wrong about this, and the
article *you quoted* proves it. Please read it carefully.
> She is the one trying to block this, like anybody gives a crap about
> the spice girls anymore (if ever..)? Yea I bet when people see a
> sports jersey from this team with "posh" on it they are going to
> think of "Posh spice"? LOL! This team has been refered to as this
> since 1934 and now some -has been- is trying to get some -bad press-
> out of it? I hope this tatoo artist takes these jerks to the
> cleaners..
Andrew.
Andrew Haley
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> In rec.photo.digital Paul Heslop <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > eatmorepies wrote:
>>
>> > The Beckhams think they own EVERYTHING. Mrs Beckham wanted a football
>> > team to stop using the nickname 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh
>> > Spice.
>>
>> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
>> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
>> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
>>
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>>
>> Read the article!
> "Mrs Beckham claimed her nickname has become globally
Perhpas, but the OP said
>> > Mrs Beckham wanted a football team to stop using the nickname
>> > 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh Spice.
which is what I was arguing with.
Andrew.
Paul Heslop
>
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> >> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
> >> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
> >> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
> >>
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
> >>
> >> Read the article!
>
> > I suggest you do the same..
>
> > "The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think she
> > had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."
>
> If Victoria Beckham had been trying to trademark "Posh" your complaint
> might have some justification. But she was not trying to trademark
> "Posh" -- they were. You were totally wrong about this, and the
> article *you quoted* proves it. Please read it carefully.
>
something about she might relent. Their website has full references to
the posh so I assume she did back down.
Paul Heslop
:O) I am the OP. You have to bear with me sometimes, I kind of live in
a daze.
Sheldon
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120427013.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> RSD99 wrote:
>> "Sheldon" asked:
>> "...
>> What if you buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have
>> a
>> copyright on it?
>> ..."
>>
>> In a word ... yes.
>
> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>
> in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
> sue you for copyright infringement?
>
> What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
> photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
> design?
>
> My opinion is *NO*.
All good examples. My question would be that when you go into a tattoo
parlor you are commissioning the artist to do a job, and paying them for the
job. When I write an article or get a photo published the contract dictates
who owns the rights to my work and for how long. With no contract, and the
artist's work on your body, how can the artist claim anything? And was the
work original? I haven't heard of Harley suing anybody for getting the
Harley logo tattooed on anyone's body.
If I have an artist tattoo "Mom" on my arm can they actually claim a
copyright on it? Give me a break. If the work was truly unique, and the
artist had half a brain, he would have had a contract signed so that if his
work was used for financial gain he was entitled to a cut.
PTRAVEL
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3it7lhF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "johnboy" <oka...@nospam.no> wrote in message
>> news:11cikli...@news.supernews.com...
>>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3it0oqF...@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>> Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
>>>>> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
>>>>> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of
>>>>> yourself
>>>>> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
>>>>> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>>>>
>>>> Would you get sued? It depends. Have you infringed copyright in the
>>>> painting? Yes.
>>>
>>> It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the
>>> painting in the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish
>>> the value of the painting,
>>
>> Absolutely incorrect, at least under American law.
>> Copyright infringement results from making an unauthorized copy. Period.
>
> You know, you are the type of thinker I would love to meet in court. It
> would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Oh, you're a lawyer? Did I mention that I was. And I practice intellectual
property law. A little googling will get you my name and firm.
>
>> As for incidental reproduction, the case is not at all consistent.
>> "Doesn't diminish the value of the original" does not obviate copyright
>> infringement.
>
> It has to do with conventions and fair use.
The only relevant convention in the US is the Berne Convention, and
"diminishing the value of the original" has nothing to do with it or
infringement law. As for fair use, one of the _non-dispositive_ factors is
the impact on the MARKET for the original. Note use of the word
"non-dispositive." However, as I've already explained, fair use is a
_defense_ to infringement, i.e. the defense doesn't pertain until there has
been infringement.
>
>> Copyright vests the copyright owner with absolute contol over the
>> statutorily-reserved rights (of which copying is one, and preparation of
>> derivative works another), absent a statutory exception or fair use.
>
> Hook, line and sinker.
Care to make a little money wager?
