What the hell were you thinking?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is about more than stupid tattoos. It is about tats and how might be sued for having one. No. I am not kidding.

Going for the MBA at Harvard next.

 As a prison minister I am often asked about tattoos. The reference always goes to Leviticus to start.

Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. Lev. 19:28 NIV

In my reading of this, the single verse proscribing tats is taken outta context. The entire passage in here discusses making memorials to the dead. So I think the Levitucs prohibition is on memorials to the dead, not tattoos in general. If you want more of my opinion on what the Bible has to say about tats, ask. There is a more, a lot more. I shan't go into it here.

Noooo. Really? When?

YMMV

Which of course does mean tats are a good idea, Biblically or otherwise.

In the realm of the funny tats are the ones people get with misspellings. Not only have they pretty much marked their body for life, they also announce to the world they are illiterate idiots.

Now you can say the ink slinger is the illiterate one. I suggest if you go to get a tat and do not examine it FULLY before you get it stamped into your hide, you are the idiot.

http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/06/08/woman-has-152-facebook-friends-tattooed-onto-arm-unfriending-will-be-painful/

Dang. She's not my friend and now it's too late.

Ahem.


While I have opined on this subject before, and probably will again, I still think getting a tattoo is something that should involve a LOT of thought and much consideration.

Think. If you'd gotten a tat 10, 20 or 30 years ago, would you still want it today? Oh ye chilluns of the 80s, would you still want a Michael Jackson tattoo today?

Think about what was important to you 10, 20 and 30 (or more) years ago. Is it still that important today?

Do you think what is important today will be as important 10, 20 or 30 years from now?

Now comes yet a new issue. Who owns the right to the tat? I am extremely serious.  

Our favorite misogynistic cannibal and his face tat and the exact dupe from the movie Hangover 2

Tyson, pictured above, has a Maori-inspired tat. The artist sued in an attempt to stop the movie Hangover 2 from coming out because one of the characters (right) has an exact copy of Tyson's tat on his face. The judge in the case ruled too many people would be financially harmed if the movie was not released, but also said the tattoo artist for Tyson has a legitimate copyright infringement claim.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hangover-tattoo-lawsuit-shines-light-copyright-laws/story?id=13669298 

The law is the law. You ain't gotta like it.

In Tyson's case, he had a signed agreement with the ink slinger giving Tyson rights to display the tat. So the former boxer is clear on that, if unclear on everything else.

Copyright is not clear on this. Nor are court decisions. The closest thing which comes to this is artists who have sued over where and how their artwork can be displayed. The courts have not, to my thinking, given a clear and definitive ruling on that.

In other words, if you buy a statue, what rights do you have to display it? What if the statue is, according to the artist, designed with the surroundings in mind? Do you still have the right to move it?

Talk about murky issues.

At issue: Once the art is bought, who owns the copyright if there is no contract specifically saying who has the copyright. If you get something inked into your hide, what rights do you have to it? More specifically, can you make money from displaying it? Do you have the right to remove it later?

Something else to think about. If this one goes to court - LAWYERS WIN! - it has the potential to decide a LOT about tattoos, the person who gets one and the artist who inks it into the skin.

But there is a simple solution here. Don't get tattooed.

Rubics Cube - SOLVED! Yet another simple solution.