Photographer Sues Kat Von D Over Miles Davis Tattoo

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the photographer probably has a case but is also a twat, particularly as I am very sure this is a photo he has already made a lot of money out of. And let's face it, the photo is great in a very large part because it's MD, not cos the photographer is a genius. (It is a great photo, though.)

Ironically, I would think that the more skilled a tattoist she is, the more trouble she probably is in. It appears that she is very good indeed.

A moral here: don't film yourself doing legally questionable things and put it on social media.

 

[Aladdin]

I think the photographer probably has a case but is also a twat, particularly as I am very sure this is a photo he has already made a lot of money out of. And let's face it, the photo is great in a very large part because it's MD, not cos the photographer is a genius. (It is a great photo, though.)

Ironically, I would think that the more skilled a tattoist she is, the more in trouble she probably is in. It appears that she is very good indeed.

A moral here: don't film yourself doing legally questionable things and put it on social media.

Yep.
If the tattoo had been horrendously bad I doubt the photographer would be saying anything

 

[Spymaster]

Except she didnt "lift" the image or "transfer" it .
She drew it on skin with a different medium.

That's right, but apparently she did use a lightbox to transfer it.

 

[strung out]

Some excellent hot takes on copyright on this thread.

It seems pretty obvious that the photographer has a decent claim here. The photographer owns the copyright to the image (doesn't matter who/what it's of), and the tattoo artist has copied it almost exactly in order to make money from it.

Copyright infringement claimaints often try to go for the absolute maximum they can, because if they don't, they're likely to get screwed on damages and people will continue to take the piss stealing their work.

Will be interesting to see what the courts think.

 

[Cid]

Except she didnt "lift" the image or "transfer" it .
She drew it on skin with a different medium.

If I sat down and drew the image in charcoal on paper there would be absolutely no issue.. once I credit the original artist by maybe calling the piece "homage to
..xyz"

If you did a direct copy, and tried to sell it there might well be.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some excellent hot takes on copyright on this thread.

It seems pretty obvious that the photographer has a decent claim here. The photographer owns the copyright to the image (doesn't matter who/what it's of), and the tattoo artist has copied it almost exactly in order to make money from it.

Copyright infringement claimaints often try to go for the absolute maximum they can, because if they don't, they're likely to get screwed on damages and people will continue to take the piss stealing their work.

Will be interesting to see what the courts think.

There's one obvious problem, of course. If she can't pay, the tattoo cannot be destroyed.

 

[Cid]

Bear in mind there appears to be no attribution, and - quite apart from the tattoo - she has very clearly reproduced the image and used it in her promotional materials.

 

[Aladdin]

That's right, but apparently she did use a lightbox to transfer it.

Nope. She used a light box...
And tracing.
But she still had to to all the actual shading. Which is what makes the image look the way it does. She's obviously a very skilled artist in her own rite.

I'd say Spymaster that out of 100 people uainga lightbox to "copy" an image ...only a very small % will manage to make their art actually resemble the original piece. An outline does not make an image.

I think the photographer will lose. Because the tattoist used a different medium and she was not mass producing the art....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Bear in mind there appears to be no attribution, and - quite apart from the tattoo - she has very clearly reproduced the image and used it in her promotional materials.

Could she ask the bloke to come back in and have the photographer's name tattooed underneath it with a little ©.

The second part of course is the bit she could be in trouble for.

 

[Aladdin]

Bear in mind there appears to be no attribution, and - quite apart from the tattoo - she has very clearly reproduced the image and used it in her promotional materials.

That's the one fly in the ointment.
She needs to pull all that promo stuff and talk with the photographer. She doesn't appear to have intentionally done this. The photographer should talk with her.

 

[killer b]

To he fair to the tattooist. They made one copy. Not millions. And they worked hard for their money creating that piece. They deserve to be paid.


Eta. If the photographer had created their image on skin maybe just maybe they'd be able to whinge.

Being a photographer is a job, and photographers also work hard and deserve to be paid. They make a living by selling the rights to reproduce the images they create - for magazines to print for stories, for pillow companies to print on pillowcases, for poster companies to print onto paper or canvas. It's not unreasonable for them to also expect to be paid when their work is reproduced onto somebody's skin, and that reproduction is then used to promote the business of the person who did the reproduction.

 

[Aladdin]

Being a photographer is a job, and photographers also work hard and deserve to be paid. They make a living by selling the rights to reproduce the images they create - for magazines to print for stories, for pillow companies to print on pillowcases, for poster companies to print onto paper or canvas. It's not unreasonable for them to also expect to be paid when their work is reproduced onto somebody's skin, and that reproduction is then used to promote the business of the person who did the reproduction.

Yep..and the tattoist pretty much seems to not have realised the photo was taken by a professional photographer.

Plus skin cant exactly be removed.

 

[Cid]

The photographer should talk with her.

It says he did though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep..and the tattoist pretty much seems to not have realised the photo was taken by a professional photographer.

 

[Cid]

Yep..and the tattoist pretty much seems to not have realised the photo was taken by a professional photographer.

That would be very, very hard to argue.

Plus skin cant exactly be removed.