>
>> There are no "rules" for fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine and
>> a defense to infringement. Though fair use is codified in the statute,
>> the four factors listed are guidelines only, and non-dispositive.
>
> Well of course.
Well, you don't seem to know this.
>
> Your case is nonsense. You have gone over the top. Not a pretty sight.
I love it when net wannabe lawyers think they can argue law.
>
>
Stacey
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
>>> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
>>> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>>>
>>> Read the article!
>
>> I suggest you do the same..
>
>> "The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think she
>> had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."
>
> If Victoria Beckham had been trying to trademark "Posh" your complaint
> might have some justification. But she was not trying to trademark
> "Posh" -- they were.
Most likely because she gave them crap about printing things using -her
name-? I can see now why the tattoo artist is going after them, like I
said, what goes around comes around..
--
Stacey
Unclaimed Mysteries
> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_and...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
> news:1RZxe.3165$aY6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>casioc...@gmail.com wrote in part:
>>
>
>
>>You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
>>on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
>>
>
>
> Absolute nonsense. Recently, Congress has been the lapdog of corporate
> interests in respect to most (but not all) new copyright law that has been
> enacted. However, with the exception of things like the DMCA and copyright
> terms, the law remains neutral and protects the interests of the authors of
> protectable expression, as it should.
>
Most laws appear neutral on paper.
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Art
creates a work of art on a body part he is providing a license to do
anything you want with it. I can prove it. If you decide to have the tatoo
removed do you think he can get an injunction to stop you? Obviously not.
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Art
no written agreement, you own the copyright in the work. Just goes to show
the lawmakers were not considering tatoo's as works of art.
"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:TumdnaLdVYy...@comcast.com...
Art
would have no control over it absent an agreement to the contrary.
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Qq6dnWcVOJn...@comcast.com...
>
> "Gerrit 't Hart" <gth...@sad.au> wrote in message
> news:42c8987b$0$25154$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:pOmdnfFb4r9...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>>> news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
>>> > This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if
>>> > you
>>> > buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a
>>> > copyright
>>> > on it?
>>>
>>> My guess is yes, because the artist might have made several hundred or
>>> thousand prints of the original, and be involved in selling those. But
>>> if
>>> you try to do the same thing, he can sue you for infringement of his
>>> copyright. IOW, if I was very wealthy, I could purchase the Mona Lisa,
>>> but
>> I
>>> still couldn't make prints of it and sell them, just because I owned the
>>> original.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wrong example. :-)
>> There was NO copyright law when the Mona Lisa was painted and anyone can
>> print and sell copies. Just like anyone can print and sell Shakespeare's
>> works.
>>
>> It seems to me that if Becks wants to use the tattoos to make more money
>> then the artist should benefit as well, unless he signed an agreement
>> that
>> he reliquishes his rights.
>>
>> BTW I hate tattoos!!
>>
>> Gerrit
>
> Yes. You are right about the Mona Lisa......Way too old and out of
> copyright. But it seems to me that just because your body is the "canvas"
> that doesn't give you the right to sell thousands of copies of the
> tattooist's work. He/she still owns the copyright on his own stuff, even
> if its "painted" on your body.......
>
Philip Homburg
Art <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I would argue that absent an agreement to the contrary, when a tatoo artists
>creates a work of art on a body part he is providing a license to do
>anything you want with it. I can prove it. If you decide to have the tatoo
>removed do you think he can get an injunction to stop you? Obviously not.
Did you ever read the copyright law? What part of copyright law says
anything about destroying a work of art?
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
ian lincoln
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120427013.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> RSD99 wrote:
>> "Sheldon" asked:
>> "...
>> a
>> copyright on it?
>>
>> In a word ... yes.
>
> Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
> would you get sued for copyright infringement?
>
> What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
> in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
> sue you for copyright infringement?
>
> What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
> photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
> design?
>
> My opinion is *NO*.
The artist copyright means you cannot reproduce the image for a profit.
Especially if it was a limited addition print. using the artists work for
publicity without consent is wrong. having your family photoed with the
picture in the background is not in breech of copyright.
ian lincoln
"Keith Sheppard" <keith.s...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:RI6ye.22220$Ar5....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
If Bex were just showing off his tattoos in public, the
> tattooist would have no case. It's the fact that the image has been
> transferred to another medium - the photo, which makes it interesting.
