NEWS: Needled News by Marisa DiMattia

CULTURE: Needled News by Marisa DiMattia

For today’s Needled News, I’m going to put on my lawyer hat. Just envision me in a kicky beret as I spout my personal opinion on a legal issue surrounding some tattoo news of the past week.

It’s about copyright. Those who read my Needled blog regularly are now letting out a universal groan and group eye rolling. It’s because I talk about it a lot. It’s my thang, as we say in the legal world.

For those not in the know, I first brought up the issue of copyright and tattoos in 2003 in an article for BMEzine. It made people really uncomfortable and made me really unpopular.

Lawyers in the tattoo world. Heaven forfend!

But when I wrote it, I was largely looking at how tattooists can assert their rights against companies and individuals who appropriate their designs for commercial use. A minor example of this is when an “author” used photos of tattoos from the portfolios of my husband and friends in an e-book without permission and in a derogatory way.

Another perfect example came up this past week. One of my favorite blogs, Counterfeit Chic, wrote about new tattooed tees that raise copyright concerns:

[These cotton tees cost $58 at Kitson. Chic, maybe. Cheap, no.]

CC editor, Professor Susan Scafidi, goes on to note that Beck’s and his tattoo artist may have legal claims here. She links an old Needled post of mine entitled David Beckham's Tattoo Copyright Controversy where I wrote about UK tattoo artist Louis Malloy—the man who designed and inked Beckham’s back tattoos—threatening to sue the soccer star and his Posh wife for not crediting nor compensating him in a promotional campaign highlighting their body art. As Susan rightly states, Malloy could have a claim against the tee designer if he hasn’t assigned his rights in the tattoo designs to Beckham. And Beckham himself may also have a claim in rights of publicity under California law, his new home. [For more on celebrities, marketing, and tattoos, see my Celebs Beware the Ink.]

This type of tattoo copyright case is one that many tattooists would get behind. The real controversy is whether tattooers should be suing each other over stolen custom design work. Now, I’ve had my custom tattoos copied. It sucks. It’s not flattery. My sleeves and backpiece are decorative and pretty, but they also mark my own history, family, travels and were designed and needled by someone I love, my husband. The designs took months to create in collaboration. For another “artist” to rip them off identically, making an easy buck, is disturbing to me.

A bunch of Suicide Girls, most notably Amina who registered her chestpiece with the US Copyright Office, have had their custom artwork stolen as well.



When asked about how he felt over the theft, Amina’s tattooer Tim Kern, aka ymonster, said in an email:

I’m specifically using this quote from Tim because often when I mention potentially suing tattooers who have ripped off my husband’s large custom works, someone will say “Paul Booth gets ripped off all the time and he doesn’t sue.” So I asked Paul directly, why not sue? He said that he just doesn’t have the time, although he did note that if he were married to a tattooed lawyer who’d take up the fight, he would consider it.

For now, however, I’ve decided not to take up the fight in court. I’ve had a number of opportunities to create a test case on tattoo copyright but it would have been impractical. Indeed, it would take up a good deal of time and money, and most importantly, there would be some kind of backlash in the tattoo community because many artists are quite divided and have strong opinions on the issue. Believe, I save the emails. One of them goes like this:

That one’s hanging up on my bulletin board.

It’s true. I don’t tattoo, and as the saying goes, those who cannot do, blog. So I do not seek vengeance for copyright violations in the courts. I seek it out on the Internet.

Over the past year and a half, I have posted a number of custom design theft stories on Needled. Here, today, I’m posting a link to a studio whose artist(s) may just be too lazy to tattoo even copied designs, so they've taken photos from other tattoo artists around the world to fill their online galleries. I guess my Greek brothers and sisters at Bar Code Tattoo in Athens didn’t think I’d learn of them taking the photo (in gallery 2) of a large African-inspired backpiece my husband did and putting it on their site as their own work. Let’s play a game and see if we can match the rest of the tattoo photos with other artists.

