Asking a tattoo artist to tattoo someone else's (non-tattoo) art?

[deadsp0t]

Just out of curiosity--and I'm not being confrontational with this question or trying to dismiss your feelings--how exactly do you feel ripped off? I could see if someone was passing off a design/selling it as one of their own' date=' but if someone gets that image tattooed on them, I don't really see it as the creator of said image being ripped off. I do understand that the tattoo artist is charging the person to tattoo that image on them, but they're charging the person for the work being done on them, not for the image itself. Now if a tattoo artist had someone else's design up on a wall w/o consent and was trying to pass it off as their own, then yeah, I could see where the feeling of being ripped off comes into play...but if an average Joe walks into a shop wanting to get an image tattooed on them, I don't really see it as ripping the artist off. Now if the image is copyrighted and the tattoo artist still tattoos the image, then I completely understand where feeling ripped off comes into play...but if there is no copyright attached to a piece of work, there's really no way to enforce it.[/quote']

Also, the fact is there is so much 'art' floating around. Drawings, paintings, pictures of drawings and paintings, a lot of what I see that's not meant to be tattoo flash is circulating unsigned and no artist recognition.

If an artist wished to be paid or recognized accordingly then they must take the steps to insure their art isn't published without consent, and it boils down to only the artist can control that.

If you don't take steps to prevent something from happening that you know is gonna happen, that's consent. Silence equals consent.

I don't advocate stealing ppls ideas, creativity, skill or hard work but if I don't lock my house up and someone steals my shit, no ones going to care, including my insurance company.

[Graeme]

Also, the fact is there is so much 'art' floating around. Drawings, paintings, pictures of drawings and paintings, a lot of what I see that's not meant to be tattoo flash is circulating unsigned and no artist recognition.

If an artist wished to be paid or recognized accordingly then they must take the steps to insure their art isn't published without consent, and it boils down to only the artist can control that.

If you don't take steps to prevent something from happening that you know is gonna happen, that's consent. Silence equals consent.

I don't advocate stealing ppls ideas, creativity, skill or hard work but if I don't lock my house up and someone steals my shit, no ones going to care, including my insurance company.

So are you suggesting that artists should have a lawyer on retainer to go after anybody who infringes on their copyright? Because that's really the only thing I can think of that would, and in only specific cases, prevent people from ripping off artists. Ryan Begley who does Shirts and Destroy recently wrote a thing about Affliction ripping off S&D and how in his case, even with a lawyer on his side, he wasn't even able to get a cease and desist order against Affliction because intellectual property is a "grey area". I'm sure Affliction can afford better lawyers than Ryan Begley too. I don't know any artists who have the time or money to actually fight against every instance that somebody has ripped them off, and no, that does not "equal consent".

[CultExciter]

So are you suggesting that artists should have a lawyer on retainer to go after anybody who infringes on their copyright?

Finally, the voice of reason I was far too inept to articulate.

[deadsp0t]

So are you suggesting that artists should have a lawyer on retainer to go after anybody who infringes on their copyright? Because that's really the only thing I can think of that would' date=' and in only specific cases, prevent people from ripping off artists. Ryan Begley who does Shirts and Destroy recently wrote a thing about Affliction ripping off S&D and how in his case, even with a lawyer on his side, he wasn't even able to get a cease and desist order against Affliction because intellectual property is a "grey area". I'm sure Affliction can afford better lawyers than Ryan Begley too. I don't know any artists who have the time or money to actually fight against every instance that somebody has ripped them off, and no, that does not "equal consent".

If one is upset their work is being hijacked(used by another artist and other artist taking credit), and have taken no steps to prevent it, then they've only their self to blame. Retaining a lawyer may be a touch extreme in most cases, posting every piece if work they own on 4-5 websites is a bit careless if you're going to be offended if it's copied. Blasting your work all over the interwebs is somewhat effective, it's not the only way to spread the word.

If they have time to bitch about it, they have time to actually do something and if their silence isn't consent, what exactly is it, it's clearly not a deterrent. Anyways, the whole thing feels hypocritical in a lot if cases, for me, if you don't care enough to at least, try to protect your hard work, then don't be surprised it got jacked. Simple.

[Tesseracts]

If one is upset their work is being hijacked(used by another artist and other artist taking credit), and have taken no steps to prevent it, then they've only their self to blame. Retaining a lawyer may be a touch extreme in most cases, posting every piece if work they own on 4-5 websites is a bit careless if you're going to be offended if it's copied. Blasting your work all over the interwebs is somewhat effective, it's not the only way to spread the word.

If they have time to bitch about it, they have time to actually do something and if their silence isn't consent, what exactly is it, it's clearly not a deterrent. Anyways, the whole thing feels hypocritical in a lot if cases, for me, if you don't care enough to at least, try to protect your hard work, then don't be surprised it got jacked. Simple.

Actually, blasting your work all over the internet is the best way to protect it. The more people can recognize your work, the more people will notice when it's been stolen, and complain about it if the need arises.

