• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

Who owns the IP rights in a tattoo?

07 April 2020
Michael Shaw
Print
Share

An ongoing dispute in the US between the singer Cardi B and Kevin Brophy Jr has illustrated the potential IP risks associated with tattoos.

The case in question centres on the photograph used on the cover artwork for a recent musical recording by Cardi B, which depicts a male model with a highly distinctive tattoo on his back; the face of the model is not visible, only his back can be seen.

Mr Brophy, who has a very similar tattoo on his back, alleges that members of the public will believe that he is the individual depicted in the photograph. Mr Brophy’s occupation in the surfing industry requires him to be seen regularly without a shirt, such that those in the industry recognise him by the tattoo. Mr Brophy claims that Cardi B has misappropriated his likeness through use of the tattoo, and that he is therefore entitled to a share of the royalties from the musical recording.

The case remains ongoing, but does raise interesting questions regarding rights in tattoos, including who is entitled to exploit the rights subsisting in the tattoo – the tattoo artist who creates an original tattoo (who under UK law would own the copyright, being the author of the work), or the person on whose body the tattoo appears.

Similar issues were recently raised in another US case involving US basketball player LeBron James and the video game publisher who produced the NBA 2K video game. Mr James’ appearance, including his tattoos, had been reproduced on his avatar in the video game; it was alleged that such reproduction amounted to infringement of the copyright in the tattoo. The court concluded that Mr James enjoyed the right to licence his appearance, including his tattoo, but suggested that reproduction of the tattoo was so minimal as to not amount to copyright infringement.

It remains to be seen how the courts will move forward in addressing the legal rights associated with tattoos, particularly those adorned by celebrities whose appearance is frequently licensed commercially. The commercial use of images reproducing such distinctive tattoos may amount to copyright infringement, and may also be perceived as false endorsement leading to potential liability under the UK law of passing off.  We therefore recommend that specialist legal advice is sought before reproducing photographs of individuals with distinctive tattoos, to ensure that such reproduction does not amount to copyright infringement or passing off.

Next Story
  • Preliminary position on priority published
  • Cambridge: City of Innovation - The Oxford-Cambridge Innovation Arc
  • International patent insights on quantum computing
  • Cambridge: City of Innovation - The 'beer summit' that generated a genomic revolution
  • IP protection in collaborations: "Just Do It"
More insights

Latest Insights

Article
- 30 March 2023

That’s a wrap! CJEU confirms position on protection for designs dictated by technical function

"Think about the common sense answer and then it's probably something else!" - that's what I always say to anyone I'm training when they ask me a question about a specific piece of IP law.
Read more
Image: Nike Air Max
Article
- 30 March 2023

Nike block MAX 1 for Verstappen

Max Verstappen's plans to launch a MAX 1 clothing range have run into a roadblock, as Nike successfully oppose his Benelux trade mark application on the basis of their rights in AIR MAX. 
Read more
Chemistry
Article
- 24 March 2023

Preliminary position on priority published

As we reported in early 2022, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO are considering two pending referrals (G1/22 and G2/22) regarding the question of entitlement to priority. A hearing has now been set for 26 May 2023, and the Enlarged Board have now issued a preliminary opinion setting out the points to be discussed.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq