«

"Gerrit 't Hart" <> wrote in message
news:42c8987b$0$25154$...
>
> "William Graham" <> wrote in message
> newsOmdnfFb4r9u9FXfRVn-...
>>
>> "Sheldon" <> wrote in message
>> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-...
>> > This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if
>> > you
>> > buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a
>> > copyright
>> > on it?
>>
>> My guess is yes, because the artist might have made several hundred or
>> thousand prints of the original, and be involved in selling those. But if
>> you try to do the same thing, he can sue you for infringement of his
>> copyright. IOW, if I was very wealthy, I could purchase the Mona Lisa,
>> but
> I
>> still couldn't make prints of it and sell them, just because I owned the
>> original.
>>
>>
>
> Wrong example.
> There was NO copyright law when the Mona Lisa was painted and anyone can
> print and sell copies. Just like anyone can print and sell Shakespeare's
> works.
>
> It seems to me that if Becks wants to use the tattoos to make more money
> then the artist should benefit as well, unless he signed an agreement that
> he reliquishes his rights.
>
> BTW I hate tattoos!!
>
> Gerrit

Yes. You are right about the Mona Lisa......Way too old and out of
copyright. But it seems to me that just because your body is the "canvas"
that doesn't give you the right to sell thousands of copies of the
tattooist's work. He/she still owns the copyright on his own stuff, even if
its "painted" on your body.......

Didn't Milton Greene go over all this, being smacked down when he
tried to sue, I think, Steven Meisel over the Madge-as Mazzie series
(ignoring the fact Avedon shot MM as, lessee, Dietrich, Bara, Harlow,
and even Jackie Kennedy(!))

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:43:07 -0700, William Graham wrote:

>
> "Sheldon" <> wrote in message
> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-...
>> This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
>> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
>> on it?
>
> My guess is yes, because the artist might have made several hundred or
> thousand prints of the original, and be involved in selling those. But if
> you try to do the same thing, he can sue you for infringement of his
> copyright. IOW, if I was very wealthy, I could purchase the Mona Lisa, but I
> still couldn't make prints of it and sell them, just because I owned the
> original.
In the UK you could because the image is out of copyright ( the artist has
been dead for more than 50 years).

--
neil
delete delete to reply

Paul Heslop wrote:

> eatmorepies wrote:
>>
>> "Sheldon" <> wrote in message
>> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-...
>> > This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if
>> > you
>> buy
>> > a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on
>> it?
>> >
>>
>> There is some discussion about that one. Some artists are trying to
>> claim a percentage every time one of their works is sold on.
>>
>> Seems to me a bit like a builder trying to claim a percentage every time
>> a house is sold.
>>
>> John
>
> The Beckhams think they own EVERYTHING. Mrs Beckham wanted a football
> team to stop using the nickname 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh
> Spice.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>
> Sounds like our tattooist is just getting revenge over a pair of
> pompous prats.
>


There we go. So there IS more to this story, wonder why this other article
left this tidbit out? What goes around comes around come to mind here!
--

Stacey

wrote:


>
> I'm starting to be more sympathetic to the tattoo artist if the shots
> do actually feature his tattoos as being central to the shot, rather
> than being just something Beckham wears. This may though be a point of
> debate unless the shot is that clear cut.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm


Looks like he might just be taking a swipe at them because of this "spice
girl" crap they are trying to pull on a sports team?
--

Stacey

>>This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
buy
>>a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on
it?
Yes. The artist is selling a particular physical object, not the rights to
copy the image. If you buy a piece of software would you expect to be able
(legally) to give copies to all your friends?

>>Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the person who got the
tattoo...
No. It's the other way round. You automatically have copyright over any
work you create and it takes a legal contract for you to transfer those
rights to another party. In the absence of a signed contract, copyright
remains with the artist.

In its simplest form, "copyright" means just what it says on the tin - the
right to copy. If Bex were just showing off his tattoos in public, the
tattooist would have no case. It's the fact that the image has been
transferred to another medium - the photo, which makes it interesting.

