Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

loota boy wrote: I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that there is probably no way you could jail someone over that. Besides, there's always the "I was drunk and don't remember getting it" card.

You are joking right? People get fined an jailed for perjury quite often. What guy, threatend with jail time, would not give up a tattoo artist? Give 'em up, nothing happens, lie and get caught, spend a couple weeks locked up and get a decent fine. The I was Drunk card can be beaten pretty easily. Subpoena credit card records is pretty sure to catch it in most cases. Tatts (at least good ones) are expensive and often get paid for with a credit card. Also, if they are willing to to take this to court, a marginally competent investigator could easily determine where the tatt was done. If GW was willing to take it to court, I bet they are willing to shell out for a decent investigator.

Again, it can be enforced, if the will to enforce it exists. It is, as with any business decision, going to depend on the cost of enforcement vice the cost of not enforcing. If the company truly feels IP loss will hurt them due to tatts, they will come down loke a ton of bricks.

Yeah, against a tattoo shop it would be easy to enforce. Against the bearer of the tattoo, I guess, not so much. You'd think they would have to bear some of the responsibility for that.

CptJake wrote:

loota boy wrote: I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that there is probably no way you could jail someone over that. Besides, there's always the "I was drunk and don't remember getting it" card.

You are joking right? People get fined an jailed for perjury quite often. What guy, threatend with jail time, would not give up a tattoo artist? Give 'em up, nothing happens, lie and get caught, spend a couple weeks locked up and get a decent fine. The I was Drunk card can be beaten pretty easily. Subpoena credit card records is pretty sure to catch it in most cases. Tatts (at least good ones) are expensive and often get paid for with a credit card. Also, if they are willing to to take this to court, a marginally competent investigator could easily determine where the tatt was done. If GW was willing to take it to court, I bet they are willing to shell out for a decent investigator.

Again, it can be enforced, if the will to enforce it exists. It is, as with any business decision, going to depend on the cost of enforcement vice the cost of not enforcing. If the company truly feels IP loss will hurt them due to tatts, they will come down loke a ton of bricks.

If you can bring up some examples of a couple lawsuits were someone was jailed over having tatoos of IP, i will beleive you. But currently, i don't think it is likely. The only person who can get in trouble over it is the store owner, and that's probably not the case if someone came in with a picture and asked him to tatoo it on him, rather than having it in his book of tatoos, or whatever it is called. And they arn't going to jail you if you don't tell them who did it.

Psienesis wrote:True, but the fact that you'd be having the conversation at all is proof that GW is, at least, attempting to protect their IP.

This is the crux of the situation. The holders of intellectual property are required to attempt to protect that property. If they are found to be lax in this protection, they risk losing that property to public domain.

There has to be evidence of your attempts to withhold your property or you'll lose all rights to it.

They never really have to file any legal suit against a tattoo, but having that wording exist to show as proof if such a thing ever becomes relevant is just part of the system of maintaining their hold on their own intellectual property.

loota boy wrote:

CptJake wrote:

loota boy wrote: I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that there is probably no way you could jail someone over that. Besides, there's always the "I was drunk and don't remember getting it" card.

You are joking right? People get fined an jailed for perjury quite often. What guy, threatend with jail time, would not give up a tattoo artist? Give 'em up, nothing happens, lie and get caught, spend a couple weeks locked up and get a decent fine. The I was Drunk card can be beaten pretty easily. Subpoena credit card records is pretty sure to catch it in most cases. Tatts (at least good ones) are expensive and often get paid for with a credit card. Also, if they are willing to to take this to court, a marginally competent investigator could easily determine where the tatt was done. If GW was willing to take it to court, I bet they are willing to shell out for a decent investigator.

Again, it can be enforced, if the will to enforce it exists. It is, as with any business decision, going to depend on the cost of enforcement vice the cost of not enforcing. If the company truly feels IP loss will hurt them due to tatts, they will come down loke a ton of bricks.

If you can bring up some examples of a couple lawsuits were someone was jailed over having tatoos of IP, i will beleive you. But currently, i don't think it is likely. The only person who can get in trouble over it is the store owner, and that's probably not the case if someone came in with a picture and asked him to tatoo it on him, rather than having it in his book of tatoos, or whatever it is called. And they arn't going to jail you if you don't tell them who did it.

You are being completely disingenuous. I never stated someone was ever jailed or would ever be jailed for breaking IP with a tatt. I stated clearly that people ARE jailed and fined for perjury, which is what the poster your reply (which I quoted) had stated as a possibility. An IP issue is going to be a civil issue which means money awarded to GW, not jail time for infringement. You know this. Which is why your argument against what I posted is a strawman arguement at best. If GW wanted to bring a civil case against a shop/artist they could. The court CAN make a witness (the kid with the tatt) testify. If the kid perjurs himself, he can face jail time. Read what I posted, and reply to it instead of replying to something I did not come close to stating.

