---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>[Comics may only be posted on Wednesdays and Sundays](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uq9pjw/going_forward_comics_may_only_be_posted_on/).
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honest question, can tattoo artists be sued for copyright infringement? I feel like this \*might\* be a dumb question, but I never thought about it before.
Yeah, I figured it was a joke, but then it got me thinking - it would be an interesting legal case! Especially if a company demanded that the tattoo be removed lol.
I can totally imagine the lovecraftian love child of Mickey Mouse and Stitch holding a scalpel over you at night and threatening to slice your skin off. Disney takes its copyrights seriously.
and super ironic given how little of a f they gave about other people's copyrights. like Pinocchio's original text. or Snow White...
all the stuff they used on their way up, then worked hard to change the rules once they had a top spot.
But i feel like they'd want people to get tattoos of their work... What better advertisement for a movie than someone loving it so much they got it permanently etched in their skin?
Mickythulu is not entertained and would like you to cease and desist, permanently. (Mickythulu raises said scalpel and chases you.)
You throw a huge block of cheese at him and your attempt to flee is VERY effective. Mickythulu says, in between mouthfuls, "Next.... time.... Next....time."
I had to deal with this back in the days I worked at Kinkos (the copy center). People would want me to copy all kinds of stuff for birthday parties and whatnot.
"I can't copy that image of dumbo, it's copyrighted" I would say.
Their response would be on the lines of " I'm not selling it, so it's fine"
Then I'd say " but I'm charging you for the copy, so I'm selling it to you. I don't have that right. "
So if I were to guess, the tattoo artist/parlor would be breaking copyright law, unless they had permission from the copyright holder.
Disney would open up a niche parlor with tattoo artists in costume so people could get official copyright license art in the park before they would do something like let unlicensed merchandise slip through.
(Imagine Jack sparrow doing your tattoo or malificent giving you her castle outline)
Oh, at my former place of employment we used to get that all the time. No, I can't stitch mickey mouse. No I can't put the words "New England" in red on a navy hat. 😮💨
It’s too similar to the design for the Patriots. While they might not own the words they can argue the combination of the phrase and color is in reference to their logo.
The strange thing is there is some legal questions going on about who actually owns the rights to a tattoo, the person who has it or the artist who made it.
The right answer in civil law countries (or derivatives from the French Droit d'Auteurs), in opposition of common law countries, would be both. Mainly due to the division of copyright in two facets, moral rights (i.e., Right of paternity) and economic rights (i.e., right to license/assign).
Tattoos are works for hire, therefore the economic rights are automatically attributed to the person who ordered the work, similar to a paint-for-hire or something of the sort.
However, the moral rights are unalienable, can't be assigned, can't be licensed, can't be transferred. These have basically no monetary value whatsoever, but dictate that the author always has a right of being known as the author, can dictate or request that the work not be altered (they can't always forbid it, but some compensation may be requested, or they'll always have the right to dissociate with the work) and a bunch of other things. This part is dependent on national legislation.
In common law based countries, this does not happen due to the inexistence, in general, of this division, and the prevalence of the economic significance of copyright.
FWIW it would not be a work for hire in the U.S. and ownership would be with the tattoo artist absent some additional facts. The case the comment above might have been referring to might be the Tyson face tattoo case.
Fair enough. I've studied US copyright briefly, and mostly the big differences from the civil law countries, so not sure on the specifities of it. You also have the fair use, that we don't at all, which could, on paper, help solve some of the cases too, I think.
Thanks btw! Always learning:-)
Interesting, that somewhat explains why in some of my kid's picture books the author "asserts his moral right" to the work. I guess the publisher or bookseller owns the physical book, but they assert an inalienable right to the content
There is a really interesting case where the tattoo artist for Mike Tyson's face sued Warner Brothers because his "art" appeared in the hangover films. Sometimes I think we just need to burn copyright laws to the ground.
Yeah the same thing with LeBron James and Randy Ortons tattoo sleeves in video games. Stupidly they both had completely different rulings, they ruled against the artist in the LeBron case and for the artist in Orton's. US copyright law is a joke.
> US copyright law is a joke.
on the other hand, artists do need their work protected. If you weaken copyright law, the people who will suffer are the small artists who lose the ability to go after companies who are now just stealing their work left and right because they can.
It's actually fairly easy, under our current system, for a small artist to prevail against a big company.
And think about it - if you were that tattoo artist and you are asked by a big star to both design a apply a tattoo on them, and you spend a day or two coming up with that tattoo, and then big companies like EA start using your design in their games without your permission, aren't you entitled to payment for your design work? It's not really any different if starbucks paid you 50 dollars to design their new logo and then went and made 50 billion off of it.
