Copyright copyright

It’s hard to define a more personalized statement or method of collaborative support than using our bodies as canvases that forever mark the skin. Tattoo artists can be one of the most prolific producers of works of art. The tattooed compositions of their clients are wider and more visible than the work done, perhaps, in any other medium. However, in the field of tattooing it is rare to conduct a sufficiently detailed or serious analysis of the activities as well as the related technological and socio-economic implications.

Let us turn briefly to an article from New Zealand. As is most common in online tattoo-related articles, content often serves primarily as a promotional tool for images that promote ink as a practice and are then sprinkled with quotes from a few people who can be easily contacted. [often just mainstream] artists. However, the implications of copyright tattoo design and related forms of body art should be explored, in particular tattoo designs, which should be studied in more detail:

“Tattoo artists who call for copyright in their work | There is an unwritten rule in New Zealand – decent tattoo artists do not copy designs. The 1994 Copyright Act is now under review, and artists behind the ink say more Strict legislation can protect original tattoo designs. Indigenous House founder Gordon Toy will advocate for the protection of tattoos. “I would like to see some management of Maori tattoos and Polynesian tattoos … there is so much exploitation.” without talking to the New Zealand artist, he said.

“The reset is probably the hardest thing to protect with copyright because everyone is copying it.” Pacific Tattoo owner Tim Hunt wanted artists to respect the importance of cultural patterns and symbols of Maori and the Pacific. “Any artist can say I can make you a design that has a chorus and looks Maori,” Hunt said.

“But if you want something real, you have to go somewhere else.” Abroad, tattoo artists sue when their images appear in the media, such as television. In 2011, the tattoo artist on the face of Mike Tyson, inspired by the Maori, sued Warner Bros. for depicting a similar image of a person on a character in “The Hangover: Part II.” If copyright law protected cultural images, Hunt would respect those changes. “I want more tattoo artists to stand up and say, ‘I don’t know enough about this, I don’t know the story behind it, and I don’t know the context behind it.’ Abroad, tattoo artists repeat images without thinking.

New Zealand was different, he said. “It’s some kind of unspoken code in New Zealand that you just don’t do.” Hunt believed that the tattoo belonged to the client, not the artist. Union Tattoo owner Craigie Lee agreed that there is an unwritten code of conduct that does not allow copying a non-standard tattoo. Decent artists would not dare to make money on someone else’s design, he said. Auckland University assistant professor Alex Sims said that technically what is happening in New Zealand is probably copyright infringement – under the banner of works of art. However, Sims warned against strict enforcement of copyright laws on tattoos, which may include removing tattoos, preventing tattoos from appearing in movies and commercials, or requiring the removal of tattoos from social media. “This will give the copyright owner the right to control the images. Man, which would be very exciting and just wrong.”

Tattoo against art

To use tattoos in the world, you need to distinguish between copyrights, designs or tattoos. We turn to professional tattoo practitioners as their sustainable, primary source of income.

Tattoo artists may have multiple images and other as yet unused media content, such as designs, compositions, sketches, or non-standard works of art. Like representations of various traditional arts, they are relatively easy to record as well as download, allowing for a clear digital attribution of copyright ownership.

Separately, as worn by clients, tattoo artists usually have briefcases with tattooed items. The use of three-dimensional canvas presents difficulties in automated digital identification. In many image copyright tracking software, positioning alone can completely repel investigative techniques. While Instagram and alternative photo upload databases offer some form of time-stamped verification, but due to relatively openly editable structures the subsequent source assignment and ownership may decrease. The first practical difference is whether the work of the tattoo artist is recorded on the skin or on another type of canvas.

An artist against technology

In order for copyright opinions to be properly considered, the group serves as an initial categorization for the tattoo industry. On one side of the creative spectrum of tattoo art are those tattoo masters who are just realizing their style and technique.

By refusing to reflect on how a tattoo artist’s styles and aesthetics could be derived or inspired, a tattoo artist’s work can be independently recognized as “theirs”. In a sense, the tattoo artist has a stylistic monopoly.

