Commercial Photography & Models With Tattoo's

[KmH]

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

the article is public domain it's everywhere lol

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

 

[john.margetts]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[donny1963]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KmH]

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

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

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

 

[donny1963]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[table1349]

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

 

[smoke665]

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

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

 

[smoke665]

Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court.

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

 

[table1349]

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

 

[donny1963]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[table1349]

This.

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

 

[Designer]

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

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

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

 

[limr]

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

 

[Designer]

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

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

However;

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

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

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

 

[Mashburn]

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

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

Sent from my XT1650 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app