Photographer Sues Kat Von D Over Miles Davis Tattoo

[smmudge]

Well I don't know the law on it, I try not to think about it too much. But my poorly formed opinion is that there is a difference between redoing an image with your own hand, and just copying by printing onto a t-shirt or pillowcase or whatever. You can't exactly mass produce a tattoo, and that takes a lot of skill. I mean would the photographer be happy taking money to then tattoo the image himself onto someone? Hmm? No can't do that? Well then why can't I paint it, er I mean she tattoo it, etc etc.

If it's that she's using the actual image in the promo, oh then yeah I think she should pay for that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

Is she famous, then?

Even more foolish if so.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well I don't know the law on it, I try not to think about it too much. But my poorly formed opinion is that there is a difference between redoing an image with your own hand, and just copying by printing onto a t-shirt or pillowcase or whatever. You can't exactly mass produce a tattoo, and that takes a lot of skill. I mean would the photographer be happy taking money to then tattoo the image himself onto someone? Hmm? No can't do that? Well then why can't I paint it, er I mean she tattoo it, etc etc.

If it's that she's using the actual image in the promo, oh then yeah I think she should pay for that.

Only problem there is the tracing. Tracing an image, even if you then transform it, is problematic, copyright-wise. My company's had to redo a bunch of cartoons recently for exactly this reason.

Best not to reveal all your methods all the time.

 

[Ax^]

she was famous till the Nazi/Anti vax stuff came around

LA ink and such on the mid naughties

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Mind you, something else I know from experience: It is nigh on impossible to get a straight answer out of a lawyer about this kind of thing. Well, it might be ok...

 

[strung out]

It doesn't matter that the photographer is a professional, except with regards to the amount of damages he can claim. We all own the copyright to the photographs we take, and we can all sue for unauthorised use of those photographs.

For what it's worth, a lot of tattoo artists get very pissed off when their designs are ripped off by other tattoo artists, and while they may not make it to court, you can bet Kat Von D would have something to say if one of her competitors decided to ink one of her own designs onto a client.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It doesn't matter that the photographer is a professional, except with regards to the amount of damages he can claim. We all own the copyright to the photographs we take, and we can all sue for unauthorised use of those photographs.

For what it's worth, a lot of tattoo artists get very pissed off when their designs are ripped off by other tattoo artists, and while they may not make it to court, you can bet Kat Von D would have something to say if one of her competitors decided to ink one of her own designs onto a client.

Yep. And we own that copyright until we expressly give it away.

 

[editor]

I've been trying to think what I would do if I was in a similar situation and a tattoo artist inked a really old photo of mine on to a client.

It's hard to get in that mindset because I've obviously never taken a super famous photograph that has presumably already made me loads of dosh and fame, but I really couldn't imagine launching a law suit against the tattoo artist. I'm not sure how far I'd get with that anyway under UK law, or if I'd have the will to spend a lot of time and money chasing it up.

I think I'd be mainly flattered that someone wants my photo as a tattoo, but I'd maybe insist on a copyright link on the studio's promotional materials related to this one image.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've been trying to think what I would do if I was in a similar situation and a tattoo artist inked a really old photo of mine on to a client.

It's hard to get in that mindset because I've obviously never taken a super famous photograph that has presumably already made me loads of dosh and fame, but I really couldn't imagine launching a law suit against the tattoo artist. I'm not sure how far I'd get with that anyway under UK law, or if I'd have the will to spend a lot of time and money chasing it up.

I think I'd be mainly flattered that someone wants my photo as a tattoo, but I'd maybe insist on a copyright link on the studio's promotional materials related to this one image.

It's a tricky one for me because I've asked to use old photos taken as part of jobs that the photographer was obviously paid a lot of money for, and using them in children's educational books that obviously have a small budget, and I've had demands for 800 quid per image, which is more than the image budget for the entire book. Famous photographers can be greedy ime. But on the other hand, I completely support the principle that people should be paid for their work.

 

[editor]

It's a tricky one for me because I've asked to use old photos taken as part of jobs that the photographer was obviously paid a lot of money for, and using them in children's educational books that obviously have a small budget, and I've had demands for 800 quid per image, which is more than the image budget for the entire book. Famous photographers can be greedy ime. But on the other hand, I completely support the principle that people should be paid for their work.

