You must log in or register to comment.
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!