Artists can't have a career without publicity, if nobody knows their work exists, nobody is going to buy it. The bottom line is, you're completely wrong and nobody who knows copyright law would agree with this, in fact I think the only people who would agree with your argument are people who have a habit of stealing art without giving credit.

[deadsp0t]

Actually' date=' blasting your work all over the internet is the best way to protect it. The more people can recognize your work, the more people will notice when it's been stolen, and complain about it if the need arises. Artists can't have a career without publicity, if nobody knows their work exists, nobody is going to buy it. The bottom line is, you're completely wrong and nobody who knows copyright law would agree with this, in fact I think the only people who would agree with your argument are people who have a habit of stealing art without giving credit.[/quote']

Because the amount of work hijacked has significantly declined since blasting the internet with your unprotected artwork began.

There's likely 100x more work available using the internet and I'd bet the hijacking rate is double that.

People recognizing doesn't change anything, I don't think any measures will stop it and my point is the same.

[bugxjuice]

Because the amount of work hijacked has significantly declined since blasting the internet with your unprotected artwork began.

There's likely 100x more work available using the internet and I'd bet the hijacking rate is double that.

People recognizing doesn't change anything, I don't think any measures will stop it and my point is the same.

Maybe I missed them, but do you actually have any suggestions for how people can protect their work? Your approach seems to be if you don't want to get ripped off, don't show your work anywhere(?). Your pro-rip off attitude is mind-boggling.

[deadsp0t]

Maybe I missed them' date=' but do you actually have any suggestions for how people can protect their work? Your approach seems to be if you don't want to get ripped off, don't show your work anywhere(?). Your pro-rip off attitude is mind-boggling.[/quote']

:) ok, believe what you like. I dare not make a suggestion on how anyone run their business, things get touchy when you do too much of that. Besides that's not why we're here, that said, know your work when you go to get tattooed, if you known artist is openly ripping off work, you're probably not going to get a great tattoo.

[Tesseracts]

Because the amount of work hijacked has significantly declined since blasting the internet with your unprotected artwork began.

I don't think the amount of work stolen has increased or declined, but the amount of publicity that stolen art gets has increased since the internet. For example, I know an illustrator whose painting was stolen by a Bollywood movie. He found out about it and ended up getting a lot of money by legally challenging them. Before the internet, somebody on the other side of the world could have created this movie with stolen work without the American artist ever finding out about it at all. The fact that everything is online is a good thing.

People recognizing doesn't change anything, I don't think any measures will stop it and my point is the same.

Your point is that silence is consent. That's not a matter of opinion, it's factually wrong. Your work is yours the instant you create it, and anybody who tries to make money off of your work is breaking the law, no matter how silent you are.

On the original subject of this thread... years ago I emailed the people in charge of M.C. Escher's copyright and asked them if I would be violating copyright by getting a tattoo of his work. They told me it would not be a violation. I'm not an expert on copyright law, so I don't know if this is true for every work of art. M.C. Escher is dead, if you're taking the work of an artist who is alive and trying to make a living it's definitely more disrespectful.

[deadsp0t]

I don't think the amount of work stolen has increased or declined' date=' but the amount of publicity that stolen art gets has increased since the internet. For example, I know an illustrator whose painting was stolen by a Bollywood movie. He found out about it and ended up getting a lot of money by legally challenging them. Before the internet, somebody on the other side of the world could have created this movie with stolen work without the American artist ever finding out about it at all. The fact that everything is online is a good thing. Your point is that silence is consent. That's not a matter of opinion, it's factually wrong. Your work is yours the instant you create it, and anybody who tries to make money off of your work is breaking the law, no matter how silent you are. On the original subject of this thread... years ago I emailed the people in charge of M.C. Escher's copyright and asked them if I would be violating copyright by getting a tattoo of his work. They told me it would not be a violation. I'm not an expert on copyright law, so I don't know if this is true for every work of art. M.C. Escher is dead, if you're taking the work of an artist who is alive and trying to make a living it's definitely more disrespectful.[/quote']

Agreed it belongs to the creator and any attempt to profit is illegal and only hacks do that.

Being against the law does not stop anyone from doing it and neither does being silent about, both figurative and literally.

[Victor]

One you cross the medium (Paint on Canvas to Ink in Skin) threshold, and specifically with tattooing, since it is one shot deal, there should be no problem with a reproduction. It would actually take a skilled Tattooer to reproduce a painting accurately, so proper respect for that. Tattooing has a long modern history of translating non tattoo art into tattoo projects. From classic illustration, cartoons and even early Sailor Flash (water color paintings) came from surrounding popular art of the time that became popular tattoo flash back in the day. Those Tattoo Flash sheet images were sourced from the art that surrounded the people at the time, otherwise it would not have been ...popular. People are creatures of habit and like what is familiar to them.

So cross medium reproduction is cool in my book, original or with the applicators twist on the source image.

