Is It Infringement To Get Your Favorite Sports Team Logo Tattooed On Your Body?
from the maybe... dept
Interesting timing. Just after we were discussing the copyright implications of tattoos, jprlk points us to a recent issue of The Straight Dope, in which Cecil Adams takes on the question of the legality of tattooing your favorite sports team logo on your body somewhere. He goes over both the trademark side and the copyright side. There’s no trademark issue (in most cases) because there’s no “use in commerce,” which is required for a trademark infringement situation. There may be a copyright issue, but Adams suggests teams would be crazy to go down that route so it’s probably not an issue:
Copyright violation is an easier case to make. (Some contend a fan tattoo would constitute fair use, but I have my doubts.) The main thing is, what team or league would bother? They’d look like bullies, your pockets probably aren’t that deep, and it’s not like a judge is going to order you to have the tattoo lasered off. Then again, we’re talking about professional sports, where conventional logic is out the window.
He’s right about that last comment. After all, just look at the Washington Redskins, who have sued fans and threatened bloggers. While he hasn’t done it yet, it would not surprise me to see Dan Snyder eventually go so far as to sue a fan for having a Redskins tattoo without paying him for the privilege of promoting the team.
Comments on “Is It Infringement To Get Your Favorite Sports Team Logo Tattooed On Your Body?”
What about the publicity rights implications if I get a tattoo of a celebrity, dead or otherwise! Hell, I might even get a tattoo of a dead sport team celebrity mascot
I wonder if they could sue a hooker with a team tat…they could argue that it was used in commerce.
Go after tattoo artists, not fans
The team owners would be a lot more likely to go after the tattoo artists than the fans for PR reasons (suing fans looks bad), legal reasons (fewer people to sue) and financial reasons (tattoo businesses have deeper pockets than individual fans). They could even offer tattoo artists an option to avoid getting sued by purchasing a license to reproduce the logos (just like a cap or t-shirt manufacturer would) and create a whole new revenue stream. I believe a similar setup currently exists for cake decorators who want to produce cakes in the likeness of copyrighted characters (Disney, etc) despite the fact that a cake is not exactly a “fixed medium”.
Re: Go after tattoo artists, not fans
I think Comboman’s analysis is right, except up until the cake part. The tattoo shop is the infringer, and is the logical defendant in an infringement suit. Plus, like the cake decorator, the creator of the ‘work’ is a commercial actor who could get a license.
Although I disagree that a cake is “not exactly” a “fixed medium” — [which is required by copyright law]. Your skin isn’t exactly a fixed medium either. Dust to dust. Even books rot. And digital media, faster. So, whether the tat is on your tart or your heart, it is still fixed, and probably infringing. (i.e., The unlicensed cake is a lie!)
Now, is suing cake artists and tattoo parlours a good idea? No. But that has never stop rights owners before, so why start now?
I've got the Love & Rockets logo tattooed on me
But I have yet to hear from Daniel Ash, etc. as to the illegality of said tattoo. Not only that, but I haven’t heard from the creators of the Love & Rockets comic book, who took the band to court over the name. I even brought in the album cover as a reference for the tattooist.
(Note to the RIAA: at various points, L&R was signed to Arista and Def American. Alert your legal teams immediately. Unlicensed logo usage is like Somali piracy… or something.)
RE: The Washington Redskins
Daniel Snyder is widely considered as the worst owner in the NFL. There a plenty of owners that are highly regarded among fanbases. The Redskins would be better off if someone else, anyone else, really, came along and bought them.
Re: RE: The Washington Redskins
Yeah, Al Davis really should step in.
This would be one of the few cases that is a little unclear to me.
I would say it WOULD be a copyright violation, if I saw a person with GIANTS tattooed on their forehead, I would assume they were connected with the team, won a contest, are being paid (remember that woman who auctioned off her pregnant belly for ad space?).
But, as was said, this wouldnt be a case that should be pursued. It would be terrible PR, would probably result in little capital gains, and would be a lot of work.
The league should pay for the advertising
I never underestimate what a lawyer will recommend suing for, nor do I underestimate the common sense of business executives. There are too many lawyers who recommend suing if there is any basis of a lawsuit and too many corporate boards and execs who do anything their lawyers recommend.
On the flip side, I would not be surprised to see someone who gets an infection while having a team logo tattoo done naming the team as a party in the resulting lawsuit. Lawyers like to name anyone with deep pockets as a co-defendant.
I am not so sure that Trademark could be entirely ruled out. The person wearing the tattoo would not be at risk under trademark law, but what about the person applying the Tattoo?
If the artist is being paid for the work wouldn’t that possibly be defined as being used for commercial purposes or gain?
Isn’t there also cases where Pro Players have been forced to either cover their art, or remove it? I think those cases where the Artist actually suing though. There are definately cases where the Pro Players refuse to allow the Artist to display pictures of the tattoos in their Shops. I know a number of artists that have done tattoos on “famous” people, but cannot display the pictures in public for fear of lawsuits.
