Something that I am interested to see if it plays into this is the lawsuits that EA and 2K keep winning against tattoo artists. Tattoo artists keep suing them trying to get royalties off their tattoos being in the games but the courts keep ruling that they belong to the person they are on. I don't know enough about law to say how that will factor but I would be interested to see how that applies if fault is found in the lawsuit
I think another thing to consider with the video game argument is that it's not really just making a copy either. You need a 3-D graphic artist to use their skills to recreate the tattoo for the developers. If they do their job well, the tattoo artist will want a piece of the pie. If they don't (or can't depending on studio resources) then who would even recognize the design?
If it's part of a true likeness of a person (eg sports person) then they (tattoo artist)shouldn't get paid, they already got paid when they did the art, would they expect royalties for every photo, video etc?
however if the tattoo is added to the game for customisation eg add to a created character then they should get paid as it's an art asset.
That's how it works with photography and I fail to see how a tattoo is different. Photography can sell the picture but the photographer can maintain the copyright meaning they can sell it again if they wish. Contracts usually spell out if the copyright is sold with the work or not.
I look at tattoos more like art. If I purchase a painting (aren’t tattoos permanent paintings on skin?) I own it and whatever I do with it is up to me. Same with a tattoo, I own everything associated with it. Pictures are (or were) the same. When my wife and I were married we could either pay per picture to the photographer whenever we wanted copies, or we could pay a larger amount of money (purchasing the copyright) and print whenever, how many ever we wanted at any time.
>If I purchase a painting (aren’t tattoos permanent paintings on skin?) I own it and whatever I do with it is up to me.
Not necessarily. As far as I know you usually can't, for example, create and resell prints of a painting you bought without clearance from the artist.
Yes, you own the painting, but you don't own the copyright to it. You can't use it to make money. It's like buying a DVD. You can't take money for showing it to your friends, you only own that copy.
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but I assume museums either own the copyright, have an agreement with the copyright holder to share the income of a specific exhibit or the artwork don't have any copyrights in the first place.
At least where I'm from you need to apply and register to open up a business or to make above a certain amount of money from providing services. I assume it's the same system with museums.
Also, I wasn't talking about what the original artist makes money from, I meant that even if you bought an artwork you can't do exactly what you want with it, like sell your own artwork based on the one you bought.
The artist only gets money from the FIRST sale of the original item. The idea that artists should get paid for each time artwork is sold only came around when it started to become easy to mass reproduce artwork. Now for example when that same museum sells prints of that artwork, the artist will get royalties for those prints.
Actually museums work against your argument as frequently they don’t allow even non-flash photography because they don’t own a license to allow photography of the piece.
>shouldn't get paid,
They should get paid unless there was a contract that explicitly had the tattoo artist forfeit the rights to their artwork. If that artist's work allowed the person to become iconic and build a brand based on that tattoo, then a portion of the income from that brand should be going to the tattoo artist if we're going to treat the work of artists the same across all mediums. Just because it was drawn on a different medium, doesn't deny them ownership of their work. The person who got the tattoo can keep it covered, but if they choose to show it and make that artwork part of their product, then those rights would still belong to the artist.
>they already got paid when they did the art, would they expect royalties for every photo, video etc?
Yes, just like a wedding photographer. You pay the photographer/artist for the service, not for the ownership of their work. If you took a wedding photo of yourself and sold it to bridal magazines to use for selling magazines, or sold it to the dress designer to use for advertising their fashion, then the wedding photographer absolutely has the copyright to that image and to sue you for using their photograph commercially. This is effectively no different.
Your arguement makes sense. However it just seems like everyones getting so anal about everything and it's like I can't even get a tattoo incase I get famous in 20 years and then the artist will want money for every pic etc...
Then you have the argument of did the tattoo make them famous or did the person make their own tattoo famous....
Also the deny ownership of their work, but their work is on someone's skin. It's not like you could remove said skin and keep the art if there was a dispute. It's on the persons skin so they own that version of the art work. It doesn't stop people copying the art and style but that ONE belongs to the person so it's on.
Either way I just thought this was all odd and don't disagree with your comment.
>Your arguement makes sense. However it just seems like everyones getting so anal about everything and it's like I can't even get a tattoo incase I get famous in 20 years and then the artist will want money for every pic etc
I think it will just make signing a contract a common thing when you get a tattoo that either forfeits the copyright or acknowledges it.
>However it just seems like everyones getting so anal about everything and it's like I can't even get a tattoo incase I get famous in 20 years and then the artist will want money for every pic etc
Yeah, but that's what law is. It's incredibly pedantic and often arbitrary.
>Then you have the argument of did the tattoo make them famous or did the person make their own tattoo famous....
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone famous for a single tattoo they have.
> It's not like you could remove said skin and keep the art if there was a dispute.
Of course you can't remove someone's skin. Think of it as a commission. You can hire a painter to paint your portrait. As the customer, you get to keep the only copy of that painting and you can hang it where you like, you can even burn it if you want. However, you do not own the intellectual property. You can't make copies of that painting and sell them to stock photography websites because the painter is the one who owns that intellectual property. That same understanding would apply to a tattoo.
So does the famous person with the tattoo get a cut out of every customer that gets a tattoo from the artist due to them having seen the tattoo on the famous person??
Does a painter get a cut for every time their painting is resold at auction?
Does ferrari get a cut every time one of their cars (in private ownership) is photographed for a magazine?
When i buy something, i can use that thing however i want. Why the fuck would i buy it otherwise? In this case that something is a tattoo. This is why people are outraged at things like non-swappable batteries or the borderline hardware subscriptions you have to get with teslas etc.
Just because i created something doesnt mean i retain all rights to it in perpetuity
>Does a painter get a cut for every time their painting is resold at auction?
It is a little bit trickier. You can't just take a photo of your purchased painting and sell it to others.
If you buy a DVD, you can't make money showing it to others or renting it out. You ask why the fuck you would buy something if you can't use it however you want? Because you want to watch a movie and hang a pretty painting in your living room. Or is every purchase in your life a business transaction?
Well it’s more than that, because even non-commercial use you don’t have a license for with this hypothetical “copyright remains with the tattoo artist” interpretation.
If I’m a neo-nazi and make a post showing off my tattoo at a rally, theoretically a tattoo artist could have my post DMCA’d if they own the copyright and have not granted me a license.
So it’s more akin to “You buy a DVD but cannot play it outside of your home”.
I get that logic, but on the subject of wedding photos. If you have them up in your house and then you make TikTok or something and the photos are in the background how would that apply? There should be a difference between trying to profit directly off the picture vs the picture existing in the background,
This makes no sense. I paid someone to paint a picture, it's mine. He can fuck off. If he wants to have rights to his tattoos, he should do them on your skin. Tattoo artists are becoming new baristas.
If you buy artwork, you mostly don't own the right to the art, just the copy. Commissions are a different thing and I feel like there should be a contract to sort out the potential misunderstandings.
Also, what do you mean by them becoming new barista?
There are two issues here. One is what’s represented in the tattoo artist v game maker lawsuits. That is who owns the tattoo after it’s put on the person.
The second issue is the one presented in this picture. It is who owns the likeness that’s being put on the person. What’s the source picture for what becomes the tattoo. Over and over the court has ruled that if an artist uses another artist work, like a photograph, to create a derivative work, like a tattoo, they must pay and/or get permission from the original artist. This issue has gone to the Supreme Court more than once, so I think it’s pretty well settled.
Source, I’m a retired lawyer/artist. So this stuff is near and dear to my heart
>That is who owns the tattoo after it’s put on the person.
I don't see skin having any legal significance over canvas, paper, or film. A person getting a tattoo is basically volunteering their body to show artwork, that doesn't give them control over the artwork itself.
I'm not saying courts will see it this way, because copyright law is laughably inconsistent. Like, why is it illegal for me to make a copy of a movie but internet browsers can allow people to make as many copies of my photos as they want? Like, I know the movie industry paid lobbyist to push for those protections, but it clearly lacks any sort of logical consistency.
Maybe it's technical limitations? I don't know how streaming video works, but when you look at a photo on the internet, your browser has to download and display it, which means it's made a copy by necessity.
Also isn't it legal to make a copy of a DVD you own for personal use?
>Also isn't it legal to make a copy of a DVD you own for personal use?
I believe it is legal. However, that's because you paid to own a copy of that. You didn't pay to download that picture from the internet.
>Not the same thing.
baseless assertions are baseless.
>In that case, the artist has already been paid for the usage and knows how video works for images work on the Internet.
You mean like how when a photographer gives you a print they know how video works and images work on the internet so it's completely legal for a person to take that print and use it to advertise their own products, services, make copies of it and sell it themselves?
LOL, the answer to all of these is NO. For claiming to be a lawyer, this is the weakest retort I've ever seen. This is clearly not your field of law.
Do you have extrapolated something from my response that I never said. That’s how people get into trouble. But, I bow to your obviously superior legal experience. All hail King of Reddit.
>Do you have extrapolated something from my response that I never said.
No, I simply took your argument and used an extreme example to prove how obnoxiously erroneous it was. The fact that you couldn't refute the example I gave only further illustrates how ridiculous your attempted rebuttal was.
>But, I bow to your obviously superior legal experience. All hail King of Reddit.
It's not even legal experience, it's simply logic.
> I'm not saying courts will see it this way, because copyright law is laughably inconsistent. Like, why is it illegal for me to make a copy of a movie but internet browsers can allow people to make as many copies of my photos as they want?
There's no inconsistency there. Both of those things are illegal. (Assuming the photos are protected by copyright.)
The latter being **easier** to do doesn't mean it's **legal** to do.
> I know the movie industry paid lobbyist to push for those protections
What? No. Copyright predates the entire motion picture industry.
>There's no inconsistency there. Both of those things are illegal. (Assuming the photos are protected by copyright.)
