Warhammer 40k tattoos

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.

**SaintHazard**

Terminus wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:
Alpharius wrote:Also, the person who has the tattoo hasn't broken any laws...

No, the person who gave them the tattoo has. But I think paying someone to break a law FOR you is just as reprehensible as breaking the law yourself - and makes you equally culpable. At least in the U.S. I have no idea how it works anywhere else.

Meh, you're sounding like law is an unchallegeable monolith entity that should be obeyed at all costs even at the expense of common sense. Laws change quite frequently for a reason.

Toss up a picture of your law degree and I'll agree that you're qualified to make that decision. Until then, you're not, and neither am I.

**Ouze**

SaintHazard wrote:Toss up a picture of your law degree and I'll agree that you're qualified to make that decision. Until then, you're not, and neither am I.

Then why do you keep doing so?

**SaintHazard**

Ouze wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:Toss up a picture of your law degree and I'll agree that you're qualified to make that decision. Until then, you're not, and neither am I.

Then why do you keep doing so?

I'm not. I'm obeying the law.

Once you've gone through law school, you're qualified to decide whether or not a particular law is just. You can make an informed decision if you want to ignore a law. You may still be shooting yourself in the foot, but at least you can look at it objectively.

**J'santai Khan**

Well, I've already spent more time in college than I should have (and I have 2 Master's degrees that I don't use to prove it), so I'll pass on going to law school and just take the word of my business attorney (he went to law school AND passed the bar exam!) who broke it down for me exactly the way I broke it down for all of you.

WOW!! It only took a little under 3 pages for this to go off topic by a mile! I hope that's not some sort of record.......

**Snowman90**

SaintHazard wrote:
Ouze wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:Toss up a picture of your law degree and I'll agree that you're qualified to make that decision. Until then, you're not, and neither am I.

Then why do you keep doing so?

I'm not. I'm obeying the law.

Once you've gone through law school, you're qualified to decide whether or not a particular law is just. You can make an informed decision if you want to ignore a law. You may still be shooting yourself in the foot, but at least you can look at it objectively.

How I look at it, we're people. People do messed up things. When your in a world of killing, raping, stealing, and theft who honestly cares about copyright? In my opinion it's not a big deal. Why are you so hell bent on making other people see everything EXACTLY how you see it? People are people. We can make are own decisions. For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. Aren't people allowed to make their own actions, not based on what you, or anyone for that matter, says? If I wanted to go get a white power tattoo and shave my mustache into a hitler-stash wouldn't I be allowed to do that even if tons of people would hold it against me?

**SaintHazard**

Freedom of expression /= breaking the law.

**Ordo Dakka**

SaintHazard wrote:
Alpharius wrote:Moot point too, as GW will never go after this sort of thing...

Ink away!

...and that makes it right? I agree that if you make it ambiguous enough there's no way GW can sue, as they don't own the copyright, but just because GW won't go after minor cases of copyright infringement doesn't make it okay to actually break copyright law.

I mean, by your logic, I can go to the grocery store and steal some donuts, because as long as I run fast enough, they won't come after me, right?

What about going into a pawn shop and stealing a hunting rifle? If they can't chase me down or identify me, it's alright, right?

Supermarket security worker here - we'd come after you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

J'santai Khan wrote:WOW!! Some of you guys never cease to amaze me with your ability to argue over things that you obviously have no knowledge of. That said, having been a professional tattoo artist for over 20 years, and having dealt with the copyright issue on a number of occasions (Disney), here's the breakdown on it. As long as the artist or shop doesn't offer/provide the images which are being tattooed, there is NO copyright infringement, since we are not profitting from thier IP, but from our services. It's the same as if you walked up to a pay here copying machine & copied a picture out of WD to hang on your wall. The copying machine owner wouldn't be in trouble because all it did was perform a service, just like the tattoo artist. You are paying them for the service, not for the image. That makes ALL of the difference in the world when it comes down to it. We sell 'flash sets' (design sheets, for those of you not in the biz) and retain all copyrights to those sheets. This means that if you buy a set from me, you are allowed to hang it on your wall for customers to check out and you are also allowed to reproduce those images through the medium of tattooing. You are not allowed to go to Kinko's, make a bunch of copies and resell them for profit or have my designs printed on t-shirts that you will sell. It can be a bit confusing, but that is the long and short of it. A few years back, Disney went afte a guy who was tattooed with ALL of the Disney characters for copyright infringement. They lost. Then they lost some more, because he sued them for all of his legal expenses, etc.. If Disney can't make it happen, no one can!