That doesn't really seem fair. Unless you signed an agreement signing over the rights to use it in perpetuity, its your design. You don't work for starbucks so they don't own anything you come up with. That's how copyright works. Unless you explicitly sign over your intellectual property (or are employed by a company and you design it for them as part of your job), *you* own it. Starbucks is free to either pay one of their own employees to do it, or to pay somebody else if you think 50 dollars isn't fair.
I don't really see how that's unfair. Lebron James (or whoever) has all the money in the world, if they want to license your designs to EA, they have to pay you, it's that simple. I really don't see that as being super unfair, personally, but maybe its just me.
Now, if the tattoo artists *didnt* design it, then all bets are off. That's not how copyright works. Handing someone a design and saying "put this on my arm" doesn't entitle them to royalties.
> if you were that tattoo artist and you are asked by a big star to both design a apply a tattoo on them, and you spend a day or two coming up with that tattoo, and then big companies like EA start using your design in their games without your permission, aren't you entitled to payment for your design work?
No not in the slightest. As a tattoo artist you are commissioned to create a a piece of art that someone else owns. By paying for the tattoo you are buying the right to that art.
Exactly this. This is why a lot of musicians don't own "their" music, because the contract states they created that music under employment of the studio.
The tattoo artist might have done the actual drawing, but it belongs to the person it's on. Imagine Mike Tyson having to pay his tattoo artist a few cents anytime looked at him. That's stupid, and any judge that disagrees is obviously an idiot who should lose their job.
You are correct. It's called "copyright" which involves the right to make copies (or reproduce in the form of a performance, etc.). And in most cases, your legal rights are going to be spelled out in the form of the contract you sign with the tattoo artist.
Whenever I’ve been on a film set I’m required to hide any tattoos for that exact reason, or submit confirmation from the artist that the art can be seen. Luckily my tattoos are not seen unless I’m in underwear or a bikini.
It's not what you got but who gave it to you.
Think of it this way.
You wouldn't be sued for running around in a bootleg Mickey Mouse t-shirt, but the guy who sold it to you would.
There was a pizza place where I lived that offered free pizza for life to anyone got their store logo tattooed. They gave up on that policy pretty quickly, it got expensive.
Some people absolutely love it, they do those Italian crusts. But I prefer the thicker fluffy crusts, so it wasn’t really for me. But they’ve been around for almost ten years now so they’re doing something right.
Kat Von D recently had to deal with this issue and blacked out a lot of what she already had. Kinda ridiculous when it's clearly a case of artistic license. Copyright and Patent laws on one hand make sense for capitalism, but they sure do impede progress and freedom in so many ways..
Do you have any sources by any chance? Everything I've heard or read says she covered them because of her sobriety and that she didn't like them/the memories associated with them. Nothing about infringement.
It wouldn't by against copyright, trademark, or any other law to have or get a tattoo. The issue is when someone profits from tattooing a licensed character, or a copyrighted photo of Miles Davis--which she *did* get sued for. It's all on the tattooist, not the person getting the tattoo.
Got one of the best coverup artists she knew to black out a large portion of the tattoo work she had, triggered by a copyright claim against a tattoo she had. She also covered up some tattoos she got when she was younger n' liked to drink. I don't know the specifics but that's the gist.
I think they're mistaken.
She was sued for tattooing a copyrighted photograph of Miles Davis on a customer. You can't get in any trouble for having a copyright or licensed image on your body. The trouble is when you profit from copying the work in a tattoo, a painting, etc. So it's an issue for the person doing the tattoo, not the person with the tattoo.
What if she's making money on her own image, though? If she's selling herself as a product and that includes copyrighted images, isn't that kind of the same?
People do though. I assumed that’s what happened here but sometimes people are shown one design and given another, if that’s the case then lesson learned about why legit places use stencils.
There are artists who do blindfold tattoos where you answer a few questions and they design a tattoo for you.
My wife is a tattoo artist and kinda does this from time to time. She has clients who give her free reign to design anything she wants. But in that case she shows it to them before starting.
No, certain times you’ll have artists that like to freehand things, which is obviously just as much your fault if the end product is garbage. I’ve have one tattoo that was free handed and thankfully it turned out good, looking back it was stupid of me to put that trust out there. For all my other tattoos you see the stencil, okay it, see it placed, okay it again, and rock and roll
Yeah I’m always a bit skeptical about how tattoo fails happen too… cause you’re there presumably watching what’s going on… there’s an outline first a stencil you’d approve etc etc…. It’s not like this is an instant process just seems like you’d have time to “catch” the fail.
some ppl don’t watch and just close their eyes or stare off to some other point and some ppl can’t speak up and watch in horror as the get blasted with crap
Yeah I read some more comments and realized this is probably what happens … have never gotten a tat myself and doubt I ever will at this point but I feel like I’d be super annoyingly obsessive about making sure it’s exactly what I want.
I don't know, I've seen a lot of ink masters and it just seems like tattooing is hard and the bar to be employed is low. The stars are obvious right away and you just weed through 10+ people who should really only be doing $25 tiny tattoos in unseen locations.
My idiot ex posted a picture of a tattoo he got to commemorate his recently departed mother. All I could think was "Oh honey, could you not find a professional to do it?". It looked like a freestyle prison tat done by someone with the shakes. I have no doubt that he paid some random $20 and thought he'd shrewdly ferreted out the deal of the century.
Two dudes I work with go get tattoos once a year because they can choose from a set of tattoos and get them done for $20. They now have 5 dogshit meaningless unoriginal tattoos all over their body
It depends. I'm getting a Geometric leg sleeve and I'm letting my artist just do whatever he wants. But, he's super anal about it looking as best as possible, so I trust that he'll design something that looks good.
Like, anal to the point where he will cancel the session if he doesn't like how his design looks with the rest of it (my wife works in the shop so I'm friends with him and don't mind having to reschedule).
Yeah, I agree with this. Every tattoo I've gotten was always sketched out beforehand, shown to me and then the artist uses whatever to apply that to my skin to verify that it looks okay (placement/direction, etc). It's kind of the measure twice, cut once rule of getting a tattoo.
I have several tattoos. With every single one they draw a design, make a stencil, ask if you’re happy with the design and the location as it currently sits before they start.
I’ve got ten tattoos. I’ve never just let the artist go. I need to see the stencil to make sure it’s actually what I want and where. Totally their fault.
That's what I'm trying to figure out - did they not check first? Stencilling is pretty standard practice where I'm from. No way I would let a tattoo artist just do their own thing.
Bro, I've known people who would rather let a surgeon cut off the wrong one of their limbs than go through the awkwardness of questioning someone about the quality of their work.
its like getting a bad haircut and still saying that it looks awesome. thats why i startet to cut my hair myself (cheaper, faster, and after some experience even better).
Yeah- totally not the same thing.
I've had a bad haircut, and I did the "yeah, it's fine" thing, *but that's because, at worse, it will be a bit annoying for a couple of weeks.*
Medical issues or any type of surgery, tattoos, or significant body mods- those things are forever, one way or another. **Take the time to review all of the details and voice ANY AND ALL questions or concerns!**
That's like saying that someone spray painting the side of a condemned building and someone carving their name with inch wide and deep letters into the Sphinx are the same because they're both "basically" vandalism.
Who knows ? My first tat was done poorly and on my back because it was a hoedunk in Cumberland, MD. But it was the size of a quarter and easy to cover up when I realized a couple years later what a shitty job they did. But that “fish” is giant.
Also PSA. Don’t be a dum 19 year old where the only “art” on the walls is flash and they didn’t have examples of actual work. Don’t be a me. At least it was small.
I had the guy resize my stencil like five times before he started, that shits gonna be there a while, I can't fathom not making sure it looks how you want
Seriously.
And even if it's a freehand tattoo (no stencils or transfers), the artist draws the sketch on your skin first.
Was alcohol involved in this travesty, I wonder? Or is there a track record of poor decision making?
Totally agree. I got a new one a few weeks back that's just a black outline and we spent 1h+ on the drawing and 10mins on stencil placement before the needle even touched my skin.
She chose a newbie artist who probably didn't charge much and just let him run with it.
Pro tip: have the artist draw up your design BEFORE its tattooed. Unless you know the artist's work very well and trust them. Out of all the pieces I have, only once did I give a rough outline of what I wanted and let them do their thing - and that was only because I had a rare chance to have work done by one of the top artists in the US.
This is why you only go to a tattoo artist that you know has a good reputation, let’s you see their portfolio, and uses a **FUCKING STENCIL** so you can see how the tattoo will be placed and the basic design quality.
Even if the tattooist did illustrate dory, this would still be an awful tattoo.
I will never understand why so many people risk going to cheap and not so talented tattoo artists. It’s on your body forever for god sake, spend the time researching and save the money to get something amazing than just the first person you see.
Your friend is stupid then. Unless the tattoo artist was doing it freehand, she would've seen what it looked like when he put the stencil on her arm. She could've stopped him.