In tribute to Bar Code Tattoo, I have decided to name all those who violate tattoo copyright, what we call in Greek, malakas.


I’d love to hear your opinion on the issue in the comment forum below. I get A LOT of messages re: tattoo copyright, so please read my articles before you ask any questions; they tend to answer most you may have.


Marisa_DiMattia is a lawyer and editor of Needled.com, a blog on tattoo art and culture. She is currently co-editing a book on new issues in copyright and p2p file sharing, which will be out next year.

I should mention that BarCode Tattoo was contacted over a week ago and asked politely to take the image down. I also speak Greek so there's no language barrier. They refused to reply.

I see tattoos copied by other, inferior tattooers every day in magazines, and online. The only consolation, I think, is that they are usually shitty copies. I also know a lot of people who have had the custom designs they wear ripped off, and they are sometimes so upset they want to change what they have, or never get photographed again. It sucks when you have to hide your work for fear of it being copied.

i think its silly too. you cant tell people what to do with their bodies. im only guessing that anyone can register a copyright on just about anything and that actually enforcing it is a whole different story. there is one way to be sure that no one steals your personal tattoo. don't show it to anyone.

edit to add: of course it would be nice if people didn't rip off other peoples work.

Thanks, Solaris.

Actually, I wouldn't say that your opinion is unpopular. In fact, the argument over "what is original" in art is a very important one. Tattoo art is very derivative. I have no objection with artists taking influences and making the designs their own. It is the exact or near-exact copying that alarms me.

The issue as I see it is not whether the meaning of my tattoos are lessened in any way. The people copying probably did not do so maliciously. They were ignorant or had no creativity of their own. The artists, however, have a responsibility to take the idea of my tattoo and change it so that it is personal to the client or direct them to flash sheets. Making money off of someonelse's hard work is not something I can condone.

Oh, and I should mention that I'm not a flag waver for the RIAA. I believe in protection for artists but within limits. Much of copyright law goes too far in my opinion but I do believe in finding the right balance.

I appreciate your thoughts.

There are some things any schmuck with $50 and half an hour can get, like a heart with a name on their arm, or a generic black tribal tat on their lower back. I plan on getting a red ribbon on my wrist (for AIDS awareness, cause I'm cool like that) and if I saw someone else with one, well, it's just a ribbon.

But I can definitely understand being pissed about your custom work being ripped off. I have an adaptation of Nirvana's In Utero angel on my back, and if I saw the exact same thing (which is fantastic, by the way,) I would be pissed because that's something that my artist took hours out of his day to create for me, that I rightly paid for and respect. I plan on bringing him some photos of other tattoos for my next large piece, so that he can get an idea of what I want, but I wouldn't want that exact same tattoo (no matter how cool it may be). That just cheapens the meaning of it, I think. Plus, I get the impression that many copycat tattoos are just because 'they look cool' and not because it actually means something to the person. It's just as bad as those kids walkin around with Che shirts who have no idea about who he is or what he did. Only this ignorance and disrespect is permanent.

However, I don't think I'd ever go to court over it. It's just too much of a hassle and really, I don't think it would accomplish anything at all except a money sink, much less accomplish something good for the tattooed/tattooing community.

Jason, your point proves why copyright here is necessary: It stifles the art.

I know many people with gorgeous tattoos who refuse to have them photographed for magazines because they dont want them copied. So tattoo lovers are deprived of seeing the work and getting inspired by it because of it.

But you are very right that it is easier to register a work than enforce it. That's the big obstacle.

do you think that the record label who rightly paid for the original artwork is pissed at you?

Possibly, if they didn't have other things to do, like fancy dinner parties. Or watching porn. However, it is inspired by the original artwork, not an exact copy, and that's generally deemed okay in the community. I suppose if someone wants to sue me for royalties, they can.

I have a question. do you find that the artist that support the idea of copyrighting are the ones that are creative and create original art on a regular basis, and the ones that don't support copyrighting are merely human copy machines that couldn't come up with an original design if thier life depended on it? I just can't imagine anyone that creates any type of art would not want to protect thier rights.