As far as GW tattoos go, I've done a bunch of them. Everything from Asmodai (from the cover of WD) to Chaos warriors, Necron runes and names in Tau. I'll dig up some pics and put 'em up, if anyones interested.

I'm interested

**Gwar!**

I am interested in your business address so I can ~~report you to the proper authorities~~ get a tattoo.

**Ordo Dakka**

EDIT- I didn't get the joke.

**Gwar!**

Awww, I missed the flamerant.

**J'santai Khan**

I'm currently in South Florida. Be sure and bring an army or 2! We'll play some 40K, do some finshing and then we'll talk about tattoos! LOL!!

**Ordo Dakka**

Gwar! wrote:Awww, I missed the flamerant.

It was more like me agreeing with the legal guy above you, I don't have the balls to flame on this forum.

**model_bits_matt**

mmm I want a DA-esque tattoo but can't quite decide what to have!

Just to throw my two penneth into the ring:

I could see it being a problem if you tattoed the GW logo and then got another tattoo underneath that said "sucks" or "is overpriced" but how on earth is having a tattoo done of the Blood Angels insignia or something similar doing any harm to anyone? It's not as if 9/10 people will even recognise it let alone comment on it and there's sure as hell no way it'll fall into "common usage" resulting in GW losing their copyright!

I will admit my DA style tattoo will not be GW IP for the following reasons:

I'd like it to be fairly unique
I want 40k players to know I play DA
I don't want to have to "explain" to anyone what 40k and Dark Angels are in 10 years time lol

**micahaphone**

I don't think I'd ever be able to get a tattoo, because you can't give blood (in the USA) after you've gotten one, for ink poisoning spoils it.

**Gwar!**

micahaphone wrote:I don't think I'd ever be able to get a tattoo, because you can't give blood (in the USA) after you've gotten one, for ink poisoning spoils it.

"Ink poisoning"?

As someone who has several tattoos, I can tell you now there is no such thing (unless he uses Lead based inks or something stupid like that).

The reason why you can't give blood is because back when the rules were made, tattoo places were not beacons of hygiene. Coupled with the whole HIV epidemic and the possibility of transferring that and Hepatitis etc, they had to do so to prevent contamination of the blood.

Nowadays, real (as in, not some bloke with a nail in a back alley) tattoo parlours are cleaner than freaking hospitals.

So unless you have some sort of amazingly rare blood type (and even then, it has to be really special since they just use O in 99% of cases anyway) or have Blood type O and want to do a "good deed", there is no reason why not being able to give blood is a reason not to get a tattoo.

That being said, I am A+, no-one wants my blood. :(

**Dark**

Gwar! wrote:
micahaphone wrote:I don't think I'd ever be able to get a tattoo, because you can't give blood (in the USA) after you've gotten one, for ink poisoning spoils it.
"Ink poisoning"?

As someone who has several tattoos, I can tell you now there is no such thing (unless he uses Lead based inks or something stupid like that).

The reason why you can't give blood is because back when the rules were made, tattoo places were not beacons of hygiene. Coupled with the whole HIV epidemic and the possibility of transferring that and Hepatitis etc, they had to do so to prevent contamination of the blood.

Nowadays, real (as in, not some bloke with a nail in a back alley) tattoo parlours are cleaner than freaking hospitals.

So unless you have some sort of amazingly rare blood type (and even then, it has to be really special since they just use O in 99% of cases anyway) or have Blood type O and want to do a "good deed", there is no reason why not being able to give blood is a reason not to get a tattoo.

That being said, I am A+, no-one wants my blood. :(

What's more, here the law only stops you from donating just for a year after getting a tatoo or a piercing, since they assumed it to be a good caution period to see if you catched anything. After that,you're good to go and donate.

**Oshova**

I'm pretty sure that's how it works here too Dark. And I only have the one tattoo, and it's not GW related . . . But it the Metallica Ninja Star . . . and therefore technically awesome =D

I want to get something else done though . . . just don't know what yet =p

Oshova

**Dark**

Oshova wrote:I'm pretty sure that's how it works here too Dark. And I only have the one tattoo, and it's not GW related . . . But it the Metallica Ninja Star . . . and therefore technically awesome =D

I want to get something else done though . . . just don't know what yet =p

Oshova

Heh, if I wasn't in the army (therebefore, can't have tatoos) I'd get a hransferki on my back.

**Grey Templar**

the Swedish(is that the flag?) army doesn't allow tattoos?