CptJake wrote:

loota boy wrote:

CptJake wrote:

loota boy wrote: I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that there is probably no way you could jail someone over that. Besides, there's always the "I was drunk and don't remember getting it" card.

You are joking right? People get fined an jailed for perjury quite often. What guy, threatend with jail time, would not give up a tattoo artist? Give 'em up, nothing happens, lie and get caught, spend a couple weeks locked up and get a decent fine. The I was Drunk card can be beaten pretty easily. Subpoena credit card records is pretty sure to catch it in most cases. Tatts (at least good ones) are expensive and often get paid for with a credit card. Also, if they are willing to to take this to court, a marginally competent investigator could easily determine where the tatt was done. If GW was willing to take it to court, I bet they are willing to shell out for a decent investigator.

Again, it can be enforced, if the will to enforce it exists. It is, as with any business decision, going to depend on the cost of enforcement vice the cost of not enforcing. If the company truly feels IP loss will hurt them due to tatts, they will come down loke a ton of bricks.

If you can bring up some examples of a couple lawsuits were someone was jailed over having tatoos of IP, i will beleive you. But currently, i don't think it is likely. The only person who can get in trouble over it is the store owner, and that's probably not the case if someone came in with a picture and asked him to tatoo it on him, rather than having it in his book of tatoos, or whatever it is called. And they arn't going to jail you if you don't tell them who did it.

You are being completely disingenuous. I never stated someone was ever jailed or would ever be jailed for breaking IP with a tatt. I stated clearly that people ARE jailed and fined for perjury, which is what the poster your reply (which I quoted) had stated as a possibility. An IP issue is going to be a civil issue which means money awarded to GW, not jail time for infringement. You know this. Which is why your argument against what I posted is a strawman arguement at best. If GW wanted to bring a civil case against a shop/artist they could. The court CAN make a witness (the kid with the tatt) testify. If the kid perjurs himself, he can face jail time. Read what I posted, and reply to it instead of replying to something I did not come close to stating.

I don't think that we are understanding each other. I was saying that no-one gets jailed over having a tatoo of IP. Your saying that someone can get jailed for lying about where they got the tatoo. I agree with that. But no-one gets jailed over having a tatoo that is IP.

Yea, no real way to police it.

loota boy wrote:If you can bring up some examples of a couple lawsuits were someone was jailed over having tatoos of IP, i will beleive you. But currently, i don't think it is likely. The only person who can get in trouble over it is the store owner, and that's probably not the case if someone came in with a picture and asked him to tatoo it on him, rather than having it in his book of tatoos, or whatever it is called. And they arn't going to jail you if you don't tell them who did it.

The jail time was not for having the tattoo, the jail time was for being subpeonaed to court and lying to the court about where you got the tattoo, being drunk or whatever and getting caught lying. In the US that is perjury and it can be punishable by fine or jail time...

Skriker

Skriker wrote:

loota boy wrote:If you can bring up some examples of a couple lawsuits were someone was jailed over having tatoos of IP, i will beleive you. But currently, i don't think it is likely. The only person who can get in trouble over it is the store owner, and that's probably not the case if someone came in with a picture and asked him to tatoo it on him, rather than having it in his book of tatoos, or whatever it is called. And they arn't going to jail you if you don't tell them who did it.

The jail time was not for having the tattoo, the jail time was for being subpeonaed to court and lying to the court about where you got the tattoo, being drunk or whatever and getting caught lying. In the US that is perjury and it can be punishable by fine or jail time...

Skriker

If you care to look, i adressed this in my last post.

loota boy wrote:

Skriker wrote:

loota boy wrote:If you can bring up some examples of a couple lawsuits were someone was jailed over having tatoos of IP, i will beleive you. But currently, i don't think it is likely. The only person who can get in trouble over it is the store owner, and that's probably not the case if someone came in with a picture and asked him to tatoo it on him, rather than having it in his book of tatoos, or whatever it is called. And they arn't going to jail you if you don't tell them who did it.

The jail time was not for having the tattoo, the jail time was for being subpeonaed to court and lying to the court about where you got the tattoo, being drunk or whatever and getting caught lying. In the US that is perjury and it can be punishable by fine or jail time...

Skriker

If you care to look, i adressed this in my last post.

EXCEPT: Some one posted

Once those points are met it is a matter of simplicity to subpeona the person with the tattoo to legally push them to disclose the name of the artist in court, or perjur themselves to protect them. If you are willing to go to jail to protect your artist then go for it. If not you give them up and they get sued.

which you replied

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that there is probably no way you could jail someone over that. Besides, there's always the "I was drunk and don't remember getting it" card.

You even included that quote in your reply. So either your reply was wrong, because it clearly was a reply to the perjury issue, or you just misread what you were replying to. Which was it?