3 ms·

That's not what the law says. If Tyson paid the artist to design him a tattoo then it belongs to Tyson.

• chopsueyar 15y ago
  "work for hire" would mean the tattoo artist is an employee of Tyson. I do not believe Tyson paid the artist as a W-2 wage employee. If anything, he (the artist) would be acting as a contractor (1099), performing an agreed upon service to Mr. Tyson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire#Law_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire#Law_of_the_United...
• sunchild 15y ago
  You're confused about what the "work" is here. Tyson paid to have a tattoo put onto his face. He owns that tattoo (i.e., the ink and, of course, the skin). Paying to have that tattoo placed on him does not mean he owns the design. You might be able to dig up some evidence that Tyson paid to have the tattoo specially designed for him, in which case, it would need to meet the following test: A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. § 101) That last part about an express agreement pretty much sinks the possibility that it's a work for hire, unless you know of such an agreement in this case. NOTE: IAAL, but not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.