@SoupTomatoSoup @forexposure_txt So how about I find a piece of art, go to a tattoo parlour and ask for it to be tattooed on me for free (maybe pay cost of ink) ? Surely that is a valid expectation?
@Rotmm @forexposure_txt No I don’t think it is, because you are commissioning someone’s time and skill.
@SoupTomatoSoup @forexposure_txt So you don't put a value on the time and skill on an artist, but you do on a tattooist?
@Rotmm @forexposure_txt I put value on both, this is why I specify they owe money if it was commissioned, but if not commissioned, already published available for personal enjoyment I don’t see much difference between saving it as a desktop background, printing it or tattoo. No profit being made.
@SoupTomatoSoup @forexposure_txt It's not about profit, it's about theft of intellectual property for personal enjoyment. And if an artist specifically states they expect for their existing art to be considered a commission if used as a tattoo, how can anyone argue?
@Rotmm @forexposure_txt Being for profit in how copyright law works is why I follow that line.
@SoupTomatoSoup @forexposure_txt Sure. But it's the same reasoning people have used for years around software theft. "I wouldn't have bought it so no one loses anything, therefore it's not theft." Except it is. And I would say that someone taking existing art to use for literally the rest of their life is worse
@Rotmm @forexposure_txt That’s a good comparison, and honestly a big part of why software companies are increasingly moving to the subscription liscence for model. But I think here legally it’s akin to the model of version for personal use, paid version for business use.
@SoupTomatoSoup @forexposure_txt But again, isn't that up to the artist to decide? Eg, some stock image sites label some of the content as free for public use and others as not. Solution - if you come across a piece of art that you would like to use as a tattoo... ask the artist if they're OK with it
@Rotmm @forexposure_txt I think the artists decision legally is made when they post it publically available without watermark or in low resolution.
@SoupTomatoSoup @forexposure_txt I think you'll find that legally the copywrite is retained by the artist, photographer, etc when they post it without a watermark or in low resolution.
@Rotmm @forexposure_txt thats 100% true, but what they posted publicly is now open to fair use, and in UK law(and less clearly in american) personal private use is considered legal.