After looking over my body I have found zero sign of tattoos. I would consider getting one but I just have not come across something significant enough to paint on my body. My father has two tattoos and one of them is the most memorable one I have ever seen. It resides on his back shoulder. It is a bald eagle sitting upon an anchor or better known as the United States Marine Corps emblem. This tattoo is very meaningful to him after serving in the Marine Corps and meeting a band of brothers that he will cherish for the rest of his life.
A tattoo based on my understanding can be copyrighted. After looking over the background information provided as a hint for the question, Mr. Guerra – Pujol states that ‘aesthetic judgments’ are created in the decision of whether a piece of work is copyrightable. These judgments are clearly stated and will either harm one party or the other making them justifiable to copyright laws.
Original work can be created and copied. It is body art but it is art, which is protected under copyright protection. There have been countless arguments about whether it should be copyrighted or not but I believe the law is just and it is intellectual property that people have created themselves. So in my opinion tattoos should be copyrighted because people should be able to take ownership of their artwork and creation.
Copyright law is a type of legislation law. The Copyright Act of 1976 governs copyright law in the United States.
It is a legal doctrine that grants copyright protection. Some examples of copyright protection are original works like non-fiction, fiction, music, architectural design, and sculptures. It is a natural right and the creators are entitled to equal protection to that of tangible and real property. This gave people the right to be able to publish their work. This allowed all works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression and within the matter of copyright to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Copyright Act regardless of whether the work was published or not. Projects created after the copyright Act are protected by statutory rather than common law copyright while it is unpublished.
This explains why tattoos are subject to copyright law.
According to the law, since Zuckerberg did not have permission to use the I.D. photos of his fellow students, he possibly had committed copyright infringement when he took the pictures from Harvard’s website. After taking the photos he continued to upload them onto facemask creating much conflict with many people. But who owns the rights to the pictures? The owner of the pictures has the right to sue for damages for any copyright infringement. The students or school has ownership of the pictures. If the school has ownership, the only way for them to sue us is if they registered the pictures with the U.S. Copyright Office. If the student pictures are not registered then the rights are very finite because federal law preempts state law. There are a few different ways of determining if an invasion of privacy occurred. The two most prominent ones in the conflict with facemask would be the damages and are there an expectation of privacy in public I.D. pictures. What I see is that no damage took place because the photos are not expected to be for privacy, it was supposed to be seen by all of the classmates. The act of Zuckerberg was not morally right but legally the photos were online for everyone to see. To prove that women on the facemask had damages and invasion of privacy would be done by a tort plaintiff. I do not see them proving both of those points based on the reason that they were already online for everyone to see.