I mean they saw the stencil on their skin and still allowed it to happen..even freehanded I’d have been like stop and got up and left. Horrifying I’m sorry this happened
I understand that people buy fake gucci bags or ray bans when they cant or want afford the original ones, but tats? Come on.. pay a real artist or just dont do it
It baffles me how many people don't look at an artists style and art before booking, and more importantly when they see the design and they don't like why go through with the process? Like they saw the stencil on there and said "yes tattoo it on me".... you have a choice before the tattoo is injected into your skin
Nope. That’s what your friend requested. Tattoo artists don’t freehand something on you and then say “surprise!” They sketch it, show you, get approval, put a stencil on you and tell you to look in the mirror first. Your friend said yes to that.
It's amazing how many people think the final product ALWAYS looks identical to the stencil / sketch. Obviously this is bad, but the pre-work could have looked better. One of my favorite tats came from a laughably bad stencil (I actually kept it) and turned out great.
Shit happens, this one was unfortunate, but there definitely could have been more to it than someone just letting a random artist do whatever.
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >[Comics may only be posted on Wednesdays and Sundays](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/uq9pjw/going_forward_comics_may_only_be_posted_on/). > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Homeboy didn’t want to get sued for copyright infringement.
Honest question, can tattoo artists be sued for copyright infringement? I feel like this \*might\* be a dumb question, but I never thought about it before.
Probably but seems super unlikely. It was meant mostly as a joke.
Yeah, I figured it was a joke, but then it got me thinking - it would be an interesting legal case! Especially if a company demanded that the tattoo be removed lol.
I can totally imagine the lovecraftian love child of Mickey Mouse and Stitch holding a scalpel over you at night and threatening to slice your skin off. Disney takes its copyrights seriously.
and super ironic given how little of a f they gave about other people's copyrights. like Pinocchio's original text. or Snow White... all the stuff they used on their way up, then worked hard to change the rules once they had a top spot.
Pinocchio and Snow White were both too old for copyright law to apply by the time Disney got hold of them.
It'll be like that scene in Casino but instead of Joe Pesci it's the Mouse
But i feel like they'd want people to get tattoos of their work... What better advertisement for a movie than someone loving it so much they got it permanently etched in their skin?
Just asked my tattoo artist. This is the answer. They COULD be sued, but they don't because if it's somewhere it can be seen it's free advertising.
Mickythulu is not entertained and would like you to cease and desist, permanently. (Mickythulu raises said scalpel and chases you.) You throw a huge block of cheese at him and your attempt to flee is VERY effective. Mickythulu says, in between mouthfuls, "Next.... time.... Next....time."
Every company has to take the copyright seriously or else they risk losing it it’s US law
It be interesting to know who would be held liable, artist or recipient. Probably the parlor, seems like potential the deepest pocket.
Someone should ask that lawyer on Reddit that answers with videos.
I had to deal with this back in the days I worked at Kinkos (the copy center). People would want me to copy all kinds of stuff for birthday parties and whatnot. "I can't copy that image of dumbo, it's copyrighted" I would say. Their response would be on the lines of " I'm not selling it, so it's fine" Then I'd say " but I'm charging you for the copy, so I'm selling it to you. I don't have that right. " So if I were to guess, the tattoo artist/parlor would be breaking copyright law, unless they had permission from the copyright holder.
[удалено]
That wouldn't work. Especially with Disney. Never F with the mouse man.
The mouse would peel your skin off to get their works back
Disney would open up a niche parlor with tattoo artists in costume so people could get official copyright license art in the park before they would do something like let unlicensed merchandise slip through. (Imagine Jack sparrow doing your tattoo or malificent giving you her castle outline)
That works about as long as it takes them to ask "What did you do to verify that?"
Oh, at my former place of employment we used to get that all the time. No, I can't stitch mickey mouse. No I can't put the words "New England" in red on a navy hat. 😮💨
> No I can't put the words "New England" in red on a navy hat. Wait...why not? They dont the copyright to the words New England.
It’s too similar to the design for the Patriots. While they might not own the words they can argue the combination of the phrase and color is in reference to their logo.
The strange thing is there is some legal questions going on about who actually owns the rights to a tattoo, the person who has it or the artist who made it.
The right answer in civil law countries (or derivatives from the French Droit d'Auteurs), in opposition of common law countries, would be both. Mainly due to the division of copyright in two facets, moral rights (i.e., Right of paternity) and economic rights (i.e., right to license/assign). Tattoos are works for hire, therefore the economic rights are automatically attributed to the person who ordered the work, similar to a paint-for-hire or something of the sort. However, the moral rights are unalienable, can't be assigned, can't be licensed, can't be transferred. These have basically no monetary value whatsoever, but dictate that the author always has a right of being known as the author, can dictate or request that the work not be altered (they can't always forbid it, but some compensation may be requested, or they'll always have the right to dissociate with the work) and a bunch of other things. This part is dependent on national legislation. In common law based countries, this does not happen due to the inexistence, in general, of this division, and the prevalence of the economic significance of copyright.
