For those of us in the tattoo community there is no doubt that regardless of the many uses and applications that tattoo has lent itself to, in the end tattoo is all about art. As an art this sometimes brings up a topic that gets rather sticky from time to time. This is a topic that goes with the territory on all art forms, the copyright.

The issue of copyright and tattooing is not a new one by any means, and for the better part has been all but downright unenforceable in the field. Just look at the number of Disney, and Loony Tunes characters that have graced the bodies of countless patrons. Not to mention the huge amounts of cool flash that has been copied out of tattoo magazines and brought into the shops to have done.

The reason I bring this up is because of our lawsuit crazy culture. Folks have successfully sued McDonalds just because they got careless with a cup of coffee and spilled it on their own laps, for Christ’s sake. The number of seemingly frivolous lawsuits continues to grow everyday, and with the current economic crunch I have no doubt that the trend will grow even more. Just watch the glass toilet for any length of time and you’re sure to see a class action suit from the offices of James Sokolove, or some other ambulance chaser.

So far the tattoo community has been very mature about issues such as this, and I hope we continue to do so. The last thing any of us need is everybody running around trying to make a fast buck off of each other and making the lawyers even richer than they already are.

Still there are some cases where copyright can be a good thing. Take the case of David Gonzales for instance. A company that makes temporary tattoos had ripped off David’s distinctive style to use for their fake tats. David promptly sued the company and won. Note that although the themes they ripped off were pretty generic as far as tattooing goes, what the ripped off was David’s distinctive artistic style. In this case I can see a reason.

Elayne Angel, the master piercer and owner of Rings of Desire, has her unique angel wings registered as a trademark; much in the same way that Nike has their swoop. She even has the ® placed at the tip of her wings. Does this mean that she is out to sue the pants off of anyone else who might want a set of wings too? Hell no! She did it so that others couldn’t use her distinctive image to promote their services above hers.

Incidentally Elayne has never sued anyone over her wings, but she has had call to phone and ask for a rival shop to not use her image in their TV commercials. They did as she asked.

It would seem that there could be good reasons for an artist, or a collector to copyright an original piece of work. I personally refused to copy anyone’s custom work onto someone else, and most artists will do the same if they know it’s a custom piece that belongs to someone else. That’s just professional courtesy.

However if anyone out there reading this would like to have a custom bit of art placed under a copyright I would suggest taking a look at the copyright laws. That way you know exactly what it takes, and what your rights are once it’s done.

Last week I did a blog on one of the more exotic places to get tattooed, having the tongue tattooed. As I stated before many of we tattoo enthusiasts will go to extremes to find another, unusual place to get a tat. All of this leads to my next discussion on the subject of eyeball tattooing.

For many of us who wished to change the look of our eyes to something less than the ordinary, special contact lenses were the options of choice. It would seem that such is not the case now.

Eyeball tattooing, contrary to popular thought, has been around for quite some time. The only difference is an ophthalmologist performed the procedure and it was used to correct cosmetic defects in the eyes of the blind. Since the subject was already blind there probably wasn’t much more damage that could be done.

Tattooing the eyeball consists of injecting the dye into the white of the eye to create a spot, or in the case of the first person to have this done, Toronto resident Pauly Unstoppable, having the entire white of the eye dyed. An electric blue dye was used in Pauly’s case.

Now before anyone gets all hot and bothered to have this done as well, even Pauly has cautioned that this is a dangerous procedure. I, for one, would not consider having it done because after having a cataract in my left eye reducing my vision, I’m not about to risk what’s left of my sight on fashion.

I know. Life in and of it’s self is a risk, and I’m the last person who is going to cry foul if someone wants to take those risks. But I would be remiss if I didn’t give you the knowledge that eyeball tattooing is going to put your eyesight at risk, or to quote Pink Floyd: “One slip and down the hole you fall.”

