What a weird case. As much as I don’t like big companies or take two, I find it hard to understand how a tattoo is owned by the artist and not the bearer of it. It’s James’s body at that point.
I would think the artist has a copyright by default as usual but that the license is irrevocably transferred to the wearer when money is transferred. If the artist retained the license anyone with a tattoo would need to pay a license fee whenever they use their own likeness for work, which is crazy.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
What a weird case. As much as I don’t like big companies or take two, I find it hard to understand how a tattoo is owned by the artist and not the bearer of it. It’s James’s body at that point.
I would think the artist has a copyright by default as usual but that the license is irrevocably transferred to the wearer when money is transferred. If the artist retained the license anyone with a tattoo would need to pay a license fee whenever they use their own likeness for work, which is crazy.
It’s a strange, fun, question for sure!