isnt the whole phrase "dead men tell no tales" from disney? is that not copyrighted?

The image is what is protected. For example, I couldn't sell a print of Amina's chest piece without permission. I don't see why it's so weird that it's copyrighted. It's something someone drew. No different from Mickey Mouse.

No, courts would be unlikely to order such drastic action. Significant money damages are much more likley; It's not like they're ripping off some random person's tattoo - Amina is a model, she derives profit from her likeness - her ability to derive profit from her likeness is potentially jeapordized if her body art becomes less original (i.e. asshats copy her tattoos) - so there's some actual damages there, which, when tied in with emotional stress, etc. can add up quickly.

Some of that stuff is copyrighted and some of it isn't - the problem is that it wouldn't be worth it for the owner of the copyright to sue - so say someone has some logo on them - even if the logo is copyrighted, what damages is the owner of the copyright going to claim? It's not like Amina's case where she profits off her likeness and originality of the body art - other than injunctive relief (i.e. stop tattooing my copyrighted image) there's really no money damages, and it's not worth the legal fees.

That's why she registered it; to prevent people from doing that. If there was some type of fight right when she registered, a jury would decide based on the factual issues of who created the image first and who should get to copyright it.

And no, you don't always have to sue to protect your copyright; usually when it's causing you damages (most often monetary damages) - the trademark thing that Clov mentioned is what you're thinking about; if a trademark becomes commonplace and adopted by the public, you can lose your right to it (bandaid, kleenex and xerox are all in jeopardy, or may have already lost it)

I asked some of the legal folks who know more about IP to stop by here to answer some more questions. But I think it's cool she copyrighted the image; it sends a message more than anything.

*Edited to add - Check this out - lots of answers here

[Edited on Mar 10, 2006 by Fee]

Nice work.

For one thing, I think the work has to be registered before you can sue. But more importantly, if the work is registered you can get what's called statutory damages rather than having to prove actual damages. Basically the copyright act says that if you violate a registered copyright you can be liable for statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 even if the plaintiff can't show that s/he suffered any actual monetary damages (lost profits, etc.).

Unfortunately I don't know enough about it to be familiar with this backdating issue. He got his after October 4, 2005?

Disney did not originate it.

Copyrights exist from the moment the work is put into a tangible form (i.e. drawn or tattooed). Registration simply makes it easier to sue or obtain some sort of injunction.

I think the defining factor here is that, since she's a model, Anima profits come from from her image. It could be argued that people hire her for a job based on her unique tattoos, and if those tattoos stop being unique, than she stops getting work. Then she could sue the infringer for making her lose money.

Obviously Anima has alot more going for her than just her tattoos ( ), but I believe that's how it would come down in court.

Am I wrong?

Yes, certainly copyright exists from the moment the work is put into tangible form, but that's separate from the question of whether you can sue to enforce your rights, and:

See here.

I think the main benefit is statutory as opposed to actual damages--not sure about injunctions.

The infringing work has to be "substantially similar" to the original copyrighted work. Unfortunately that's very fact-specific; there really aren't any bright-line rules (e.g., if you change three elements you're off the hook, or whatever).

Well actually...theoretically if you're copying or making a derivative work out of a copyrighted work without permission, you're violating copyright law. The fact that you're using it for a noncommercial purpose at home would go to a fair use defense. You'd probably have a decent argument that you were making a fair use of the original and so shouldn't be liable.

Practically speaking, of course, no one really cares if you're hanging handmade copies of copyrighted works on your wall, so no one is going to go through the trouble of pursuing you. I think that's likely the main difference between what you're talking about and tattoos--if someone feels personally aggrieved by the copying, s/he might think it's worthwhile to pursue the alleged infringer. That person could try to raise a fair use defense, but it's far from a sure thing. Noncommercial use is only one factor courts consider (others include how much of the original work you're using and whether widespread use of that sort would affect the market for the original work or permission to use the original work).

[Edited on Mar 10, 2006 by nonbillable]

The problem is that, if you're proving actual damages, you have to show that that actual infringer caused you a specific amount of damage. So it would be hard to show that one infringement caused any more than very slight actual damage, I think. But your point could go to defeating a fair use defense--see my post above.

Good for her!