If I may be permitted to lift a quote from Body Modification Ezine:

“This procedure, however, is highly experimental and comes with documented risks as well as theoretical risks that even the artist can’t totally prepare you for. Please realize that you could have serious complications- up to and including loss of vision- from getting your eyeball tattooed.”

As far as I know, at the moment the only artist who is performing this procedure, besides a licensed ophthalmologist, is Howie from LunaCobra. He has been seen a couple of times on the History Channel demonstrating. So, if you are dead set on having an eyeball tattoo done, I would suggest either finding an extremely cool ophthalmologist, or Howie himself. This is one time you certainly do not want a scratcher fooling around.

And please be aware of what you are risking. If you’re not ready to pay the piper, don’t call the tune. For myself, I’ll stick to special effect contact lenses.

We are starting a new snake tattoo pictures section on the site feel free to link to your favorite snake tattoo pictures in the comment section this page is dedicated to snake tattoos.

Grime
Skull & Sword
3415 Cesar Cavez
San Francisco, CA 94110
415.552.42897

Petri Syrjälä
Helsinki,Finland

Perhaps one of the most common questions that a tattoo artist will hear from someone who is looking for their first tattoo is, “Will it hurt?” A close second is, “Where does it hurt more?” I use to pass the answer off as honestly as possible by letting the prospective collector know that, yes, it hurts, but not as bad as most people seem to think. Which is true from my own perspective. Getting a tattoo is uncomfortable, but compared to some other forms of pain that life handed to me in almost fifty years it barley rates a yawn. The modern techniques and instruments used have done much to make tattooing less painful than it was in the old days.

When you consider the methods of tattooing before Samuel O’Reilly modified Thomas Edison’s Stencil Pen into the first viable tattoo machine back in 1891, some of the early tattoo methods were positively brutal. It is a small wonder that early tattoos were, more often than not, a rite of passage. This is especially true among the Polynesian tribes of the Pacific Ocean.

The original Maori Moko was literally chiseled into the face. The Moko, or more accurately Ta Moko, had the design chiseled into the face by dipping a small wood chisel into pigment that was either made by drying and burning caterpillars into a powder, or by burning a special tree resin into soot and mixing it with plant sap, or animal fat. Then the chisel was tapped along a sacred pattern producing a deeply engraved tattoo.

In other Polynesian tribes the method used was the one that gave us our modern word tattoo. Using two separate instruments, one a rake like device tipped with either sharpened bone, or shark’s teeth dipped in a soot mixture, a tapping stick was struck along the rake. Following the geometric pattern while several assistants held the skin taunt. The art was called tatau, which the fascinated Europeans pronounced tattoo.

Neither the Ta Moko, nor any of the sacred markings of the Polynesian tribes were a one-time affair, but a continuing process that often lasted for years. Each addition marked a new success, or defining moment in life demanding a new tattoo.

In North America Eskimos used a whalebone needle and a length of animal sinew thread, covered in soot, to literally sew the design into the skin. Think about getting a wound sutured for a few hours instead of a few minutes and you’ll have the idea. All of this was done without the benefit of Novocain.

The Aztec and Mayan cultures made do with good old fashioned hand poking, a lot like they do in prison when they can’t get hold of a homemade machine, using fresh thorns and cactus quills for needles. Soot and colors from wild berries served as ink.

The United States tribes made do with flint rocks. Sharpened and attached to wooden handles, much in the same way arrows were made, they were poked, or in some cases sliced into the skin after being dipped into the old faithful soot and water mixture.

In Japan, and Thailand the Hari, a instrument that looks a lot like an artist’s paint brush, was tipped with steel needles and pushed into the skin, sometimes with a twisting motion. The thumb is used as a rest for the Hari, and the artist must be extremely skilled to exert the same amount of pressure with each stroke as this determines the beautiful shading effect the method is famous for.

Does getting a modern tattoo hurt? Yes, it does, but nowhere near as bad as it use to before the machine. If you would like to make a comparison there are a few people out there who still practice the old ways. While even the Maori no longer do the traditional Ta Moko, (And no, if you’re not a Maori you shouldn’t even try to get a modern one. It‘s considered an insult.), you can get a traditional tatau in Hawaii, or a traditional Japanese tattoo to compare with the modern method. Somehow I don’t think you will think a modern tattoo is all that painful once you do, though.