That isn't relevant... You don't have to destroy something because it violates copyright, just pay for it. <massively over-simplified>

 

[mojo pixy]

The photographer should talk with her.

From the legal document...

84. In or about December 2020, Sedlik attempted to contact Kat Von D, KVD, Inc. and HighVoltage Tattoo (through their registered agents for service of process) to resolve this matter without the necessity of bringing this complaint, but received no response from Kat Von D,KVD, Inc., High Voltage Tattoo or their respective representatives.

I actually suspect this will be resolved outside of the courtroom, in the end - but it'll cost more than it would have if the tattooist had just contacted the photographer in the first place and offered to split the profits somehow or pay a fee.

I wonder how much High Voltage charge for an armful of Miles Davis? I bet it's not cheap.

 

[killer b]

Yep..and the tattoist pretty much seems to not have realised the photo was taken by a professional photographer.

It's an iconic image of one of the most famous musicians of the 20th century. Of course it was taken by a professional photographer.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

From the legal document...

84. In or about December 2020, Sedlik attempted to contact Kat Von D, KVD, Inc. and HighVoltage Tattoo (through their registered agents for service of process) to resolve this matter without the necessity of bringing this complaint, but received no response from Kat Von D,KVD, Inc., High Voltage Tattoo or their respective representatives.

I actually suspect this will be resolved outside of the courtroom, in the end - but it'll cost more than it would have if the tattooist had just contacted the photographer in the first place and offered to split the profits somehow or pay a fee.

I wonder how much High Voltage charge for an armful of Miles Davis? I bet it's not cheap.

Yep, this sounds about right. Not responding to that email was a mistake.

Be interested to know if he followed it up, though, having got no response. It is possible it was missed, particularly as I'm guessing there isn't too much tattooing going on in New York at the moment.

 

[Aladdin]

It's an iconic image of one of the most famous musicians of the 20th century. Of course it was taken by a professional photographer.

Never saw it before...honestly.

 

[Aladdin]

Yep, this sounds about right. Not responding to that email was a mistake.

Maybe she didnt get the email? Or thought it was spam or just plain nuts?

The process of drawing and tattoing the face is absolutely nothing like the process of photography. It is also nothing like a straight transferral. I suspect this will be the saving grace for the tattoist.
She may have to pay something. Nothing like $150000 though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Never saw it before...honestly.

Yeah, but it's Miles Davis, and it's very obviously a studio shot. You don't need to have seen it before to know it's a professional job. No dice with that argument in court, I suspect.

 

[Aladdin]

Yeah, but it's Miles Davis, and it's very obviously a studio shot. You don't need to have seen it before to know it's a professional job. No dice with that argument in court, I suspect.

She didnt provide the image though did she?
Didnt the customer bring in the image?
That does change things.

 

[killer b]

That does change things.

how does it change things? outside your reckons I mean, how does it change things in the world?

 

[Spymaster]

Nope. She used a light box...
And tracing.
But she still had to to all the actual shading. Which is what makes the image look the way it does. She's obviously a very skilled artist in her own rite.

I'd say Spymaster that out of 100 people uainga lightbox to "copy" an image ...only a very small % will manage to make their art actually resemble the original piece. An outline does not make an image.

I think the photographer will lose. Because the tattoist used a different medium and she was not mass producing the art....

Well we'll see, I guess.

If I was the photograper I'd be pretty miffed but there's something about the ludicrous sums these U.S. complainants sue for that makes me hope they'll fall at the first fence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She didnt provide the image though did she?
Didnt the customer bring in the image?
That does change things.

I'm not sure that changes anything.

Dunno about US courts, but in UK courts a lot of emphasis is put on what a person might reasonably be expected to know. In this case, it's not credible that she didn't know that a) this was Miles Davis, b) Miles Davis is exceedingly famous, and c) this photo was taken by a professional photographer.

 

[Cid]

Maybe she didnt get the email? Or thought it was spam or just plain nuts?

The process of drawing and tattoing the face is absolutely nothing like the process of photography. It is also nothing like a straight transferral. I suspect this will be the saving grace for the tattoist.
She may have to pay something. Nothing like $150000 though.

 

[mojo pixy]

Plus skin cant exactly be removed.

 

[Cid]

I'm not sure that changes anything.

Dunno about US courts, but in UK courts a lot of emphasis is put on what a person might reasonably be expected to know. In this case, it's not credible that she didn't know that a) this was Miles Davis, b) Miles Davis is exceedingly famous, and c) this photo was taken by a professional photographer.

She would also be expected to work to the standard of a reasonable member of her profession. So it's not going to be sufficient to just say she was totally ignorant of the origin of the photo...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She would also be expected to work to the standard of a reasonable member of her profession. So it's not going to be sufficient to just say she was totally ignorant of the origin of the photo...

Yeah, and you're right that it's the promo stuff she's in trouble for. If she'd just done the tattoo and not advertised it, well, the photographer would never have found out, for starters. Would be a more interesting case, perhaps, if the only evidence were a photo online of the tattoo itself and nothing else. Then her own work transforming the original would be relevant.

 

[Ax^]

guess Kat V D is just glad for news stories not calling her a nazi or a Anti Vaxxer