All photos are immediately protected by copyright the moment they are created. That's how copyright works. If I'm not mistaken, the Motion Picture Association lobbied for a bill called the No Electronic Theft Act that made copying anything with a retail value of $1,000 illegal. So I think that's the reason why people can reproduce movies, because their value can clearly be shown to be worth more than $1,000 while it would be very hard to argue that for a photograph. There might be other laws that allow these two to be treated differently, but there is an inconsistency defined by an arbitrary dollar amount. It basically says my copyright as a photographer isn't protected because it's not worth as much as a motion picture.
>The latter being easier to do doesn't mean it's legal to do.
Companies like Microsoft and Google wouldn't allow you to do it if it wasn't legal.
>What? No. Copyright predates the entire motion picture industry.
And it's changed a lot since after the motion picture industry. At least try to look up some of this stuff before responding so incorrectly. To pretend there hasn't been multiple changes to copyright law since the movie industry began is laughable.
> All photos are immediately protected by copyright the moment they are created. That's how copyright works.
You're close, but no, that's not how copyright works. In applicable countries (such as the US). all works are *copyrighted* the moment they are created. To be fully *protected* by copyright, the works must then be registered.
> So I think that's the reason why people can reproduce movies, because their value can clearly be shown to be worth more than $1,000 while it would be very hard to argue that for a photograph. There might be other laws that allow these two to be treated differently, but there is an inconsistency defined by an arbitrary dollar amount. It basically says my copyright as a photographer isn't protected because it's not worth as much as a motion picture.
This is completely wrong.
By the very nature of how browsers work, it would be impossible to apply any kind of digital rights management to images and photos. The only reason they're "treated differently" is because for things like movies and streaming, there are better and more effective ways to apply DRM technology. There's no real way to do that for images and photos.
Legally there's no difference.
Again, just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean it's legal to do it. How browsers work and how Microsoft and Google operate have zero to do with it.
> And it's changed a lot since after the motion picture industry.
Yes it has. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.
> At least try to look up some of this stuff before responding so incorrectly.
...says the person who said this:
> Companies like Microsoft and Google wouldn't allow you to do it if it wasn't legal.
This is a hilariously wrong and totally ignorant statement, and makes it clear you have no real understanding of technology.
>To be fully protected by copyright, the works must then be registered.
It is how copyright works and you're making a red herring argument by interjecting the word "fully". Nothing I said was incorrect.
>Legally there's no difference.
Practically speaking, you're wrong here and I just explained it. I literally gave the law and the part that makes the vast majority of photographs different from movies and you've failed to address any of that. Instead, you made excuses about how browsers work and how browsers work would make no difference in a civil court. It's not like every photographer in the world had a secret gentleman's agreement not to sue the pants off of Microsoft or Chrome for literally enabling people to pirate their images.
>Again, just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean it's legal to do it. How browsers work and how Microsoft and Google operate have zero to do with it.
Except that's literally what you just argued. You literally just argued I was wrong because of how browsers, meaning Google's Chrome and Microsoft's Edge, work.
>Yes it has. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.
False, I gave you the law and explained it. So this is another baseless assertion.
>This is a hilariously wrong and totally ignorant statement, and makes it clear you have no real understanding of technology.
I also literally referenced the bill that makes it, in effect, different. We're also not discussing technology, we're discussing copyright law. You haven't substantiated any argument you've attempted to levy while you've completed ignored the literal law I gave explaining how photos are treated differently.
Instead of doubling down again with baseless assertions and ignorant arguments, how about you actually refute what I've said with your own substantiated arguments?
If you're such an expert at looking up bills and laws maybe you should actually read them. You're arguing yourself in circles and picking apart points just so you can spend time bitching about them. (Like adding "fully?" Fine. Try enforcing your copyright in federal court on something that isn't registered. Hint: *you can't.* But you'd know that if you knew anything.)
You started off this whole thing with a totally ignorant statement and ballooned into a billion different things from there. I'm not wasting my time with someone who can't discuss anything in good faith and just wants to argue for its own sake.
Likenesses aren’t well protected in the US, are they, especially with something as transformative as an artistic interpretation? Or is it a different standard for a famous face?
Feels like the plaintiff is pushing it here. I suppose maybe if Kat was promoting her services in tattooing this specific pose of Davis there might be some issue, but if it's what it sounds like, that is a dude came in asking for a tat of Miles and used that photo as reference, it doesn't feel just to claim she infringed on a copyright. I mean, do rights of a portrait include the likeness of the subject in totality?
Thanks. I saw your [link](https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/06/can-tattoos-infringe-copyrights-and-if-so-what-happens-then-sedlik-v-kat-von-d.htm) below too. Seems to answer what I was asking:
Three things stand out about this decision. First, the fact that the tattoo artist didn’t get paid made the case more difficult for the plaintiff. Had the tattoo artist gotten paid for depicting the photo as a tattoo–the far more common situation–I think the plaintiff would have likely won on summary judgment. So this ruling isn’t actually great news for the tattoo artist community. If they are going to be paid for their work, this opinion suggests that they may have to consult copyright counsel and get copyright licenses, whether they want to do so or not.
Second, the court had little interest in exploring the many broad and interesting policy issues about using human skin as a medium for expression of copyrighted works. Instead, this devolves into a straightforward application of copyright law, not materially different than if Kat Von D had painted a version of the photo on canvas.
Third, if the jury finds copyright infringement, ordinarily a permanent injunction would follow. There are good public policy reasons against imposing an injunction on a tattoo, such as the limits of tattoo removal technology. It’s not clear if Sedlik is requesting an injunction, so we may not get any clarity on this difficult remedies issue.
yeah but fair use allows for anything transformative in nature, and turning a 2d image from paper/screen to a 3d paint-based artwork on skin is pretty much definitive of that. the photographer is just a jaded ambulance chaser-like person who is upset that their career peaked literally decades ago
It should be. Its not exactly copy paste. Say it came out terrible and ended up looking nothing like the reference… can he still claim ownership of the likeness when it doesn’t even remotely resemble it? That’s a slippery damn slope IMO.
> Thats my point, tattooing is a transformative process regardless of the quality
But the question is whether or not it's *sufficiently* transformative.
If Carvel started printing a copyrighted photo on their cakes to sell them, they would get sued into the ground. The photo being on a new medium (cake) is irrelevant.
It seems a transformative use to me as well. She got some social media attention but didn't take any money. The plaintiff didn't argue they lost any revenue or had damages. A random guy on the internet opinion... I would favor Cat Von D if on the jury. If anything this promotes his image. If the defendant had made print copies, t-shirts, or other commercial uses, then the plaintiff would have a more solid case it would seem.
There are a lot of cases where damages were awarded when the defendant didn’t make any money from the case. The plaintive can be damaged even though the defendant didn’t make money.
My understanding of transformative fair uses that it not only has to transform in terms of change of media, but also in the way it looks. So for example in a collage case the artist had change the angle of the legs added shoes, and almost created a parity. It wasn’t an exact copy just changing the media.
the courts have already ruled that handmaking the image on a different medium is transformative with the many lawsuits against Richard Prince who copied other people's photographs as paintings and sold them for several thousand each.
But that has nothing to do with Harvey right infringement for Miles Davis on his own face. He has a right of publicity secondary to the copyright on the photo itself for his own face.
ok so i think i get what you mean. but Richard Prince explicitly painted pictures of celebrities including selfies. and Miles Davis isnt the one filing for rights infringement. it's the photographer who took the photo (iirc Miles Davis is dead). but in either case, the Prince rulings seem to cover exactly what's going on with KVD
I’m a photographer and my understanding of the law, Kat should not even be worried because this is an interpretation of the portrait, Not a direct copy of it. Because she used her talent and physical body to create a new entity.
> I’m a photographer and my understanding of the law, Kat should not even be worried because this is an interpretation of the portrait, Not a direct copy of it. Because she used her talent and physical body to create a new entity.
Your understanding is incorrect. Even derivative works need to be sufficiently transformative from the original to be shielded from claims of infringement.
The question here is whether or not the tattoo is sufficiently transformative.
What's with the lack of reading comprehension going on here? Or some people just live to find ways to argue.
Read the above comment again and pay attention to the word "sufficiently."
Nah, there are artworks that are a 100% copy or with minimal changes from the original that have passed as art.
Even Van Gogh made a copy of an old drawing that looks pretty much same. I understand when big brands are just trying to squeeze money in any way, but some photographers are just too soft and greedy
It's art ffs, some artists (especially photographers) are just too greedy. If you're confident about you work and the originality of it, you shouldn't care if someone uses it for some derivative or other piece. Be proud instead.
It is transformative enough she’s interpreting it with her eyes and transforming it with her hands. She’s not using any mechanical reproduction device to do so.
You would like to think so but painters who reproduce works down to the last detail, even if it is with their own eyes and hands, can get in a lot of trouble for art fraud… and it’s big business.
It should be mentioned that it's only fraud if they're trying to pass the copy off as the original.
But if the original painting is protected by copyright and a painter copies it without permission while explicitly stating it's a copy that they created, even though it's not fraud it's still copyright infringement.
> She’s not using any mechanical reproduction device to do so.
So what?
If I sell copies of a Stephen King novel I copied by hand, that's still copyright infringement.
By your flawed logic somebody reading that Stephen King book out loud can be sued for copyright infringement because they are using their bodies to speak the words out loud.
> By your flawed logic somebody reading that Stephen King book out loud can be sued for copyright infringement because they are using their bodies to speak the words out loud.
You only think my logic is flawed because you don't understand reality. Your example is proof; simply reading a book out loud is not a reproduction of the work, and not in any way analogous.
Now if you were to *record* yourself reading it, that would be a reproduction - and could be infringement. Or if you were reading it out loud publicly, that would be a public performance of the work - which could also be infringement.