In proportion to other creative means, a tattoo artist has a special vision, knowledge and or experience that cannot be easily replaced or by someone else. Thus, a tattoo artist can be classified as a tattoo craft practitioner to convey a unique style and / or promote the continuation of a single aesthetic or technique.

Tattoo technicians can have different portfolios of completed, tattooed works. While tattoos in such portfolios cannot be accurately replicated, such unique quality attributes are driven primarily by placement on a custom-made canvas, i.e. on one completely separate person. The cohesive result is custom-made, not the isolation of the composition. Similarly, such a tattoo is formed in certain, often non-reproducible proportions. The resulting tattoo can indeed be accurately reproduced by any number of other tattoo technicians, albeit on another exclusive canvas.

And as a proportionately qualified technician in any field, a tattoo technician can be replaced without internal loss or deterioration of results. A technician is a tattoo artist who is physically and technically capable of applying categories of tattoos, but can do so indiscriminately in relation to a single style, size, technique, aesthetics and or design. Limiting factor, not artistic temperament or vision.

Tradition versus technology

One can think of tattoo artists [as just two examples from millions] Ondrash conveys to Harios III in Japan a unique aesthetic, continuing the rich cultural art of the camp. Being solely under the jurisdiction of the tattoo artist, the distinction between authorial unique compositions as opposed to reproductions of traditional iconography forms another noteworthy section.

Like any configuration in more classic mainstream media such as painting, such a dichotomy does not mean that the art of tattooing itself does not necessarily sink to one side. As in all art classes, sources of inspiration, as well as subjectively substantiated conclusions that the same compositions, marked by some as “respect” or “theft”, must be objectively qualified in any way. As they often say, good artists copy – great artists steal. In practice, though, a tattoo artist who creates traditionally inspired works may automatically and logically be deprived of the right to register tattoo art from human canvas.

Copyright versus claims

There may be a dual purpose in registering copyright. First, it functions as an externally verified third-party acknowledgment of commissioned or attributed authorship. It adds credibility, weight and credibility to the content. Last but not least it often contributes to pricing.

Second, the purpose of property registration may be to prepare for the cataloging of the procedure when initiating formalized legal protection. However, these processes require the identification of the offender (s), interaction with them, refusal to register, and then successful conviction in a manner limited to their geographically applicable court (s). The quantification of the remuneration to be received depends on the precise identification of the infringer, the documented use of the content to be found, the guilt established through the response and the achievable legal consequences, partly determined by physical location. All form notable complicating factors.

Confession against defense

It is considered common for a tattoo artist to use samples or even completed tattooed parts of another’s portfolio. While most accredited tattoo works are searchable online, large volumes available through a variety of sources destroy attempts at a single point [i.e. one tattooist’s] lending. Illegal or unauthorized use of tattooed works may only be in printed or offline portfolios, such as those shown to studio studios. Tattoos often serve as an individual and private art form.

Thus, online display and thus essentially public “registration” of tattooed works may intentionally not exist. Its owner could demand it.

These factors culminate in the ability of tattoo technicians dealing directly with individual clients to potentially be quite liberal in statements of work performed, as well as, further, on claimed experience or knowledge in tattooing.

In a practical sense, motivations or incentives for copyright registration for tattoos are more widespread for the tattoo artist and perhaps only as a form of registration of completed portfolios for the technician. Although achievable rewards or punitive measures against copyright infringers are far from universally predictable, focusing on the digital time stamp of both tattoo art and portfolio through blockchain verification is the first step to ensuring authenticity. However, in use the creator now has an unchanging, from one source justification of ownership.

As in the case of decentralized power technology, the ability to redistribute trust to individual sources as opposed to “hubs” equates to the potential introduction of a new standard of performance testing. This is very important for the customer when choosing a process. For tattoo artists, the effects and benefits of copyright ownership through a blockchain are also significant.

The above article: May 28, 2018, Amber-Leigh Wolf on Stuff