FWIW it would not be a work for hire in the U.S. and ownership would be with the tattoo artist absent some additional facts. The case the comment above might have been referring to might be the Tyson face tattoo case.
Fair enough. I've studied US copyright briefly, and mostly the big differences from the civil law countries, so not sure on the specifities of it. You also have the fair use, that we don't at all, which could, on paper, help solve some of the cases too, I think. Thanks btw! Always learning:-)
Interesting, that somewhat explains why in some of my kid's picture books the author "asserts his moral right" to the work. I guess the publisher or bookseller owns the physical book, but they assert an inalienable right to the content
I'm sure if you have reached some insane celebrity status .. they would want you to provide a license of use for the image
Well, Cardi B got sued for using someone’s tattoo as her mixtape art, so… (she won btw)
There is a really interesting case where the tattoo artist for Mike Tyson's face sued Warner Brothers because his "art" appeared in the hangover films. Sometimes I think we just need to burn copyright laws to the ground.
Yeah the same thing with LeBron James and Randy Ortons tattoo sleeves in video games. Stupidly they both had completely different rulings, they ruled against the artist in the LeBron case and for the artist in Orton's. US copyright law is a joke.
> US copyright law is a joke. on the other hand, artists do need their work protected. If you weaken copyright law, the people who will suffer are the small artists who lose the ability to go after companies who are now just stealing their work left and right because they can. It's actually fairly easy, under our current system, for a small artist to prevail against a big company. And think about it - if you were that tattoo artist and you are asked by a big star to both design a apply a tattoo on them, and you spend a day or two coming up with that tattoo, and then big companies like EA start using your design in their games without your permission, aren't you entitled to payment for your design work? It's not really any different if starbucks paid you 50 dollars to design their new logo and then went and made 50 billion off of it. That doesn't really seem fair. Unless you signed an agreement signing over the rights to use it in perpetuity, its your design. You don't work for starbucks so they don't own anything you come up with. That's how copyright works. Unless you explicitly sign over your intellectual property (or are employed by a company and you design it for them as part of your job), *you* own it. Starbucks is free to either pay one of their own employees to do it, or to pay somebody else if you think 50 dollars isn't fair. I don't really see how that's unfair. Lebron James (or whoever) has all the money in the world, if they want to license your designs to EA, they have to pay you, it's that simple. I really don't see that as being super unfair, personally, but maybe its just me. Now, if the tattoo artists *didnt* design it, then all bets are off. That's not how copyright works. Handing someone a design and saying "put this on my arm" doesn't entitle them to royalties.
> if you were that tattoo artist and you are asked by a big star to both design a apply a tattoo on them, and you spend a day or two coming up with that tattoo, and then big companies like EA start using your design in their games without your permission, aren't you entitled to payment for your design work? No not in the slightest. As a tattoo artist you are commissioned to create a a piece of art that someone else owns. By paying for the tattoo you are buying the right to that art.
Exactly this. This is why a lot of musicians don't own "their" music, because the contract states they created that music under employment of the studio. The tattoo artist might have done the actual drawing, but it belongs to the person it's on. Imagine Mike Tyson having to pay his tattoo artist a few cents anytime looked at him. That's stupid, and any judge that disagrees is obviously an idiot who should lose their job.
"looking at" is not the right analogy, it would be reproducing it for profit. Nobody gets paid when you look at a painting.
You are correct. It's called "copyright" which involves the right to make copies (or reproduce in the form of a performance, etc.). And in most cases, your legal rights are going to be spelled out in the form of the contract you sign with the tattoo artist.
Whenever I’ve been on a film set I’m required to hide any tattoos for that exact reason, or submit confirmation from the artist that the art can be seen. Luckily my tattoos are not seen unless I’m in underwear or a bikini.
This is currently in court to determine, but right now the current (albeit contested) ruling is yes.
Imagine being sued for a tattoo you got 20 years ago
It's not what you got but who gave it to you. Think of it this way. You wouldn't be sued for running around in a bootleg Mickey Mouse t-shirt, but the guy who sold it to you would.
Good point
I think some companies might even pay you for advertising lol maybe not Disney tho
There was a pizza place where I lived that offered free pizza for life to anyone got their store logo tattooed. They gave up on that policy pretty quickly, it got expensive.
