Tattoo Artist Sues THQ for Copyright Infringement

[Callate]

One cannot copyright a technique.

This is where you helpfully fill in why a tattoo should be considered significantly different from a cosmetic alteration to make the comment relevant.

Good thing that literally nobody is saying otherwise.

...Except the person filing the lawsuit, who seems to be pretty explicitly stating by way of said lawsuit that the person who got their tattoo cannot license anyone else to make an accurate digital representation of themselves which by nature of that accuracy would include the tattoo.

Is such a licensing "not something you do with your body"? Because that doesn't seem like the kind of obvious point that warrants clobbering someone over the head and congratulating yourself over.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is where you helpfully fill in why a tattoo should be considered significantly different from a cosmetic alteration to make the comment relevant.

I made a statement about what is under law. Why should I delve into the realm of what "should" be, when you were simply asking what the surgeon's recourse would be?

I answered your question. If you want my opinion, the answer is "I don't really care. However, you asked about legal recourse, and I know what it is, so I answered."

...Except the person filing the lawsuit, who seems to be pretty explicitly stating by way of said lawsuit that the person who got their tattoo cannot license anyone else to make an accurate digital representation of themselves which by nature of that accuracy would include the tattoo.

"Seems to be" and "explicitly" both as qualifiers. You "seem to be" filling in blanks here, treating them like they're obvious, and then having a cow that someone disagrees because it's untrue at face value.

Is such a licensing "not something you do with your body"?

Your physical likeness doesn't inherently include tattoos. And honestly, this isn't without precedent. Games often drop trademarked logos from people's tats because of replication issues, whereas they can be displayed on live, commercial television without issue. This is the same thing from a copyright perspective.

"likeness," in most cases, does not count tattoos, I'm sorry to say.

Because that doesn't seem like the kind of obvious point that warrants clobbering someone over the head and congratulating yourself over.

I'm not even sure where you're going, there, but it seems rather presumptuous.

 

[Something Amyss]

My understanding is that this could be very damaging for the original artist. Once you fail to defend your copyright it makes it harder for the original artist to defend against further violation.

That's trademark and patent law, not copyright.

Just to clarify.

 

[Something Amyss]

...Really? COME ON legal system! It's not like THQ was actually aware they were committing copyright infringement, wringing their hands and laughing fiendishly while they forced the developers to include the damn tattoo.

THQ should, having a legal department the size of Jersey, be aware that we are an implicit copyright nation.

The tattoo artist already was compensated when the fighter paid him to draw what he wanted on him.

That doesn't remove his rights.

Is he suing the sponsors and this show he appears on etc, what about the networks that the fighting is shown on?

They're not recreating it. This is the same reason CM Punk or the Hurricane aren't sued every time they show up in Pro Wrasstlin.

This is why I don't totally buy that the artist does own the rights to the work to be honest. When you pay a tattoo artist for a tattoo, you are basically commissioning artwork from them.

Except a commission doesn't transfer copyright. So what you're saying is that, essentially, you don't buy their rights to their work because you don't understand how commissioning works?

If you commission physical art, the physical property is there to do with as you please. You can resell, trade, give or burn it if you wish. You do not get the right to reprint it, though.

You can commission something and either license the work or effectively buy the copyright, but neither of those are default.

 

[snekadid]

This can't fall under copyright law since that specifies that the artist owns part of the persons body because of the image and has rights to it for the existence of the tattoo

No, it actually doesn't. There is no issue, for example, with the tattoo showing up in televised matches.

what they're doing here is literally reproduce it.

God i wish you people would read the post before cutting it up to try and make your response not pathetic.

The tattoo is part of his IMAGE, a very well defined under the law property that belongs to the fighter and being part of his IMAGE is exempt from the artists copyright control due to willing placing it on him. The tattoo is not placed anywhere else, is not usable on other characters as a decal and is only ever used on the character that is the representation of the fighter that the tattoo is legally on. There is no case unless the artist is trying to say he owns another persons image rights and that will only lead to trouble for the artist.

 

[BaronIveagh]

God i wish you people would read the post before cutting it up to try and make your response not pathetic.

The tattoo is part of his IMAGE, a very well defined under the law property that belongs to the fighter and being part of his IMAGE is exempt from the artists copyright control due to willing placing it on him. The tattoo is not placed anywhere else, is not usable on other characters as a decal and is only ever used on the character that is the representation of the fighter that the tattoo is legally on. There is no case unless the artist is trying to say he owns another persons image rights and that will only lead to trouble for the artist.

