Bit of a random copyright infringement one. Opinions?

A wrestler, Randy Orton, has got a few fairly distinctive tattoos as you can see from this photo


Now as a pretty famous wrestler he's quite recognisable, is regularly on TV and has had a lot of action figures made based on his likeness as well as featuring in many video games.

The tattoo artist who he paid to do his tattoos years ago is currently (and has been for some time) suing the WWE, the figure manufacturers and games designers etc for copyright infringement saying that they she owns the designs on his body and they aren't allowed to draw, paint, or otherwise recreate his arms without her permission regardless f whether he gives them his permission or not.

What's the general view? As the original artist should she be able to dictate for the rest of his life how he is allowed to earn money from his body? Or as she has tattooed a living being and received money for the services does she/should she relinquish all rights to the tattoo's?

 

Can't see that being the law in this country.

 

Also,, all tattoos unless you look closely look the same to me.

 

Load of b*llocks.

 

If he had the Nike logo or Coke logo tattooed on him WWE would be paying them royalties

 

Someone is clearly trying to make money off the back of someone elses success.

I'd say the person who did the tattoos, ought to do one.

Did the wrestler sign a contract to say they cannot be copied or reproduced.... chances are he didnt.

 

Would there be a copyright issue if I asked a tattoo artist to do a Pepsi logo on my arm?

 

Funnily enough another wrestler has a Pepsi tattoo on his shoulder and it's generally altered for the games to something similar but not quite.

I'd assume the difference is that he didn't have permission off pepsi when the tattoo was done whereas the other did have permission from the tattooist to have her design on him.

There have been previous cases where tattooists have sued for the exact same thing. One featured the same game designers with basketball players and the case was thrown out

 

There may be a sanity issue.

 

Is the guy who cuts his hair eligible to sue aswell because they’re using that lol

 

They're his not hers. You can't own something on someone else's body. If you want to keep copyright control over your art then don't draw it on someone else's skin. And if we're honest, what he's got is pretty generic. if you threw something into a crowded room then chances are you'll hot someone with a skull tattoo.

The logo issue is different. If she has a logo for her tattoo business and this is what was being reproduced she'd have a point. It's not. Coca-cola could claim rights over their logo, but would have no chance with what we all know to be the standard father Christmas in white beard and red clothes, even though it's their creation.

 

As a rule the general public are completely ignorant of copyright law.

And often when the law is pointed out to them, there’s a majority who disagree with it (because as we all know - laws are something you don’t have to agree with, you can choose to ignore whichever ones you want).

The question is interesting, and it’ll no doubt go to court, but in simple legal terms, the creator of a work holds copyright on that work, and any exceptions or licensing of that work should be contractually agreed with the creator.

That said, when the work is created on someone else’s body, there’ll be money to be made by lawyers before it’s settled.

 

In this country no one else has rights over your body though.

so the tattoo artist broke copyright doing the Pepsi tattoo on him?

 

sorry Helen
Well as I said; most people don’t have a clue about copyright

Copying the Pepsi logo is trademark infringement.

 

I'm not sure whether the tattoo artist broke the law or the wrestler but yes it broke copyright laws. I don't think pepsi particularly cared a great deal as it was free advertising for them

 

Bloody NO!!
That’s not copyright it’s trademark.
And you’ll find that corporations are very very keen to protect their IP. There’s no way Pepsi are happy about this.

 

No need to get so angry again Donny red, you seem to have issues.

Are you familiar with the relationship PepsiCo have with cm punk or anything like that or simply guessing?

 

I’m not at all angry. but as per my original post.
the vast majority of people don’t understand copyright law.

You started a thread to discuss it, and despite my earlier clarification, you still not only confused copyright with trademark but also seriously misunderstood the point.

You seem to think that Pepsi would be grateful for the free advertising, it never occurred to you that there might be a downside for them