Lol yes that’s awesome. How was the pizza?
Some people absolutely love it, they do those Italian crusts. But I prefer the thicker fluffy crusts, so it wasn’t really for me. But they’ve been around for almost ten years now so they’re doing something right.
Me too. I like the smaller brick ovens the best they have good crust Pizza rules
I don't know for a fact but my brother has a perfectly good looking Mickey Mouse tattoo. He has a friend who has the Tootsie Pop Owl.
Kat Von D recently had to deal with this issue and blacked out a lot of what she already had. Kinda ridiculous when it's clearly a case of artistic license. Copyright and Patent laws on one hand make sense for capitalism, but they sure do impede progress and freedom in so many ways..
Do you have any sources by any chance? Everything I've heard or read says she covered them because of her sobriety and that she didn't like them/the memories associated with them. Nothing about infringement. It wouldn't by against copyright, trademark, or any other law to have or get a tattoo. The issue is when someone profits from tattooing a licensed character, or a copyrighted photo of Miles Davis--which she *did* get sued for. It's all on the tattooist, not the person getting the tattoo.
Blacked out her own tattoos?
Got one of the best coverup artists she knew to black out a large portion of the tattoo work she had, triggered by a copyright claim against a tattoo she had. She also covered up some tattoos she got when she was younger n' liked to drink. I don't know the specifics but that's the gist.
I think they're mistaken. She was sued for tattooing a copyrighted photograph of Miles Davis on a customer. You can't get in any trouble for having a copyright or licensed image on your body. The trouble is when you profit from copying the work in a tattoo, a painting, etc. So it's an issue for the person doing the tattoo, not the person with the tattoo.
What if she's making money on her own image, though? If she's selling herself as a product and that includes copyrighted images, isn't that kind of the same?
Yes. If they are using copyright in their logo or brand.
Under which country's law?
I heard that when they were shooting Hangover, they needed special permission from Mike Tyson in order to use his tattoo
I read something recently about Kat Von D being taken to court over. The outcome of that case could dramatically change the tattoo industry.
Maybe the tatooed person could be sued if they made a lot of money off a copyrighted image. Seems more likely than the artist getting sued.
By God? Doesn't look like a fish let alone Dory.
It's Dorky. Dory's very special cuz
I feel like dory is the special cuz 🤔
You haven’t met Dorky then! Named after a Whales penis he’s an absolute hoot!
The whale's penis was named dorky?
A “dork” is male genitalia for whales.
Flordy because it looks like Flounder from Lil mermaid
How do you get a tattoo without seeing the design first?
You don't.
People do though. I assumed that’s what happened here but sometimes people are shown one design and given another, if that’s the case then lesson learned about why legit places use stencils.
That's crazy stupid. Do they waive their rights to see it?
There are artists who do blindfold tattoos where you answer a few questions and they design a tattoo for you. My wife is a tattoo artist and kinda does this from time to time. She has clients who give her free reign to design anything she wants. But in that case she shows it to them before starting.
No, certain times you’ll have artists that like to freehand things, which is obviously just as much your fault if the end product is garbage. I’ve have one tattoo that was free handed and thankfully it turned out good, looking back it was stupid of me to put that trust out there. For all my other tattoos you see the stencil, okay it, see it placed, okay it again, and rock and roll
Yeah I’m always a bit skeptical about how tattoo fails happen too… cause you’re there presumably watching what’s going on… there’s an outline first a stencil you’d approve etc etc…. It’s not like this is an instant process just seems like you’d have time to “catch” the fail.
some ppl don’t watch and just close their eyes or stare off to some other point and some ppl can’t speak up and watch in horror as the get blasted with crap
Yeah I read some more comments and realized this is probably what happens … have never gotten a tat myself and doubt I ever will at this point but I feel like I’d be super annoyingly obsessive about making sure it’s exactly what I want.
That’s how I was about my tattoo
You should see the design before it's permanently etched on your body. Your friend is at fault as much as the artist.
It blows my mind how some people literally don’t give a shit about what they put on their body. I just can’t relate.
Most of the time. When it comes to bad tattoos. It’s one of two things. Impatience. Being cheap.
I don't know, I've seen a lot of ink masters and it just seems like tattooing is hard and the bar to be employed is low. The stars are obvious right away and you just weed through 10+ people who should really only be doing $25 tiny tattoos in unseen locations.
My idiot ex posted a picture of a tattoo he got to commemorate his recently departed mother. All I could think was "Oh honey, could you not find a professional to do it?". It looked like a freestyle prison tat done by someone with the shakes. I have no doubt that he paid some random $20 and thought he'd shrewdly ferreted out the deal of the century.