Of course they should be paid and I get really fucked off when I see my work being reproduced on social media or websites without credit. If it's a non commercial website (and I haven't got a problem with their stance) I usually just ask for a credit/link. Same for charities etc. But if it's on a commercial site and I'm happy for my work to be seen there, I either ask them to take it down or pay a reasonable fee.

When I get enquiries for photo use I have a sliding scale which starts at free for personal sites, with the cost going up depending on the size of the company and what they do. I regularly turn down a lot of offers though (The Sun etc) no matter how much is being offered.

 

[killer b]

I've asked to use old photos taken as part of jobs that the photographer was obviously paid a lot of money for, and using them in children's educational books that obviously have a small budget, and I've had demands for 800 quid per image, which is more than the image budget for the entire book. Famous photographers can be greedy ime.

I don't think this is greedy - it's not the photographer's fault you didn't have a budget.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course they should be paid and I get really fucked off when I see my work being reproduced on social media or websites without credit. If it's a non commercial website (and I haven't got a problem with their stance) I usually just ask for a credit/link. Same for charities etc. But if it's on a commercial site and I'm happy for my work to be seen there, I either ask them to take it down or pay a reasonable fee.

When I get enquiries for photo use I have a sliding scale which starts at free for personal sites, with the cost going up depending on the size of the company and what they do. I regularly turn down a lot of offers though (The Sun etc) no matter how much is being offered.

And I also deal with a lot of people like you. The fee would normally be 35 quid tops, mind you. That's how much we pay for Getty images so I usually can't go higher than that. But it is disappointing when people ask for ludicrous amounts. People are usually surprised when they find out how much we get paid to make books. (ie it's a fuck of a lot less than they expect)

The flip side of that is the people who say 'sure, no problem', including people who own copyright to famous images, which does happen a lot. Bit randomly, Barbara Hepworth's estate, which is run by her granddaughter, doesn't charge fees even though they could (Henry Moore is 400 quid a pop). All she insists on is that we should use a nice shot and not obscure it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think this is greedy - it's not the photographer's fault you didn't have a budget.

Asking for 800 quid for a kids' book with a 5,000 print run? I think that is a little greedy. Where do they think the money is going to come from?

 

[killer b]

I don't suppose that's his problem.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, I'll use the word 'mean' then. We're not making evil things. Just kids' educational library books.

 

[killer b]

You couldn't afford to use his photo, that's all. It's no big deal. Just because other people value their work less than he does doesn't make him mean. You were making these books to sell weren't you?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's a case of a complete disconnect. A failure to understand what it is they're being asked. A simple 'no, you can't use it' would actually be more respectful.

(I'm not talking about famous or iconic pics here, btw)

 

[Saul Goodman]

If she's tattooed the chords to an Oasis track on his arm, would Oasis have a claim to the arm?

 

[strung out]

If she's tattooed the chords to an Oasis track on his arm, would Oasis have a claim to the arm?

They wouldn't have a claim to the arm, but they might have the right to claim damages. Depends on lots of things.

 

[Saul Goodman]

They wouldn't have a claim to the arm, but they might have the right to claim damages. Depends on lots of things.

I was just muddying the waters

 

[Bwark]

My belief is that anything copied even if you change the color or another small detail then it's basically plagiarism. Plagiarism is awful wether simply a color change or a tiny detail.
If the original artist is dead it feels like a free for all for anyone involved and I don't believe anybody ought to get recognition for such. A child or a monkey doing a close representation should receive nothing.
Antiques the same, my opinion, and it is only my opinion is that anything slightly similar really isn't art, more like trying to make money from a bandwagon. Why can't people be original instead of thinking let's make money from the back of something that's already been done but change a small detail? It's like going to New York and selling a watch, handbag or pair of shoes they made themselves.
Vive Ia mariee

 

[two sheds]

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

I hadn't realized just how clever this artist had been

 

[Aladdin]

What if the guy who brought in the photo had bought the print?
Would that make a difference?
She didnt make a print from the original and she didnt "transfer" it the way they do on t shirts / cloth / other surfaces.


I dont know. I thin

They wouldn't have a claim to the arm, but they might have the right to claim damages. Depends on lots of things.