>
> Legally, it's a bit of a mind bender. I think you just have to use common
> sense. I can see something in the tattoo artists case if the tattoo image
> is the main feature of the campaign. For example, if it was a close-up of
> the tattoo with very little of Bex in shot, I think I would rule in favour
> of the artist. On the other hand, if it was just a picture of Mr Beckham
> upon which the tattoos just happened to be visible I'd laugh it out of
> court - if not, every architect in the world should be suing anyone who's
> ever photographed his buildings.
I concur. The tattoo is only famous cos it happens to be on Bex's back.
Otherwise mr tattoo artist would still be in obscurity. He has probably
made a mint with people coming to him with "I want a bex tattoo" He should
also be suing every tattoo artist in the country who will no doubt be
providing footy supporters and bex fans in general with this design.
johnboy
news:Qiuye.113086$Vj3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> The artist copyright means you cannot reproduce the image for a profit.
Making a profit from the facsimile of an image is not a requisite for
violation of copyright, however diluting the value of the image can be an
issue.
Lorem Ipsum
> Oh, you're a lawyer? Did I mention that I was. And I practice
> intellectual property law. A little googling will get you my name and
> firm.
Anyone should be suspect of a person claiming to be a lawyer who is giving
legal advice in public, for free.
Your particular stand on the painting or piece of furniture in a casual
snapshot is technically correct, but irrelevant because it requires context.
Post a detailed case study so that we can see the particulars. You know it
is all about particulars.
...and your claim that you can find nosuch by Googliing leads me to further
suspect you are not a lawyer. Google is not a definitive source of
authority. You know which ones you should be using. Don't you have at least
LexisNexis and Westlaw? I do.
So, make a case so that we can be specific and not speak to vague
presumptions.
Lorem Ipsum
> Oh, you're a lawyer? Did I mention that I was. And I practice
> intellectual property law. .
I know who you are: Paul N. Tauger.
What I would find most interesting is your niche in law as it regards
travel.
Lorem Ipsum
"Lorem Ipsum" <Lo...@ipsum.xxx> wrote in message
news:11cl50k...@news.supernews.com...
> ...and your claim that you can find nosuch by Googliing leads me to [...]
I erred in citing Paul Tauger as the one who made the Googling claim. It was
not he.
Art
"Philip Homburg" <phi...@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:u0qu0k4ot0f1klpeqvf538qc61@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
Philip Homburg
Art <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Derivitive would cover it.
If I burn a book (or clean a painting with paint remover) it becomes a
derivative work? Wow.
Paul Friday
casioc...@gmail.com writes
>
>
>If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
>copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
>pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
>infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
>get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
Wouldn't it depend on whether the tattoo was a creation of the
tattooist, or was copied from a stencil? The tattoo shops I have seen
have hundreds of designs to choose from, and the 'artist' just copies
the chosen one from the pattern.
So the copyright, and the prize, belongs to the person who originally
created the really neat-looking pictogram that translates as 'dork'.
--
Paul Friday
Jeremy
"Paul Friday" <De...@devce.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GNacKoHL...@devce.demon.co.uk...
I'm not so certain that any court would rule that the tatoo's resalr and
reproduction rights belong to the artist. The tatoo becomes part of the
person to whom it is "etched." One might argue that the original stencil,
from which the tatoo was created, can be copyrighted, but to copyright the
actual tatoo would imply that the person wearing it cannot sign a modeling
agreement because the tatoo artist essentially "owns" a part of him.
If we apply a reasonableness standard, that would place an unreasonable
burden upon the customer that purchased the tatoo.
Lorem Ipsum
news:wwCye.15322$rQ5.3977@trndny04...
> [...] to copyright the actual tatoo would imply that the person wearing it
> cannot sign a modeling agreement because the tatoo artist essentially
> "owns" a part of him.
Cool! I look forward to the Harley-Davidson recall! What will they do with
all those bikers?
casioc...@gmail.com
I agree. I think it would be reasonable for him to sue other tattoo
artists if they "etch" his tattoo design. But to sue a customer for
photographing his own body or head sounds unreasonable.