Wierd

here you just can't be gay(which makes more sense, i wouldn't want some guy watching me in the locker room)

**Gwar!**

Grey Templar wrote:the Swedish(is that the flag?) army doesn't allow tattoos?

Wierd

here you just can't be gay(which makes more sense, i wouldn't want some guy watching me in the locker room)

Just because you are gay doesn't mean you go around groping everyone...

It doesn't make any sense at all. It's no different from banning Blacks and Whites serving together.

And that is an Argentinian Flag.

**Grey Templar**

not too good with flags

and when your as hot as i am you worry about things like this.

**NeedsMoreDakka**

I want an IG helmet tattooed on my head.

**Grey Templar**

why not just get a real helmet from a surplus store for $5?

cheaper and won't look as silly

**NeedsMoreDakka**

Grey Templar wrote:why not just get a real helmet from a surplus store for $5?

cheaper and won't look as silly

They would both give the same armor save though

**Terminus**

SaintHazard wrote:
Ouze wrote:
SaintHazard wrote:Toss up a picture of your law degree and I'll agree that you're qualified to make that decision. Until then, you're not, and neither am I.

Then why do you keep doing so?

I'm not. I'm obeying the law.

Once you've gone through law school, you're qualified to decide whether or not a particular law is just. You can make an informed decision if you want to ignore a law. You may still be shooting yourself in the foot, but at least you can look at it objectively.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum, period. Ever. Actually, it may just be the stupidest thing I've ever read on the internet. I think I see reality collapsing all around us.

What the hell do you think they teach in law school? It's certainly not justice, at least not how you're implying. While I don't have a law degree, I took a bunch of courses undergrad and the LSAT (which I rocked, btw), and interviewed at a bunch of schools before I determined I preferred medicine. First year of law school is basically expanding on the skill-set tested by the LSAT: critical thinking, reading comprehension, case analysis (i.e. deciphering legal jargon), and research into precedent. The remaining year (or two) is spent focusing on particular areas of law (real estate, criminal defense, etc.), learning those particular rules and regulations. That's the didactic portion of law school; the remainder is filing paperwork and the ability to spin an argument in favor of your interpretation.

Whether something is just, or right vs. wrong, boils down to reason and personal ethics. A JD is certainly not a pre-requisite for being able to think clearly and have a sense of fairness. And you certainly don't need a JD to understand the law (I bet you I know more about pharmacy law than any lawyer who didn't specialized in it. I have a pretty damn good handle on my state's gun laws, as well.

**DarkHound**

+1 to Terminus. I'd quote for truth, but I'd rather not spam the chat.

**Schnitzel**

Here's one of my tattoos.

It's a take on the Crux Terminatus seen on the old Space Hulk rule book. We added a Dark Angel emblem for some personal heraldry. We also added a scroll underneath it with "And They Shall Know No Fear" written on it.

Legal matters or not, it's still sick looking

edit: Fixed it so it's smaller.

**SoloFalcon1138**

micahaphone wrote:I don't think I'd ever be able to get a tattoo, because you can't give blood (in the USA) after you've gotten one, for ink poisoning spoils it.

No, you can't give blood... for one year afterwards. Tattooing can possibly introduce an infection underneath the skin, so the Red Cross will not allow donations. They will also not allow donations, for a time, for people who have had or been in contact with serious contagious diseases, like pneumonia. Also, for certain periods of time, if you lived outside of the US, you are permanently banned from ever giving blood.

That being said, most legitimate tattoo artists are cleaner than some doctor's offices I've been to. So stop worrying and if you want to get one, get one!

Has this thread veered off topic too far now?

**Snowman90**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
micahaphone wrote:I don't think I'd ever be able to get a tattoo, because you can't give blood (in the USA) after you've gotten one, for ink poisoning spoils it.

No, you can't give blood... for one year afterwards. Tattooing can possibly introduce an infection underneath the skin, so the Red Cross will not allow donations. They will also not allow donations, for a time, for people who have had or been in contact with serious contagious diseases, like pneumonia. Also, for certain periods of time, if you lived outside of the US, you are permanently banned from ever giving blood.

That being said, most legitimate tattoo artists are cleaner than some doctor's offices I've been to. So stop worrying and if you want to get one, get one!

Has this thread veered off topic too far now?

You can give blood. The red cross called me. I explained to them I recently got a tattoo. They said, and I quote "As long as your tattoo was from a licensed artist you can give blood without complication." And that was just a few weeks ago.

**SoloFalcon1138**

oh wow... they must have changed it...