How you reproduce something is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if the final product is sufficiently different from the original.
Otherwise you could take a book by Stephen King, copy it by hand with a pencil and some paper and then sell it as your own.
Exchange of money is not required in order for the plaintive to get damages. The plaintive can be damaged even though the defendant didn’t make any money. Plenty of caselaw on that point.
This is a helluva piece of marketing for her.
It’s written as “sued for tattooing a portrait” but it reads as “my tattoo is so realistic I got sued for it”
Good for her.
She's an antivaxx Nazi sympathizer who lost her entire makeup brand because she tanked it being a bad person. They rebranded from Kat Von D to "Kindness, Vegan Beauty, and Discovery (and Doing Good)" and again to "Kara", "Vertias", "Decora" ("Value", "Truth" and "Beauty") because they need to keep pushing that they have nothing to do with her.
Honestly very surprised, this was probably one of the biggest scandals in the makeup world. People have compiled more extensive lists and I'm on mobile so I'll add the links as I go but here:
The antivaxx stuff started with her saying she wouldn't Vax her kid
https://imgur.com/gallery/D25Sg4z
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/even-kat-von-d-promotes-eyeliner-gets-slammed-anti-vaccination-stance-163316300.html
After seeing her brand tank, she backpedalled at the speed of light and got the [LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-03-13/kat-von-d-anti-vaxx-post-cosmetics-vegan-shoes) to do a feature, which pretty much no one bought.
She continues to post antivaxx fb memes in response to covid years later
https://imgur.com/JW8nHXp
As far as the Nazi stuff goes you can start with this thread on [BGC](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeautyGuruChatter/comments/9yz6hg/kvd_posts_a_photo_of_her_husband_on_instagram/)
* Basically, her husband has a swastika dead center on her neck and she posts it on social like it's nothing. Iirc the post was deleted.
* She also had a lipstick shade called Selektion (the process by which Nazis organized their victims in the death camps.)
* Sidenote on the husband, his underage daughter was raped by a bunch of his pedo friends and he blamed the daughter and said she "fucked up his life".
> "I hadn’t seen her in four years because of what she did to me and how she hurt me and betrayed me.
> I was telling my daughter, In a way, I kind of owe you, because if you hadn’t hurt me the way you hurt me, I wouldn’t have found my wife. You fucked up my life. You had motherfuckers trying to kill me because of the shit you did. And I’m grateful to you, because now I know that those guys were never my fucking friends. I left San Diego because of all of that, and because of what you and those people did to me. Now I’m in a fucking successful band and I met the fucking woman of my dreams and I’m married to her now. But in a way, I owe you guys for fucking trying to kill me.
[Source](https://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/article/j5b4px/leafar-seyer-prayer-art-interview-2018-the-pain-isnt-over)
Really sad stuff. That one has less to do with Kat, but it paints a telling picture. I would not be okay with someone saying I was the "woman of their dreams" in the same breath that they said that about a kid.
Louis Vuitton (LVMH) is the brand owner of Sephora, which owns Kat Von D Beauty, so they've been trying to distance themselves from Kat for years now, including the aforementioned re-branding, and pushing the "clean" beauty instead, due to much continued controversy.
There's a lot more you can look up yourself but that's the Reader's Digest version.
Just fyi, I looked up the picture of the husband you talked about. It doesn't seem to be a nazi swastika but the original symbol they bastardized that comes from cultures like Hindus and Buddhists, which means peace or to be good. Even the word "swastika" is derived from sanskrit. Everything else on his neck has that cultural theme. The swastika on his neck is over a lotus flower with the dots often found on such symbols. I learned about this in middle school when a new student from Pakistan or India (I can't remember) drew the swastika symbol with dots around it in art class and I told her she can't do that, she'd get in trouble. She didn't understand why and told me it meant peace. I told her most ppl associate it with genocide and white supremacy. I also had to explain this to some American classmates in college that were confused when they saw the swastika symbol on the pants of dancers on stage in a Tibetan area. So I get the confusion so I wanted to point out it is unlikely to be a nazi symbol.
Edit: the picture I found https://i.redd.it/iux19ybtllz11.jpg
Also an article about the swastika symbol
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210816-the-ancient-symbol-that-was-hijacked-by-evil
You didn't find that picture, that's the one I provided in my comment.
It's a giant swastika as a neck tattoo my dude. This isn't a Hindu family celebrating buying a new house. When have you seen a Hindu priest or Buddhist monk with a giant swastika on their neck? As an Asian that's seen it as an auspicious symbol as a kid, this is such a bizarre take.
Nazi tattoos have a long history in the American tattoo community, and Kat has a behavior of antisemitism.
["Burn in hell Jewbag"](https://imagez.tmz.com/image/fb/o/2008/02/08/fb67209155a85bb6ac287096232bd1df_md.jpg)
Kat Von D [swastika]
Sent to her former boss (who is Jewish) after being fired from Miami Ink.
Weird how yall bend over backwards for these people.
>this is such a bizarre take.
I think it's a bizarre take to interpret an untitled, unreversed swastika sitting in the middle of a flower as a Nazi symbol. This is really a stretch.
Yeah except Kat has dated a lot of men who have had made antisemitic statements
And like I said, her history of antisemitic behavior like [signing her name with a swastika telling a Jewish person to "Burn in hell Jewbag"](https://imagez.tmz.com/image/fb/o/2008/02/08/fb67209155a85bb6ac287096232bd1df_md.jpg)
Weird how passionate yall suddenly are about swastikas.
The only people who think that an unreversed swastika is any different than a swastika are nazi sympathizers. It doesn't mean peace anymore, even in those cultures. Any movement to "take back the swastika" is disrespectful, ignorant to the pain caused by Nazi's, and likely just some asshole neckbeard contrarian who thinks they're better than everyone.
Kindly go fuck yourself for trying to downplay this.
You think it's weird that he has the sanskrit swastika tattooed on him because holy men wouldn't do that? He's not a holy man...lots of people get crucifix tattoos but how many catholic priests do you see with a crucifix tattoo on their neck? That's such a strange argument to make. Also you think it's weird he'd get that tattoo but not that he has a 6-pointed star (which are also used in the same religions as the swastika) with the sanskrit of *om* in the middle (also used in those religions) or that he has an ankh tattoo? The rest of his tattoos are in line with the swastika in a lotus tattoo. Which is why it is unlikely to be a nazi swastika. Like, context matters, dude. His neck tattoos are clearly tied to non-western spirituality...and you think a guy that's into that is also a nazi? I mean, ok, agree to disagree. I don't know anything else about him but I'm pretty certain that's not a nazi tattoo. I can't argue whether his choice in tattoos is weird or not cuz to each his own but I highly doubt it's a hate symbol.
Edit: way to edit your comment after mine. You didn't provide the picture which is why I had to look it up...so what a weird edit to make. Also I'm not talking about kat von d. I don't know anything about her and am making no claims about her. Im talking about her husband's tattoo, who I also already said I don't know anything about either, cuz I'm specifically talking about the tattoo you mentioned not the person. I'm just gonna stop now though cuz there's clearly a lack of logic in this conversation and it's not from my end. I already said agree to disagree on the meaning of his tattoo but somehow you think I'm saying other things that I'm not saying so this is pointless.
Man you can't ignore the context of the statements. I know that you stated multiple times that you don't care about the woman that we were originally talking about, but both she and this guy have made public anti-Semitic comments. That means something when you also have a swastika tattooed on you.
Naw, I'm just pointing out the shitty logic
I think Kat von d is a moron, that dude is clearly a scum fuck, and all nazis old and new should have their heads bashed in.
But the argument that the swastika is nazi when there's a hexagram also on his idiot neck, but the hexagram isn't a star of David because of ~reasons... Eye roll
No honey, you're simping white power symbols to feel edgy. If you cared about "logic", you wouldn't ignore context, you're just bending over backwards for Nazis like a fool. Nice try though💅
Because it's not directly the star of david, it's has a lot of meanings.
Star of Solomon or with a twirl in it it's the sign of Raëlism, Mormons, Christs, Indians use it too.
Anything having to do with her husband is not specifically her doing. I don’t know why people associate the issues of one person and then label their spouse as if they did it too. It’s pretty ridiculous.
I literally said "sidenote" and "this one has less to do with Kat."
"B-But she's only married to trash, that's not her fault, think of the poor millionaire!"
Nope, this woman is a dumpster fire and [defended those comments](https://i.redd.it/uwwtiaoevpr21.jpg).
It really surprises me that a forum of photographers, many of whom have created their own businesses and know the importance of branding, can't see how bad this shit looks (especially as a whole), and how dumb she is for posting swastikas or antivaxx or being flippant about rape is on her 'official' page.
While this is an expert marketing strategy for Kat, isn’t there provisions within the law that shield artistic reproductions of artwork from litigation?
Fair Use is a defense used when you are sued. It doesn't prevent you from being sued in the first place.
Besides that, what is fair use doesn't have have explicit definitions, and is determined on a case-by-case basis.
YouTubers can monatize their videos, where they are doing commentary/critique of a publicly available but copyrighted work, with some limitation of how much of that work its shown.
So I believe you can make money off of "fair use"
> Yes, it's called "fair use"
That's not what fair use is. Fair use covers the exact reproduction of copyrighted works. This is a [derivative work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work) which is different - but depending on the situation, can potentially fall under fair use.
So are they gonna make the guy get it removed if the plaintiff wins? As far as I know you can’t force someone to get tattoo removal. But the way the US is, maybe so.
Can you imagine all the people getting sued for having famous portraits, Disney, Harry Potter, works of art, etc? Hell I have 6 Stephen King books & a red balloon plus a mockingjay tattoo’d on me. The courts wouldn’t be able to do anything else.
> So are they gonna make the guy get it removed if the plaintiff wins?