Frank ess
(Enter: Shylock)
Bob Harrington
> "Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
>> you buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a
>> copyright on it?
>>
>
> claim a percentage every time one of their works is sold on.
>
> Seems to me a bit like a builder trying to claim a percentage every
> time a house is sold.
Really. The builder would be treading on the tax collector's turf! ;^)
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > > or was copied from a stencil?
Even if it was a unique creation for the customer, if
the artist was paid for creating then it is a 'work
for hire' and the payee owns (or should own) the result.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
johnboy
news:tkFye.16784$pa3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> > > Wouldn't it depend on whether the tattoo was a creation of the
>> > > tattooist,
>> > > or was copied from a stencil?
>
> Even if it was a unique creation for the customer, if
> the artist was paid for creating then it is a 'work
> for hire' and the payee owns (or should own) the result.
If the work was the first created under the auspices of the client, _and_
there was a clause which turned the artist's creation over to the client
(the tattooed one), then sure. On the other hand, presuming the tattoo
artist has a unique work he/she created outside the contract, then the
recipient is just like one who purchases a reproduction of the original made
by the creator; the artist owns the work in the sense that no person can
reproduce it "in kind", or likely out-of-kind in any form.
--
jjs - with many tattoos. :) (Wannat see 'em?)
PTRAVEL
"Lorem Ipsum" <Lo...@ipsum.xxx> wrote in message
news:11cl50k...@news.supernews.com...
>
> news:3itj21F...@individual.net...
>
>> Oh, you're a lawyer? Did I mention that I was. And I practice
>> intellectual property law. A little googling will get you my name and
>> firm.
>
> Anyone should be suspect of a person claiming to be a lawyer who is giving
> legal advice in public, for free.
I'm not giving legal advice. I'm correcting an erroneous statement of law.
>
> Your particular stand on the painting or piece of furniture in a casual
> snapshot is technically correct, but irrelevant because it requires
> context.
That's right -- it's technically correct, unlike the poster who I corrected.
As for it's relevance, it's relevant to this extent: it is right. The OP's
explanation was not.
> Post a detailed case study so that we can see the particulars. You know it
> is all about particulars.
I have no idea what you mean by "a detailed case study." I've laid out the
basic principles of law which control.
>
> ...and your claim that you can find nosuch by Googliing leads me to
> further suspect you are not a lawyer.
I'm not "nosuch." I'm ptravel. However, since you're lazy:
Paul N. Tauger, Esq.
Cal. State Bar No. 160552
> Google is not a definitive source of authority.
No, but the California State Bar is, at least with respect to who is
admitted to practice in California.
> You know which ones you should be using. Don't you have at least
> LexisNexis and Westlaw? I do.
Of course I do. What am I supposed to look up on Lexis or Westlaw? Proof
of my own admission?
>
> So, make a case so that we can be specific and not speak to vague
> presumptions.
Make a case about what?
>
>
>
PTRAVEL
"Lorem Ipsum" <Lo...@ipsum.xxx> wrote in message
Travel is my avocation, law my vocation. The two are unrelated, except that
I frequently have to do the former in order to do the latter.
>
>
>
columbotrek
the subject of the photographs? Can an airline sue because some of your
images of airplanes have their trade mark logos on them? He may have a
case if instead of taking a picture of a man with his tatoo he were to
open a tatoo shop using his designs. Everyone wants to get rich quick
playing lawsuit lotto these days. So it is not suprising to me that he try.
casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
> copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
> pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
> infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
>
Keith Sheppard
>>tattooist, or was copied from a stencil?
an original!
I just heard this morning that another footballer (I've forgotten which) has
just been offered a transfer package incorporating a salary of 100,000 UK
pounds per week. Am I alone in thinking this is bordering on the obscene?
If you could negotiate all these footballers down to the sort of salaries
that real people have to manage on (even really well paid real people) you'd
probably have enough money left over to wipe out third world debt.
I know there's only one David Beckham, only one Michael Owen, one Wayne
Rooney etc. but does that really make them worth those sums of money? Plus,
of course, there's the related problem that ordinary people have to pay a
fortune for football match tickets because the clubs have to finance their
star players.