Legally, it's a bit of a mind bender. I think you just have to use common
sense. I can see something in the tattoo artists case if the tattoo image
is the main feature of the campaign. For example, if it was a close-up of
the tattoo with very little of Bex in shot, I think I would rule in favour
of the artist. On the other hand, if it was just a picture of Mr Beckham
upon which the tattoos just happened to be visible I'd laugh it out of
court - if not, every architect in the world should be suing anyone who's
ever photographed his buildings.

Keith

>>I could purchase the Mona Lisa, but I still couldn't make prints of it
>>and sell them, just because I owned the original.
I think you may find that the Mona Lisa is out of copyright (which I think
only continues for 50 years after the artist's death), but I take your
point.

Keith

Stacey wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> > eatmorepies wrote:
> >>
> >> "Sheldon" <> wrote in message
> >> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-...
> >> > This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if
> >> > you
> >> buy
> >> > a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright on
> >> it?
> >> >
> >>
> >> There is some discussion about that one. Some artists are trying to
> >> claim a percentage every time one of their works is sold on.
> >>
> >> Seems to me a bit like a builder trying to claim a percentage every time
> >> a house is sold.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > The Beckhams think they own EVERYTHING. Mrs Beckham wanted a football
> > team to stop using the nickname 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh
> > Spice.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
> >
> > Sounds like our tattooist is just getting revenge over a pair of
> > pompous prats.
> >
>
> There we go. So there IS more to this story, wonder why this other article
> left this tidbit out? What goes around comes around come to mind here!
> --
>
> Stacey

Hopefully :O))

They ARE arrogant. HE has some talent, though I doubt he is as good as
he thinks he is. SHE on the other hand, has barely any, barring being
famous.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

"Sheldon" <> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-...
> This is going to be a tough one for the courts to sort out. What if you
> buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have a copyright
> on it?
>

I don't know the law in the UK. In the US, yes, the artist still has a
copyright in the painting, absent an express agreement to the contrary, or,
if the painter was an employee.

> It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
> body it's yours.

The copy that was created is yours. As far as I can tell, this is a case of
first impression, but the rule is: you own the authorized copy, you don't
own the content.

> Unless a contract was signed between the artist and the person who got the
> tattoo I don't think the artist has any more right to the copyright on
> that image than the person who pierced my ear has to the new hole in my
> head.

Under US law, you've got it backwards. Independent contractors are presumed
to own the copyright in their work absent a prior written agreement.

>
>
> <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>>
>>
>> If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
>> copyright issue! If you have a tattoo on your body or head and take
>> pictures of your own body or head you may get sued for copyright
>> infringement! Such is the claim made by a tattoo artist, but would I
>> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>>
>>
>>>From mirror.co.uk
>> "
>> 27 June 2005
>> EXCLUSIVE: I OWN BECK'S TATTOO.. AND I'LL SUE
>> Body artist needled at bid to 'sell' his designs
>> By Fiona Cummins and Sharon Feinstein
>>
>> DAVID Beckham faces a bitter legal battle - over who owns the rights to
>> his tattoos.
>>
>> Body artist Louis Molloy threatens to sue Becks, 30, and wife Victoria
>> if they go ahead with plans to use the images in an ad campaign.
>>
>> Louis, 42, who created nine of the England skipper's tattoos, claims he
>> owns the copyright."
>>
>> Read more http://tinyurl.com/clpd5
>>
>
>

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
>
> RSD99 wrote:
>> "Sheldon" asked:
>> "...
>> What if you buy a painting and take it home? Does the artist still have
>> a
>> copyright on it?
>> ..."
>>
>> In a word ... yes.
>
> Yes to the above, though a better example would be - what if you buy a
> painting and take it home, and put it on your wall somewhere behind a
> couch, sit on the couch with your friends and take pictures of yourself
> in which the painting shows as a piece of furniture as the couch is,
> would you get sued for copyright infringement?

Would you get sued? It depends. Have you infringed copyright in the
painting? Yes.


>
> What if you stand in the park and take pictures of yourself on a bench
> in which some monument in the background can be seen, can the sculptor
> sue you for copyright infringement?


Could you be sued? Of course. You have, however, infringed the sculptor's
copyright.
>
> What if a girl wears a pair of earrings and go to a portrait
> photoshoot, can be sued for copyright infringement of the earrings'
> design?
>
> My opinion is *NO*.

You're right on that one -- jewelery designs are protectable as copyright.

>