Nachos Rule Your Soul Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 This time it's an album cover. Image appropriation is pretty standard practice in the punk rock community, but most of the time it's to create something entirely new and is generally accepted. This is just outright theft. There's no re-contextualization. http://jimsylvia.com/blog/?p=1423http://jimsylvia.com/blog/?p=1428 Follow my attempts to rid the world of the evil that is Laura Dern @LDisadirtbag.My dog Folsom has a Twitter that's nothing but pictures of him pooping and sharing what he likes @folsomcanpoop.If that's not enough, I have my own Twitter @DieZombieScum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VC// Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Why not just email that loser Jeffrey Everett - info@eljefedesign.com and ream him out? I hate people that get paid for copying other people's work. LETS GO PENGUINS! 5x Stanley Cup Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaklandhusker Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Who's tattoo is that, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelayedPenalty Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Who's tattoo is that, anyway?It doesn't matter whose body the tattoo is on. The artwork is the intellectual property of the artist who created it. By using it on a CD cover, the artist who "designed" the cover has infringed on the copyright of the original artist.Now, in the case that the tattoo was designed by the person whose body the tattoo is on, the tattoo artist has no claim, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The tattoo artist is the creator of the design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cola Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I saw Barcelona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Who's tattoo is that, anyway?It doesn't matter whose body the tattoo is on. The artwork is the intellectual property of the artist who created it. By using it on a CD cover, the artist who "designed" the cover has infringed on the copyright of the original artist.Now, in the case that the tattoo was designed by the person whose body the tattoo is on, the tattoo artist has no claim, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The tattoo artist is the creator of the design.If you pay a tattoo artist to make a design and ink it on you, don't you own the design? Wouldn't you be able to sell or license it to anyone? Or would the artist essentially own a part of your body? "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Who's tattoo is that, anyway?It doesn't matter whose body the tattoo is on. The artwork is the intellectual property of the artist who created it. By using it on a CD cover, the artist who "designed" the cover has infringed on the copyright of the original artist.Now, in the case that the tattoo was designed by the person whose body the tattoo is on, the tattoo artist has no claim, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The tattoo artist is the creator of the design.If you pay a tattoo artist to make a design and ink it on you, don't you own the design? Wouldn't you be able to sell or license it to anyone? Or would the artist essentially own a part of your body?Nope. You don't own it because you didn't design it. You are just advertising for the artist. If you drew the tattoo and it's original artwork, then it is yours to do with what you will; but if the tattoo artist drew it, it's his... unless of course he stole the artwork or purchased the rights to a piece of artwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItzJamesFTW Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 This time it's an album cover. Image appropriation is pretty standard practice in the punk rock community, but most of the time it's to create something entirely new and is generally accepted. This is just outright theft. There's no re-contextualization. http://jimsylvia.com/blog/?p=1423http://jimsylvia.com/blog/?p=1428The guys hand tattoo'd was of the band The Secret Handshake, being into the Alt Rock scene (note, these are not punk bands really) The Secret Handshake have toured with Saves the Day before. So, the fact that logo magically ended up on a split EP, makes you wonder if the guy who got it tattoo'd could of had something to do with it too. "Hey man that tattoo is sick.." "We could use that!.." ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 It doesn't matter whose body the tattoo is on. The artwork is the intellectual property of the artist who created it. By using it on a CD cover, the artist who "designed" the cover has infringed on the copyright of the original artist.Now, in the case that the tattoo was designed by the person whose body the tattoo is on, the tattoo artist has no claim, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The tattoo artist is the creator of the design.If you pay a tattoo artist to make a design and ink it on you, don't you own the design? Wouldn't you be able to sell or license it to anyone? Or would the artist essentially own a part of your body?Nope. You don't own it because you didn't design it. You are just advertising for the artist. If you drew the tattoo and it's original artwork, then it is yours to do with what you will; but if the tattoo artist drew it, it's his... unless of course he stole the artwork or purchased the rights to a piece of artwork.This actually just came up recently in the news. Mike Tyson's face tattoo designer sued the companies behind the Hangover 2 seeking damages and an injunction on the release of the movie. The tattoo artist resides in MO and the case was filed in STL. I don't remember how it turned out unfortunately, or if it's been decided yet. All I know is that the injunction preventing the release of the movie was not granted.Now, the other side to that lawsuit will be whether the Hangover was okay because it was a spoof, something that would not be a factor in the case above. JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aci Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hmm maybe people should get their tattoo artists to grant a release on their own ink to avoid this kind of crap... something like the tattoo artist maintaining rights to it, but the person tattooed also having the rights to use the artwork as he/she sees fit. While I agree that it's the artist's intellectual property, I think someone who was willing to pay to have it tattooed permanently on their body probably believes that it is theirs, and for obvious reason... Hamilton Eagles- 2012 and 2013 Continental Hockey League Champions! 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 CHL East Division Champions! Niagara Dragoons- 2012 United League and CCSLC World Series Champions! 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 UL Robinson Division Champions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 I saw Barcelona.Where did you see Barcelona? The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raysox Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I saw Barcelona.Where did you see Barcelona?Pretty sure that's what Cola meant. But infringement or not... I kind of like that design. @MichaelDanger19 | Dribbble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Billy Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 It doesn't matter whose body the tattoo is on. The artwork is the intellectual property of the artist who created it. By using it on a CD cover, the artist who "designed" the cover has infringed on the copyright of the original artist.Now, in the case that the tattoo was designed by the person whose body the tattoo is on, the tattoo artist has no claim, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The tattoo artist is the creator of the design.If you pay a tattoo artist to make a design and ink it on you, don't you own the design? Wouldn't you be able to sell or license it to anyone? Or would the artist essentially own a part of your body?Nope. You don't own it because you didn't design it. You are just advertising for the artist. If you drew the tattoo and it's original artwork, then it is yours to do with what you will; but if the tattoo artist drew it, it's his... unless of course he stole the artwork or purchased the rights to a piece of artwork.I have a bit of a problem with this. IMO, it should be co-owned.Obviously, just because I got a tat, I shouldn't get distribution rights.But at the same time, if I pay an artist to design something special, he shouldn't get to keep exclusive rights to put the same tattoo on others or start selling t-shirts of the tattoo I paid him to create.IMO, distribution of a tattoo image should require the approval of both the artist and the purchaser or the tattoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.