By this line of reasoning, companies don't own the code their engineers write either. Art collectors don't own the art they paid for. Etc. What a bunch of bulls

By this line of reasoning, companies don't own the code their engineers write either. Art collectors don't own the art they paid for. Etc. What a bunch of bullshit. Have these people not heard of work for hire? The artists were paid for their copyright (in addition to the actual manual work). They no longer own the copyright. That's the whole point of the transaction. That's the only reason money was exchanged. No one in their right mind would get a tattoo they couldn't display; something the artist could really demand if they held the copyright. Does something this obvious seriously need litigation? That is some serious misinterpretation of copyright law. As bad as our copyright laws are, they can't possibly be this bad to allow these obviously bullshit cases to stand, can they?