7 Comments so far

1. yang on April 24, 2007 6:35 am

   If i employ a gardener to fix my garden for a fee, the garden does not start belonging to the gardener. It is still mine. You have taken a consideration for the services, so fo.

2. Anonymous on April 25, 2007 1:22 pm

   I think the tattoo artist is strugling finacially and is looking for some easy cash!

3. Lee on May 2, 2007 9:38 pm

   I think i know the tattooist in question, and i’m sure he’s not struggling financially and looking for easy cash, in fact if you try to book an appointment you’ll be waiting for a while. Anyway, i would think that if you go to a have a tattoo and flick though the books and choose one of the flash art ones they are fair game to be used in publicity shoots and suchlike, but if you go and ask the tattooist for a complete custom one off that no one else is going to have and the tattooist designes it for you, then you shouldnt use it in such a way as its art and copyright of the artist, even though its a permanant feature of your body. So therefore the Artist should get some royalties or at least be asked permission to use it (and have it granted) or at the very least have his/hers name mentioned. But if you actually design it yourself and take said design to said artist then its yours do do with what you want.
   Just my twopenneth worth, maybe i’m wrong.
   Best regards,
   Lee.

   p.s. A bit more info on which of Beck’s tatts is at issue here would be welcome.

4. gaz the tattooist on July 12, 2007 8:20 pm

   not sure which tattoo is at issue,but, if it is an original design (if there is such a thing as most artists get their ideas from “somewhere”) and it is copyrighted(it probably is,as being “David Beckhams tattoo artist” would make a guy think he is the “God of all tattoo artists” and get any work that is high profile copyrighted.then i suppose Becks should have at least asked permission to have his work used in a commercial. personally, i would just be happy to see my work used,and be happy with the few thousand he got for doing the piece. life suck`s when its all about the money,thats why i do tattoos at atleast half price to what you would normally pay in a street studio. it should be about the love of art,and being proud that people want to wear it!
   Gaz.Peace

5. Jewel on September 10, 2007 12:04 pm

   well said Gaz, i think i know who the artist in question myself and if i’m right then he’s an egotistical big head and he is, not just because of this. in my view, if your gonna tattoo someone with a piece of work then its theres, they paid for it for gods sake. why should you claim royalties. i also agree with Gaz that tattooing should be for the love of it, too many tattooists are in it these days for a quick profit and along the way something is lost. back to beckham tho, if your going to sue him for this, then what about all the crowds at concerts and public gatherings where u might show a tattoo on TV, are they gonna be sued too, sad, silly and very irrelevant petty case to bring if u ask me. love your tatts, but dont kill the art with this kind of crap. and PS. u speak sense Gaz. keep up the good work

6. Jonathan on October 2, 2007 9:17 pm

   This is a load of BS. Tattoos are permanent, cannot be revoked or removed, and are the property of the person “wearing” them. Tattoo artists are paid for the work they do and they do not have rights to them. Personally, the artist should be appreciative of his art being shown off.

7. elaine on August 2, 2008 5:27 pm

   I would like to know the legal side of this issue regarding the David Beckham controversy? Appreciate it.