I think there's something deeply wrong with a society that values a
footballer at around, say, 250 nurses.
Keith
Boat
news:11cmgm3...@news.supernews.com...
Seems to me that the photo was of the skin, still owned in whole by the
inkee; the tattoo just happened to be in the way. Any other interpretation
is bullsh*t. The arteest has no more claim on my likeness than my barber or
dermatologist.
Tony Parkinson
>
> I just heard this morning that another footballer (I've forgotten which)
has
> just been offered a transfer package incorporating a salary of 100,000 UK
> pounds per week. Am I alone in thinking this is bordering on the obscene?
>
> I think there's something deeply wrong with a society that values a
> footballer at around, say, 250 nurses.
>
Agreed
Neil Ellwood
>>>Wouldn't it depend on whether the tattoo was a creation of the
>>>tattooist, or was copied from a stencil?
> I suspect that if you were in Mr Beckham's income bracket you would expect
> an original!
>
> I just heard this morning that another footballer (I've forgotten which) has
> just been offered a transfer package incorporating a salary of 100,000 UK
> pounds per week. Am I alone in thinking this is bordering on the obscene?
>
> If you could negotiate all these footballers down to the sort of salaries
> that real people have to manage on (even really well paid real people) you'd
> probably have enough money left over to wipe out third world debt.
Not quite the full story, he refused it because it wasn't enough
(Liverpool United is a little put out).
>
> Keith
--
neil
delete delete to reply
bb451
(resale right) fore some kind of artistic works (mainly paintings) and
the artist received a percent of the following sales of his work. BTW,
I don’t think architects have copyright over the buildings........
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Actually some copyright laws regulate what is called droite de suit
>(resale right) fore some kind of artistic works (mainly paintings) and
> the artist received a percent of the following sales of his work.
Some claim a payment is due every month ... Anyone remember seeing
Alec Guinness in "The Horse's Mouth"?
ka...@sonic.net
No, but when I went to my building department for plans to my
house (for reference when making an addition), I was casually informed
that the architect held the copyright on the plans. i.e. i could not
use them to build a duplicate of the house without coming to some sort
of agreement with him.
ka...@sonic.net
<ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Art" <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ta%xe.15722$pa3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental
>> to the picture, it would be a fair use.
>
>No, it would not. Fair use is a complicated equitable doctrine, codified in
>the Copyright Act, that is a defense to infringement. This means that
>judges get to determine whether something is fair use or not. The statute
>specifices four primary factors that play a part of that determination, but
>none are dispositive, and the judge may consider all of them, some of them
>or none of them.
However the current **AA position is to hide everything behind
some weak-ass "encryption" so they can DMCA your ass if you bypass it
in order to exercise your presumed fair use rights.
ka...@sonic.net
Homburg) wrote:
>In article <_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com>,
>Sheldon <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you buy
>>a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on it?
>>
>>It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
>>body it's yours. Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the
>>person who got the tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to the
>>copyright on that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the new
>>hole in my head.
>
>So, if a writer sells you a copy of his book, you can't start selling your
>own copies of that book, but if a tattoo artist creates a work of art,
>he somehow deserves less protection than other artists?
Perhaps so. The author of a book did not write it expressly
for me. If a tattoo artist does an original design for me and if it
can be considerd a "work for hire", he has lost any interest in it.
Anyone here have a copy of a contract for tattooing work?
>
>My guess is that copyright law is clear in this case: if you buy a work of
>art you can't start selling reproductions of that piece of art without
>the permission of the artist. (subject to various excepts listed in the
>law).
>
>Disclaimer: IANAL.
ka...@sonic.net
wrote:
>
>"Sheldon" <she...@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>news:_fOdnRAM2KI...@comcast.com...
>> This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
>> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
>> on it?
>
>My guess is yes, because the artist might have made several hundred or
>thousand prints of the original, and be involved in selling those. But if
>you try to do the same thing, he can sue you for infringement of his
>copyright. IOW, if I was very wealthy, I could purchase the Mona Lisa, but I
>still couldn't make prints of it and sell them, just because I owned the
>original.