I'd buy that except for the fact that companies like Disney have repeatedly won this case against people with tattoos of, say, Micky Mouse. They don't (usually) require you to get it removed, but they can require it be covered during paid performances/games/events, etc.

Further, there may be the issue of the terms of the contract between the fighter, and UFC, who licensed THQ their rights. THQ may have gone beyond the letter of the granted rights that UFC had acquired from the fighter. Or the tattoo artist may have had an agreement that the rights to the tat were nontransferable.

 

[Callate]

I made a statement about what is under law. Why should I delve into the realm of what "should" be, when you were simply asking what the surgeon's recourse would be?

...Unless I was drawing a rhetorical parallel to a similar situation to highlight the question of why such a thing should be permitted, rather than actually asking a literal question about legal recourse.

You made the assumption that I was delegating a question to a matter of your experience. I was not. And even on the matter of legalities, given that surgical techniques can be patented and the software used in surgery can be copyrighted (and possibly lead to questions of derivative works), it's not an irrelevant parallel.

"Seems to be" and "explicitly" both as qualifiers. You "seem to be" filling in blanks here, treating them like they're obvious, and then having a cow that someone disagrees because it's untrue at face value.

"Seems to be" and "explicitly" might also be regarded as an invitation to provide some basis for why how something appears is not the case.

Your physical likeness doesn't inherently include tattoos. And honestly, this isn't without precedent. Games often drop trademarked logos from people's tats because of replication issues, whereas they can be displayed on live, commercial television without issue. This is the same thing from a copyright perspective.

"likeness," in most cases, does not count tattoos, I'm sorry to say.

This is useful information. Thank you for providing it.

I'm not even sure where you're going, there, but it seems rather presumptuous.

Because from where I stand, your original response was unhelpfully curt, excessively hostile, needlessly dismissive, condescending, and, to borrow a phrase, "presumptuous".

Perhaps this was not your intention. There's certainly reason to consider that intentions on both sides were mis-read. When you write something like "no one is saying otherwise"- which, again, is not a statement without controversy- that comes across as hostile and dismissive, to the point where it becomes a genuine act of faith to actually manufacture a response rather than write your presence off as a net negative and hit the "ignore" button.

And because there seems to be some mis-communication going on here, let me be very, very blunt. That "intentions on both sides were misread" sentence? That's known as "offering an out"; it's considered a polite way people allow everyone to take a step back without losing face.

 

[snekadid]

God i wish you people would read the post before cutting it up to try and make your response not pathetic.

The tattoo is part of his IMAGE, a very well defined under the law property that belongs to the fighter and being part of his IMAGE is exempt from the artists copyright control due to willing placing it on him. The tattoo is not placed anywhere else, is not usable on other characters as a decal and is only ever used on the character that is the representation of the fighter that the tattoo is legally on. There is no case unless the artist is trying to say he owns another persons image rights and that will only lead to trouble for the artist.

I'd buy that except for the fact that companies like Disney have repeatedly won this case against people with tattoos of, say, Micky Mouse. They don't (usually) require you to get it removed, but they can require it be covered during paid performances/games/events, etc.

Further, there may be the issue of the terms of the contract between the fighter, and UFC, who licensed THQ their rights. THQ may have gone beyond the letter of the granted rights that UFC had acquired from the fighter. Or the tattoo artist may have had an agreement that the rights to the tat were nontransferable.

Except Disney did not tattoo or give permissions to have the image tattooed on those people and thus maintained their copyright in those cases, the artist did it willingly and himself, thus giving permissions and thus giving up all rights to the image as it relates to the persons image and likeness rights.

 

[Something Amyss]

The tattoo is part of his IMAGE, a very well defined under the law property that belongs to the fighter and being part of his IMAGE is exempt from the artists copyright control due to willing placing it on him.

Legally false, which you would understand if you would actually read what I said instead of accusations and name-calling.

 

[RJ 17]

Now this might be some faulty logic, but let me try to break this down.

A UFC fighter goes to a Tattoo Artist.

Said Fighter PAYS a Tattoo Artist for a tattoo.

If the UFC fighter paid for the tattoo, that means that he bought the tattoo, which conversely means that the artist sold the tattoo and thus no longer has any claim to its image at least as far as it applies to being on the fighter's body.

Seems to me that the tattoo artist has absolutely no grounds to stand on, seeing as how the fighter gave permission for his likeness to be used in the game, and that tattoo - having been sold to him by the artist - is part of his likeness.