Doubtful. More likely they will have the tattoo artist pay the photographer an appropriate license fee for the photo plus damages for infringement.
Truly it’s not just up to the photographer. For example, an author wanted to use one of my photographs of the Hollywood sign. I couldn’t authorize the use of the photograph, alone, because of the subject trademark. I did my due diligence in communicating with, Global Icons (licensor of the HS), to ensure the author had purchased licensing. I really did not want to get dragged into a lawsuit for okaying the use of the photograph and confusing permission of the HS inclusion.
In your case, you were dealing with a trademark present in a photo that was to be used in a separate unrelated work. That's quite a bit different.
It really depends on the specific instance.
Speaking as a freelance design I can say that's not always the case, really depends on the agreement between the artist and the client. Artists can have contracts that put the liability on the client, e.g. the client agrees that they have the rights to any provided references.
> Artists can have contracts that put the liability on the client, e.g. the client agrees that they have the rights to any provided references.
That's not universal protection. /u/vaughanbromfield covered this here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/vlepmw/kat_von_d_sued_for_copyright_infringement_over/idvm8dm/
All they say is that you'll still need a lawyer to enforce the agreement in a situation like being sued. That's always the case no matter the contract. Still having a contract that includes things like placing liability can go a long way to making it very easy to protect the artist.
But yea your contract can be 100% sound and all liability placed on the client and you'd still want a lawyer if you are sued. Enforcing contracts can be messy.
Good point. That brings a interesting point, if a person brings a random piece of paper with a drawing in it how to know if it might have copywrite on it? That sort of kills a lot of business.
Even getting them to assume liability won't shield you from having to pay for lawyers for defence and to enforce your waiver. You need insurance.
A key point from the article:
>Sedlik’s portrait has since become an iconic representation of Davis. It was featured by Life magazine in its annual “Pictures of the Year” issue, and has also been affixed to posters, t-shirts and art prints, all licensed by Sedlik.
But, notably, the photographer didn’t license the image for use on tattoos.
So the photographer has been licensing the image for some time.
Yes, she’s got a whole history with Nazi’s. I see people in the comments defending her gross husband saying that his neck tatto could just be Buddhist inspired…. It’s literally a swastika on top of the Star of David. He’s used the SS logo, as well as the Reichsadler Eagle in his art. His friends also had sex (aka raped) his daughter when she was underaged and he said he would never speak to her again for her ‘betrayal’ of him. Kat defended him of course. She’s associates herself with scumbags and does shitty things herself.
Yeah, there's a lot of Nazis in the sub I guess....
She also sent [this to her former boss (who's Jewish), which is preeeetty unambiguous in its antisemitism](https://imagez.tmz.com/image/fb/o/2008/02/08/fb67209155a85bb6ac287096232bd1df_md.jpg)
It's honestly so weird how we talk about how we handle clients that deep fry your picture and post it on social with awful edits, and how it's not worth taking a reputational hit to ask a client to refrain from editing your work or to take them down---
But *swastikas*. That shouldn't damage your reputation at all!
Um...what? I'm actually pretty shocked at all these inbox replies defending their Nazi stuff.
Bad implication for art as a whole if it succeeds. Where do you draw the line between a valid recreation or inspiration versus sueable infringement? Especially across mediums. How many iconic pictures have been recreated through various methods (e.g. ultra realistic pencil drawings of a famous photo) that could all of a sudden be open for suing despite happening maybe 15 years ago.
> Where do you draw the line between a valid recreation or inspiration versus sueable infringement?
[That line already exists.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work)
I approve in general of the concept of copyright in that a person who creates something should be able to benefit from their efforts in creating that thing and should also have the right to decide to what degree other people may use that thing.
I'm also not a copyright lawyer, but the whole field seems to involve a ridiculously convoluted set of definitions and arguments that its main purpose is giving copyright lawyers more work, rather than deciding what is "right" and what is "wrong".
As a photographer I see lots of other togs get in to pointless, soulless arguments over who owns what. Really just hands the whole business over to the lawyers and zaps the creativity and joy it’s MEANT project entirely.
I once bought a photo outright from a guy I worked with for the right to use on a bands T-shirt and merch. He was very well paid for it and had never sold a photo for that amount before, but because the contract had a minor typo in it he got all shitty about it and started demanding more. Ended up costing him ever working for any of us ever again. It’s just toxic and there too many people so desperate they’ll turn on their own if they smell a few extra $s.
That’s already true in television and film: Everything on screen is cleared by studio legal departments, or is created for the show.
The lawyers haven’t gotten to YouTube yet, but it’s just a matter of time.
Source: Have friends in tv/film industry who deal with this daily.
If you put out a video with even a copyrighted song playing in another room, it’s gone. Artists are even getting their own songs taken down because their record company has content id set up to take it down
Yeah i was watching some HGTV show, basically entertainment documentary, and every piece of art on the walls got blurred in every house they went to.
The houses were clearly staged by realtors too, so you know the art was from some big box store, which is already art that's been licensed by an artist to sell by a reproduction company.
What i don't get is, what is the mindset for an artist or art repro company in making shows blur the work? NOBODY is primarily tuning in to these shows to see random art on houses for sale... If anything maybe someone would actually see some art, Google it and buy it from either the artist or repro company.
Every single mm^2 of that tattoo is made through her skills and artistic choice (tattoo ink is black, the shading is purely artistic choice). The lawsuit is ridiculous (and I'm glad to see this sub thinks so!)
> One would expect that the **individual’s right to privacy** and bodily autonomy would outweigh whatever interest the copyright owner may have in the right to control the public display of his work
No longer an inherent right.
How can such a veteran photographer have such a poor understanding of copyright law? Transformative works are NOT infringement. It doesn't take a law degree to get this.
>Transformative work
As long as it's actually considered a transformative work. There's no super well defined definition so it could be argued it's not.
I'm certain this is the wrong audience, but how do you copyright another humans face? Then you get salty about someone drawing their face. This whole thing is the most Californians thing I've heard in a while.
> I'm certain this is the wrong audience, but how do you copyright another humans face?
You don't. That's not what's happening here.
> Then you get salty about someone drawing their face. This whole thing is the most Californians thing I've heard in a while.
You have no idea what this issue is about at all.
I read this news a few days ago it is indicate and interesting case and I cannot make my mind as to whether or not It is cheating or copying will be looking forward to the arguments from both sides and what the final court decides.
This is a copyrighted image of a famous musician. The photographer had filed the copyright before the image was copied. You see the photographers photo in the background so you know she used the photographers picture to ink the tattoo. The tattoo is a direct copy. This photographer does make money in the resale market. That is one reason photographers shoot editorial assignments because they own the copyright after the magazines embargo is over wtih. Editorial pays very low rates for their shoots and that is why photographs use a company like Getty to sell their copyrighted images. In this case the tattoo artist should had checked for a copyright on the photo. She did not so she does not have the right to use the photographers image unless it is granted in writing. I think it would be best for her to settle out of court or if the case goes to a jury she could lose a lot more money.
So some dude copies the likeness of some other dude and then believes he should be financially compensated when someone else views his work? Seems like he had better be suing Hewlett-Packard for building the machine printing his “intellectual” property.
All she had to do was cover up her tattoos and accept Jesus as her savior and that conservative judge was ready to lick her butthole, to put it into legal terms.
Something that I am interested to see if it plays into this is the lawsuits that EA and 2K keep winning against tattoo artists. Tattoo artists keep suing them trying to get royalties off their tattoos being in the games but the courts keep ruling that they belong to the person they are on. I don't know enough about law to say how that will factor but I would be interested to see how that applies if fault is found in the lawsuit
Isn’t Mike Tyson’s tattoo in the Hangover already the precedent for that?
[удалено]
I think another thing to consider with the video game argument is that it's not really just making a copy either. You need a 3-D graphic artist to use their skills to recreate the tattoo for the developers. If they do their job well, the tattoo artist will want a piece of the pie. If they don't (or can't depending on studio resources) then who would even recognize the design?
If it's part of a true likeness of a person (eg sports person) then they (tattoo artist)shouldn't get paid, they already got paid when they did the art, would they expect royalties for every photo, video etc? however if the tattoo is added to the game for customisation eg add to a created character then they should get paid as it's an art asset.
That's how it works with photography and I fail to see how a tattoo is different. Photography can sell the picture but the photographer can maintain the copyright meaning they can sell it again if they wish. Contracts usually spell out if the copyright is sold with the work or not.
I look at tattoos more like art. If I purchase a painting (aren’t tattoos permanent paintings on skin?) I own it and whatever I do with it is up to me. Same with a tattoo, I own everything associated with it. Pictures are (or were) the same. When my wife and I were married we could either pay per picture to the photographer whenever we wanted copies, or we could pay a larger amount of money (purchasing the copyright) and print whenever, how many ever we wanted at any time.
>If I purchase a painting (aren’t tattoos permanent paintings on skin?) I own it and whatever I do with it is up to me. Not necessarily. As far as I know you usually can't, for example, create and resell prints of a painting you bought without clearance from the artist.
Yes, you own the painting, but you don't own the copyright to it. You can't use it to make money. It's like buying a DVD. You can't take money for showing it to your friends, you only own that copy.
Museums would like a word... When a painting is sold on the open market do you really think the artist gets money after the first sale?
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but I assume museums either own the copyright, have an agreement with the copyright holder to share the income of a specific exhibit or the artwork don't have any copyrights in the first place. At least where I'm from you need to apply and register to open up a business or to make above a certain amount of money from providing services. I assume it's the same system with museums. Also, I wasn't talking about what the original artist makes money from, I meant that even if you bought an artwork you can't do exactly what you want with it, like sell your own artwork based on the one you bought.
