Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tattoo artist threatens to sue a famous guy for copyright ..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:20:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:29:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?

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


<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120418420.283679.205620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
>
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:43:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?

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?

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*.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > 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
>
> Greed, greed and more greed. The really greedy ones end up
> with nothing. Odd's on: 1)they won't use the tattoo in
> the ad; or 2) Beckham will spend more on lawyers than tattoo
> artist can afford; or 3) Another design will be Photoshopped
> into the ad. If the tattoo artist wasn't so greedy he could
> have signed the release for a few thousand quid and maybe
> had his name in small print on all the ads.
>
> How much does it cost to hire a commercial artist to draw
> a dragon, maybe a better dragon? Well, that's what the
> copyright to the tattoo is worth: why pay more?
>
> Beckham should just tell the guy to take it back - he doesn't
> want the bleedin' image.
>
> > would I
> > get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> > take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
> Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?
>
> I think if the image is somewhat central to the work, such that
> change the jeans and the ad changes it's nature, Levi has a
> point.
>

Yes you're right on this. What I had in mind though weren't shots in
which a jeans would be central to the work but just a casual piece of
clothing.

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.

> If any-ole jeans would work then Levi should be paying for 'product
> placement'. Maybe the tattoo artist will end up with a bill for
> having his 'brand' get prominent display.
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
> To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
> Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:38:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> 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?
>
> It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
> body it's yours. 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.

Be careful. Once you admit to having a hole in your head on this forum, you
will have very little chance of ever winning an argument in the
future.......
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:43:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> 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.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 10:49:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> 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, he does, unless he's specifically signe the rights over to the
purchaser.
>
> It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
> body it's yours. 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.

IMO, the tattoo artist has a case here, it should be interesting to see it
develop.
>
>
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 12:44:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eatmorepies wrote:
>
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> > 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.

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:00:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote

> 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

Greed, greed and more greed. The really greedy ones end up
with nothing. Odd's on: 1)they won't use the tattoo in
the ad; or 2) Beckham will spend more on lawyers than tattoo
artist can afford; or 3) Another design will be Photoshopped
into the ad. If the tattoo artist wasn't so greedy he could
have signed the release for a few thousand quid and maybe
had his name in small print on all the ads.

How much does it cost to hire a commercial artist to draw
a dragon, maybe a better dragon? Well, that's what the
copyright to the tattoo is worth: why pay more?

Beckham should just tell the guy to take it back - he doesn't
want the bleedin' image.

> would I
> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!

Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?

I think if the image is somewhat central to the work, such that
change the jeans and the ad changes it's nature, Levi has a
point.

If any-ole jeans would work then Levi should be paying for 'product
placement'. Maybe the tattoo artist will end up with a bill for
having his 'brand' get prominent display.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
July 4, 2005 1:00:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote

>> would I
>> get sued by Levi's for copyright infringement of their designs if I
>> take pictures wearing their latest jeans?!
>
> Didn't Levi already sue someone for that?

Oh noooo! http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/pdweb/images/rickman.jp...
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:16:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"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.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:06:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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(!))
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:42:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote in part:

> ... 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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*.
>

Your opinion, while reasonable, does not come with a sackful of
BenJaM1Nz!11!. How very unfortunate.

The above examples seem harmless to all parties, but if someone's
potential revenue stream is in play, watch out.

You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.

Corry
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:46:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120418420.283679.205620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If you take a picture of someone who's got a tattoo you may have a
> copyright issue!

No problem. Just photograph the area of skin with the tattoo on - not the
art work itself. Then have the tattoo artist visited by the Madrid mafia.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:58:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>> ... 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?

What if you buy a painting (or sculpture) for your house then take a
photograph of it for insurance purposes in the event of theft? Most
insurance companies advise that you do exactly that. It sounds like a
reasonable thing to do, but given the way some people like launching
lawsuits, one can never be sure.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 3:28:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>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?
>
>It seems to me that when you pay a tattoo artist to put an image on your
>body it's yours. 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.

So, if a writer sells you a copy of his book, you can't start selling your
own copies of that book, but if a tattoo artist creates a work of art,
he somehow deserves less protection than other artists?

My guess is that copyright law is clear in this case: if you buy a work of
art you can't start selling reproductions of that piece of art without
the permission of the artist. (subject to various excepts listed in the
law).

Disclaimer: IANAL.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 4:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental to
the picture, it would be a fair use.


