AriTattoos

Im tatted all over the place from neck down, and the only place I ever had the white dots is my inner left bicep.
The only thing different about that tattoo ( besides being the best 1 i have ) is that the artist used dry aftercare.
Instead of A&D, aquaphor or a brand name aftercare, my tattoo was wrapped up dry beneath saran wrap and suffocated for 48 hours. This is the cleanest heal of any tattoo on my body.
About 6-8 weeks later i had the white bumps exactly as described above. I think they went away after about 2-3 weeks.
Funny part is that its a tattoo of a fish and the white bumps looked like "ick", a parasite that appears as white bumps on fish =)

Its clearly ethically wrong to tattoo someone else's tattoo art....
What needs to happen is some lawsuits. The 1976 Copyright Act states that any work for hire belongs to the person who commissioned it.
Sorry to use Kristel as an example but since she is ripped off so often i find it appropritate:
Let's say , hypothetically, Kristel Oreto tattoos somebody and we see the exact same tattoo on a reality show, her client can sue the artist who copied it.
In my interpretation of this law, ( i am not a lawyer btw but I took copyright law in art school) the client owns all copyright rights to an original commissioned piece of art installed on their body and retains the right to sue anyone who uses it without permission.
Now if the ripoff artist contacts Kristel's client and gains permission, then they should have legal right to reproduce it.
Obviously that will never happen but according to the law, the tattoo artist does not own any rights at all unless the copyright is expressly written as belonging to the original tattoo artist, or if the tattoo was free it would not qualify as "Art for Hire"
Now the copyright office in congress does not mention tattoos at all, but it is art and should qualify. ( in my mind =p )

Its clearly ethically wrong to tattoo someone else's tattoo art....
What needs to happen is some lawsuits. The 1976 Copyright Act states that any work for hire belongs to the person who commissioned it.
Sorry to use Kristel as an example but since she is ripped off so often i find it appropritate:
Let's say , hypothetically, Kristel Oreto tattoos somebody and we see the exact same tattoo on a reality show, her client can sue the artist who copied it.
In my interpretation of this law, ( i am not a lawyer btw but I took copyright law in art school) the client owns all copyright rights to an original commissioned piece of art installed on their body and retains the right to sue anyone who uses it without permission.
Now if the ripoff artist contacts Kristel's client and gains permission, then they should have legal right to reproduce it.
Obviously that will never happen but according to the law, the tattoo artist does not own any rights at all unless the copyright is expressly written as belonging to the original tattoo artist, or if the tattoo was free it would not qualify as "Art for Hire"
Now the copyright office in congress does not mention tattoos at all, but it is art and should qualify. ( in my mind =p )

Its clearly ethically wrong to tattoo someone else's tattoo art....
What needs to happen is some lawsuits. The 1976 Copyright Act states that any work for hire belongs to the person who commissioned it.
Sorry to use Kristel as an example but since she is ripped off so often i find it appropritate:
Let's say , hypothetically, Kristel Oreto tattoos somebody and we see the exact same tattoo on a reality show, her client can sue the artist who copied it.
In my interpretation of this law, ( i am not a lawyer btw but I took copyright law in art school) the client owns all copyright rights to an original commissioned piece of art installed on their body and retains the right to sue anyone who uses it without permission.
Now if the ripoff artist contacts Kristel's client and gains permission, then they should have legal right to reproduce it.
Obviously that will never happen but according to the law, the tattoo artist does not own any rights at all unless the copyright is expressly written as belonging to the original tattoo artist, or if the tattoo was free it would not qualify as "Art for Hire"
Now the copyright office in congress does not mention tattoos at all, but it is art and should qualify. ( in my mind =p )

,,,when us men think it's ok to shave our legs

So the shop got this gem sent to our facebook yesterday...

Thanks for the good advice CL

Its clearly ethically wrong to tattoo someone else's tattoo art....
What needs to happen is some lawsuits. The 1976 Copyright Act states that any work for hire belongs to the person who commissioned it.
Sorry to use Kristel as an example but since she is ripped off so often i find it appropritate:
Let's say , hypothetically, Kristel Oreto tattoos somebody and we see the exact same tattoo on a reality show, her client can sue the artist who copied it.
In my interpretation of this law, ( i am not a lawyer btw but I took copyright law in art school) the client owns all copyright rights to an original commissioned piece of art installed on their body and retains the right to sue anyone who uses it without permission.
Now if the ripoff artist contacts Kristel's client and gains permission, then they should have legal right to reproduce it.
Obviously that will never happen but according to the law, the tattoo artist does not own any rights at all unless the copyright is expressly written as belonging to the original tattoo artist, or if the tattoo was free it would not qualify as "Art for Hire"
Now the copyright office in congress does not mention tattoos at all, but it is art and should qualify. ( in my mind =p )

Heavy hitters already this month...
Done by Stefan Johnsson @ California Electric

Did you see the Rodney Dangerfield tattoo???
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=339019146176940&set=pb.253208621424660.-2207520000.1348757686&type=1&theater
Is that supposed to be Rodney Dangerfield meets the walking dead???