Of course the scratchers complain but actually, a number of excellent artists have opposed the idea using Solaris's comment above that all art is derivative. I've had to explain to them that there's no problem with derivative works here. No artist should another for taking inspiration or the tattoo equivalent of sampling. It's the outright theft that needs to be stopped. That's what I'm trying to get across...

Even if it kills me (did you see how big the guy from BarCode is? A champion freefighter and gun specialist. I'm in trouble.)

I don't see anything wrong with copying another person's tattoo. If you put it on your skin and show it to the world then it's public domain.

The skull and cross bones with "dead men tell no tales" made me smile. Did whoever make that really think he/she was being original? Every little piece of that tattoo has been in the public domain for HUNDREDS of years.

What's next? Disney suing people for tattooing Mickey Mouse on themselves?

Sorry tattoo snobs, but tattooing is inherently a communal/lowbrow artform. If you show your tattoo to other people, they can and will copy it. It's not much different than getting mad at someone who dresses the same as you. You can either complain that someone's stealing your identity, or you can feel good knowing that you're influencing the aesthetics of the culture you live in.

I've studied very little law in my time (although most of it IP since I am an artist), so I should probably leave this response to Marisa. But anyway...

Your concept of "public domain" is far off. Making something publicly visible does not mean that everybody owns it.

Yes, the pieces of any work have been used before. Musicians don't invent new notes, they create compositions of those notes into a new piece of music. For visual artists, this means working within the available techniques and tropes of their media to create a work. Everyone is working from the same sources, but blatantly repeating the work of another is a far different situation. The distinction between a copy and a derivation is a fuzzy one, but there are many cases where (to one with a trained eye, and the experience of artistic practice) the difference is obvious, but yet people try to protect themselves by claiming otherwise.

Derivation is important to artists, it's part of the way art becomes a conversation. If I was to get a large blackwork tribal tattoo, it would probably mean I was interested in some of the same ideas Marisa is. However, my design would reflect the specifics of what it means to me: the difference is in the details. If I was to create a wholesale copy of her ink, I would be no more an artist than a photocopier is. And I'd be missing hands.

Disney sells it's images to the public as pop culture. It's not going to police the private use of it's image, because that would destroy the feel good vibe they've spent billions on creating. On the other hand, if you were to commercially use an image of Mickey Mouse to represent your business, expect a fleet of lawyers on your ass. In the same way, people shouldn't be using people's personal images for their personal use.

hehe. Two Brooklyn women? hmmm. I wouldn't call that fight.

Great points on public domain.

A similar scenario would be graffiti art. You can spraypaint all you want on a wall, and if someone else does the same thing on another wall, too bad. You put your artwork out there, don't be surprised if it gets copied.

I went to a fine arts school, I have plenty of knowledge about copyright laws. Copyright laws would be impossible to enforce on tattoos, and the ownership of any tattoo art (does the artist own it or the person he tattooed it on? it's not clear because there's no contract) is ambiguous. Second, after you buy your tattoo, you aren't making money on it. You can go ahead and copy the Mona Lisa on an oil canvas, make it look exactly like the original painting, but you can't sell it. You can, however, proudly display it in your home. Tattoos are no different. You aren't making money off of them.

It's all too nebulous for copyright laws to get involved, and I don't think they should anyway.

sure but that jolly roger tattoo with 'dead mean tell no tales', while done VERY well, is as old as dirt (or at least as old as the pirates of the caribbean ride at disney world ) and the guy who got the frighteningly similar tattoo is NOT a model who is using that tattoo for profit.

That was my thought as well. I can certainly see the issue with a tattoo artist who does copy tattoos being a violater, but the one who gets the tattoo doesn't seem to be doing anything wrong.

Umm...lol?

http://www.artinthepicture.com/paintings/view.php?nr=737

Religious imagery like the Virgin of Guadalupe, old school sailor themes, even tribal tattooing predate Disney. The issue is not the theme but an artist's particular unique rendering of that theme.