>
Are you concerned that Leonardo will rise from his grave to
sue you?
ka...@sonic.net
<De...@devce.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <1120418420.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>casioc...@gmail.com writes
>>
>>
>>If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
>>copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
>>pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
>>infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
>>get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>>take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>>
>
>Wouldn't it depend on whether the tattoo was a creation of the
>tattooist, or was copied from a stencil? The tattoo shops I have seen
>have hundreds of designs to choose from, and the 'artist' just copies
>the chosen one from the pattern.
All of which may be the tattoo artist's own original artwork.
You don't think they get them from a Dover book of copyright-free
clipart, do you?
ka...@sonic.net
Vote with your wallet -- only watch high school or college
games. If you keep paying the outrageous ticket prices, you're just
encouraging the behavior and prices will coontinue to rise. Maybe you
should just send the money you save to some third-world country and
direct that it be applied to paying down their debt.
FWIW, a recent PBS documentary on the Concorde mentioned that
it never in it's lifetime flew a profitable mile. It was just to
satisfy British and French national vanity. At one point, it was
mentioned that someone in management surveyed a number of passengers
to see what they had paid for their tickets. Since the payments were
all made by underlings or patrons, none of them knew, but all guessed
far above what had acually been paid. Management then felt free to
raise ticket prices to the estimated leveld. Not that it was
profitable anyway.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
ka...@sonic.net
<begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I would argue that absent an agreement to the contrary, when a tatoo artists
>creates a work of art on a body part he is providing a license to do
>anything you want with it. I can prove it.
Like hell.
> If you decide to have the tatoo
>removed do you think he can get an injunction to stop you? Obviously not.
Nor can a painter stop you from tossing his work into the
fire. But he can cerainly stop you from making copies and passing them
out.
By your logic, a tattoo artist could come after you for
wearing a shirt (or pants) over his creation.
Hmmm, would that make girls think twice before getting
needled?
Dave Martindale
> FWIW, a recent PBS documentary on the Concorde mentioned that
>it never in it's lifetime flew a profitable mile. It was just to
>satisfy British and French national vanity.
It all depends on how you do the accounting. I understand that at least
one of the Concorde's operators broke even on *operating* the Concorde.
It is only the development costs that will never be repaid.
For another example of this sort of accounting, look at the array of
dams and reservoirs in the USA that provides water to much of
California. The farms and other operations that use the water pay
something that's designed to support operating costs, but will never pay
back construction costs.
This doesn't make the British or French any different from other
countries.
Dave
Bill Funk
I seriously doubt that the Concorde can be put into the same "public
works" category that dams go in.
Such dams and reservoirs perform a public good, and are thus supported
by the public through taxes.
The Concorde only benefitted travellers who were in a hurry, or who
had connections.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
PTravel
<ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ol9cd19no1faub7rv...@4ax.com...
Fair use is not a "right" -- it's a defense to copyright infringement.
William Graham
<ka...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4bacd11skfs65foso...@4ax.com...
No, but a team of the Da Vinci family lawyers might.....
William Graham
"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote in message
news:jm3dd1drhllfqg7jm...@4ax.com...
these are too hard to estimate. This has been thrown up in my face many
times, because I was against the Apollo moon landing program of the 60's. I
thought it was a huge waste of taxpayers money, and the benefits would never
outweigh the costs, which were between 1 and 2 hundred Billion dollars. But
its proponents keep telling me that the advertising value (for the US in
general) made it worth the money.....
ian lincoln
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xKOdnSc2HvC...@comcast.com...
>> There are hidden benefits, such as advertising, however....Most of the
>> time
> these are too hard to estimate. This has been thrown up in my face many
> times, because I was against the Apollo moon landing program of the 60's.
> I thought it was a huge waste of taxpayers money, and the benefits would
> never outweigh the costs, which were between 1 and 2 hundred Billion
> dollars. But its proponents keep telling me that the advertising value
> (for the US in general) made it worth the money.....
You can thank satellite communication and hubble telescope for the space
race. (how do you think they get them up there?)
You can also thank the space race to wwII and the v rocket projects.
Its amazing how much technology accelerates during a war.