"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote in part:
>
>> ... 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?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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*.
>>
>
> Your opinion, while reasonable, does not come with a sackful of
> BenJaM1Nz!11!. How very unfortunate.
>
> The above examples seem harmless to all parties, but if someone's
> potential revenue stream is in play, watch out.
>
> You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
> on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
>
> Corry
> --
> It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 5:10:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Top-postin' Art wrote:
> there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental to
> the picture, it would be a fair use.

Fair use is on its way to becoming, uh, "quaint and antiquated."

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
July 4, 2005 5:43:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Heslop wrote:

> eatmorepies wrote:
>>
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> > 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
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:36:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Fedorenko wrote:

> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
> news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>>... 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?
>
>
> What if you buy a painting (or sculpture) for your house then take a
> photograph of it for insurance purposes in the event of theft? Most
> insurance companies advise that you do exactly that. It sounds like a
> reasonable thing to do, but given the way some people like launching
> lawsuits, one can never be sure.
>
>

Check your attributions please. I didn't write that. Thanky.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Bill Funk" <bigbill@there.com> said in rec.photo.digital: "Is this
actually part of your plan? To use tag lines to show your contempt,
while showing that you really have so little understanding?"
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 9:27:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

>
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> 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
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:50:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> 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.

>
>
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120418420.283679.205620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:52:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120427013.754861.189720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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.

>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:54:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote in part:
>

> You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
> on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
>

Absolute nonsense. Recently, Congress has been the lapdog of corporate
interests in respect to most (but not all) new copyright law that has been
enacted. However, with the exception of things like the DMCA and copyright
terms, the law remains neutral and protects the interests of the authors of
protectable expression, as it should.


> Corry
> --
> It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ta%xe.15722$pa3.10690@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> there is a somthing called "fair use". Where the painting is incidental
> to the picture, it would be a fair use.

No, it would not. Fair use is a complicated equitable doctrine, codified in
the Copyright Act, that is a defense to infringement. This means that
judges get to determine whether something is fair use or not. The statute
specifices four primary factors that play a part of that determination, but
none are dispositive, and the judge may consider all of them, some of them
or none of them.




>
>
> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
> news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> casioculture@gmail.com wrote in part:
>>
>>> ... 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?
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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*.
>>>
>>
>> Your opinion, while reasonable, does not come with a sackful of
>> BenJaM1Nz!11!. How very unfortunate.
>>
>> The above examples seem harmless to all parties, but if someone's
>> potential revenue stream is in play, watch out.
>>
>> You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
>> on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
>>
>> Corry
>> --
>> It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
>> http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:56:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Fedorenko" <pfedorenko@look.ca> wrote in message
news:uB1ye.3021$Ud.174565@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
> news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>> ... 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?
>
> What if you buy a painting (or sculpture) for your house then take a
> photograph of it for insurance purposes in the event of theft? Most
> insurance companies advise that you do exactly that. It sounds like a
> reasonable thing to do, but given the way some people like launching
> lawsuits, one can never be sure.

That clearly would be fair use.

>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 12:47:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>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
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 12:51:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>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
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:01:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p OmdnfFb4r9u9FXfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> > 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
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:02:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gerrit 't Hart" <gthart@sad.au> wrote in message
news:42c8987b$0$25154$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:p OmdnfFb4r9u9FXfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> > 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.......
July 4, 2005 2:16:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3it0oqFmt874U1@individual.net...

>> 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.

It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the painting in
the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish the value of the
painting, for example "Here is me and the painting...". Check your four
rules of fair use. Like I said, unlikely.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:16:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote in message
news:11cikli5b2sav82@news.supernews.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3it0oqFmt874U1@individual.net...
>
>>> 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.
>
> It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the painting
> in the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish the value
> of the painting,

Absolutely incorrect, at least under American law.
Copyright infringement results from making an unauthorized copy. Period.
As for incidental reproduction, the case is not at all consistent. "Doesn't
diminish the value of the original" does not obviate copyright infringement.
Copyright vests the copyright owner with absolute contol over the
statutorily-reserved rights (of which copying is one, and preparation of
derivative works another), absent a statutory exception or fair use.


> for example "Here is me and the painting...". Check your four rules of
> fair use. Like I said, unlikely.

There are no "rules" for fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine and a
defense to infringement. Though fair use is codified in the statute, the
four factors listed are guidelines only, and non-dispositive. Moreover,
because fair use is an equitable doctrine, it is intensely fact specific,
i.e. the judge will decide each case based on the corpus of fair use
decisional law as well as traditional concepts of equity.

In any event, fair use is a _defense_ to infringement, i.e. but for a
finding of fair use, it is infringement.


