By Brent Michel Canle at Dr. Ink Tattoos
As December rears its ugly mug so starts the tattoo artist shuffle as they count their coin and hope tax returns come early this year. But some, namely Chris Escobedo out of Elite Tattoos in Arizona, took a different route to make it through the winter besides flash prints and machine building: the American art of lawsuits. Jumping on the wagon, Chris follows suit with Victor Whitmill (who sued the Warner Brother over the Tyson face tattoo debacle) which cause so much debate on forums and in the tattoo shops.
Escobedo is suing THQ for illegally recreating the lion tattoo design on fighter Carlos Conduit in their new video game UFC Undisputed 3. Ironically, Escobedo seems to endorse the video game in his portfolio, posting screen shots of the digital character with the tattoo and reviews for the game with are void of lawsuit references.
So the question is posed again: does a tattoo artist hold rights to their design?
Of course there is the argument that the tattoo design is the intellectual property of the art. Meaning that they created it, the design came out of the artist head, their hands materialized it, so the artist must own the design. Makes sense. But let me shed new light with a couple points.
First, in the realm of fine art, I uphold the idea that once a piece of art is released, or once a book is published, or a installation is installed, that the artist no longer owns it. This is to say that once the art is out there, the artist claims right to it just as much as anyone else who views it. Public sculptures can be tampered with and graffiti'd. Books can be marginalized and criticized. Painting gradually fade in empty galleries. The buyer of a painting can take a piss on it if they truly want, the art can't say much but hold a grudge and learn to sell to better people.
For the true artist, what they create it is something that happened, it is history, it is like standing on a podium and receiving a medal in the winner circle or it is like a car accident or a break-up. Good or bad it is in the past. How can one advance as an artist if they are living in the past, hung up on what they've already done.
Second, tattoo artist are in the SERVICE industry. They make art to serve people. A customer comes in and if they like you as an artist they employ you to create something specific for them and affix it into their skin. The client has BOUGHT that tattoo from you.
We all know those tattoo artist who've kept sketches from tattoos they've already done and made flash. Some artist see this as an unethical practice but then the tattoo industry has never really been an ethical bunch. No honor among thieves, right? But as the tattoo industry grows away from it's pirate roots, and as legislation becomes an increasing concern, method must come out of the madness.
My Opinion: The customer owns the tattoo. It is their body, it is a part of them. The artist has no right to sue. The moment the tattoo is finished, the customer has much more invested into that tattoo then the artist. It was their pain, it was their blood that was shed. They have dedicated themselves to that tattoo design so much more then the artist putting pencil to paper and a needle to skin for a couple hours. The customer now live with it and dies with it. Not only that but they paid for it. The customer bought that tattoo and by the current standings of this capitalist society if you buy it, you own it.
This is a grey area of tattooing where lines have yet to be drawn in the sand. It has never been challenged before and there is a couple bucks to be made so I don't blame an artist for trying to cash in on a single tattoo as much as possible.
But why rock the boat? Why bring more attention? Why bring legislation into the also lawless world of tattoos? We became tattoo artist because we didn't like the world that they created, to separate ourselves, now we're messing with them? I think all these tattoo lawsuits are just going to open a can of worms that should remain closed.
And once we open it hell will break loose. Artist and photographers will sue tattoo artist for using their images as references without permission. Brands will sue artist for using recognizable images (the entire genre of Pop Surrealism will be sued out of existence). Graffiti artist will sue film makers for their illegal work appearing in their shot. Tattoo artist will sue other tattoo artist for using their flash without permission. Okay maybe that last one was a little outrageous but goes to show you the realm of creative property.
Law and art do not mix. If I were Escobedo I'd let sleeping dogs lie, if the response from forums is any indication he's just making himself look like a dick. I wouldn't stir the pot and I'd just enjoy the free publicity.
Maybe it's time to shut up and give back a little. God knows you've been using the third page of Google Images for a while now. We should calm down before Warner Brothers retaliates and sues us for putting Taz on someone.
No comments:
Post a Comment