Lorem Ipsum
> No, but a team of the Da Vinci family lawyers might.....
It happens in various forms and I find it almost frightening. The author of
http://www.understandingduchamp.com/ was notified by a person who claimed he
was charged by Duchamp's family to protect the works of Marcel Duchamp. Of
course he wanted money for the images used on the site. When pressed with a
legal response, the person gracefully declined to pursue. In my most humble
opinion, if the site had been squashed, then a very fine piece of
scholarship would have been lost.
Lorem Ipsum
> There are hidden benefits, such as advertising, however....Most of the
> time these are too hard to estimate. This has been thrown up in my face
> many times, because I was against the Apollo moon landing program of the
> 60's. I thought it was a huge waste of taxpayers money, and the benefits
> would never outweigh the costs, which were between 1 and 2 hundred Billion
> dollars. But its proponents keep telling me that the advertising value
> (for the US in general) made it worth the money.....
Well, the program contributed to the effort to force the USSR to spend
itself into oblivion.
Steve
William Graham wrote:
> I was against the Apollo moon landing program of the 60's. I
> thought it was a huge waste of taxpayers money, and the benefits would never
> outweigh the costs, which were between 1 and 2 hundred Billion dollars. But
> its proponents keep telling me that the advertising value (for the US in
> general) made it worth the money.....
It certainly gave us some bragging rights, but I've never heard any claims that there
was any advertising value. What exactly would we be advertising anyway? We may still
be the world leaders in actually sending stuff into space, but how big is that
market? It may have briefly helped with promoting US technology in general, but lots
of other countries are advancing rapidly or have already passed us in most fields.
What I always heard was that the real gain from the space program was the other uses
of the technology that was developed. Communications is an obvious winner, since so
much of it is actually based on stuff we've put in space. How much we got from the
space program in general vs just for the moon landing is harder to sort out.
As for being paid back, anything that money is spent on has an economic benefit and
millions of people benefitted either directly or indirectly from the moon landing
program and many still benefit today. If the government had closed NASA and hired
5000 people to dig ditches and 2500 people to follow the ditch diggers and fill in
ditches there would also have been a tremendous benefit to the economy, even though
it's an example where there would clearly be no real work accomplished, nor any
ancillary benefits. Right off the bat the government would get perhaps 15 to 20% back
by taxing the wages, and other businesses would benefit as the remaining wages were
spent on all the stuff that employed people spend money on and their employees spent
money. As long as the money was spent in the US it would never really be wasted. To a
certain extent it's impossible for the government to actually waste money. They are,
however, extremely good at spending it inefficiently. Thanks to the many applications
of new technology I think the moon landing is probably towards the efficient end of
the spectrum.
--
Steve
The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
William Graham
"Lorem Ipsum" <Lo...@ipsum.xxx> wrote in message
costs on both sides. Perhaps this would discourage frivolous actions.
William Graham
"Lorem Ipsum" <Lo...@ipsum.xxx> wrote in message
is the fate of all governments who are, after all, spending the peoples
money.....they are all destined to spend themselves into oblivion......
William Graham
"Steve" <SPAMTRAP...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3MQBe.2407$Y54...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Your ditch digging analogy is a good one. that's what I used to say about
the Apollo program, when they talked, "spin off". I would say, "Why not do
something useful, and then you would actually accomplish something, as well
as enjoying your spin off?
I was not against the space program in general. Communications
satellites and the like are all good things. I was just against the manned
moon landings. We could have learned 90% as much as we did for 10% of the
money we spent, with robot landings. We were operating way past the peak of
the cost-benefit curve. There was an article in the old "Look" magazine
about this back in the 60's right after Kennedy made his, "We are going to
the moon" speech. The author outlined the ridiculousness of the project very
well. Just the fact that we have never gone back there is proof enough that
he was right......
Boat
> money we spent, with robot landings. We were operating way past the peak
> of the cost-benefit curve. There was an article in the old "Look" magazine
> about this back in the 60's right after Kennedy made his, "We are going to
> the moon" speech. The author outlined the ridiculousness of the project
> very well. Just the fact that we have never gone back there is proof
> enough that he was right......
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and
do
the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, ..."