4 ms·
Ridiculous. It’s not like the tatoo was printed with a machine on to the persons body - it’s a essentially a drawing by eye by the tatoo-artist. I wonder if t
by nacs 6y ago
Ridiculous. It’s not like the tatoo was printed with a machine on to the persons body - it’s a essentially a drawing by eye by the tatoo-artist.
I wonder if the photographer would sue if the drawing/tatoo wasn’t as good and was more crude?
- RHSeeger 6y agoWhile I fall on the side of the tattoo being transformative... I disagree with the sentiment that "a drawing by eye" is especially relevant. To take another medium as an example, if I listen to a song and then release a cover of it by ear, then I believe that would fall afoul of copyright laws. That seems like a pretty direct parallel.
- rainbowzootsuit 6y agoFor music there's a predefined cost Mechanical License that covers the licensing cost of most music you'd want to cover. For visual art there's no centralized structure like this, so you're at the whim of the original artist or counting on fair use. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license