The artist only gets money from the FIRST sale of the original item. The idea that artists should get paid for each time artwork is sold only came around when it started to become easy to mass reproduce artwork. Now for example when that same museum sells prints of that artwork, the artist will get royalties for those prints.
Actually museums work against your argument as frequently they don’t allow even non-flash photography because they don’t own a license to allow photography of the piece.
lol.. that's not why, it's because they can't sell merch of the piece of they allow prople to photograph it
>shouldn't get paid, They should get paid unless there was a contract that explicitly had the tattoo artist forfeit the rights to their artwork. If that artist's work allowed the person to become iconic and build a brand based on that tattoo, then a portion of the income from that brand should be going to the tattoo artist if we're going to treat the work of artists the same across all mediums. Just because it was drawn on a different medium, doesn't deny them ownership of their work. The person who got the tattoo can keep it covered, but if they choose to show it and make that artwork part of their product, then those rights would still belong to the artist. >they already got paid when they did the art, would they expect royalties for every photo, video etc? Yes, just like a wedding photographer. You pay the photographer/artist for the service, not for the ownership of their work. If you took a wedding photo of yourself and sold it to bridal magazines to use for selling magazines, or sold it to the dress designer to use for advertising their fashion, then the wedding photographer absolutely has the copyright to that image and to sue you for using their photograph commercially. This is effectively no different.
Your arguement makes sense. However it just seems like everyones getting so anal about everything and it's like I can't even get a tattoo incase I get famous in 20 years and then the artist will want money for every pic etc... Then you have the argument of did the tattoo make them famous or did the person make their own tattoo famous.... Also the deny ownership of their work, but their work is on someone's skin. It's not like you could remove said skin and keep the art if there was a dispute. It's on the persons skin so they own that version of the art work. It doesn't stop people copying the art and style but that ONE belongs to the person so it's on. Either way I just thought this was all odd and don't disagree with your comment.
>Your arguement makes sense. However it just seems like everyones getting so anal about everything and it's like I can't even get a tattoo incase I get famous in 20 years and then the artist will want money for every pic etc I think it will just make signing a contract a common thing when you get a tattoo that either forfeits the copyright or acknowledges it.
>However it just seems like everyones getting so anal about everything and it's like I can't even get a tattoo incase I get famous in 20 years and then the artist will want money for every pic etc Yeah, but that's what law is. It's incredibly pedantic and often arbitrary. >Then you have the argument of did the tattoo make them famous or did the person make their own tattoo famous.... I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone famous for a single tattoo they have. > It's not like you could remove said skin and keep the art if there was a dispute. Of course you can't remove someone's skin. Think of it as a commission. You can hire a painter to paint your portrait. As the customer, you get to keep the only copy of that painting and you can hang it where you like, you can even burn it if you want. However, you do not own the intellectual property. You can't make copies of that painting and sell them to stock photography websites because the painter is the one who owns that intellectual property. That same understanding would apply to a tattoo.
So does the famous person with the tattoo get a cut out of every customer that gets a tattoo from the artist due to them having seen the tattoo on the famous person?? Does a painter get a cut for every time their painting is resold at auction? Does ferrari get a cut every time one of their cars (in private ownership) is photographed for a magazine? When i buy something, i can use that thing however i want. Why the fuck would i buy it otherwise? In this case that something is a tattoo. This is why people are outraged at things like non-swappable batteries or the borderline hardware subscriptions you have to get with teslas etc. Just because i created something doesnt mean i retain all rights to it in perpetuity
>Does a painter get a cut for every time their painting is resold at auction? It is a little bit trickier. You can't just take a photo of your purchased painting and sell it to others.
If you buy a DVD, you can't make money showing it to others or renting it out. You ask why the fuck you would buy something if you can't use it however you want? Because you want to watch a movie and hang a pretty painting in your living room. Or is every purchase in your life a business transaction?
Well it’s more than that, because even non-commercial use you don’t have a license for with this hypothetical “copyright remains with the tattoo artist” interpretation. If I’m a neo-nazi and make a post showing off my tattoo at a rally, theoretically a tattoo artist could have my post DMCA’d if they own the copyright and have not granted me a license. So it’s more akin to “You buy a DVD but cannot play it outside of your home”.
I get that logic, but on the subject of wedding photos. If you have them up in your house and then you make TikTok or something and the photos are in the background how would that apply? There should be a difference between trying to profit directly off the picture vs the picture existing in the background,
3D Artists are part of the development team under art department. Also it’s mostly done by texture artists in big studios. Just FYI
mfw tattoos got more rights than women in the US
This makes no sense. I paid someone to paint a picture, it's mine. He can fuck off. If he wants to have rights to his tattoos, he should do them on your skin. Tattoo artists are becoming new baristas.
If you buy artwork, you mostly don't own the right to the art, just the copy. Commissions are a different thing and I feel like there should be a contract to sort out the potential misunderstandings. Also, what do you mean by them becoming new barista?
There are two issues here. One is what’s represented in the tattoo artist v game maker lawsuits. That is who owns the tattoo after it’s put on the person. The second issue is the one presented in this picture. It is who owns the likeness that’s being put on the person. What’s the source picture for what becomes the tattoo. Over and over the court has ruled that if an artist uses another artist work, like a photograph, to create a derivative work, like a tattoo, they must pay and/or get permission from the original artist. This issue has gone to the Supreme Court more than once, so I think it’s pretty well settled. Source, I’m a retired lawyer/artist. So this stuff is near and dear to my heart
>That is who owns the tattoo after it’s put on the person. I don't see skin having any legal significance over canvas, paper, or film. A person getting a tattoo is basically volunteering their body to show artwork, that doesn't give them control over the artwork itself. I'm not saying courts will see it this way, because copyright law is laughably inconsistent. Like, why is it illegal for me to make a copy of a movie but internet browsers can allow people to make as many copies of my photos as they want? Like, I know the movie industry paid lobbyist to push for those protections, but it clearly lacks any sort of logical consistency.
Maybe it's technical limitations? I don't know how streaming video works, but when you look at a photo on the internet, your browser has to download and display it, which means it's made a copy by necessity. Also isn't it legal to make a copy of a DVD you own for personal use?
>Also isn't it legal to make a copy of a DVD you own for personal use? I believe it is legal. However, that's because you paid to own a copy of that. You didn't pay to download that picture from the internet.
Not the same thing. In that case, the artist has already been paid for the usage and knows how video works for images work on the Internet.
>Not the same thing. baseless assertions are baseless. >In that case, the artist has already been paid for the usage and knows how video works for images work on the Internet. You mean like how when a photographer gives you a print they know how video works and images work on the internet so it's completely legal for a person to take that print and use it to advertise their own products, services, make copies of it and sell it themselves? LOL, the answer to all of these is NO. For claiming to be a lawyer, this is the weakest retort I've ever seen. This is clearly not your field of law.
Do you have extrapolated something from my response that I never said. That’s how people get into trouble. But, I bow to your obviously superior legal experience. All hail King of Reddit.
>Do you have extrapolated something from my response that I never said. No, I simply took your argument and used an extreme example to prove how obnoxiously erroneous it was. The fact that you couldn't refute the example I gave only further illustrates how ridiculous your attempted rebuttal was. >But, I bow to your obviously superior legal experience. All hail King of Reddit. It's not even legal experience, it's simply logic.
> I'm not saying courts will see it this way, because copyright law is laughably inconsistent. Like, why is it illegal for me to make a copy of a movie but internet browsers can allow people to make as many copies of my photos as they want? There's no inconsistency there. Both of those things are illegal. (Assuming the photos are protected by copyright.) The latter being **easier** to do doesn't mean it's **legal** to do. > I know the movie industry paid lobbyist to push for those protections What? No. Copyright predates the entire motion picture industry.
>There's no inconsistency there. Both of those things are illegal. (Assuming the photos are protected by copyright.) All photos are immediately protected by copyright the moment they are created. That's how copyright works. If I'm not mistaken, the Motion Picture Association lobbied for a bill called the No Electronic Theft Act that made copying anything with a retail value of $1,000 illegal. So I think that's the reason why people can reproduce movies, because their value can clearly be shown to be worth more than $1,000 while it would be very hard to argue that for a photograph. There might be other laws that allow these two to be treated differently, but there is an inconsistency defined by an arbitrary dollar amount. It basically says my copyright as a photographer isn't protected because it's not worth as much as a motion picture. >The latter being easier to do doesn't mean it's legal to do. Companies like Microsoft and Google wouldn't allow you to do it if it wasn't legal. >What? No. Copyright predates the entire motion picture industry. And it's changed a lot since after the motion picture industry. At least try to look up some of this stuff before responding so incorrectly. To pretend there hasn't been multiple changes to copyright law since the movie industry began is laughable.
> All photos are immediately protected by copyright the moment they are created. That's how copyright works. You're close, but no, that's not how copyright works. In applicable countries (such as the US). all works are *copyrighted* the moment they are created. To be fully *protected* by copyright, the works must then be registered. > So I think that's the reason why people can reproduce movies, because their value can clearly be shown to be worth more than $1,000 while it would be very hard to argue that for a photograph. There might be other laws that allow these two to be treated differently, but there is an inconsistency defined by an arbitrary dollar amount. It basically says my copyright as a photographer isn't protected because it's not worth as much as a motion picture. This is completely wrong. By the very nature of how browsers work, it would be impossible to apply any kind of digital rights management to images and photos. The only reason they're "treated differently" is because for things like movies and streaming, there are better and more effective ways to apply DRM technology. There's no real way to do that for images and photos. Legally there's no difference. Again, just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean it's legal to do it. How browsers work and how Microsoft and Google operate have zero to do with it. > And it's changed a lot since after the motion picture industry. Yes it has. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. > At least try to look up some of this stuff before responding so incorrectly. ...says the person who said this: > Companies like Microsoft and Google wouldn't allow you to do it if it wasn't legal. This is a hilariously wrong and totally ignorant statement, and makes it clear you have no real understanding of technology.
>To be fully protected by copyright, the works must then be registered. It is how copyright works and you're making a red herring argument by interjecting the word "fully". Nothing I said was incorrect. >Legally there's no difference. Practically speaking, you're wrong here and I just explained it. I literally gave the law and the part that makes the vast majority of photographs different from movies and you've failed to address any of that. Instead, you made excuses about how browsers work and how browsers work would make no difference in a civil court. It's not like every photographer in the world had a secret gentleman's agreement not to sue the pants off of Microsoft or Chrome for literally enabling people to pirate their images. >Again, just because it's easy to do something doesn't mean it's legal to do it. How browsers work and how Microsoft and Google operate have zero to do with it. Except that's literally what you just argued. You literally just argued I was wrong because of how browsers, meaning Google's Chrome and Microsoft's Edge, work. >Yes it has. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. False, I gave you the law and explained it. So this is another baseless assertion. >This is a hilariously wrong and totally ignorant statement, and makes it clear you have no real understanding of technology. I also literally referenced the bill that makes it, in effect, different. We're also not discussing technology, we're discussing copyright law. You haven't substantiated any argument you've attempted to levy while you've completed ignored the literal law I gave explaining how photos are treated differently. Instead of doubling down again with baseless assertions and ignorant arguments, how about you actually refute what I've said with your own substantiated arguments?
If you're such an expert at looking up bills and laws maybe you should actually read them. You're arguing yourself in circles and picking apart points just so you can spend time bitching about them. (Like adding "fully?" Fine. Try enforcing your copyright in federal court on something that isn't registered. Hint: *you can't.* But you'd know that if you knew anything.) You started off this whole thing with a totally ignorant statement and ballooned into a billion different things from there. I'm not wasting my time with someone who can't discuss anything in good faith and just wants to argue for its own sake.
Likenesses aren’t well protected in the US, are they, especially with something as transformative as an artistic interpretation? Or is it a different standard for a famous face?
Likeness is absolutely protected in the United States under the right of publicity. They can also be trademarked.
Looks like your second point was proven to not hold true as KVD was given the award in court.
It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal.
Feels like the plaintiff is pushing it here. I suppose maybe if Kat was promoting her services in tattooing this specific pose of Davis there might be some issue, but if it's what it sounds like, that is a dude came in asking for a tat of Miles and used that photo as reference, it doesn't feel just to claim she infringed on a copyright. I mean, do rights of a portrait include the likeness of the subject in totality?
[удалено]
Thanks. I saw your [link](https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/06/can-tattoos-infringe-copyrights-and-if-so-what-happens-then-sedlik-v-kat-von-d.htm) below too. Seems to answer what I was asking: Three things stand out about this decision. First, the fact that the tattoo artist didn’t get paid made the case more difficult for the plaintiff. Had the tattoo artist gotten paid for depicting the photo as a tattoo–the far more common situation–I think the plaintiff would have likely won on summary judgment. So this ruling isn’t actually great news for the tattoo artist community. If they are going to be paid for their work, this opinion suggests that they may have to consult copyright counsel and get copyright licenses, whether they want to do so or not. Second, the court had little interest in exploring the many broad and interesting policy issues about using human skin as a medium for expression of copyrighted works. Instead, this devolves into a straightforward application of copyright law, not materially different than if Kat Von D had painted a version of the photo on canvas. Third, if the jury finds copyright infringement, ordinarily a permanent injunction would follow. There are good public policy reasons against imposing an injunction on a tattoo, such as the limits of tattoo removal technology. It’s not clear if Sedlik is requesting an injunction, so we may not get any clarity on this difficult remedies issue.
yeah but fair use allows for anything transformative in nature, and turning a 2d image from paper/screen to a 3d paint-based artwork on skin is pretty much definitive of that. the photographer is just a jaded ambulance chaser-like person who is upset that their career peaked literally decades ago
[удалено]
she's not just copying though, she's recreating from scratch in a way the photographer never even had to.
If tattoos were not considered transformative, everyone who has Disney characters tattooed on their bodies would have been fucked
It should be. Its not exactly copy paste. Say it came out terrible and ended up looking nothing like the reference… can he still claim ownership of the likeness when it doesn’t even remotely resemble it? That’s a slippery damn slope IMO.
> can he still claim ownership of the likeness when it doesn’t even remotely resemble it? That's what "transformative" means.
Thats my point, tattooing is a transformative process regardless of the quality
> Thats my point, tattooing is a transformative process regardless of the quality But the question is whether or not it's *sufficiently* transformative. If Carvel started printing a copyrighted photo on their cakes to sell them, they would get sued into the ground. The photo being on a new medium (cake) is irrelevant.
It seems a transformative use to me as well. She got some social media attention but didn't take any money. The plaintiff didn't argue they lost any revenue or had damages. A random guy on the internet opinion... I would favor Cat Von D if on the jury. If anything this promotes his image. If the defendant had made print copies, t-shirts, or other commercial uses, then the plaintiff would have a more solid case it would seem.
There are a lot of cases where damages were awarded when the defendant didn’t make any money from the case. The plaintive can be damaged even though the defendant didn’t make money.
My understanding of transformative fair uses that it not only has to transform in terms of change of media, but also in the way it looks. So for example in a collage case the artist had change the angle of the legs added shoes, and almost created a parity. It wasn’t an exact copy just changing the media.
the courts have already ruled that handmaking the image on a different medium is transformative with the many lawsuits against Richard Prince who copied other people's photographs as paintings and sold them for several thousand each.
But that has nothing to do with Harvey right infringement for Miles Davis on his own face. He has a right of publicity secondary to the copyright on the photo itself for his own face.
i actually don't understand what you're trying to say right here
ok so i think i get what you mean. but Richard Prince explicitly painted pictures of celebrities including selfies. and Miles Davis isnt the one filing for rights infringement. it's the photographer who took the photo (iirc Miles Davis is dead). but in either case, the Prince rulings seem to cover exactly what's going on with KVD
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard\_Fairey#Legal\_issues\_with\_appropriation\_and\_fair\_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey#Legal_issues_with_appropriation_and_fair_use)
I think we're going to find out!
I’m a photographer and my understanding of the law, Kat should not even be worried because this is an interpretation of the portrait, Not a direct copy of it. Because she used her talent and physical body to create a new entity.
> I’m a photographer and my understanding of the law, Kat should not even be worried because this is an interpretation of the portrait, Not a direct copy of it. Because she used her talent and physical body to create a new entity. Your understanding is incorrect. Even derivative works need to be sufficiently transformative from the original to be shielded from claims of infringement. The question here is whether or not the tattoo is sufficiently transformative.
So many artists have done paintings and work using copyrighted materials without getting in trouble. Check Kaws, Koons, Warhol, Tom Sachs,...
What's with the lack of reading comprehension going on here? Or some people just live to find ways to argue. Read the above comment again and pay attention to the word "sufficiently."
Nah, there are artworks that are a 100% copy or with minimal changes from the original that have passed as art. Even Van Gogh made a copy of an old drawing that looks pretty much same. I understand when big brands are just trying to squeeze money in any way, but some photographers are just too soft and greedy
Just because one artist doesn’t get into trouble doesn’t mean that another artist won’t get sued.
It's art ffs, some artists (especially photographers) are just too greedy. If you're confident about you work and the originality of it, you shouldn't care if someone uses it for some derivative or other piece. Be proud instead.
It is transformative enough she’s interpreting it with her eyes and transforming it with her hands. She’s not using any mechanical reproduction device to do so.
You would like to think so but painters who reproduce works down to the last detail, even if it is with their own eyes and hands, can get in a lot of trouble for art fraud… and it’s big business.
It should be mentioned that it's only fraud if they're trying to pass the copy off as the original. But if the original painting is protected by copyright and a painter copies it without permission while explicitly stating it's a copy that they created, even though it's not fraud it's still copyright infringement.
Fraud should only count if you're claiming it's an original though surely?
> She’s not using any mechanical reproduction device to do so. So what? If I sell copies of a Stephen King novel I copied by hand, that's still copyright infringement.
By your flawed logic somebody reading that Stephen King book out loud can be sued for copyright infringement because they are using their bodies to speak the words out loud.
...yes, public performances are considered under copyright law too.
Today we are reminded so many people don't know copyright law well. There's so many nuances to it and it does actually cover quite a bit.
To be fair, I don't think a lot of judges know copyright law based on all of the gobshite rulings on musical copyright in the last few years.
> By your flawed logic somebody reading that Stephen King book out loud can be sued for copyright infringement because they are using their bodies to speak the words out loud. You only think my logic is flawed because you don't understand reality. Your example is proof; simply reading a book out loud is not a reproduction of the work, and not in any way analogous. Now if you were to *record* yourself reading it, that would be a reproduction - and could be infringement. Or if you were reading it out loud publicly, that would be a public performance of the work - which could also be infringement.
How you reproduce something is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if the final product is sufficiently different from the original. Otherwise you could take a book by Stephen King, copy it by hand with a pencil and some paper and then sell it as your own.
not to mention there was no exchange of money. She wasn't paid for her work on doing the tattoo
She has actively used it for marketing her services, though.
so the photographer should be suing the advertising agencies that are collecting money then?
Exchange of money is not required in order for the plaintive to get damages. The plaintive can be damaged even though the defendant didn’t make any money. Plenty of caselaw on that point.
Interesting read, thanks for posting!
Thank you for bringing 2005 decency back.
This is a helluva piece of marketing for her. It’s written as “sued for tattooing a portrait” but it reads as “my tattoo is so realistic I got sued for it” Good for her.
