Photographer sues Kat Von D over a tattoo of his 30-year-old photo

Feb 16, 2021

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Photographer sues Kat Von D over a tattoo of his 30-year-old photo

Feb 16, 2021

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

We’ve seen different kinds of copyright infringement lawsuits, and here’s a very unusual one. Photographer Jeff Sedlik has filed a lawsuit against famous tattoo artist Kat von D who used his photo of Miles Davis for a tattoo. The photographer seeks $150,000 in statutory damages plus any profits earned made by depicting the tattoo and removing any “derivative works” she could have made from it.

Kat von D (Katherine Von Drachenberg) became famous after she was a star of the TLC reality TV series LA Ink, running between 2007 and 2011. In March 2017, she used Jeff Sedlik’s photo of Miles Davis as a reference and tattooed it on her client’s arm. She shared it multiple times with her 7.4 million followers on Instagram, as well as on her Facebook page. You can also see the photo in this short clip on YouTube.

YouTube video

Shhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone but this is actually Kat Von D's 1st time doing a portrait of the incomparable #MilesDavis. So far go good, huh??What musician would you get?

Posted by High Voltage Tattoo on Friday, March 17, 2017

According to the lawsuit, Sedlik alleges that her Instagram photo “depicts the ‘final product’ of defendant Kat Von D’s unauthorized and unlicensed reproduction and derivate work of the Iconic Miles Davis Portrait in the form of a tattoo.” He also claims that an HVT Instagram Post from 15 April 2017 “depicts a nearly exact duplication of the Iconic Miles Davis Portrait as reproduced by defendant Kat Von D.”

Sedlik took this photo of Miles Davis at his beach house in Malibu, California, in 1989. The portrait has been sold with a non-exclusive license to reproduce, distribute and display ever since it was created. The first time it was published was shortly after its creation: it became a part of a cover story in JAZZIZ magazine around August 1989.

This is the only photo Sedlik sells on his Saatchi Art account, where he adds a bit of a backstory:

“I prepared for this portrait session over a period of years, working through hundreds of concepts, creating dozens of sketches. Miles selected a number of my sketches, but this concept was his favorite. To make this photograph, I created a 20’x20′ tent of black cloth on the patio behind his home. The image was made at noon, in bright sun, beneath a large sailcloth. Miles treated me with respect, and I photographed him on many occasions in his later years.”

In addition to the backstory, Sedlik requires that his photos are not copied or used without contacting him for a license first, nor new artworks should be made based on his photo. So, he decided to sue when he saw that Kat von D did make art based on his photograph.

According to Billboard, the photographer wants Kat von D and her business High Voltage Tattoo to remove any content referencing his image from all print, web, and social media platforms. He also seeks statutory damages of $150,000 per work depicting the tattoo, including “derivative works” such as advertising, marketing, and promotional materials. But that’s not all. Sedlik also requires any profits Kat von D and her studio made from using the image, as well as any losses Sedlik had as a consequence of that use. There are also “any other monetary advantage gained; all other damages available under copyright law; attorneys’ fees and costs of the suit; and pre- and post-judgment interest.”

However, Sedlik claims that he didn’t file a lawsuit just like that. In a statement he gave to Billboard, he said that he “reached out to Kat von D ‘artist to artist’ (through her representatives) seeking an amicable resolution of the matter.” However, he claims that she “chose to ignore [his] good faith effort to avoid litigation.”

Honestly, I have no idea how this could turn out. I don’t know how the law works with this kind of derivative work, I never even thought about it. I believe tattoos based on photos are considered to be derivative work. But then again, Kat von D didn’t earn money from the photo itself, but from drawing it on someone’s skin. I must admit that I’m confused and very curious to see how this ends. If you have knowledge and experience on this particular topic, I’d love to hear from you. And even if you don’t, I’d love to hear what you think – who will win this one?

You can read the lawsuit here.

[via PetaPixel; image credits: Thivierr via Wikimedia Commons/YouTube screenshot]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

71 responses to “Photographer sues Kat Von D over a tattoo of his 30-year-old photo”

  1. Ian Brace Avatar
    Ian Brace

    So will that mean the person who’s arm it on will have to pay royalties evey time it’s show?

    This needs to be a loss as or it will be the end of photo realistic tattoos of anyone famous.

    1. Mike Shwarts Avatar
      Mike Shwarts

      It isn’t about realistic tattoos of famous people. It is about the tattoo artist copying another person’s work without permission and compensation and making a profit from it. She could have done her own realistic tattoo of Davis and this would not be an issue. She is profiting off Sedlik”s work.

      1. Vincent Cyr Avatar
        Vincent Cyr

        Really? Because I kinda think she was actually profiting from the hours of highly skilled work she put into tattooing the image on someone. It would have been nice to have given the photographer a heads up, but beyond that, she doesn’t owe them squat. It is a work in a separate medium based on the photo, not a copy of it.

        1. Mike Shwarts Avatar
          Mike Shwarts

          It is a copy. Doesn’t matter that it is a different medium. Look at the photo and the tattoo. There is no significant change in Davis’s express and how he holds his hand. Von D did not make it her own work.

        2. Shirley Major Avatar
          Shirley Major

          It is obvious she used the photo as a reference she pinned it up and posted it every on social media. I can’t do a painting from a photo without permission. But I guess she is special and does not have to respect other artists.

