Kat Von D Can't Tattoo a Photo? #shorts

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
#eaglebriefs #shorts

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound

[Trevg]

Devin’s having some fun with his outros now

[rezkel]

There goes about 50% of the tattoo industry if this sticks.

[MukMn]

That's some intense editing skills for a 50 second vid

[giga-chicken]

The thought that this is copyright infringement just highlights how significantly broken the existing copyright system is. Copyright was fine in days gone by, but in the modern age it really needs an overhaul.

[clownfromclowntown]

I feel like this short was a bit *too* short, this sounds interesting and I’d love to hear more about the specifics :)

[WorldOfZeroDevelopment]

I can imagine the series of editing decisions where LegalEagle decided: "lets greenscreen my face onto Kat's arm like a tattoo for the outro". 😂

[TheRealityofFake]

I'd love to get a longer video on this, because something like this could really change the world of tattooing

[LordMauel]

That really surprises me, so everyone who ever for example tattooed one of the millions of Rebel/Empire logos was liable form the start?

[Vivi]

This is ridiculous. Honestly at the end of the day we're talking about putting something on one person's skin. Sure others will see it but it is almost entirely for their enjoyment and will literally never be sold on to someone else. The person who took the photo is losing nothing and in no way harmed by this. Intellectual property laws are broken.

[FranciscoTChavez]

13 years ago, the teacher warned us about this in the first year of art class back in High School. More specifically, it was for the pop-art assignment, where we were supposed to transform a photograph of a person into a pop-art painting. At the beginning of the assignment, the teacher told us, "If you want to put this painting up for auction, then you can't use a photograph that's copyrighted as your original source." So, 13 years ago, High School teachers in the middle of bum-f**k-nowhere, were telling their students NOT to f**k with someone else's copyrighted material as a way to make money.

Edit: add the 'NOT' because I suck at proof reading and missed it the first time.

[blackday]

Statutory damages? I have a hard time understanding what damages the copyright holder accrued from someone using their photo as a tattoo. If the copyright holder was going after a portion of the tattoo's commission that'd be one thing, but hundreds of thousands of dollars sounds excessive.

[GhoulishMink]

Imagine wanting a tattoo of your favorite character and that tattoo artist is like “Sorry buddy, they’re copyrighted”

[MyTv-]

Who’s supposed to have made the infringement?
The tattoo artist or the client or both?

[daedalusdreamjournal]

I do find this case very troubling if only for the fact that it seems (to me) to create a whole maze of confusing issues:
If found guilty, should the person who got the tattoo get it removed, was this perso sued to? Does this mean that tattoo artists must, in fact, be wary all the time of what they work with for fear of being sued?

And in general, doesn't such lawsuit put the entirety of the profession in danger? Since they will have too many restrictions and (potentially) far less customer who want to get sued. And isn't such a lawsuit opportunistic in fact? To cash in on the growing number of people getting tattoe"d?

Bonus question: If found guilty, how many potential lawsuit could this theoritically leads to ? well, a freaking ton!!

I rest my case your honour :)

[Enigmatic]

Copyright is broken and destroys art, while being abused with impunity by those with money to burn on lawyers.

[Hotshotk]

It definitely seems like the sort of thing that might lead to liability, and if it would, I'd say that's evidence that our copyright system needs work. The degree of IP protection is frankly absurd.

[ryanlewis]

Would love to see a bigger breakdown on this. Like what would make this an infringement. The copying or the getting paid to make a copy, or is it the getting paid to make a copy and claiming it's your original work?

[TheRealKSmith]

Even if this gets remotely serious, she's not going to lose. People using (any type of)pictures as a reference of something they want on their body is insanely common.

[jeffersonmetzen]

I mean a lot of people have anime, video games, cartoons and other copyrighted things on their body and I'm almost certain none of them actually got the licensing to actually tattoo someone with it. I'm more or less saying if this goes through it kinda sets a dangerous precedence for the entire industry.

[RavenAoki]

I object!
The tattoo artist's don't charge for the "artwork" they charge for their time/skill and materials used in creating it. They aren't selling the copyrighted materials, or making any profit to speak off off of the copyrighted materials themselves, so there is literally nothing to sue them over. That would be like saying the printer company, or the owner of the printer that printed that copyrighted photo is also liable for copyright infringement. If the person printed the photo and SOLD it, then sure! But they just printed it for reference. There was no fiscal/monetized gain off of the copyrighted piece itself (Thats also why fedex/kinkos cant print copyrighted stuff, because they are charging you for the prints directly! That leaves them open to liability.)

Now if the tattoo artist structured their business in a way where they claim that they sold the "images" they produced (inferring that the person would then own the copyrights, or that they held the copyright to produce/sell it), rather then selling the time/materials that they used, then thats just bad business, and leaves them liable. But.. why would anyone do that.. lol?

Feel free to overrule my objection if I'm wrong :D! (Really! I would love to be informed if I have any aspect of this thinking wrong)

Maybe pin me if sustained <3?