 

[Something Amyss]

You made the assumption that I was delegating a question to a matter of your experience.

I took your statement at face value because intent is not always obvious on the internet. Instead of correcting me, you decided to snark and score points, and now you seek to lecture me.

A simpler resolution would have been:
Me: There's no legal recourse there.
You: I'm aware of this; what is your opinion on the matter?
Me: I have none.
You: Okay, then.

Nice and civil, even.

"Seems to be" and "explicitly" might also be regarded as an invitation to provide some basis for why how something appears is not the case.

Or, it could be perceived as what Wikipedia calls "weasel words."

Because from where I stand, your original response was unhelpfully curt, excessively hostile, needlessly dismissive, condescending, and, to borrow a phrase, "presumptuous".

Stating a fact is hostile? Come now.

which, again, is not a statement without controversy

Not if you are aware of the legal standings here. Something you claim to be. If you are aware of how things work, you wouldn't attempt to portray this as controversial at all. You appear to be deliberately comflating multiple issues, and it reads as disingenuous. However, all I did was highlight another fact: nobody is actually fighting for control of his body. This is a separate instance.

it's considered a polite way people allow everyone to take a step back without losing face.

While being hostile, it doesn't work that way. For example, you don't call someone a dickhead and offer them an "out" to "save face" in the same breath. It's disingenuous and even kind of rude to put the burden on them like that.

In any case, I'm not about saving face. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The problem is, you seem to have mistaken your failur to understand the case with me being mean to you. But even as you were offering me an out to "save face," you were defending the point that I was "clobbering someone over the head and congratulating [myself] over."

If you want to "ignore" me, then by all means. I honestly did not stop to consider your feelings when pointing out the facts at hand. Other people have offered valid counterpoints in this argument, whether I agree with them or not. Disney winning suits against Mickey Mouse tattoos isn't so much a legal victory as a "we will ruin you if this goes to court" sort of thing that large companies can get away with because they piss away more before breakfast than you make in a year, and can afford to starve you out. It also falls under Trademark laws.

You, instead, have sought to chastise me for using bold text to emphasise something in basically the way bold text is used to empahsise something.

I hold no ill will, but if your responses are to continue down this road, perhaps you should ignore me.

If you have any valid conversation on any further point, I look forward to such discourse.

 

[BaronIveagh]

Except Disney did not tattoo or give permissions to have the image tattooed on those people and thus maintained their copyright in those cases, the artist did it willingly and himself, thus giving permissions and thus giving up all rights to the image as it relates to the persons image and likeness rights.

You can't actually give up all legal rights to an image. There are a slew of non-transferable rights that are held by the artist in perpetuity. (Most particularly 'Moral Rights')

Further, we don't know that the artist did it willingly and himself. Try and follow me here: lets say tattoo artist A rips off tattoo artist B's design and puts it on Fighter X. Fighter X isn't really guilty of anything, but Fighting Event Company is putting that design on TV. Odds are, when approached, they settle out of court, but in the mean time have sold the rights to Game Company Z that has made a game with that tat in it.

 

[Callate]

snip

And you seem to have misunderstood that the vast majority of people chiming in on this issue are saying that, in as much as the law has permitted this case to go forward, the law has failed. Presuming to lecture people on the specifics of the law is not a productive response to that sentiment. If you had sought to use your knowledge either to explain why there are positive aspects to the law as it stands, or how the law is changing and evolving in respect to digital issues in the modern courtroom, or any number of other approaches, it might have been more constructive.

Because the article regards a lawsuit, it's easy to understand why structuring responses solely as regards the letter of the law would seem intuitively correct. Because the forum responses have largely not been about the specifics of the law, but about the sense that the legal claim seems egregious regardless of the question of its legality, that response comes across as tone-deaf. It's like interjecting about the strategies of Gettysburg into a discussion centering on the cultural rifts brought about by losses during the Civil War.

Ah, well. I'm sure my presuming to lecture you on tone is about as welcome as your presuming to lecture everyone else on law. At any rate, I hope that your knowledge can be more illuminating on another subject, without provoking ire from those you respond to, and that any response I might make in turn will be less frustrating to you in the future.

Good day, sir.

 

[Something Amyss]

And you seem to have misunderstood that the vast majority of people chiming in on this issue are saying that, in as much as the law has permitted this case to go forward, the law has failed.

The vast majority here do not understand the law or how it works. As such, you are completely wrong.

Sorry.