Pain is relative and an integral part of the tattoo experience. It all depends on how bad you want it.

Ah, the lengths we tattoo fans will go to. The most critical factor I am speaking of is not what the next design is going to be, but, where to get our next “ink fix” put. This has led to some very out-of-the-box areas of the body being chosen for the next tat. From the bottom of the feet, to the palms of the hands. From the more private areas of the anatomy, to the inside of the lip. So, what part of the human body is left for the newest fashion statement? Why, the tongue, of course.

While this may seem like something new for us, as the saying goes; “There is no new thing under the sun.” Hawaiian women have sometimes had their tongues tattooed as an act of grief, long before captain Cook and the western missionaries showed up on those golden beaches. This was once witnessed, and commented on, by a missionary named William Ellis in the 1820’s.

Recently, however, tongue tattooing has become the new rage, and it seems to be growing in popularity by leaps and bounds. Now before you rush out to have your very own tongue tattoo done, lets take a look at what you may, or may not, be in for.

Although the process of getting a tongue tat is much the same as getting any tattoo, (With the exception that the artist is not likely to shave your tongue.), You should still consider that you will not be able to get a very intricate design done there. The working area is very limited and the surface of the tongue is not quite the same as the surface of your skin. Designs with bold, simplistic outlines, or no outline at all, will be your best choice.

Another thing to consider is not every tattoo artist is going to know exactly how to tattoo a tongue. The tongue is a big, slippery muscle and as such is prone to a lot of movement. This can make it difficult for the artist to get a grip on things, as it were. Artists who are versed in tongue tattooing will usually use the same type of forceps used to pierce the tongue as a method of holding it still.

According to many collectors who have had the procedure done, the pain factor isn’t as much of a worry as one would think. In fact, most of them consider it less painful than many of the outside areas of the body, and report a mild tingling, or numbness of the mouth during the tattooing. However, be aware that some do say it hurts like Hell and speech is very difficult immediately after.

Needless to say, proper oral hygiene is an absolute must after getting a tongue tattoo, even more so than a piercing. The effected area is much larger than a piercing and there will be a form of scab that initially covers the tattoo to consider. It is said to be very crusty and usually sloughs off after a couple of weeks. So the danger of infection and other disease considerations, (Do I really need to spell that one out for you?), is very real. The tattoo will appear a bit lighter, and waxier than a skin version after the crust has fallen off, but will soon settle down to it’s normal appearance.

Many have actually used the tongue tattoo to enhance their piercing. In combination the effect is rather unique. It certainly can make the now common tongue piercing a bit more exotic and personal, depending on what your sick little mind can come up with. Some of the more popular designs have been stars, hearts, and tribal styles, but I’m sure that as the trend grows many more will be added when collectors begin to stretch their imaginations.

Do remember, though, that not all artists are skilled in this style of tattooing, and it’s not something you want to be a guinea pig for. Ask your prospective artist to see some photos of tongues he has done before you commit. You should also be aware that a few have reported some loss of taste, as heavy handedness here can permanently damage taste buds. I’m pretty sure no one wants their Big Mac to taste like the cardboard box it came in.

Time and again on The Tattoo Blog we’ve complained, warned and just plain spoken out against scratchers and their services.   This week I stumbled upon a news story that takes the scratcher phenomenon to all new levels of shittiness.  What sort of levels are we talking about here?  Well, Dominque Fisher of Blackburn, England is currently on trial this week for “tattooing” Wayne Robinson with a Stanley Knife (box cutter) after a two-night long drug and alcohol fueled bender.

After regaining consciousness around 2am on the second night of their partying together, Robinson discovered that he was covered in blood.  Upon closer inspection, Robinson spotted a star carved into his back, “Dominique” carved into his chest and “tribal art” on his left arm.   Fisher, who had done the artwork for Robinson, was passed out next to him on the bed.

