While the intellectual speculations on the legal ramifications of tattoo copywriting is a very interesting topic, and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading every post on this thread, I don't see that much can be done in the way of practical enforcement of copywrited tattoos.
It would take two things that I don't see as obstacles that can be overcome; A). a database of copywrited work that tattoo artists can check against to make sure that they are not infinging on a copywrite by tattooing someone. Even with a computerized network, how would you have a search engine that could recognize and extrapolate on esoteric and abstract concepts that are in some tattoos, in a way that a tattoo artist could make sure he or she has checked all avenues. B). It would also take an honesty and ethical commitment on the part of every single tattoo artist to not infringe on a copywrited tattoo. While I know that there are many tattoo artists out there who are true artists, and would be more than happy to abide by this code of ethics, I know that there equally as many who would not give a shit, for example the guy who did the copycat of Amina's tattoo and then insulted her.
Even if these systems were workable, it would as I have thought it out lead to some distinctly dismal possibilities. If tattoo artists did abide by copywrited works, then undoubtedly there would become 'officially licensed' versions of popular images that tattoo parlors would have to pay a licensing fee in order to have the right to ink onto their clients. Take for example my friend's wife, who has a Tigger tattoo on her arm, the tattoo artist would have to pay a fee to Disney to use that image. Now while this may not seem objectionable at first, think about the fact that there may then evolve say a book of Tigger tattoos, and those are the only ones that Disney would allow people to get, so if you find a different one, in a coloring book, or something, the tattoo artist wouldn't be able to ink you without fear of litigation. Given how litigous American society has become, it may come to the point that tattoo artists may only be willing to ink images that they have a license for, for fear of litigation, because how do they really know that image you say is 'original' truly is?
Food for thought.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 by RudeBoy99]

RudeBoy99 said:

PointBlank said:
And, what about this poor sod:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

The best thing about this, is his tattoo of Ozzy's guitarist, spelled 'Randy Roads' as opposed to the correct 'Rhodes'.

Actually, he spells it right: Randy Rhoads.


[Edited on May 19, 2006 by PointBlank]

PointBlank said:

RudeBoy99 said:

PointBlank said:
And, what about this poor sod:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

The best thing about this, is his tattoo of Ozzy's guitarist, spelled 'Randy Roads' as opposed to the correct 'Rhodes'.

Actually, he spells it right: Randy Rhoads.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 by PointBlank]

Aw shit your right, I thought the little H was another R. Damn I need to learn to check my facts before I open my dumb mouth

RudeBoy99 said:

PointBlank said:

RudeBoy99 said:

PointBlank said:
And, what about this poor sod:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

The best thing about this, is his tattoo of Ozzy's guitarist, spelled 'Randy Roads' as opposed to the correct 'Rhodes'.

Actually, he spells it right: Randy Rhoads.

[Edited on May 19, 2006 by PointBlank]

Aw shit your right, I thought the little H was another R. Damn I need to learn to check my facts before I open my dumb mouth

Don't feel bad. We had a seven page thread going a while back about trying to figure out all of the various bands in this picture and their ramifications. There was heated debate.

I am still a law student, but I just finished taking Trademark and am enrolled in a Copyright course next semester. What follows is neither neither legal advice nor legal authority, but commentary based on what I've studied. From what I understand, Copyrights & Trademarks are essentially different areas of the law - neither of which requires federal registration for protection. Copyright law protects against copying original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. 17 USCS § 102. A tattoo would likely come under the protected class including pictorial, graphic or sculptural works, but registration presumes both originality and protectability. Trademark law protects the improper use of a trademark - a word, name, symbol or device (design, slogan, sound, smell, etc.) or combination thereof, to identify and distinguish the goods or services of one person from the goods or services of others and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. 15 USCS § 1127. Trademark law protects against likelihood of confusion as to the source of goods or services by potential consumers in that relevant market and/or against dilution of famous marks. Likewise, IF her tattoo were considered a trademark, her not 'policing' her mark as the Kleenex and Xerox example shows, could deem her mark as abandoned at some point, but not immediately. Considering Amina's tattoo is not being used in commerce to identify her 'goods' and/or 'services' at this point, the trademark argument is likely stale. However, Amina's receiving a certificate of copyright registration affords her a number of benefits: recordation federally, prima facie evidence of validity (of copyright) and her ability to sue for statutory damages and possibly attorney fees. Generally, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 [17 USCS § 106] includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise, i.e., this is belongs exclusive right is all Amina's. 17 USCS § 113. But how did Mr. Tattoo-Copy-Guy come upon his duplicative tattoo? Did his tattoo artist suggest it? Did he draw it and bring it in under the auspices of originality? Did he or his artist draw his flash version without actually copying? Was it perhaps derivative of Amina's work? The reality, this is pretty darn exciting. How many tattoos have YOU seen which depict either legally protected copyrights, trademarks, etc.? I think the only result, if any protection is afforded, will be monetary damages in amount which could and probably should deter tattoo artists from lifting or copying tats in the future. But, this is a rare case in which the ink is actually copyrighted... not many likely are - on skin anyway. Amina may be required to prove that either or both the tattooed and the tattoo-artist who did the infringing piece downloaded, copied, saw or used her tat to 'create' a new or derivative one in order to 'win'. What does the future hold? If Kinko's move toward self-copying was to avoid copyright infringement problems, perhaps we'll see self-tattooing??? Yeah, right. Good luck Amina!!!

[Edited on May 22, 2006 by runesong]

Thought I saw that tat SOMEWHERE!!! Damn! Thought it was a cover-up, not a copy of one... if that is what it is. Perhaps Leela had the first version. Check the USLOC database!!! lol

O my.

And thats all Im gonna say.