 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by ksuttonjr76 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my mind, it's not the artist's property. The artist wasn't the sole creator of the tattoo, because he would have gotten input from the customer/player. Music is non debatable who created the music. It's not debatable who writes a play, novel, short story, etc. It's not debatable who creates a fashion line.
To me, you would have to convince me that tattoo artist truly "owns" the tattoo before I can consider it a copyright infringement. I look at tattoo artists as providing a service in the realm of haircuts, make up, fingernails, landscaping, painting buildings, interior decorating, etc. Basically, if you need input from the customer to create it, then to me you can't "own" copyrights to the end product.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
True. And to add to that if an artist buys a beat from a beat maker with a sample it's the artists responsibility to get it cleared. So I get what you're saying. But if someone gives me an idea for a drawing and I paint it, I would consider that mine. It goes from intellectual property to actual physical evidence.
Again I'm not a lawyer and don't really know what I'm talking about lol but it just makes sense to me. Once you pen something it's more proof of it being yours. Unless the player in question drew the picture himself. I think that's a different case. But when it comes to someone providing an idea and someone else making it real, it just seems it would be more of the creators ownership than the idealists.