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.