>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 3:28:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> > eatmorepies wrote:
> >>
> >> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
> >> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> >> > 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/
July 4, 2005 5:00:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3it7lhFn2nqkU1@individual.net...
>
> "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote in message
> news:11cikli5b2sav82@news.supernews.com...
>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3it0oqFmt874U1@individual.net...
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the painting
>> in the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish the value
>> of the painting,
>
> Absolutely incorrect, at least under American law.
> Copyright infringement results from making an unauthorized copy. Period.

You know, you are the type of thinker I would love to meet in court. It
would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

> As for incidental reproduction, the case is not at all consistent.
> "Doesn't diminish the value of the original" does not obviate copyright
> infringement.

It has to do with conventions and fair use.

> Copyright vests the copyright owner with absolute contol over the
> statutorily-reserved rights (of which copying is one, and preparation of
> derivative works another), absent a statutory exception or fair use.

Hook, line and sinker.

> There are no "rules" for fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine and
> a defense to infringement. Though fair use is codified in the statute,
> the four factors listed are guidelines only, and non-dispositive.

Well of course.

Your case is nonsense. You have gone over the top. Not a pretty sight.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 5:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote in message
news:11ciua998k6ol6b@news.supernews.com...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3it7lhFn2nqkU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "johnboy" <okaynow@nospam.no> wrote in message
>> news:11cikli5b2sav82@news.supernews.com...
>>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3it0oqFmt874U1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It is highly unlikely he has infringed upon the copyright if the
>>> painting in the picture is relatively incidental, and does not diminish
>>> the value of the painting,
>>
>> Absolutely incorrect, at least under American law.
>> Copyright infringement results from making an unauthorized copy. Period.
>
> You know, you are the type of thinker I would love to meet in court. It
> would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh, you're a lawyer? Did I mention that I was. And I practice intellectual
property law. A little googling will get you my name and firm.


>
>> As for incidental reproduction, the case is not at all consistent.
>> "Doesn't diminish the value of the original" does not obviate copyright
>> infringement.
>
> It has to do with conventions and fair use.

The only relevant convention in the US is the Berne Convention, and
"diminishing the value of the original" has nothing to do with it or
infringement law. As for fair use, one of the _non-dispositive_ factors is
the impact on the MARKET for the original. Note use of the word
"non-dispositive." However, as I've already explained, fair use is a
_defense_ to infringement, i.e. the defense doesn't pertain until there has
been infringement.


>
>> Copyright vests the copyright owner with absolute contol over the
>> statutorily-reserved rights (of which copying is one, and preparation of
>> derivative works another), absent a statutory exception or fair use.
>
> Hook, line and sinker.

Care to make a little money wager?

>
>> There are no "rules" for fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine and
>> a defense to infringement. Though fair use is codified in the statute,
>> the four factors listed are guidelines only, and non-dispositive.
>
> Well of course.

Well, you don't seem to know this.

>
> Your case is nonsense. You have gone over the top. Not a pretty sight.

I love it when net wannabe lawyers think they can argue law.

>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:00:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120427013.754861.189720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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*.

All good examples. My question would be that when you go into a tattoo
parlor you are commissioning the artist to do a job, and paying them for the
job. When I write an article or get a photo published the contract dictates
who owns the rights to my work and for how long. With no contract, and the
artist's work on your body, how can the artist claim anything? And was the
work original? I haven't heard of Harley suing anybody for getting the
Harley logo tattooed on anyone's body.

If I have an artist tattoo "Mom" on my arm can they actually claim a
copyright on it? Give me a break. If the work was truly unique, and the
artist had half a brain, he would have had a contract signed so that if his
work was used for financial gain he was entitled to a cut.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> eatmorepies wrote:

> 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.

Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.

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

Read the article!

Andrew.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 8:57:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.digital Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > eatmorepies wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
>
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>
> Read the article!
>
> Andrew.

"Mrs Beckham claimed her nickname has become globally
renowned and is a well-known trademark, in a statement from her
publicity company."

"The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think
she had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."

"Peterborough United bosses have said that there could be serious
financial repercussions for the club if they were not allowed to use
the name on merchandising.
Peterborough United Chief Executive Geoff Davey said: "The
name is part of the club's history and tradition.
"I was absolutely stunned when I got the letter. One reason was that
our claim to the use of the name 'Posh' should be challenged.

"The second reason was that someone as big as Victoria Beckham
would want to raise this particular challenge."
He added: "I think there would be financial implications in the long
term because clearly we use the words on our range of leisurewear
and on souvenirs and posters."
Peterborough chairman Peter Boizot filed the application to
trademark the club nicknames "Posh" and "The Posh" in August
1998.

