Just read the story in the news that “the hangover 2” might not get released because one of the actors gets a tatoo like Mike Tyson, and this apparently infringes the original artists copyright.

WTF?

Tyson is in the film so presumably gives his permission?

Surely once you’ve paid for the tatoo it’s yours, otherwise the tatoo artist should be paying you rent for your leg/bum/face/arm/etc. It’s a bit like an artist selling a few paintings for £100 each, then suddenly becoming famous and going back to the original buyers and asking for millions because the paintings appreciated in value.

Music, and printed art I see as being different, you can’t just make a copy of a print/painting as that’s how the artist makes his living selling copies of his work. But surely a tatoo is very definitely ‘yours’.

the work was created by the author – the artist – despite it existing on somebody else’s skin. so unless the tattoist specifically assigned the rights in the work after the tattoo, which is pretty unlikely, then the rights to the work remain with the artist.

I guess it’s a similar problem with wedding photographs…it might be you and your love ones in the photo but the photographer still owns the copyright.

Music, and printed art I see as being different, you can’t just make a copy of a print/painting as that’s how the artist makes his living selling copies of his work. But surely a tatoo is very definitely ‘yours’.

Where’s the difference between printed art and a tattoo? You own the paper/skin but you don’t have the right to use the artwork without the artist’s permission.

Although…when you get wedding photographs done you usually sign a contract with them which usually outlines your rights to the images.

I wonder if Tyson signed a similar contract with the tattooist.

so unless the tattoist specifically assigned the rights in the work after the tattoo

And in this case I understand that the artist specifically retained the rights. Cha-ching!

This could be very confusing. If the design was one that the customer picked from a flash-book, and was an original design by that tattooist, then yes, the copyright should be with the artist, but if the customer went to the tattooist with a concept that required the tattooist to actually draw up to achieve the effect the customer wanted, then the copyright should be the customers, surely. I don’t know the specifics here, so I don’t know the reality, but there are two options as I’ve said.

Intresting, I’m an artist I’ve designed tattoos. My friend in Anerica has had his art copied by a tattoo artist on someones back. He’s suing. I expect as someone said Tysons original artist has thought ca ching, as I understand it an artist doesn’t need to copyright anything original.

I understand it an artist doesn’t need to copyright anything original.

The artist is automatically protected by copyright law.

but if the customer went to the tattooist with a concept that required the tattooist to actually draw up to achieve the effect the customer wanted, then the copyright should be the customers, surely.

That’s an interesting one and I would suggest the answer would be same as I would apply it. If someone asks me to take a photo of something specific, maybe in a specific way, I retain copyright. That’s how I see it.

well you can’t claim copyright in an idea, so potentially there would be subsisting copyright in the customer’s sketches, if there were any, with further copyright in the design that the tattoist actually created/tattooed.

the alternative would be co-authorship, if there was sufficient input from the customer. that would mean that both customer and tattooist shared copyright ownership of the finished work.

Back to the OP, just seen the trailer for Hangover 2 & the tattoo is clearly featured, so seems to be a moot point.

Film looks good though

publicity stunt?