As far a copyright goes, it is morally wrong for someone to profit from another Artist's hard work without compensation (going to the source originator of that artwork), but the value added aspect (hard work to produce a tattoo) and difficulty/specially skill set required in actually reproducing each artwork piece into the skin as opposed to running a printing press and selling the prints, muddies up the water on copyright. Tattooers are paid for their time in Tattoo application, not so much for their original art, to think otherwise we would have to expect a hourly application rate and a research/designing/drawing fee surcharge on top... do you see what I mean?

I do not see H.R. Giger getting his panties in a knot when people emulate and reproduce his amazing painting into the skin, if anything his name has become a "tattoo house hold" name because of it.

[Hogrider]

17 hours ago, Marrie max said:

Yes, I think artists should have a lawyer on retainer to go after anybody who infringes on their copyright? Because some people didn't stop the violation of copyright. That's why artists need a Lawyer. If you need a Criminal lawyer. I will suggest Mandslawyers. Because they have a lot of experience.

Yea, you guys must be great lawyers to be so desperate that you're advertising on forums with these stupid posts. You're responding to an eight year old post dumb ass.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Hogrider

[Blue Tattoo]

My artist told me he's open to a client bringing the design they want. I've done it with both of mine so far, but I've also been open to them putting their personality into it.  Both times it's been better than expected. 

[Hogrider]

Oops

8 hours ago, tattbooking said:

You can visit tattbooking. Tattbooking is a website that provides online Tattoo booking services for tattoo and piercing appointments. The website allows users to search for tattoo and piercing studios in their area and book appointments online. Users can view the portfolio of the artists and select the artist they want to work with. The website also provides information on aftercare and frequently asked questions related to tattooing and piercing. In addition, Tattbooking offers a feature called "Artist Finder" that helps users find artists based on their preferred style and location. Overall, Tattbooking aims to make the process of booking a tattoo or piercing appointment more convenient and accessible for users.

 

You have been awarded dunce of the year for most obvious spammy spam spamming yet. You should at least TRY to hide the fact that you’re a spamming maggot!

Edited May 12, 2023 by Hogrider

[Syntheticfish]

On 2/12/2014 at 11:59 AM, velvetlover36 said:

Just out of curiosity--and I'm not being confrontational with this question or trying to dismiss your feelings--how exactly do you feel ripped off? I could see if someone was passing off a design/selling it as one of their own, but if someone gets that image tattooed on them, I don't really see it as the creator of said image being ripped off. I do understand that the tattoo artist is charging the person to tattoo that image on them, but they're charging the person for the work being done on them, not for the image itself. Now if a tattoo artist had someone else's design up on a wall w/o consent and was trying to pass it off as their own, then yeah, I could see where the feeling of being ripped off comes into play...but if an average Joe walks into a shop wanting to get an image tattooed on them, I don't really see it as ripping the artist off.

Now if the image is copyrighted and the tattoo artist still tattoos the image, then I completely understand where feeling ripped off comes into play...but if there is no copyright attached to a piece of work, there's really no way to enforce it.

Art is copyrighted automatically to the creator at the point in time it is created.  There is no requirement to register it with the copyright office to receive the copyright.  If you do the paperwork, it's just a lot easier to defend in court.

The art is what drove the person to get the tattoo, but the artist doesn't get compensated for it in some way?  That's not fair.

That is why a lot of tattoo designers offer the ability to buy "tattoo tokens" or digital downloads of their work, so that the person can get the tattoo done without any harm to the original artist.

Just because someone is a tattooer does not mean that they are a tattoo artist.  Tattoo artists generally know how to design tattoos for longevity.  There are a lot of designers that are not tattoo artists, and in time, it shows in how those tattoos age.

Just because someone is willing to tattoo a found design on another person doesn't mean they should.  There are people out there that are "tattooers" and not "tattoo artists".  Some of these people tattoo designs as they are - ignoring whether the design will hold up well over time or not.  They don't care - they are just being paid to put the image in your skin, they don't care if it's a good idea or not, they don't care if it lasts.  They aren't going to counsel you on how to modify the design to where it would work best as a tattoo.

This goes back to OPs original question.

People do this all the time.  Generally, it is appropriate for you to ask the original artist's permission to use their work as a tattoo.  It's polite to at least ask.  People bring found designs to tattoo artists all the time.  The tattoo artist should take whatever it is, and modify it to work for the body part that you want it tattooed on.  This includes tweaking the layout, tweaking the colors - basically optimizing the design so that it works well as a tattoo.

If someone takes a found design and does not make any suggestion or changes whatsoever, and says they can tattoo it just like that, it should be a red flag.

Many tattoo artists don't explain themselves when they make changes.  They just plan out how they are going to optimize the design when they study the design to make the stencil.  This is why it's important to check portfolios and find an artist who's work you like overall before approaching them to get a tattoo.

 

On 2/12/2014 at 11:59 AM, velvetlover36 said: