Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ken fisher]

If you took a photo of a tattoo on a persons body to use in a book, who owns the rights to the photo`s, the person who`s body it was, the tattoo artist or the photographer?

[Dave41]

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Without taking professional responsibilty, you have to remember that the RIGHT to a copyright is not enforceable unless the copyright is REGISTERED, thus if there is no statutory copyright notice on what you have copied you are not on notice of a copyright owner's right or that a copyright is registered.

Is this an accurate statement of the law? If so, then the an author gains no rights when the original work is fixed in a tangible medium.
If I am wrong, someone please correct me, but my understanding of the law is that copyright registration, among other things, elimininates an innocent infringer defense. However, one could still infringe another's rights by using a work that is not registered, though the original author would then have to prove access. Where an author intentionally incorporated another's work directly in to his/her work, access would seem to be obvious.
Does Mr. Auslander simply mean that a lawsuit can not be initiated until the work is registered? If so, is that an accurate statement of the law?

[Myronj]

I am a lay person, so pls pardon my lack of professional background that may be apparent.
Previous posts relate to registration. In the case at hand, Graffiti, aren't we talking about an Anonymous "artist" who can not be identified or contacted to make a request to use his work in some fashion or other.
Once this anonymous artist leaves his work in the public for totally free access, has he waived his rights until such time that he comes forth identifying himself and making a specific claim?
best, myron

[m]

Technically, you are infringing the copyright in their works by reproducing the works, especially for a commercial purpose.

However, in order for any of the owners to sue you, they have to identify themselves as owners and thus open themselves up to criminal/civil liability for the defacement of property. This is not likely to happen.

In the case of "Times Square", the individual commercial advertisements are fair use by way of incidental inclusion. There's also, arguably, an implied license: any advertises putting their works into such a well known and publically photographed location are accepting that their works will be an incidental inclusion into other works.

[clarklawyer]

If I am wrong, someone please correct me, but my understanding of the law is that copyright registration, among other things, elimininates an innocent infringer defense. However, one could still infringe another's rights by using a work that is not registered, though the original author would then have to prove access. Where an author intentionally incorporated another's work directly in to his/her work, access would seem to be obvious.
Does Mr. Auslander simply mean that a lawsuit can not be initiated until the work is registered? If so, is that an accurate statement of the law?

Mr. Auslander is correct.  You cannot initiate a suit (if you are a US citizen) without registering first.  However there is no requirement for a copyright notice.  Failing to annotate with a proper notice might affect your right to wilful copyright damages, but it would not prevent a suit from succeeding.  Copyright infringement is pretty much strict liability with no requirement for fault.

Registration and notice provide some important rights, but some of the posts here have not been completely clear on what those rights are.

[ZEROX]

if u don't like graffiti go and die