weird case with potentially terrible ramifications for tattoo artists
Dude the picture was taken 35 years ago and the man it depicted has been dead for 33, what exactly do they expect here? Royalties for the fucking tattoo?
Tf? It’s a tattoo…
unless someone is generating a profit off something this kind of shit is absolute nonsenseI mean, technically there was profit? Like you have to pay to get a tattoo, and they can get expensive. But still, this feels like it goes against even the spirit of the shitty copyright laws, so yeah…
True, for some reason at the time I assumed they sued the person getting the tat not Kat. But yeah I agree, people have been getting random tattoos of things forever, Miles davis has been dead for ages, everything about this feels like a cash grab. just goofy Af all around
Based solely on my reading of the fair use wiki page, I don't think this suit has merit based solely on the "Effects upon work's value" factor to evaluate fair use.
The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original.
Hopefully it's going nowhere but I haven't seen a fair use defense succeed on this alone.