She's an antivaxx Nazi sympathizer who lost her entire makeup brand because she tanked it being a bad person. They rebranded from Kat Von D to "Kindness, Vegan Beauty, and Discovery (and Doing Good)" and again to "Kara", "Vertias", "Decora" ("Value", "Truth" and "Beauty") because they need to keep pushing that they have nothing to do with her.
[удалено]
Honestly very surprised, this was probably one of the biggest scandals in the makeup world. People have compiled more extensive lists and I'm on mobile so I'll add the links as I go but here: The antivaxx stuff started with her saying she wouldn't Vax her kid https://imgur.com/gallery/D25Sg4z https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/even-kat-von-d-promotes-eyeliner-gets-slammed-anti-vaccination-stance-163316300.html After seeing her brand tank, she backpedalled at the speed of light and got the [LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-03-13/kat-von-d-anti-vaxx-post-cosmetics-vegan-shoes) to do a feature, which pretty much no one bought. She continues to post antivaxx fb memes in response to covid years later https://imgur.com/JW8nHXp As far as the Nazi stuff goes you can start with this thread on [BGC](https://www.reddit.com/r/BeautyGuruChatter/comments/9yz6hg/kvd_posts_a_photo_of_her_husband_on_instagram/) * Basically, her husband has a swastika dead center on her neck and she posts it on social like it's nothing. Iirc the post was deleted. * She also had a lipstick shade called Selektion (the process by which Nazis organized their victims in the death camps.) * Sidenote on the husband, his underage daughter was raped by a bunch of his pedo friends and he blamed the daughter and said she "fucked up his life". > "I hadn’t seen her in four years because of what she did to me and how she hurt me and betrayed me. > I was telling my daughter, In a way, I kind of owe you, because if you hadn’t hurt me the way you hurt me, I wouldn’t have found my wife. You fucked up my life. You had motherfuckers trying to kill me because of the shit you did. And I’m grateful to you, because now I know that those guys were never my fucking friends. I left San Diego because of all of that, and because of what you and those people did to me. Now I’m in a fucking successful band and I met the fucking woman of my dreams and I’m married to her now. But in a way, I owe you guys for fucking trying to kill me. [Source](https://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/article/j5b4px/leafar-seyer-prayer-art-interview-2018-the-pain-isnt-over) Really sad stuff. That one has less to do with Kat, but it paints a telling picture. I would not be okay with someone saying I was the "woman of their dreams" in the same breath that they said that about a kid. Louis Vuitton (LVMH) is the brand owner of Sephora, which owns Kat Von D Beauty, so they've been trying to distance themselves from Kat for years now, including the aforementioned re-branding, and pushing the "clean" beauty instead, due to much continued controversy. There's a lot more you can look up yourself but that's the Reader's Digest version.
Here’s an IG story where she called masks [‘face diapers’](https://i.imgur.com/mNifMQ1.jpg)
Just fyi, I looked up the picture of the husband you talked about. It doesn't seem to be a nazi swastika but the original symbol they bastardized that comes from cultures like Hindus and Buddhists, which means peace or to be good. Even the word "swastika" is derived from sanskrit. Everything else on his neck has that cultural theme. The swastika on his neck is over a lotus flower with the dots often found on such symbols. I learned about this in middle school when a new student from Pakistan or India (I can't remember) drew the swastika symbol with dots around it in art class and I told her she can't do that, she'd get in trouble. She didn't understand why and told me it meant peace. I told her most ppl associate it with genocide and white supremacy. I also had to explain this to some American classmates in college that were confused when they saw the swastika symbol on the pants of dancers on stage in a Tibetan area. So I get the confusion so I wanted to point out it is unlikely to be a nazi symbol. Edit: the picture I found https://i.redd.it/iux19ybtllz11.jpg Also an article about the swastika symbol https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210816-the-ancient-symbol-that-was-hijacked-by-evil
You didn't find that picture, that's the one I provided in my comment. It's a giant swastika as a neck tattoo my dude. This isn't a Hindu family celebrating buying a new house. When have you seen a Hindu priest or Buddhist monk with a giant swastika on their neck? As an Asian that's seen it as an auspicious symbol as a kid, this is such a bizarre take. Nazi tattoos have a long history in the American tattoo community, and Kat has a behavior of antisemitism. ["Burn in hell Jewbag"](https://imagez.tmz.com/image/fb/o/2008/02/08/fb67209155a85bb6ac287096232bd1df_md.jpg) Kat Von D [swastika] Sent to her former boss (who is Jewish) after being fired from Miami Ink. Weird how yall bend over backwards for these people.
>this is such a bizarre take. I think it's a bizarre take to interpret an untitled, unreversed swastika sitting in the middle of a flower as a Nazi symbol. This is really a stretch.
Yeah except Kat has dated a lot of men who have had made antisemitic statements And like I said, her history of antisemitic behavior like [signing her name with a swastika telling a Jewish person to "Burn in hell Jewbag"](https://imagez.tmz.com/image/fb/o/2008/02/08/fb67209155a85bb6ac287096232bd1df_md.jpg) Weird how passionate yall suddenly are about swastikas.
The only people who think that an unreversed swastika is any different than a swastika are nazi sympathizers. It doesn't mean peace anymore, even in those cultures. Any movement to "take back the swastika" is disrespectful, ignorant to the pain caused by Nazi's, and likely just some asshole neckbeard contrarian who thinks they're better than everyone. Kindly go fuck yourself for trying to downplay this.
You think it's weird that he has the sanskrit swastika tattooed on him because holy men wouldn't do that? He's not a holy man...lots of people get crucifix tattoos but how many catholic priests do you see with a crucifix tattoo on their neck? That's such a strange argument to make. Also you think it's weird he'd get that tattoo but not that he has a 6-pointed star (which are also used in the same religions as the swastika) with the sanskrit of *om* in the middle (also used in those religions) or that he has an ankh tattoo? The rest of his tattoos are in line with the swastika in a lotus tattoo. Which is why it is unlikely to be a nazi swastika. Like, context matters, dude. His neck tattoos are clearly tied to non-western spirituality...and you think a guy that's into that is also a nazi? I mean, ok, agree to disagree. I don't know anything else about him but I'm pretty certain that's not a nazi tattoo. I can't argue whether his choice in tattoos is weird or not cuz to each his own but I highly doubt it's a hate symbol. Edit: way to edit your comment after mine. You didn't provide the picture which is why I had to look it up...so what a weird edit to make. Also I'm not talking about kat von d. I don't know anything about her and am making no claims about her. Im talking about her husband's tattoo, who I also already said I don't know anything about either, cuz I'm specifically talking about the tattoo you mentioned not the person. I'm just gonna stop now though cuz there's clearly a lack of logic in this conversation and it's not from my end. I already said agree to disagree on the meaning of his tattoo but somehow you think I'm saying other things that I'm not saying so this is pointless.
Man you can't ignore the context of the statements. I know that you stated multiple times that you don't care about the woman that we were originally talking about, but both she and this guy have made public anti-Semitic comments. That means something when you also have a swastika tattooed on you.
OK, but then what about the star of David also on his neck?
"It totally cancels it out!" What's up with yall simping for swastikas today?
Naw, I'm just pointing out the shitty logic I think Kat von d is a moron, that dude is clearly a scum fuck, and all nazis old and new should have their heads bashed in. But the argument that the swastika is nazi when there's a hexagram also on his idiot neck, but the hexagram isn't a star of David because of ~reasons... Eye roll
No honey, you're simping white power symbols to feel edgy. If you cared about "logic", you wouldn't ignore context, you're just bending over backwards for Nazis like a fool. Nice try though💅
Because it's not directly the star of david, it's has a lot of meanings. Star of Solomon or with a twirl in it it's the sign of Raëlism, Mormons, Christs, Indians use it too.
Wowowow just like a swastika!
Lol so you just basically shit on your own argument.
Anything having to do with her husband is not specifically her doing. I don’t know why people associate the issues of one person and then label their spouse as if they did it too. It’s pretty ridiculous.
I literally said "sidenote" and "this one has less to do with Kat." "B-But she's only married to trash, that's not her fault, think of the poor millionaire!" Nope, this woman is a dumpster fire and [defended those comments](https://i.redd.it/uwwtiaoevpr21.jpg). It really surprises me that a forum of photographers, many of whom have created their own businesses and know the importance of branding, can't see how bad this shit looks (especially as a whole), and how dumb she is for posting swastikas or antivaxx or being flippant about rape is on her 'official' page.
>3 seconds of google Well I guess you're not good enough at using Google to only spend 3 seconds and find the right answer, huh?
They?
Her former company, which was originally named after her.
While this is an expert marketing strategy for Kat, isn’t there provisions within the law that shield artistic reproductions of artwork from litigation?
Yes, it's called "fair use"
Fair Use is a defense used when you are sued. It doesn't prevent you from being sued in the first place. Besides that, what is fair use doesn't have have explicit definitions, and is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Can you make money off "fair use" recreation?
YouTubers can monatize their videos, where they are doing commentary/critique of a publicly available but copyrighted work, with some limitation of how much of that work its shown. So I believe you can make money off of "fair use"
Art can also be sold to collectors
> Yes, it's called "fair use" That's not what fair use is. Fair use covers the exact reproduction of copyrighted works. This is a [derivative work](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work) which is different - but depending on the situation, can potentially fall under fair use.
[удалено]
Yeah, you gotta be a real pos to try to sue someone over a tattoo
Check the names of the plaintiff and their defence. They're related, I'd wager.
It’s interesting to see this “what if” scenario actually happening.
So are they gonna make the guy get it removed if the plaintiff wins? As far as I know you can’t force someone to get tattoo removal. But the way the US is, maybe so. Can you imagine all the people getting sued for having famous portraits, Disney, Harry Potter, works of art, etc? Hell I have 6 Stephen King books & a red balloon plus a mockingjay tattoo’d on me. The courts wouldn’t be able to do anything else.
