Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  Honest Injun, Apr 29th, 2011 @ 6:59pm

  
  

  Tattoo ownership

  How will this choad win when he aquired the design from Tā moko, the Māori face marking.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 29th, 2011 @ 9:32pm

  
  

  Re: Tattoo ownership

  The same way Disney gets to own the copyright on its derivatives of European, Asian and American folk tales, I guess.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  indeciSEAN (profile), Apr 29th, 2011 @ 7:07pm

  
  

  From what I can tell, it's not even a very close replica - I think Warner could easily let this guy try and take them to court, only to be laughed out.
  
  A shitty tribal tattoo is still just a shitty tribal tattoo, it just so happens few enough people are stupid/crazy enough to put them around their eyesocket and so we recognize what they're going for, with it.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 29th, 2011 @ 7:17pm

  
  

  Does the artist also get to cash in whenever some entity publishes a picture of Mike Tyson wearing the tattoo in question?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  SUNWARD (profile), Apr 29th, 2011 @ 7:36pm

  
  

  simple solution in the future

  actors will not be allowed to have tattoos if they appear in a movie.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Christopher (profile), Apr 30th, 2011 @ 6:14am

  
  

  Re: simple solution in the future

  Or they will have to cover their tattoo with something if they wish to appear.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Mr. Oizo, Apr 30th, 2011 @ 11:51pm

  
  

  Re: Re: simple solution in the future

  Think Teal'c and the hat.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  McCrea, May 1st, 2011 @ 9:37am

  
  

  Re: Re: simple solution in the future

  Like blur out Tyson's face everytime he's on T.V.?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  darryl, Apr 29th, 2011 @ 9:25pm

  
  

  what so special about it?

  its just a new zealand Maori style tatt, nothing new here

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The eejit (profile), Apr 29th, 2011 @ 11:06pm

  
  

  Re: what so special about it?

  That'#s the issue, it's been around longer than copyright itself has. The question is can you copyright Art?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Christopher (profile), Apr 30th, 2011 @ 6:16am

  
  

  Re: Re: what so special about it?

  Not when it is part of a cultural identity and has been used by MANY MANY people over the years.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Oded Burger, Apr 29th, 2011 @ 10:18pm

  
  

  Relevant caselaw

  http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/70/497885/

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2011 @ 11:53am

  
  

  Re: Relevant caselaw

  Merely FYI, the rule within the federal courts is that a decision by a circuit court of appeals is binding only with the area of the US where the court has appellate jurisdiction. Presuming the case is pending in California, which is located within the 9th Cirsuit, a decision by the 2nd Curcuit is not binding. Of course, it may be relied upon by any other circuit for its analysis of the legal issues addressed in the opinion.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Relevant caselaw

  Merely FYI, I've never seen so many different ways of spelling circuit in one comment.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  bigpallooka (profile), Apr 30th, 2011 @ 3:38pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Revellent coleslaw

  Dreary FYI, I've never seen such a pointless post reply..........except maybe this one.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2011 @ 1:28pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Relevant caselaw

  ;)
  
  I make no claim to being a good typist...but looking past that the reply is otherwise accurate.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  theskyrider, Apr 30th, 2011 @ 3:32am

  
  

  Warner Bros deserves it.

  I have no sympathy for Warner Brothers or any copyright maximalist and the organizations they front. (RIAA, MPAA, You name it.)
  
  They started this with their mine! minE! miNE! mINE! MINE! MINE! crap.
  
  Let me tell you a story. "Once upon a time, a young girl who also happened to be an aspiring artist, walked into a museum with her sketch pad. She proceeded to sit in front of an artwork and make a copy of it on her pad. As she drew, an evil security guard admonished her for trying to copy famous art. The aspiring artist was not only crushed but escorted from the museum. The end."
  
  Moral here? You tell everybody everything is copyrighted, (which is what the guard seemed to think), expect to be sued when you copy an idea. They opened this can of worms.
  
  Making a strong point of copyright (IP) in trade negotiations is why Columbia is getting sued for showing the brief virtual destruction of some some statue in some country in South America.
  
  Reap what you sow.
  
  )Pretty soon fart and burp noise styles will be copyrighted and people will be afraid to pass gas in public.(

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  MrLemurBoy, Apr 30th, 2011 @ 7:27am

  
  

  I know this lawsuit seems silly, but maybe he's just trying to save face.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The eejit (profile), Apr 30th, 2011 @ 10:50am

  
  

  Re:

  I see what you did there -.-

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  NullOp, Apr 30th, 2011 @ 4:55pm

  
  

  Tat

  Give it up! Nice try. Just a money grubbing move....again!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Coughing Monkey (profile), May 1st, 2011 @ 5:24am

  
  

  Mike's ink

  If clowns can have their faces patented so may tattoo artists.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Sailor Jerry's Intellectual Property, May 1st, 2011 @ 6:50am

  
  

  (C) copyright mark of the beast on a tatto

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Sailor Jerry's Intellectual Property, May 1st, 2011 @ 6:54am

  
  

  (C) copyright mark of the beast on a tattoo

  Dammit! Double post!
  
  I've seen an arm tatoo that included a (C) symbol, a date, and the tattoo "artist's" name. It was on a guy that I believe to be especially stupid, so I wasn't surprised by it. Especially Stupid Guy got this tattoo at least 8 years ago, in South Western Colorado. The tattoo didn't look particularly original to me, but I'm not an expert.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Billy Wenge-Murphy (profile), May 1st, 2011 @ 11:05pm

  
  

  That's a pretty stupid design; the kind of thing a kid draws in their notebook in math class
  
  (Am I still allowed to say that when it's "cultural"?)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment