Copyright is defined as a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" that gives them the exclusive rights to the distribution of their work, up to seventy years after death. Tattoos can be considered an artistic work created by an author and therefore it is possible that tattoos can be copyrighted. This means that a dupilcation of a tattoo of the same design by a different artist can turn into a court case over copyright infringement.
In a case over copyright infringement, the defendant can pay up to $100,000 if the court considers the infringement to be willful; but the usual range of these cases are between $750 and $30,000. The registration fee is a mere $30 and is necessary only when suing for statutory damages. If the infringement is not willful the infringer can still be sued, but it would be a fine of around $200, not enough to cover any attorney or lawyer fees. This means that a tattoo artist could have accepted a drawing from a customer, not knowing the customer got the idea from another tattoo, if the works are substantially similar it would be enough to sue. A case without an officially registered work can still be upheld in court, but it would not be for money, just the protection against future infringement. In theory, the court could order for the tattoo to be removed, but that is unlikely.
Most tattoo artists are outraged at the idea of interference by lawyers, the tattoo world can be described as self-contained. They follow unwritten ethics that come with being a notable artist, those who cheat off of the creativity of others will lose their business through a bad reputation, not a lawsuit. There are some that feel that their work must be protected. For example, in the case Gonzales vs. Kid Zone in 2001, Gonzales sued Kid Zone for copyright infringement. Kid Zone sold stick-on temporary tattoos and argued that he could not copyright items like flags and eagles. However the court sided with Gonzales not because of the actual items depicted in the designs, but the similar angles and patterns within them; Gonzales won $3,000 in this case.
Is this right, should tattoos become copyrighted as a protection of the artist? I think that these cases will end up being more trouble than they are worth. Tattoos are symbolic of creativity as well as freedom, not a stamp or brand of an artist on someone's skin.
-poprox
In a case over copyright infringement, the defendant can pay up to $100,000 if the court considers the infringement to be willful; but the usual range of these cases are between $750 and $30,000. The registration fee is a mere $30 and is necessary only when suing for statutory damages. If the infringement is not willful the infringer can still be sued, but it would be a fine of around $200, not enough to cover any attorney or lawyer fees. This means that a tattoo artist could have accepted a drawing from a customer, not knowing the customer got the idea from another tattoo, if the works are substantially similar it would be enough to sue. A case without an officially registered work can still be upheld in court, but it would not be for money, just the protection against future infringement. In theory, the court could order for the tattoo to be removed, but that is unlikely.
Most tattoo artists are outraged at the idea of interference by lawyers, the tattoo world can be described as self-contained. They follow unwritten ethics that come with being a notable artist, those who cheat off of the creativity of others will lose their business through a bad reputation, not a lawsuit. There are some that feel that their work must be protected. For example, in the case Gonzales vs. Kid Zone in 2001, Gonzales sued Kid Zone for copyright infringement. Kid Zone sold stick-on temporary tattoos and argued that he could not copyright items like flags and eagles. However the court sided with Gonzales not because of the actual items depicted in the designs, but the similar angles and patterns within them; Gonzales won $3,000 in this case.
Is this right, should tattoos become copyrighted as a protection of the artist? I think that these cases will end up being more trouble than they are worth. Tattoos are symbolic of creativity as well as freedom, not a stamp or brand of an artist on someone's skin.
-poprox
5 comments:
I agree. The majority of people who get tatoos tend to use images that they are familier with (ex: the flag, a cartoon heart). If people were sued everytime a tatoo was based off of a picture created by someone else, the cases could be infinate.
oh yea. Trying to copyright tattoos is like telling a fish not to swim.
A Tattoo is just another way to express yourself....I don't think someone should be prosecuted against because they are trying to show their individualism....I mean, it's like trying to say that my favorite color is lemony-lime, and a lawyer comes by and says that that color is owned by Sprite...or something.
A tattoo is like free advertising, if I were a company or owned a well known brand name I wouldn't be complaining. If people wanted to permanently mark themselves with with my emblem, more power to them.
I definitely agree with the comments that have been posted. It is ridiculous to place a copyright on a tatoo design. As pixistix already stated, most tatoos tend to follow well known images.
Post a Comment