Between them, the pair had sucked back something in the neighbourhood of 30 valium within the course of two days.  This coupled with shots of vodka had apparently brought about the inspiration for some body art.  Fisher maintains that Robinson had requested the tattoos, asking for a “tribal one”, while Robinson argues that he did not consent to any tattooing of his body.

Regardless of who is telling the truth or in the wrong here, they both get Grand Master Idiot awards.  A very good gauge of when you’ve had too much alcohol and too many prescription drugs for the night is right around that moment when you think that letting someone cut your flesh with a knife is a good idea.  Conversely, the moment you pick up a knife and go to work on someone’s flesh with your non-existent tattooing skills…yeah, that’s pretty much game over in the party department. 

This week my blog post is going in a different direction.  Rather than report on some new tattoo related story, I am instead going to respond to a recent op-ed piece by Australian journalist James Campbell.

You see, this week Mr. Campbell felt it appropriate, as the worst heatwave to hit  Australia in 100 years bakes the land down under, to lash out at the tattoo community.  I’m not sure if it’s just the heat that causes Mr. Campbell to be so crotchety toward others who have zero impact on his life, but at any rate I’m here to tell James Campbell that people with attitudes such as his have my sympathies.

Surely it must be difficult to hold such stale and plainly outdated beliefs as the world around you continues to evolve and change. Mr. Campbell refers to tattoos as “common” without so much as a moment’s acknowledgement as to how incredibly common his own beliefs and opinions are.  Judging by his concern that: 

“…the rise of the tattoo into the middle class is an example of the creeping proletarianisation of society.”

Jamesie boy has some deep seeded classist issues going on.  The creeping proletarianisation of society?  Not to be rude Mr. Campbell, but I think you need to hop back in your time machine and set the dials for some time in the 18^th century.  You’d probably be a lot happier back then, with a fob pocket and a nice pair of jackboots.  You’d be able to fraternize with proper members of society who share equal levels of disgust for the working class and perhaps best of all, you could invest in a plantation somewhere and really tighten the screws on those damned common proletarians.

In short Mr. Campbell, your article was offensive in its broad generalizations and ridiculous assumptions about people who have tattoos.  It’s really amazing that you’re so knowledgeable as to all the reasons why people get tattoos.  Your statement that:

“If you have to mark yourself with indelible ink to show what an individual you are, you are not convincing anyone – least of all yourself,”

surprised me a great deal.  All these years that I’ve had tattoos I’ve failed to realize that 1. I was tattooed in an attempt to show others what an individual I am and 2. That I’m not even convincing myself of this fact!  I guess my personal, private reasons for wanting to have the tattoos that I have are overshadowed by my obvious vanity.  Thank you so much Mr. James Campbell, for pointing out what a fool I’ve been.

 “But the most depressing thing about so many of the tattoos that were out there loud and proud in the heat is what they say about the tattooed person’s taste.”

And what pray tell, does your article say about your taste, James?  You’ve managed to achieve quite the double standard here.  You’re permitted to exercise your taste and personal expression, which you no doubt feel is of great value, while complaining that people with tattoos are just foolish for doing so?  Low class?  Stupid?  Common?  Interesting in its obvious hypocrisy, is it not?

I’m also fairly gobsmacked that you had the nerve to title your article “Ugly Truth About the Tattoo Obsession”, as if your pompous, classist rantings are to be taken as gospel.  All hail James Campell!  He knows the Truth about tattoos and he’s going to tell us all!  No James, I’m sorry.  The only truth you’ve espoused is that you’re narrow minded and intolerant.  You’ve let your hate for something that doesn’t effect you in any way make you feel superior and allow you to write people you’ve never met off as stupid, low-rent morons. 

And that, Mr Campbell, is the most common behaviour of all.

