Many of us function under the assumption that tattoos on our bodies are ours to display in any form we wish. Intellectual property lawsuits regarding the rights of tattoo artists have begun to highlight a number of questions concerning who owns the art on our bodies.

Most notably, tattoo artists that created works on well-known athletes are fighting video game programmers that re-created tattoos on the animated athletes. Likewise, “The Hangover 2” faced copyright claims when they reproduced Mike Tyson’s tattoo in the film. As reported by the National Post, (LINK), these issues are not limited to celebrities bearing tattoos. A New York barista, sporting an I <3 NY tattoo on his hand, was threatened with trademark infringement after his hand showed up in an add for his coffee shop.

These disputes bring up somewhat terrifying questions: can a court require the covering or removal of a tattoo found to infringe on intellectual property rights?

According to many museum professionals, certain countries are reluctant to loan works of art to arts institutions in the United States due to ongoing ownership or provenance questions. A recent bill sent to Senate for consideration, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act, would ensure artworks can be loaned across country boarders for exhibition, without being subject to legal ramifications of the United States .

Under certain specifications: “The bill grants a foreign state or certain carriers immunity from federal or state court jurisdiction for any activity in the United States associated with a temporary exhibition or display of a work of art or other object of cultural significance…”

While this has been heavily criticized as a bill protecting plundered work, the opposition argues the bill allows controversial works to continue to travel and be made available to museum visitors as their disputes pan out.

A compromise was negotiated between the conflicting interests. Works looted by the German military or its allies between 1933 and 1945 are exempt from the bill, preventing skeptics from calling the bill a safeguard for owners of Nazi-looted art to profit from the loaning of their works.

Read the bill here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s3155/text

Their battle concerns the right to register “disparaging” trademarks. According to the Washington Post,

The Supreme Court could decide as early as this month whether to hear the dispute involving the Portland, Oregon-area band. And if the football team has its way, the justices could hear both cases in its new term.

At issue is a constitutional challenge to a law barring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from registering trademarks that disparage minority groups. The office denied a trademark to the Slants in 2011 after finding the name disparaged people of Asian descent.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the cases by end of this month.

The sexiness of law has been here for some time, certainly in art as witnessed in the work of some contemporary artists. Lay folk like this (both makers and receivers); it’s their way of “addressing” law without really having to dig into the dirt and grime that the understanding of law requires. Everyone has their thoughts on abortion, immigration, affirmative action and of course, our little darling, appropriation. But how many of these artists or lay folk actually take the time to investigate the structures of law and power? Not many. And why should they when the likes of NPR and the NY Times arts section makes one feel as if they understand Suprematism or stare decisis?

So why would we expect the industry of fashion to be any different? We don’t, or we shouldn’t. After all, it is the industry of what is superficially cool and stylish. But this is why fashion can allow itself to be more superficial and thus represent law with a more glamorous approach. Take a look at this article by The Fashion Law and judge for yourself. Good, better, or just as bad?

Products featuring George Bush’s artwork have been removed from the Society6 webpage. Mashable suggests, per Cariou v. Prince, the artist of the Bush inspired works could argue fair use. Just as a start to addressing this problematic assumption, the idea seems to ignore the fact that Prince’s work was found to be “transformative” whereas the Bush inspired works are merely prints of the paintings on various goods for commercial use. Likewise, Fair Use is an affirmative defense, meaning a maker must first be sued before they can attempt to argue it.

That being said, a closer examination of statues and proper reading of case law should be completed before artists rely on the Fair Use defense.

If you missed the original conversation back in February of 2014, or haven’t seen the video of that conversation, we’re revisiting the chat between Sarmiento and Magid on access to cultural property. Check it out!