Fyrja
Well-Known Member
Hi lovelysuds. That's a tricky one, and one I've researched before as my husband was a tattoo artist when I met him. Most often tattoos of logos fall under the category of derivative works, and if it came to it could be defended as fair use. When you create a brand that is easily recognizable and iconic to the general public then there is some expectation that other artists will derive it in different mediums.
Often if the trademark is not being injured, (ie a tattoo of Elmer Fudd, getting molested by a penguin) most larger corporations if they ever come into contact with it will just consider it free advertising and leave it at that. I'm not saying you shouldn't get a tattoo of Zombie Bugs Bunny eating Yosemite Sam, but if you do it's probably not a good idea to show it to the first Warner Bros rep you run across.
It's an entirely different matter if someone is blatantly using a registered trademark or logo, and it could be passed off as a product of that corporation. For example the the necklaces with Mickey's shape, could easily be passed off as Disney products. There's no way someone with a Mickey tatt on their rump is going to be passed off as a product of Disney.
I hope this clarifies a bit.
Often if the trademark is not being injured, (ie a tattoo of Elmer Fudd, getting molested by a penguin) most larger corporations if they ever come into contact with it will just consider it free advertising and leave it at that. I'm not saying you shouldn't get a tattoo of Zombie Bugs Bunny eating Yosemite Sam, but if you do it's probably not a good idea to show it to the first Warner Bros rep you run across.
It's an entirely different matter if someone is blatantly using a registered trademark or logo, and it could be passed off as a product of that corporation. For example the the necklaces with Mickey's shape, could easily be passed off as Disney products. There's no way someone with a Mickey tatt on their rump is going to be passed off as a product of Disney.
I hope this clarifies a bit.