I’m fairly certain that most of you out there reading these blogs have, at one time or another, seen Starship Troopers. For those of us who aren’t Sci Fi geeks it is a movie about the human race fighting a interstellar war against a highly intelligent race of insects. Who for the better part look more like a LSD inspired nightmare crab than a bug. A pretty neat gore fest in all, as told from an obvious military perspective.

One of the coolest futuristic scenes is when the hero, and his boot camp buddies, decide to get matching tattoos. It’s heartening to know that even in the future the military still keeps the tradition of tattoo. However, the tattoos are now put into the skin by something that is used to remove them in today’s world. A laser. Hey, it’s the future….who knows?

Now I did a little mind expanding in my hey day, so I’m open to all sorts of out of the box thinking. Still, there would have to be one hell of an advance in laser technology for a laser to implant color into the skin, instead of vaporize it. So, you can imagine my surprise to see something about laser “tattooing”. Damn! Could it be? An actual laser tattoo??

Hell no!

Now, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I know the difference between a tattoo and a branding. Make no mistake, a branding is exactly what this so called laser “tattoo” is. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against branding. Done by a professional, in a safe, sterile environment scarring and branding are as legitimate forms of body art as any other. If that’s what you like, go for it. Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re talking about here.

First off, this is not a tattoo by any definition. It is a branding. Second, it isn’t done by a pro. It is done by some goof bypassing the safeties on an industrial laser cutter, and sticking his body parts in there to have the computer burn the chosen design into his hide. And, yes, it hurts as bad, if not worse, than laser tattoo removal.

Unlike the surgical laser used by a dermatologist to remove a real tattoo, this is an industrial laser. It’s manufactured purpose is to etch steel, plastic, stone, and other non-living material. The laser is not intended for biological material, and isn’t supposed to have any living tissue put under it. Why did he think the safeties were put on the machine for in the first place? Decoration?

If you want to do a branding find a professional who can do a proper job for you. If you want a tattoo, go to a licensed studio and have the design of your dreams placed into your skin. If you want to prove that you need to be cut from the gene pool, or get a good dose of skin cancer, imitate this moron.

But please. Don’t call it a tattoo.

During the beginning of the current renaissance of tattooing having visible tattoos, or other forms of body art, was a guaranteed way to get your resume tossed into the “round file” as soon as you left the interview. Not quite so any longer as more, and more, the corporate world is coming face to face with one small fact. A large part of the younger generation entering the work force have tattoos.

This includes the people with the right skills for the right job and leaves corporations with a quandary. Do you pass over a candidate who can get the job done simply because they have tattoos, or do you turn a blind eye to their body art for the sake of getting the person you need to fill the spot?

Even with the slowdown in the current economy bringing hiring to a crawl, the fact remains that there is a shortage of skilled workers and baby boomers are beginning their exodus from the workforce into retirement. This leaves an emerging workforce that has over one third of it’s populace tattooed, or sporting some other form of body art.

It should be obvious at this point that if an employer wants to put the best qualified person into the position they have open, they are going to have to accept that the person may have a few tattoos. Fortunately, many companies are indeed opening their hearts and doors to prospective employees with tattoos.

Although still a minority, (According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Center recently, (36 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds have at least one tattoo. 40 percent of those between 26 and 40 have at least one.), as the popularity of tattooing grows there are sure to be even more tattooed candidates for skilled labor jobs.

Still, according to another survey on Vault.com, a good 85% of workers say tattoos and body piercings impede a person’s chances of finding a job. Another 64% said body art has a negative effect on the opinions of co-workers and employers. So, the battle isn’t totally won, yet.

Best advice. If you are currently in the market for a job, other than tattoo artist, and you can hide your ink, do so. There may very well be a time coming when it won’t matter, but that time isn’t on the horizon at the moment.

Who knows? Personally, I think seeing the CEO of a Fortune 500 company with a full back piece would be way cool……but I’m prejudiced.

Without further ado, here are a few more images of Barack Obama inspired tattoos…wonder if Jimmy Carter ever inspired such dedication from voters..