According to the Peterborough United official website, the
nickname has been with the club since its inception in 1934.
But its origins are a decade earlier, when a manager from a club
which used Peterborough's London Road ground proclaimed he
was looking for "Posh players for a posh team."
Mr Davey added he hoped that "common sense will prevail in the
coming weeks", but admitted there was a possibility of litigation.


I should think as they have been around for a little while longer than
her it is THEY who have claim to the name...


--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 10:59:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> In rec.photo.digital Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > eatmorepies wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
>> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
>> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
>>
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
>>
>> Read the article!

> "Mrs Beckham claimed her nickname has become globally
> renowned and is a well-known trademark, in a statement from her
> publicity company."

> "The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think
> she had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."

> "Peterborough United bosses have said that there could be serious
> financial repercussions for the club if they were not allowed to use
> the name on merchandising. Peterborough United Chief Executive
> Geoff Davey said: "The name is part of the club's history and
> tradition. "I was absolutely stunned when I got the letter. One
> reason was that our claim to the use of the name 'Posh' should be
> challenged.

> "The second reason was that someone as big as Victoria Beckham would
> want to raise this particular challenge." He added: "I think there
> would be financial implications in the long term because clearly we
> use the words on our range of leisurewear and on souvenirs and
> posters." Peterborough chairman Peter Boizot filed the application
> to trademark the club nicknames "Posh" and "The Posh" in August
> 1998.

> According to the Peterborough United official website, the nickname
> has been with the club since its inception in 1934. But its origins
> are a decade earlier, when a manager from a club which used
> Peterborough's London Road ground proclaimed he was looking for
> "Posh players for a posh team." Mr Davey added he hoped that
> "common sense will prevail in the coming weeks", but admitted there
> was a possibility of litigation.

> I should think as they have been around for a little while longer
> than her it is THEY who have claim to the name...

Perhpas, but the OP said

>> > Mrs Beckham wanted a football team to stop using the nickname
>> > 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh Spice.

which is what I was arguing with.

Andrew.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:38:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> >> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
> >> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
> >> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
> >>
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
> >>
> >> Read the article!
>
> > I suggest you do the same..
>
> > "The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think she
> > had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."
>
> If Victoria Beckham had been trying to trademark "Posh" your complaint
> might have some justification. But she was not trying to trademark
> "Posh" -- they were. You were totally wrong about this, and the
> article *you quoted* proves it. Please read it carefully.
>
and SHE blocked them. BTW, I did find a follow up where it said
something about she might relent. Their website has full references to
the posh so I assume she did back down.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:39:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>
> >> In rec.photo.digital Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > eatmorepies wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Not so: in fact, it was exactly the other way round! Peterborough
> >> United wanted to stop anyone else from using the name. Victoria
> >> Beckham wasn't trying to register the trademark, they were.
> >>
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2404285.stm
> >>
> >> Read the article!
>
> > "Mrs Beckham claimed her nickname has become globally
> > renowned and is a well-known trademark, in a statement from her
> > publicity company."
>
> > "The concern from her team is that they (the public) would think
> > she had in some way endorsed products she had no knowledge of."
>
> > "Peterborough United bosses have said that there could be serious
> > financial repercussions for the club if they were not allowed to use
> > the name on merchandising. Peterborough United Chief Executive
> > Geoff Davey said: "The name is part of the club's history and
> > tradition. "I was absolutely stunned when I got the letter. One
> > reason was that our claim to the use of the name 'Posh' should be
> > challenged.
>
> > "The second reason was that someone as big as Victoria Beckham would
> > want to raise this particular challenge." He added: "I think there
> > would be financial implications in the long term because clearly we
> > use the words on our range of leisurewear and on souvenirs and
> > posters." Peterborough chairman Peter Boizot filed the application
> > to trademark the club nicknames "Posh" and "The Posh" in August
> > 1998.
>
> > According to the Peterborough United official website, the nickname
> > has been with the club since its inception in 1934. But its origins
> > are a decade earlier, when a manager from a club which used
> > Peterborough's London Road ground proclaimed he was looking for
> > "Posh players for a posh team." Mr Davey added he hoped that
> > "common sense will prevail in the coming weeks", but admitted there
> > was a possibility of litigation.
>
> > I should think as they have been around for a little while longer
> > than her it is THEY who have claim to the name...
>
> Perhpas, but the OP said
>
> >> > Mrs Beckham wanted a football team to stop using the nickname
> >> > 'The Posh' as she is known as Posh Spice.
>
> which is what I was arguing with.
>
> Andrew.

