Photographer Sues Kat Von D Over Miles Davis Tattoo

[WouldBe]

According to the miles Davis foundation website linked above they appear to control everything that promotes MD so the photographer may not hold the copyright in which case they can't sue. (if I've read the article right) The only ones that could are the MD foundation.

Laws are different in US but there have been several photorealistic tattoos done on Tattoo Fixers with the image taken from the internet and there doesn't appear to be a problem over here.

 

[strung out]

According to the miles Davis foundation website linked above they appear to control everything that promotes MD so the photographer may not hold the copyright in which case they can't sue. (if I've read the article right) The only ones that could are the MD foundation.

Laws are different in US but there have been several photorealistic tattoos done on Tattoo Fixers with the image taken from the internet and there doesn't appear to be a problem over here.

I'm pretty sure the photographer would know if he'd signed away the rights to the photo to the Miles Davis Foundation. Given he is suing, you can be pretty sure he holds the rights.

Copyright always automatically belongs to the creator of an artistic work or their estate until it is explicitly signed away.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Copyright always automatically belongs to the creator of an artistic work or their estate until it is explicitly signed away.

This is true. However, image/publicity/personality rights also exist around the world to varying degrees - ie rights that the MD estate might also have over images of MD. The laws on how those two things interplay are a bit of a mess, I think it's fair to say.

 

[strung out]

For any copyright geeks, look up the case of the disputed monkey selfie, where a wildlife photographer left his camera unattended in the presence of some macaques, who proceeded to take a series of selfies.

PETA (because of course PETA) raised a claim against the photographer, wanting to act as agents for the monkey. It was settled out of court in the end.

Any idea who the copyright belongs to in this case?

Monkey selfie copyright dispute - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Cid]

Laws are different in US but there have been several photorealistic tattoos done on Tattoo Fixers with the image taken from the internet and there doesn't appear to be a problem over here.

The production company will have cleared any rights issues. The tattoo artists may have done this kind of work without drawing any attention before... but once it’s on TV, absolutely guarantee any rights will be looked into and sorted.

 

[WouldBe]

Copyright always automatically belongs to the creator of an artistic work or their estate until it is explicitly signed away.

I know but copyright can be transferred. Didn't Jacko hold the rights to the Beatles songs?

 

[Cid]

I know but copyright can be transferred. Didn't Jacko hold the rights to the Beatles songs?

It’s unlikely in this case... I mean given the parties. There may be some rights retained by the Davis estate, or some limits on use, depending on the original agreement. Could even be that they’re chasing him to enforce his copyright... total speculation though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For any copyright geeks, look up the case of the disputed monkey selfie, where a wildlife photographer left his camera unattended in the presence of some macaques, who proceeded to take a series of selfies.

PETA (because of course PETA) raised a claim against the photographer, wanting to act as agents for the monkey. It was settled out of court in the end.

Any idea who the copyright belongs to in this case?

Monkey selfie copyright dispute - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

View attachment 254687

PETA are beyond parody sometimes.

I love wikipedia, but it does play fast and loose with copyright law. In this instance, I'm completely with the photographer.

 

[Cid]

PETA are beyond parody sometimes.

I love wikipedia, but it does play fast and loose with copyright law. In this instance, I'm completely with the photographer.

Yeah that appears to be just a dirty fucking case. Wikimedia and techdirt also not exactly covering themselves in glory... And PETA focussing on the rights of an animal to own an image rather than y'know, the image trying to bring attention to the state of a critically endangered species.

The arguments themselves, dunno - probably a bunch of competing principles. But on the face of it it seems baffling to argue that whatever actuates the shutter of something owns an image. That would surely open up a whole raft of legal issues? Motion activated wildlife cameras? Pictures of lightning?

 

[editor]

Yeah that appears to be just a dirty fucking case. Wikimedia and techdirt also not exactly covering themselves in glory... And PETA focussing on the rights of an animal to own an image rather than y'know, the image trying to bring attention to the state of a critically endangered species.

The arguments themselves, dunno - probably a bunch of competing principles. But on the face of it it seems baffling to argue that whatever actuates the shutter of something owns an image. That would surely open up a whole raft of legal issues? Motion activated wildlife cameras? Pictures of lightning?

It's not unusual for big name photographers to have their their assistant click the shutter of the photo they've set up in their studio.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah that appears to be just a dirty fucking case. Wikimedia and techdirt also not exactly covering themselves in glory... And PETA focussing on the rights of an animal to own an image rather than y'know, the image trying to bring attention to the state of a critically endangered species.

The arguments themselves, dunno - probably a bunch of competing principles. But on the face of it it seems baffling to argue that whatever actuates the shutter of something owns an image. That would surely open up a whole raft of legal issues? Motion activated wildlife cameras? Pictures of lightning?

I think the photographer has a compelling case that he is the creator of those images, not the monkeys. He went to enormous trouble to get them and getting them wasn't an accident, not that accidental works aren't also copyrightable.

He has every reason to be hacked off, imo.

 

[Cid]

I think the photographer has a compelling case that he is the creator of those images, not the monkeys. He went to enormous trouble to get them and getting them wasn't an accident, not that accidental works aren't also copyrightable.

He has every reason to be hacked off, imo.

Yes, I agree... What I mean is I'm trying to work out what legal principles would actually be at play (well, I'm not really trying, as that would probably involve a bit of a deep dive). I'm struggling to see how any court would establish that kind of precedent when it would potentially have a whole bunch of nebulous offshoots. Clearly there were lawyers arguing that the copyright in principle rests with the animal (except that it can't hold it of course). I just can't see why... Surely you have to consider the artistic work as a whole, rather than simply the moment the shutter is pressed.

Once you get humans involved, I think you'd generally work through contracts and rights waivers... I guess that's how they handle situations like ed's above, or camera operators on film sets etc. Children would perhaps be more complicated... Though then I suppose you make those arrangements with their parents. Still there are weird things like whether someone else taking a photo on my phone means they have the rights to that image and I therefore can't delete it... Probably overthinking it at this stage. With law there is usually some analogous, specialist principle that gives the lawyers something to argue over with more coherence.

But yes, I suspect if he'd had the money to take the cases further, he'd be fine.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Still there are weird things like whether someone else taking a photo on my phone means they have the rights to that image and I therefore can't delete it...

Bet you any money if you were to ask a copyright lawyer about that one, you'd get a load of waffle about 'on the one hand this but on the other hand that' and you'd be none the wiser at the end of it.

 

[smmudge]

Warhol, Hirst etc.

Thing is for all their printed art, and like with the robot arms, still a lot of thought and work goes in to it to get the finished pieces. Not really like just whacking a random photo through a photocopier, and so I don't see how it helps the original argument that every "copying" is equal no matter how it's done.