tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post6175274629198488557..comments2024-03-27T15:44:43.564-08:00Comments on What Do I Know?: Who Owns Your Tattoo?Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-53810892840328811462016-02-02T18:02:29.994-09:002016-02-02T18:02:29.994-09:00The deal with copyrights is that when it comes to ...The deal with copyrights is that when it comes to movies, cd's, xbox things of this nature there are mention of the copyright. These products make you aware of who owns the copyright of the product in question. However unless there is a copyright agreement between you and your tattoo artist it could be implied that you own the tattoo. <br /><br />The tattoo artist arguing that the tattoo led to more sales of these games needs to understand that people are not buying the game for the tattoo. Therefore these tattoos do not lead to more sales of the game. Where copyright should come into play is if someone brings a video game to their artist and says I want this tattoo. If tattoo artist band together, and said that for a replica tattoo of a sports athlete, musician, actor, or actress then the original artist gets a royalty for that work. They would need a union to make this work. However the artist should include a copyright for their work, and this should be signed by customer before the commission of the work being done. Then there wouldn't be any questions about the owner of the work.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12223733645290956866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-73489157691014562862013-10-13T16:29:09.740-08:002013-10-13T16:29:09.740-08:00Albert, I think your response is a common one, and...Albert, I think your response is a common one, and similar to the ones that got Mark Meyer upset. But it's not not necessarily legally accurate. <br /><br />In this case, I don't believe anyone is saying that the US government can't sell the monument. They own the object and I didn't see anything about the artist's rights if they sell the object. Only if they use its image for an additional profit, which they did. The commenters in the linked post cited the court case to say that the artist explicitly kept the copyright when the objects were sold to the government. So, the analogy to your house doesn't really fit here. <br /><br />Visual artists are starting to say they that like authors and songwriters who do get paid when their idea (not the object) is used to make additional profit, they too want a share. That's the point of the California law mentioned in the post. Ball players even get paid when their images are used to advertise products. Visual artists want the same rights to their ideas. It's why copyrights are in the US Constitution, to give people the ability to profit form their creations. <br /><br />You can do what you want with your old vinyl albums and cds and tapes, but if you play them on the air or in your commercial movie, you have to pay royalties to the owner of the copyright. <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/01/michael-jackson-and-the-beatles-copyrights/id=4363/" rel="nofollow">Michael Jackson is said to have paid $47 million for the copyright to 200+ Beatles songs</a> in 1984 and that purchase is worth billions now. <a rel="nofollow"> Mad Men paid $250,000 to play one Beatle song in one episode..</a><br /><br />Visual artists are just saying they want the same rights as these other artists. <br /><br />Now, about your house. No, you don't owe the sellers anything, unless they put something in the contract you signed that required you to share any appreciation. If they did, and you read the contract carefully, you probably wouldn't have signed it. <br /><br />If a famous architect designs your house, she may not sell you the right to use them unless she keeps the copyright. . It's all about what the two parties negotiate. <br /><br />My sense, as I said in the post, is that in the market, this is about power. The more the buyer wants the object, the more the seller can extract in the contract. <br /><br />Is this a good thing? Yes and no. Our founding fathers saw copyrights and patents important enough to put into the constitution. The more we commodify everything, the less sharing and cooperative everyone will become. Every transaction will require a lawyer so that someone else doesn't profit from your kindness. Say, you share your grandmother's secret brownie recipe with a neighbor and he turns it into a multi-million dollar business and doesn't acknowledge you in any way. I suspect that at the very least you'd be miffed. You freely shared, so the neighbor could make some cookies, not millions of dollars. The law offers some protection from the greedy, but it also pushes everyone to think more in terms of legal rights than general decency. <br /><br />Thanks for your comment which gives me the opportunity to expand on the topic. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-76079760170758993442013-10-13T15:11:52.300-08:002013-10-13T15:11:52.300-08:00Say I buy a house for $100,000. Fifteen years late...Say I buy a house for $100,000. Fifteen years later, my kids are grown and we want to downsize to an apartment. The house sells for $250,000. Am I supposed to send part of the increased value to the people I bought it from? Um, no.<br /><br />Similarly, the artist sold the painting for what it was worth at the time. The new owner could end up with an unpopular and worthless painting years down the road; should the artist return all or part of the purchase price to the buyer in that case? Um, no. Likewise, the new owner owes the artist nothing if the value increases. It's the buyer's investment, not the artist's.Albert Lewishttp://www.berkshiresbest.comnoreply@blogger.com