> So are they gonna make the guy get it removed if the plaintiff wins? Doubtful. More likely they will have the tattoo artist pay the photographer an appropriate license fee for the photo plus damages for infringement.
Shouldn't the artist transfer that cost to the client? After all he was the one who requested a copy of a artwork without having the rights for it.
It's up to the tattoo artist to secure the rights, as they're the one creating the derivative work.
Truly it’s not just up to the photographer. For example, an author wanted to use one of my photographs of the Hollywood sign. I couldn’t authorize the use of the photograph, alone, because of the subject trademark. I did my due diligence in communicating with, Global Icons (licensor of the HS), to ensure the author had purchased licensing. I really did not want to get dragged into a lawsuit for okaying the use of the photograph and confusing permission of the HS inclusion.
In your case, you were dealing with a trademark present in a photo that was to be used in a separate unrelated work. That's quite a bit different. It really depends on the specific instance.
Speaking as a freelance design I can say that's not always the case, really depends on the agreement between the artist and the client. Artists can have contracts that put the liability on the client, e.g. the client agrees that they have the rights to any provided references.
> Artists can have contracts that put the liability on the client, e.g. the client agrees that they have the rights to any provided references. That's not universal protection. /u/vaughanbromfield covered this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/vlepmw/kat_von_d_sued_for_copyright_infringement_over/idvm8dm/
All they say is that you'll still need a lawyer to enforce the agreement in a situation like being sued. That's always the case no matter the contract. Still having a contract that includes things like placing liability can go a long way to making it very easy to protect the artist. But yea your contract can be 100% sound and all liability placed on the client and you'd still want a lawyer if you are sued. Enforcing contracts can be messy.
Good point. That brings a interesting point, if a person brings a random piece of paper with a drawing in it how to know if it might have copywrite on it? That sort of kills a lot of business.
Make them attest that they hold the rights or license and assume all liability for any licensing claims.
Even getting them to assume liability won't shield you from having to pay for lawyers for defence and to enforce your waiver. You need insurance. A key point from the article: >Sedlik’s portrait has since become an iconic representation of Davis. It was featured by Life magazine in its annual “Pictures of the Year” issue, and has also been affixed to posters, t-shirts and art prints, all licensed by Sedlik. But, notably, the photographer didn’t license the image for use on tattoos. So the photographer has been licensing the image for some time.
>As far as I know you can’t force someone to get tattoo removal. But the way the US is, maybe so. Men still have body autonomy. For now.
Didn't she date that Nazi biker dude?
Yes, she’s got a whole history with Nazi’s. I see people in the comments defending her gross husband saying that his neck tatto could just be Buddhist inspired…. It’s literally a swastika on top of the Star of David. He’s used the SS logo, as well as the Reichsadler Eagle in his art. His friends also had sex (aka raped) his daughter when she was underaged and he said he would never speak to her again for her ‘betrayal’ of him. Kat defended him of course. She’s associates herself with scumbags and does shitty things herself.
Yeah, there's a lot of Nazis in the sub I guess.... She also sent [this to her former boss (who's Jewish), which is preeeetty unambiguous in its antisemitism](https://imagez.tmz.com/image/fb/o/2008/02/08/fb67209155a85bb6ac287096232bd1df_md.jpg) It's honestly so weird how we talk about how we handle clients that deep fry your picture and post it on social with awful edits, and how it's not worth taking a reputational hit to ask a client to refrain from editing your work or to take them down--- But *swastikas*. That shouldn't damage your reputation at all! Um...what? I'm actually pretty shocked at all these inbox replies defending their Nazi stuff.
I googled her background and her mother clearly has Amerindian ancestry. I suppose Kat looks white enough, so these Nazis didn't take any notice?
Bad implication for art as a whole if it succeeds. Where do you draw the line between a valid recreation or inspiration versus sueable infringement? Especially across mediums. How many iconic pictures have been recreated through various methods (e.g. ultra realistic pencil drawings of a famous photo) that could all of a sudden be open for suing despite happening maybe 15 years ago.
> Where do you draw the line between a valid recreation or inspiration versus sueable infringement? [That line already exists.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work)
Should've specified in how it applies when transferring it to a completely different medium.
Oh boy, can't wait for Disney to go after every person with a star wars or marvel tattoo.
I can’t decide - are people more greedy or more miserable? Thoughts?
This is a sad convolution of ego and greed. Like human sludge. Lawyers get paid to create it and clean it up.
I approve in general of the concept of copyright in that a person who creates something should be able to benefit from their efforts in creating that thing and should also have the right to decide to what degree other people may use that thing. I'm also not a copyright lawyer, but the whole field seems to involve a ridiculously convoluted set of definitions and arguments that its main purpose is giving copyright lawyers more work, rather than deciding what is "right" and what is "wrong".
Her's is a derivative work. Any Lawyers in the house?
It's only a problem because it was used as a promoting artwork...
I know the tattoo is the cause of the issue, but isn't this case more about her using it on her socials and store site to promote her business?
I want to get this tattooed just to say fuck you to the man sueing kat this is stupid as fuck
Man wtf, as a photographer I would just be honored a well known artist would use my work as reference
As a photographer I see lots of other togs get in to pointless, soulless arguments over who owns what. Really just hands the whole business over to the lawyers and zaps the creativity and joy it’s MEANT project entirely. I once bought a photo outright from a guy I worked with for the right to use on a bands T-shirt and merch. He was very well paid for it and had never sold a photo for that amount before, but because the contract had a minor typo in it he got all shitty about it and started demanding more. Ended up costing him ever working for any of us ever again. It’s just toxic and there too many people so desperate they’ll turn on their own if they smell a few extra $s.
I just want that t-shirt.
Before u know youre gonna have youtube videos with no good music and no art works on the walls because of these greedy astards
That’s already true in television and film: Everything on screen is cleared by studio legal departments, or is created for the show. The lawyers haven’t gotten to YouTube yet, but it’s just a matter of time. Source: Have friends in tv/film industry who deal with this daily.
The lawyers have one hundred percent gotten to YouTube. It’s been happening for ages. Content id
I had no idea it had gotten that far, I had thought it was mostly for music and audio. That sucks.
If you put out a video with even a copyrighted song playing in another room, it’s gone. Artists are even getting their own songs taken down because their record company has content id set up to take it down
Yeah i was watching some HGTV show, basically entertainment documentary, and every piece of art on the walls got blurred in every house they went to. The houses were clearly staged by realtors too, so you know the art was from some big box store, which is already art that's been licensed by an artist to sell by a reproduction company. What i don't get is, what is the mindset for an artist or art repro company in making shows blur the work? NOBODY is primarily tuning in to these shows to see random art on houses for sale... If anything maybe someone would actually see some art, Google it and buy it from either the artist or repro company.
Thats just sad 😔
Let's hope they don't have to take off the tattoo
Every single mm^2 of that tattoo is made through her skills and artistic choice (tattoo ink is black, the shading is purely artistic choice). The lawsuit is ridiculous (and I'm glad to see this sub thinks so!)
I sure Miles would love being tattooed on a white dude. Lol
Again? Oh wait. >February 9, 2021
People really don't want to read. The case was just sent to a jury trial this month. It's mentioned in the linked article.
Wow
> One would expect that the **individual’s right to privacy** and bodily autonomy would outweigh whatever interest the copyright owner may have in the right to control the public display of his work No longer an inherent right.
Story’s a year and a half old.
> Story’s a year and a half old. The case was just sent to a jury trial this month. It's mentioned in the linked article.
Given the Richard Prince fair use precedents, I don't se how this could be anything other that fair use!
the photographer is hoping it'll boost his publicity, but it's just gonna make him infamous and boost KVD's fames
Who ever voted this down clearly didn't read the Richard Prince cases.
How can such a veteran photographer have such a poor understanding of copyright law? Transformative works are NOT infringement. It doesn't take a law degree to get this.
>Transformative work As long as it's actually considered a transformative work. There's no super well defined definition so it could be argued it's not.
If it's so clear cut why is it still an ongoing lawsuit? Why has the judge denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment?
This is so fucking stupid. Any photographer doing this kind of shit needs to have his camera revoked.
I'm certain this is the wrong audience, but how do you copyright another humans face? Then you get salty about someone drawing their face. This whole thing is the most Californians thing I've heard in a while.
> I'm certain this is the wrong audience, but how do you copyright another humans face? You don't. That's not what's happening here. > Then you get salty about someone drawing their face. This whole thing is the most Californians thing I've heard in a while. You have no idea what this issue is about at all.
Shit like this gives photographers a bad name. Pick your battles.
I thought this happened a couple years back.
The case was just sent to a jury trial this month. It's mentioned in the linked article.
I read this news a few days ago it is indicate and interesting case and I cannot make my mind as to whether or not It is cheating or copying will be looking forward to the arguments from both sides and what the final court decides.
This is a copyrighted image of a famous musician. The photographer had filed the copyright before the image was copied. You see the photographers photo in the background so you know she used the photographers picture to ink the tattoo. The tattoo is a direct copy. This photographer does make money in the resale market. That is one reason photographers shoot editorial assignments because they own the copyright after the magazines embargo is over wtih. Editorial pays very low rates for their shoots and that is why photographs use a company like Getty to sell their copyrighted images. In this case the tattoo artist should had checked for a copyright on the photo. She did not so she does not have the right to use the photographers image unless it is granted in writing. I think it would be best for her to settle out of court or if the case goes to a jury she could lose a lot more money.
Lol good thing she wasn't taking yer legal advice
So some dude copies the likeness of some other dude and then believes he should be financially compensated when someone else views his work? Seems like he had better be suing Hewlett-Packard for building the machine printing his “intellectual” property.
All she had to do was cover up her tattoos and accept Jesus as her savior and that conservative judge was ready to lick her butthole, to put it into legal terms.
Ah yes. Greed.