If she tottoed it in a different key

My belief is that anything copied even if you change the color or another small detail then it's basically plagiarism. Plagiarism is awful wether simply a color change or a tiny detail.
If the original artist is dead it feels like a free for all for anyone involved and I don't believe anybody ought to get recognition for such. A child or a monkey doing a close representation should receive nothing.
Antiques the same, my opinion, and it is only my opinion is that anything slightly similar really isn't art, more like trying to make money from a bandwagon. Why can't people be original instead of thinking let's make money from the back of something that's already been done but change a small detail? It's like going to New York and selling a watch, handbag or pair of shoes they made themselves.
Vive Ia mariee

Painting from a photo is usually called derivative work. Or an homage. And if using a photo is for reference then it's not plagiarism. Hence the changes in colours or layout or angles can neutralise any claims to plagiarism.

Your comments on antiques are ludicrous. Most people just want to repair them and really good restorers like to make the repair as genuine as possible using old materials and original veneers.


By the way....are you sure that in some way you're not related to a particular banned poster? Someone called Sodapop?

Your posting style is really very similar. So similar it's uncanny.
Might even say....identical.
And you seem to know a lot of details of peoples lives.



Maybe you're just a derivative though.

Either way ...
Fuck off.

 

[Bwark]

Lovely post. Doesn't matter what it's called, it's the principle, derivative, copy or just plain lack of originality. Be original, do something original, to my mind a copy good or bad is a copy. Creativism is about doing something creative and original not making a copy, good or poor. Pepsi and Coke is an excellent example. As is Cadbury drinking chocolate and all the poor copies out there. An idea is an original idea, if it becomes mainstream it usually means it's a poor copy and cheaper and in the world of creativity, second best. My opinion, to which I'm entitled, no matter what any one thinks. Look at all the chocolate bars that copy Cadbury and call it something very similar, poor copies from people who want to make money from a famous yet very similar product. As a writer it annoys me greatly. Covid 19 is covid 19 no matter which derivative it all had the same effect, slightly different derivative, same result, slightly different symptoms. This can be applied to almost anything that is "used" in whatever form. Even science

 

[Aladdin]

Do you bake, Bwark? Would you agree it cam be a creative thing to do?
Do you "create" your own recipes every time? Or do you recognise that certain combinations of ingredients work best in certain ratios?
Are you then copying someone else's creativity?

You mention origin and creationism... confusing origin with creation.

For example.
99.9% of DNA is identical from one human cell to the next. It's the 0.1% that's different.
That's all it takes to be original.

Nobody. Absolutely nobody is 100% original in anything they do...because they are influenced and educated and soak up images and experiences all the time.

We learn by imitation.
Humans learned from each other. Copied each other. Its how we developed as humans.

Go back far enough and you'll see that the origin of our species was a single cell life form ....that split into two cells and then divided again amd again replecating information all the time. Little influencers like bacteria or a virus here and there and what do you know suddenly over millions of years we developed into multitudes of humans. Copying is part of our DNA. There is nothing original about knowledge either. Everything we know is built on the knowledge someone else realised existed.

As for Cadburys? They were not original. They copied a chocolate drink created in South America.

Nothing is truly original. Nobody is truly creative...as in bringing forth something entirely new and unaffected by anything that ever existed.
Every artist is influenced by external factors and other people's work.

 

[Bwark]

I don't bake. Unless it's for my family, when I do I use recipes which are copies of original work. No different.I'd disagree about creativity, there are people who truly have original ideas. It's called progress and the copiers whilst perhaps make things cheaper are still plagiarists

 

[Spymaster]

I don't bake. Unless it's for my family, when I do I use recipes which are copies of original work. No different.I'd disagree about creativity, there are people who truly have original ideas. It's called progress and the copiers whilst perhaps make things cheaper are still plagiarists

Hiya. Didn’t you used to post here as Sodapop? Why is it that you only post very occasionally and when you do it’s on all the threads that Sugar Kane is on? You got banned from here for stalking her under another name didn’t you?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Lovely post. Doesn't matter what it's called, it's the principle, derivative, copy or just plain lack of originality.

I mean the original photo is just a copy of someone else's face.

 

[TopCat]

I have a Dennis The Menace tattoo. Drawn from the Beano. Tattoo artists are mostly tracers anyway. Always copying stuff.

 

[smmudge]

I mean the original photo is just a copy of someone else's face.

Sedlik must have invented portrait photography.