Bit of a random copyright infringement one. Opinions?

Anyone who has tattoos deserves everything they get.

 

What point did I seriously misunderstand?

And I never said there wouldn't be any downsides for them, I said they weren't particularly bothered. By the way PepsiCo have paid for sponsorship of WWE events with him in it.

 

Sometimes, sometimes not. Often not. Mostly not. Most creative visual work that most people will be exposed to will be TV shows, films, advertising material, album art, poster art etc. For a few independent releases then the creator may still hold the copyright, but in almost all but a handful of cases they don't. The publisher does, whichever huge corporate entity is behind the release. The creator is paid to produce something and signs away all rights to it in that contract.

 

Signs away
There you go.
The creator owns the copyright unless they sign a contract to the contrary.

 

We weren't talking about the process, we were talking about who owns the copyright. Unless you visit art galleries regularly, or buy independent records, go to tiny indie theatres, the creator owns the copyright on practically nothing that you're exposed to.

 

Maybe he could make wearing those sleeves like the cricketers do, fashionable in wrestling!? ( no idea if they already are btw)

 

Well I do regularly go to art galleries, I also ‘hang around’ with lots of photographers and artists.

None of which changes the legal fact:
A content creator owns copyright unless it’s specifically reassigned in a contract.

which is exceedingly relevant to our OP; as the content creator is suing someone, I’d make the assumption therefore that they haven’t signed it away. It’d be fairly stupid to sign it away and then try to sue for breach.

 

The weird thing is... this morning I was reading the ‘weird knowledge I’ve got from reading the BBS’ thread and realised that the things I have knowledge of never rear their head here.

I know a bit about cars, DIY, law, data, music, hifi but I’m not an ‘expert’ compared to other members.

But here I’d say there’s a subject I know a fair bit about.

 

Do you want to ask these photographers and artists you hang around with: if someone pays them to produce an original piece of work, not a print, but an original piece that they've commissioned the artist to produce, when that is complete, money has been given to the artist and the work has been given to the person who commissioned it, who owns the copyright on that work? I think you probably don't need to ask, but it's not what you've been saying, is it?

 

I don’t need to ask. I’m well aware of the law.
if a work is commissioned the copyright belongs to the artist unless signed away.
However if work is created within the employ of someone, the general rule is that copyright belongs to the employer (it’d still need to be covered in the contract).
I’ve photographed well over 100 weddings and as many other jobs both sides of CDPA 1988

Your move

 

And just to be clear CDPA (copyright designs and patents act) is the UK’s legislation in compliance with the Berne convention.

US Copyright law decided to not stick so close to the Berne convention as their lawyers do like to have a bit more to fight over.

The general principles are the same, however they have an extra step of copyright registration.

Where this might be relevant to the OP is that in order to maximise damages the tattoo artist would have needed to register the work. But again, it’s unlikely that the artist would pursue damages without having got their own house in order.

 

I wonder if it could backfire and the tattoo artist find they have less clients?

 

Having stepped back for a think, maybe the tattoo artist here is playing a game of ‘how do you like it?’
WWE like many large American corporations are exceedingly litigious when it comes to their own Intellectual Property. Maybe there’s been a local case where WWE have sued a small company for using their logo and the tattoo artist has decided to give them a taste of their own medicine?

 

Let’s have a look how this might work in a way you can possibly grasp:
Let’s say Woodrow gets ‘The Investment Room’ logo tattooed on his arm. The club would be happy as it strengthens links with a major sponsor- who’s also gonna be pleased cos they’ve had some free publicity. All great news then?

But on Thursday night, for the post match interview, the FA might be upset because they’ve signed a deal with ‘Acme Investments’ as a preferred sponsor for the cup. So Cauley now has to cover his tattoo.

it could get further complicated when next season we sell him to Brentford for £20m but their main club sponsor is really not happy about Cauley carrying on advertising a rival.

 

Ah so when you said that pepsi (the investment room) would be unhappy with it what you meant was that AEW (Brentford) would be unhappy in case he ever signed for them in the future

 

Or what about when Cauley (the Investment Room guy) gets caught in a coke fuelled orgy during the pandemic?

There’s a reason that the Investment room would want to have some control over who they’re linked with.

The point I was trying to make (fuelled by gin) is that someone having a logo tattooed isn’t a simple case of trademark infringement- it can be much more complex.

And that trademark and sponsorship relationships are completely different to copyright infringement

 

Couldn't give a toss.