How any reasonable society can't look at this as a bridge too far is beyond me:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-27-tattooist-sues-thq-for-replicating-ufc-fighters-ink-without-permission

Actually, it makes sense.

The marketing rights (and copyrights are nothing else) should belong to the person who thought it up.

You can make a contract with the tattoo artist, saying that the tattoo will go towards the owner. But not many tattooist will do this, because their art is their life.

If you create an awesome piece of art, you should be credited for it. And you should be the only one who can make money of it.

It's like saying "because I bought the book I bought the story".

Credited for it sure, but compensated? How far does this extent? Pictures of people?

When your art becomes a part of someone's body you lose control of it, plain and simple.

Are you saying that if I buy a cheap-ass painting from some artist on the street, I can't sell it at a higher price in an auction if that artist later becomes famous and the painting I paid pennies for suddenly is worth several thousand euros?

Copyright law right now is a deep hole we just keep on digging ourselves into.

Pictures of the art. If you use the art to make money, you pay royalties towards the person who created the art. Same if you make a movie and a song is playing in the background. And no. For a tattoo artist, the body is the canvas. If you can create a special tattoo that is in high demand, simply copying it to make a profit of your work should not be legally allowed.

The problem is the commercial exploitation of art, not the personal rights of the guy who has that tattoo. They could have simply excluded the tattoo from the game. No, you bought the painting (first sale doctrine). You can resell it no problem.

What you cannot make is thousands of copies (hence copyright)

There are some court cases where artists have argued that they should get a cut in that situation, since it is their subsequent fame that is making you rich.

Don't recall how they turned out though.

That's just not true.
The problem with tatoos is that while the design itself may be owned by the tatooist, it doesn't mean he actually owns the rights to any images of the tattooed body part.

I mean, no matter what design was used, it looks different depending on the person who got tatooed. The same tatoo will just not look the same if it's applied on Arnold Schwarzenegger or Danny DeVito. Therefore I'd argue that while the tatooist may own a design, he doesn't have any rights over it once it's applied to someone else's skin.

Can go either way. A permanent tattoo is part of a person's likeness. You can resell the object. You (probably) can't use the image as an album cover or in an advertisement.

Does this extend to a photography book and graffiti?

I think when you make art on something inherently public you lose commercial viability.

They can demand rent for the "canvas".

So what if I take nude photos of this guy with the tatoo in plain sight, and he agrees that I can sell them. Do i need the consent of the tatooist too?

If yes, that's kind of insane.

It comes down to the question whether you are copying the tattoo or if you are using the likeness of a person.

The problem with the game is that they recreated the design itself as a "exact replica", which isn't a smart idea to start with.

Just out of curiosity - If a tatoo artist makes a tatoo of a chinese dragon, can the chinese government sue him and demand a "cut" ?

I'm not exactly a fan of all the bullshit surrounding trademarks and copyrights, but i'm with SimonG on this one... an original design, being that on canvas or body, it's property of the artist if not agreed differently.

I don't think there should be money compensation by default, but since they did not even ask permission to use the design (which he might even have granted for credits/advertisement/whathaveyou, not necessarily for money...), then he had a case for a claim