When it comes to Tattoos, IP laws are so vague because there really aren’t too many cases that have went to court to set the presidences.
I wear numerous Tattoos of Angels and Demons which were highly inspired by early religous artwork and even the bible it’s self, would the church really come after me for such artwork? Would I go after the artist if he put my work on someone else? I have asked that he not do that, but I trust in him being a friend and don’t have papers signed requiring it.
Re: Trademark Case
Wow! Not a single little mikee…
Re: Re: Trademark Case
I don’t always agree with little mikee, and rarely ever respect his opinion, but sometimes his articles don’t deserve the disrespect of refering to him as little mikee either.
This one happens to be in that latter category, he wasn’t trying to tell anyone that they need to change how they do business to his way, he wasn’t crying about something not being made free to him, and he wasn’t really putting down any real industries in this one.
Re: Trademark Case
Trademark infringement requires “use in commerce to distinguish goods and services.” If it is a famous person, that is a publicity rights issue, and by far the vaguest area of IP law.
As to your religious tattoos, you’re probably ok on the copyright front because (a) the likely basis work will be public domain, if it was ever protected in the first place; and (b) at least as long as you’re not commercially, publicly displaying your tattoo, then the infringement was the artist, not you, since he did the fixation. Even though you’re the canvas.
On the trademark front, the Church would have to claim it was using that early religious artwork to distinguish its goods and services in commerce. I’d like to see the Vatican own up to that.
Finally, if you don’t want your tattoo artist to put your tattoo on someone else, you make part of the agreement be that the copyright in the tattoo transfers to YOU as part of the deal. Generally, a good idea, lest your tattoo artist go around suing everyone who photographs you with your shirt off.
If this were legal advice, it would be followed by an unreasonably large bill.
p.s.: the word is “precedents”
Re: Re: Trademark Case
My spelling has always sucked, and correcting my spelling is about as much a waste of time for you as it is for me… Not saying it’s bad and I do honestly try :))
Anyway, my references to my tattoos was purely an example, the artwork for my tattoos was commissioned seperate from the tattoo artist, and was done on a work for hire contract. The Artist did “embellish” on the artwork somewhat to make it work on the canvas he was working with, but overall the pieces are close enough that he would be the one in violation of any copyrights.
I also highly doubt that my work would be so popular that others would want it anyway, especially considering that I am less than 50% complete and still close to 300 hours under the needles anyway.
In the tattoo realm, I tend to believe that the Artists are gennerally honest people, and respect your requests overall. My experience is that Tattoo Artists overall do an EXCELLENT job at policing themselves. Bad or Dishonest Artists don’t last long in the market place, and more often than not it’s the Artists that run them out long before too many innocent people get harmed.
Re: Trademark Case
Yep, the Tatoo shop is open to trademark violations… Esp if they have a book of prior works (which they all do), that showcased, such art work… That Giants emblem is a TM violation if its used by the Tatoo artist to advertise his business.
I remember reading something about a guy with all of the Disney characters tattooed on him. Because of this, they won’t let him in to their amusement parks.
So big corporations have been known to go after people for this.
Are you sure it’s because of trademark issues and not because that’s kind of creepy? =P
Better yet, who is doing the infringing? Is it the tattoo artist or is it the person getting the tattoo? Was Andy Warhol infringing when he painted the Campbell’s soup can? What if I get a tattoo of that painting? Who am I infringing on, Andy Warhol or Campbell’s?
Get’s really messy really quick.
Missing one Mike...
Didn’t the NFL also threaten the media with how they can report sports stories?
Certainly fits as another example of professional sports tossing conventional logic out the window!
Pro Wrestler CM Punk has tattoos of the Pepsi logo and the Cobra logo (from GI Joe, owned by Hasbro), both trademarked by different companies. As such, they don’t show up on the toys of him (which are made by Mattel).
A legal battle with either Pepsi or Hasbro verses CM Punk/WWE would get interesting. WWE would probably claim thier wrester was giving them free advertisment.
Not that I think this is something that should be brought to court.
What about fans that paint themselves for the games? they have re-used a brand for a temporary time frame. They should be escorted off the 50 yard line and their seats auctioned off to cover the infringement 9sarc9
“There’s no trademark issue (in most cases) because there’s no “use in commerce,” which is required for a trademark infringement situation.”
I don’t think that’s right. In most cases, the sale of the tattoo and/or the tattoo artist’s services would count as a “use in commerce.” Probably no likelihood of confusion, though.
Quoting Cecil, the worlds smartest human being, he says so himself, raises my respect for you one full point. Good job,
This seems to be Sue-Your_Customers season...
“it’s probably not an issue”
Its not an issue.
The Benefits of Exercise
What a great article. I will share this information with anyone that needs it. It?s valuable, useful, and gives the kind of information that isn?t commonly found.
Really it is a great content because it contains a lot of info about to get our favorite sports team logo tattooed on body. Hey I feel better to read this allocation and want to thank for posting this info in this website. Keep it up..