Even if you don't monetize the video, you are still using that material without compensating the original owners, which is still copyright infringement. Some songs are PD, some allow use, there are creative commons, others are like rabid bulldogs about anyone using their music. I was wondering how some court cases sampling got a free pass and others they had to pay. The law is the same, but the decisions are in different cases and districts.
Back to art and tattoos. The catch is, used without permission from the original creator of the image. Making things more complex, if I shoot a photo of someone and they have a tattoo, the artist might want to sue me for using his tattoo art, for gain, without permission. Seems kind of silly, because the person who paid for the art, now owns it and it's on their body. I suppose someone would need to make some contracts that say, the rights and all ownership has been transferred to the person who hired the artist.
Canada:
Artists to cash in when work is resold with update of copyright laws.
"Under reforms of copyright law, being drafted by Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne and Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, artists would get a “resale right” giving them a royalty during the term of copyright, according to Champagne’s office.
Artists complain that they now get nothing if paintings and sculptures increase in value dramatically."
Do the artists give back money if the work goes down in value? Term of copyright is life plus 50 years or life plus 75 years depending on when. So in effect, the artist gets to try to take a nibble from any profits, for as long as they live, and possibly their estate can as well.
We already have newer laws in the US and around the world, that when you buy a work of art, you don't own the reproduction rights anymore. Unless of course you pay for that. So I buy a painting and I can't use it for scenery in a home for sale brochure. I can't make prints or shirts or mugs or...
So the lawyers get to have all the fun and the tattoo artist will now be sued for using a copyrighted image. He could lose and have to pay damages or could get found not guilty for making a transformative version? The usual number for infringing on a work of art, starts at $250,000 so the original artist, is going to need to have deep pockets to sue in the first place.
I'll say that if I find someone infringing on something I shot, I can't afford to try to get a reward for their theft. There could be lawyers who might take a case on a contingency basis, but they will want something they believe is profitable, and they can win. Lets say I get a judgement for $250,000 against someone and they don't have much income. Good luck collecting, I'd still get nothing and it would cost me a bunch of money.
This isn't easy or simple.
