It doesn't. The artist owns the design. The canvas is irrelevant.

Got the filing

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/11/16/10144896/Escobedo%20Complaint.pdf

That was a pretty smart argument, but unfortunately for him the artist doesn't make it - in fact he specifically refers to the image as being "...recreated ... on the Carlos Condit character". He also thinks that videos and screenshots fall under the remit of derivative works. Oh deary me.

The asset as a separate piece of artwork argument is one that I have heard before, and this is a very well laid out version of it, but there are a few factors that undermine it. First and foremost is the fact that even if the artwork is stored as a separate asset on the disc, getting to that raw asset is not easy - the game is console only after all. The level of effort required to separate the component parts is an important point here.

Secondly, games have always had separate files but have historically been treated as a single unit for the purpose of copyright issues. For example, if I copied and sold 1 copy of Broken Sword, then I would be liable for 1 count of copyright infringement. I would not be liable for hundreds of counts based on the hundreds of individual files that make up the game, even when those files could be used independently (music files for example).

That's just not true, considering that the "canvas" in the case of tatoos is actually part of the work. After all, the same design wouldn't actually look the same on that boxer's body or mine, since I don't have washboard abs (among other things).

Once you apply your design to somebody else's body part, and since said body part affects the looks of the design, it seems to me that you lose the copyrights over that particular design as applied to the other person's skin, though obviously not over the design as such.

You don't have washboard abs? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?

Okay, I'm kidding, now I'm going to feed more whiskey to my personal keg:)

I would agree the tattoo artist had a case IF! and I say if, the tattoo art were utilized in any ways shape or form outside of how it is represented in the real world. He may own the 'design', but the tattoo is part of the likeness of the UFC fighter.

The likeness of the UFC fighter is owned by the UFC fighter (or maybe the UFC). The UFC fighter's likeness was licensed and therefor, so too was the tattoo's appearance on said UFC fighter (according to common sense).

I'm going to sit on the "That is now who the guy is," side of things. He is a man with a lion on his abs. You want to let him pay you to draw on him, then hey, just because he goes off and happens to get kinda famous doesn't mean you get more money. You got paid to change his appearance forevermore, and now he has to go appearing places. If you go around making a business out permanently altering people's appearance, then maybe its a good idea to accept that someone may one day be showing off their new likeness on TV or wherever. And if you absolutely can't accept that then maybe you do what what photographers do and let them know up front you have "rules," and have them sign one of those papers saying they knew what restrictions you have.

Why do people feel the need to take something that could be a good thing for them, spit on it then get in a huff because its not good enough when it didn't come with a cash prize? And Is this really the only way to let the world know he made the tattoo? Can't he just tell people "I'm the guy that tattooed so and so. Can even see it in a video game!" Shouldn't that be a cool thing to say?

No matter what if your famous, don't go get tattooed by this guy, and force whomever you do use to sign a waver. We don't need any Dennis Rodman types showing up in their video games with no tattoos because THAT would be weird.

The only way it really would work is if someone ripped the tattoo and put it into the game on made up character, or as an optional accessory for a create a character. Sort of a Hangover 2 situation. But here thats just what the dude looks like in real life. It would be lie otherwise.

Well said. The law should "make sense" to the common person, and I think your viewpoint summed up the typical popular response. You were paid to perform a service, not commissioned to create a work of art. I find the whole idea of tattoos being considered art in the same way as a painting or piece of music obscene, personally.

Well I think it can be both at times. People do come to such people and ask them to do something unique, and many of the artist are in fact just that, amazingly talented/gifted artist. I wouldn't personally want to not validate talent or artistic merit. The guy that did mine showed me a guy he was working on. He literally just started tattooing the guy freehand without a plan and it was kick ass. Blows my mind what he could do.

That said it almost always done as a business practice and I think its reasonable for people to not have to worry about their tattoo artist policing their future lives. At some point it all just becomes a frenzied, tangled nightmare of people screaming, "You owe me!" and we as a society are all left a little poor for it as we sit around watching TV that has been half blurred away because someone doesn't want to get sued over a T-shirt or a poster on the wall. The very same T-shirt or poster that someone else might even get PAID to put on their TV show.