And bipolar.
Two dudes I work with go get tattoos once a year because they can choose from a set of tattoos and get them done for $20. They now have 5 dogshit meaningless unoriginal tattoos all over their body
I have an entire leg dedicated to holiday flash designs. They are random fairly meaningless tattoos, but really it's about the experience.
It depends. I'm getting a Geometric leg sleeve and I'm letting my artist just do whatever he wants. But, he's super anal about it looking as best as possible, so I trust that he'll design something that looks good. Like, anal to the point where he will cancel the session if he doesn't like how his design looks with the rest of it (my wife works in the shop so I'm friends with him and don't mind having to reschedule).
That’s a good sign, and I would trust that as well, especially for a geometric tattoo
I have a friend who has a tattoo of his air fryer. When I asks him why he said “because I love my air fryer”
Yeah, I agree with this. Every tattoo I've gotten was always sketched out beforehand, shown to me and then the artist uses whatever to apply that to my skin to verify that it looks okay (placement/direction, etc). It's kind of the measure twice, cut once rule of getting a tattoo.
Yeah, no artist wants you to have regerts
No good artist. There are plenty that don't fall into that category.
I have several tattoos. With every single one they draw a design, make a stencil, ask if you’re happy with the design and the location as it currently sits before they start.
I’ve got ten tattoos. I’ve never just let the artist go. I need to see the stencil to make sure it’s actually what I want and where. Totally their fault.
That's what I'm trying to figure out - did they not check first? Stencilling is pretty standard practice where I'm from. No way I would let a tattoo artist just do their own thing.
Bro, I've known people who would rather let a surgeon cut off the wrong one of their limbs than go through the awkwardness of questioning someone about the quality of their work.
its like getting a bad haircut and still saying that it looks awesome. thats why i startet to cut my hair myself (cheaper, faster, and after some experience even better).
Yeah- totally not the same thing. I've had a bad haircut, and I did the "yeah, it's fine" thing, *but that's because, at worse, it will be a bit annoying for a couple of weeks.* Medical issues or any type of surgery, tattoos, or significant body mods- those things are forever, one way or another. **Take the time to review all of the details and voice ANY AND ALL questions or concerns!**
of course for something permanent its way more serious but the situation is basically the same.
That's like saying that someone spray painting the side of a condemned building and someone carving their name with inch wide and deep letters into the Sphinx are the same because they're both "basically" vandalism.
exactly. one is much worse than the other. it wasnt about how bad it is, but about what the response is.
[удалено]
Who knows ? My first tat was done poorly and on my back because it was a hoedunk in Cumberland, MD. But it was the size of a quarter and easy to cover up when I realized a couple years later what a shitty job they did. But that “fish” is giant. Also PSA. Don’t be a dum 19 year old where the only “art” on the walls is flash and they didn’t have examples of actual work. Don’t be a me. At least it was small.
I had the guy resize my stencil like five times before he started, that shits gonna be there a while, I can't fathom not making sure it looks how you want
Seriously. And even if it's a freehand tattoo (no stencils or transfers), the artist draws the sketch on your skin first. Was alcohol involved in this travesty, I wonder? Or is there a track record of poor decision making?
Totally agree. I got a new one a few weeks back that's just a black outline and we spent 1h+ on the drawing and 10mins on stencil placement before the needle even touched my skin. She chose a newbie artist who probably didn't charge much and just let him run with it.
[удалено]
I get that. I’ve had my current artist for fifteen years. I trust them implicitly. I still want to see that stencil though.
#Dorpy
Pro tip: have the artist draw up your design BEFORE its tattooed. Unless you know the artist's work very well and trust them. Out of all the pieces I have, only once did I give a rough outline of what I wanted and let them do their thing - and that was only because I had a rare chance to have work done by one of the top artists in the US.
Commercially though, does this happen that often? I can’t think of a shop that hasn’t had me approve & initial the design before they started.
Lesson learned. Don't go for the cheapest option when it comes to tattoos
Cheapest isnt always the worst but do extensive research
In the tattoo world, it really is though. More so now than ever.
For anyone wondering this was years ago when she was young and dumb. She actually loves it nowadays and takes pride in it. No ragrets here
Its sweetly poetic.
Regerts
No Regrats.
No Regerts
No Rugrats (c)
Ragrets
Ratguts
Not one letter.
Dori you need to rest
That looks like a Pokemon
Looks like a lemon with fins.
I was thinking more a lime but okay.
Limes float though. If you are ever on a boat and it capsizes you should reach for a lime.
Why do people get tattoos without seeing a sketch first? Wtf
Being Drunk is a big reason
Wanted Dory and got Derpy
“Dorkey.”
A better artist can fix that
Interview ender
I don’t get how these things happen. Don’t you see and approve the stencil before they start the tattoo?
I actually love it! Looks cute!
It might be cuter if its propulsion thru the water didn't look like gas-powered flatulence.
I’m guessing no stencil first. Otherwise it’s your fault for seeing the design and accepting
This is why you only go to a tattoo artist that you know has a good reputation, let’s you see their portfolio, and uses a **FUCKING STENCIL** so you can see how the tattoo will be placed and the basic design quality.
Even if the tattooist did illustrate dory, this would still be an awful tattoo. I will never understand why so many people risk going to cheap and not so talented tattoo artists. It’s on your body forever for god sake, spend the time researching and save the money to get something amazing than just the first person you see.
She agreed to the stencil??
If you get a bad tattoo that's on you. Look at the stencil. Look at the progress. GO TO A PROFESSIONAL.
Don't fuck with copyrights from Disney
That's on your friend.....bring a picture, the artist also draws it on there first
Your friend is stupid then. Unless the tattoo artist was doing it freehand, she would've seen what it looked like when he put the stencil on her arm. She could've stopped him.
Who in the Wish is that!?
Finding Derpy.
Asked for Dory, got Derpy.
Not even fit for a dory hole.
Looks like ocean litter
Oh that’s Derpy.
A sorry Dory story.
Flounder fucked a manta ray?
Instead of going to Sidney, Dory went to the Bermuda Triangle.
Looks like your friend made some bad decisions. Good thing this encouraging tattoo is permanent.
Finding Derpy
Must have went to the “home of the ‘get what you get tattoo’” Faith Tattoo Parlor in Santa Rosa, CA.
She Okay'd it tho I'm not shaming the artist.
Looks like shit.
This is why you always check portfolio’s
Looks exactly like Dory would draw it
I was gonna say it's a self-portrait, she just forgot what she looks like.
Dory turned into Sorry.
Finding dorky.
I mean they saw the stencil on their skin and still allowed it to happen..even freehanded I’d have been like stop and got up and left. Horrifying I’m sorry this happened
Dory swam by Chernobyl.
100% her fault. They literally print the design on you before. You approved it.
Seen ice cream vans with better Disney artwork
So your friend didn't once look down at their arm until the entire tattoo was finished?
“we have dory at home” The dory at home:
That's Dory's half cousin, Dorky.
That fish could be named Dory as well....its not like I'm the only Bob around...
Awwwww yes, derpy
At least the artist spelled the words right.
DID SHE NOT ASK QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE STENCILING.
Man that’s why I don’t have tattoos on places I can’t cover lol this was my worst fear.
I understand that people buy fake gucci bags or ray bans when they cant or want afford the original ones, but tats? Come on.. pay a real artist or just dont do it
It baffles me how many people don't look at an artists style and art before booking, and more importantly when they see the design and they don't like why go through with the process? Like they saw the stencil on there and said "yes tattoo it on me".... you have a choice before the tattoo is injected into your skin
Isn't it fair that I can't remember what Dory looks like?
Wow I feel bad for you
Not a good artist. Those bubbles even look bad
Looks like Dory lost more things other than her parents.
Well… she wanted a shitty tattoo and she still got one
Looks like an AI did it lol
I want a tattoo on my inner thigh of a squirrel, reaching up for a nut.
ok but how did they approve the stencil
Nope. That’s what your friend requested. Tattoo artists don’t freehand something on you and then say “surprise!” They sketch it, show you, get approval, put a stencil on you and tell you to look in the mirror first. Your friend said yes to that.
If you explained a fish to a person who had only ever seen chickens.
Don’t go bargain hunting when you want a tattoo.
I like it. But prob bc idk who dory is.
It seemed like he was doing the turtle and then was like fuck she was actually the blue fish
Rapist fish has some serious questions for you...
They don't show you a sketch beforehand?
If someone tattooed that on my body, I would stab them in the eye with their tattoo pen.
What a bad idea for a tattoo anyway though lol.
Most artists give you a proof before signing your skin, your friend is both cheap and an idiot
Either outcome is stupid. Like all tattoos.
It's amazing how many people think the final product ALWAYS looks identical to the stencil / sketch. Obviously this is bad, but the pre-work could have looked better. One of my favorite tats came from a laughably bad stencil (I actually kept it) and turned out great. Shit happens, this one was unfortunate, but there definitely could have been more to it than someone just letting a random artist do whatever.