:o ) I am the OP. You have to bear with me sometimes, I kind of live in
a daze.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:46:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PTRAVEL wrote:
> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
> news:1RZxe.3165$aY6.1593@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>casioculture@gmail.com wrote in part:
>>
>
>
>>You can count on only one thing: The copyright law will always come down
>>on the side allied to the greatest corporate and political power.
>>
>
>
> Absolute nonsense. Recently, Congress has been the lapdog of corporate
> interests in respect to most (but not all) new copyright law that has been
> enacted. However, with the exception of things like the DMCA and copyright
> terms, the law remains neutral and protects the interests of the authors of
> protectable expression, as it should.
>

Most laws appear neutral on paper.



--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Of course I went to law school. - Warren Zevon, "Mr. Bad Example"
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:54:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1120418420.283679.205620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com writes
>
>
>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?!
>

Wouldn't it depend on whether the tattoo was a creation of the
tattooist, or was copied from a stencil? The tattoo shops I have seen
have hundreds of designs to choose from, and the 'artist' just copies
the chosen one from the pattern.

So the copyright, and the prize, belongs to the person who originally
created the really neat-looking pictogram that translates as 'dork'.
--
Paul Friday
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 3:24:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would argue that absent an agreement to the contrary, when a tatoo artists
creates a work of art on a body part he is providing a license to do
anything you want with it. I can prove it. If you decide to have the tatoo
removed do you think he can get an injunction to stop you? Obviously not.


<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120418420.283679.205620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 3:25:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you write a create a work of art and you are not an employee and there is
no written agreement, you own the copyright in the work. Just goes to show
the lawmakers were not considering tatoo's as works of art.


"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:TumdnaLdVYynCFTfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120427013.754861.189720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.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?
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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*.
>
> All good examples. My question would be that when you go into a tattoo
> parlor you are commissioning the artist to do a job, and paying them for
> the job. When I write an article or get a photo published the contract
> dictates who owns the rights to my work and for how long. With no
> contract, and the artist's work on your body, how can the artist claim
> anything? And was the work original? I haven't heard of Harley suing
> anybody for getting the Harley logo tattooed on anyone's body.
>
> If I have an artist tattoo "Mom" on my arm can they actually claim a
> copyright on it? Give me a break. If the work was truly unique, and the
> artist had half a brain, he would have had a contract signed so that if
> his work was used for financial gain he was entitled to a cut.
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 3:27:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Except tatoo artist knew that he was using your body as a canvas and he
would have no control over it absent an agreement to the contrary.


"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Qq6dnWcVOJn7MlXfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Gerrit 't Hart" <gthart@sad.au> wrote in message
> news:42c8987b$0$25154$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:p OmdnfFb4r9u9FXfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
>>> news:_fOdnRAM2KIRoVXfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>>> > 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.......
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:43:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <qyjye.3806$aY6.3799@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Art <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I would argue that absent an agreement to the contrary, when a tatoo artists
>creates a work of art on a body part he is providing a license to do
>anything you want with it. I can prove it. If you decide to have the tatoo
>removed do you think he can get an injunction to stop you? Obviously not.

Did you ever read the copyright law? What part of copyright law says
anything about destroying a work of art?


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:07:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3itj21Fn8ao4U1@individual.net...

> Oh, you're a lawyer? Did I mention that I was. And I practice
> intellectual property law. A little googling will get you my name and
> firm.

Anyone should be suspect of a person claiming to be a lawyer who is giving
legal advice in public, for free.

Your particular stand on the painting or piece of furniture in a casual
snapshot is technically correct, but irrelevant because it requires context.
Post a detailed case study so that we can see the particulars. You know it
is all about particulars.

....and your claim that you can find nosuch by Googliing leads me to further
suspect you are not a lawyer. Google is not a definitive source of
authority. You know which ones you should be using. Don't you have at least
LexisNexis and Westlaw? I do.

So, make a case so that we can be specific and not speak to vague
presumptions.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:32:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3itj21Fn8ao4U1@individual.net...

> Oh, you're a lawyer? Did I mention that I was. And I practice
> intellectual property law. .

I know who you are: Paul N. Tauger.
What I would find most interesting is your niche in law as it regards
travel.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:09:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Lorem Ipsum" <Lorem@ipsum.xxx> wrote in message
news:11cl50k6767q1cd@news.supernews.com...

> ...and your claim that you can find nosuch by Googliing leads me to [...]

I erred in citing Paul Tauger as the one who made the Googling claim. It was
not he.
!