My impression of copyrights (usual disclaimer: IANAL) was that the copyright owner couldn’t knowingly ignore a possible infringement because that could be used in court by another party to have other infringement cases thrown out. Basically “hey, you let Joe tattoo the logo on his ass so I get to paint the logo on my lawn”. Is this not true?
I know of some artists who will allow tattoos, but they do so on the condition that the artist not keep the stencil for other customers. I know of two “fantasy” artists who do so.
Amy Brown’s policy on tattoos:
Then again, the Hell’s Angels will rip your skin off if you have their logo tattood on your bod and you’re not a member of the club.
Would the tattoo artist not be the one at risk of being sued? They are the only person profiting from the use of the image.
I can picture it now… Pro Sports staffer to tatted fan at sporting event:
“Hey great tattoo! Where’d you get it?”
Tatted fan: “Jim Bob’s Tattoo Parlor in [location]”
Legal NastyGram sent to Jim Bob’s Tattoo Parlor in [location]
Does making a tattoo count as using the image? I don’t know about that. They profit from making the tattoo but not from its display or whatever. People who get tattoos normally gain nothing from it financially (excepting situations like GoldenPalace’s advertising), so the leagues have no reason to care about the art.
I have a feeling that most tattoo places have those CYA posters hanging about much like the warning signs on copy machines which tell you that if you make a color copy of your driver’s license, evil squids from the Hellmouth below the FBI building will swarm out from the toner cartridge and eat your soul. (Seriously, go read one!)
I can see it now: “All tattoo designs are presumed to be the work of or under the legal ownership of the customer. [insert tattoo parlor name here] holds no legal liability for designs which are not copyrighted by the customer.”
All the tattoo artist has to say is that the customer didn’t tell them it was a copyrighted image, and at that point, it bounces back to the customer.
Copyright isn’t just about profiting from someone else’s work, it’s about preserving the association between the work and the creator. Profit-based companies are usually easier to go after because they’re larger and more organized, and frankly, more blatant about it.
No, you’re confusing copyright with trademark. Trademark owners must pursue every case or be accused of abandoning the mark.
Copyright owners are under no such obligation. They can pick and choose all they want.
Wait, so the NFL gets pissed if people call it the Superbowl and not “the big game”? It’s something I noticed just this year. Where’s the logic in that? Don’t you want branding? Don’t you want people to know it as the Superbowl?
They sell the right to be official sponsors of the Superbowl. They don’t want to give it away.
They don’t care if you and I do it. They don’t want other people to make money off it without the NFL getting a piece, or imply the NFL supports some other event or cause. Wikipedia explains.
My guess would be that it’s okay for an individual to call it the SuperBowl if they want, but if a company wants to promote their beer, chips, or left-handed smoke shifters using the word(s) SuperBowl, then they’d better have the blessings of the NFL or be prepared for some massive litigation directed against them.
For example, the NFL doesn’t want Electronics Chain A advertising “60 inch LCDs on sale–buy one for your Super Bowl party!”, especially if they have a sponsorship deal with Electronics Chain B, granting B the exclusive right to use the term Super Bowl in ITS ads. So Chain A refers to “the big game” in its ads.
So let’s throw together a low budget 15 minute documentary on nocturnal birds of prey titled “The Superb Owl”, sell it to local cable channels to run against The Big Game, and if Bob’s Stereo messes up the fonts a bit in his posters well…
What about athletes who get tattoos from their own teams? After the Penguins won the Stanley Cup, Pascal Dupuis went out and got a tattoo of the Cup with the Pens logo on it, along with his # and 2009 underneath. Ditto Ruslan Fedotenko (who also had a previous one from when he won the Cup with Tampa Bay)
Coming in a little late, but I have to feel the argument that “The main thing is, what team or league would bother? They’d look like bullies, your pockets probably aren’t that deep, and it’s not like a judge is going to order you to have the tattoo lasered off.” is not completely convincing in the face of recent RIAA lawsuits. Some businesses apparently feel going beyond what seems reasonable in pursuit of copyright violations is a good legal strategy.
I don’t think that’s the same thing. The RIAA’s industry is failing and no matter how stupid their legal tactics are, they are at least suing people who are using their products without paying for it. Getting a Bugs Bunny tattoo isn’t the same as watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon. If people stopped buying Looney Tunes DVDs and started getting tattoos instead, then maybe Warner Brothers would care. As it is, the two things don’t compete.
Yes, but trademarks are subject to the “protect it or lose it” doctrine.
That was discussed upthread and in Cecil’s column, where he wrote “Assuming you were acting purely as a deranged fan and stood no chance of personal gain, a lawsuit for trademark infringement, which presumes misappropriation of an image for commercial purposes, would be tough to sustain.” Most tattoos are not for commercial purposes.