        3. Anne Telgenhof Avatar
          Anne Telgenhof

          Good lord, you can’t truly be that naive. There are reasons why copyright laws and protections exist. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, she DID break the law. Anyone with half a brain can understand that. If someone copied one of her tattoos, using a real picture of the tattoo as reference, and posted it all over the internet, she wouldn’t sue for damages? Because any professional would.

          1. DavidBrosky Avatar
            DavidBrosky

            Photographers are so up their own asses with the idea that they’re “artists”. They take pictures of something and “hey, look at me!” “Validate me!” This guy is just trying to get money and notoriety. Fuck him and the rest of the scab photographers.

          2. Pro Jektor Avatar
            Pro Jektor

            Nope, no laws broken. Parody is expressly allowed under law. Changing the medium for something like this matters, as the artist has the ability to authenticate the actual work; if it was illegal Disney and Nintendo would be able to sue swaths of people for their tats. It’s really sad that this argument really comes down to something so stupid as money; dude gets recognition every time anyone asks about that tat… Free fuckin advertising.

          3. Brandon Longwell Avatar
            Brandon Longwell

            Still not parody.

          4. Jeq Avatar
            Jeq

            If it was Parody sure however its not parody you cant copy a work and call it parody thats not how it works. Disney does send out cease and desist letters and have sued several bakeries who have continued to produce their items.

          5. John Blood Avatar
            John Blood

            So anytime you take a photograph of someone with a tattoo you reach out to the person’s tattoo artist to make sure that it is ok to photograph?

          6. Yden Avatar
            Yden

            When it comes to photographs, those are pretty much an implied license that the person can display their own bodies with it. You do get into trouble when you recreate the tattoo though as seen in the Hangerover 2 case vs Mike Tyson’s tatoo artist. It’s perfectly fine for Tyson to show up on screen with that tattoo but when they recreated it and put it on one of the actors, it ran afoul of copyrights.

      2. Pro Jektor Avatar
        Pro Jektor

        Naw, this about legality, not fru-fru feelings. There are ways artists can prove their works authenticity for sales; no one’s gonna buy this dudes arm for artist fee. Also, I can find this stupid picture online all day long for free, so what’s the difference? First learn critical reasoning and logic, THEN reply.

  2. Jason Dunning Avatar
    Jason Dunning

    I can’t stand Kat Von D but Jeff Sedlik’s lawsuit is just a douchebaggy thing to do. I hope Richard Prince chooses Jeff Sedlik’s Instagram photos for his next series.

    1. Josh Weilepp Avatar
      Josh Weilepp

      Jason Dunning harsh lol, but rly f**k Richard Prince.

    2. Shirley Major Avatar
      Shirley Major

      You mean the idiot who “disowned” his work. LOL Not getting permission is plain lazy and discourteous to a fellow artist.

  3. Beth McColl Avatar
    Beth McColl

    The real question here is why do all of these commenters feel so entitled to a photographers work? Just because it’s a photograph of a celebrity doesn’t mean it’s public domain. Stop vilifying photographers for defending their own intellectual property.

    1. Harold Hardradda Avatar
      Harold Hardradda

      transformative work.

      1. Shirley Major Avatar
        Shirley Major

        It is very obvious she is using the photo as a reference. She put it up all over social media showing her using it as a reference. I need permission to use a photo to do a painting.. Using skin and ink does not make her exempt.

      2. Jeq Avatar
        Jeq

        It is at BEST derivative and a derivative work is still a copyright violation and requires licensing

    2. jack324 Avatar
      jack324

      Maybe we will when photographers stop asking for insane amounts of money for perceived violations. 150k for every time she used the pic, even if it’s a pic of her sitting next to the pic tattooing it? That’s just insanity.

      Besides, in this case I think he deserves to lose.

    3. Teaml0ser Avatar
      Teaml0ser

      Shut the fuck up

  4. Alexander McKenna Avatar
    Alexander McKenna

    Kat Von D will win. Ez clap.

  5. Josh Weilepp Avatar
    Josh Weilepp

    100% will lose that lawsuit.

    1. Jeq Avatar
      Jeq

      Nah not a chance its a definite win if she isnt smart and settles out of court. Even with the argument that its a derivative work a derivative work is still a copyright violation

  6. Scott Burns Avatar
    Scott Burns

    The suit is over her using the photo as advertisement as I understood?

  7. Jeff White Avatar
    Jeff White

    To this photog just here for noteriety, I got a job for you…piss off.
    You will lose this fight as we all will see, & you will not work in this industry for a living time except doing photography of “Dog Food”

  8. Marina Ćirović Avatar
    Marina Ćirović

    Damages? As in, if she didn’t tattoo it onto them the photographer would? ??

  9. Shirley Major Avatar
    Shirley Major

    A professional tattoo artist would ask a client if they have permission to use the work as a reference and or use it digitally. Kat is not super special that she gets to do anything she wants with another artists work. Magazines and Calendars use photos the have permission and they say the photographers name. She did not get permission (or licence) to use the photo as a reference and or use it digitally and she did not give him attribution.

  10. Shirley Major Avatar
    Shirley Major

    An amateur artist cannot use a photo as a reference to do a painting. I also cannot then sell prints of that painting. I need permission to use the photo and need digital rights in writing. The rights don’t always cost a fortune. If she had conversed with him he may have given permission at no charge if she gave him attribution. It is copyright infringement. It is obvious she used the photo as a reference. If anyone does not see that then they are blind.

    1. Pro Jektor Avatar
      Pro Jektor

      Listen, no one cares that you wanna try and make money in perpetuity for something you really didn’t create either. Artists get paid for the art they make, not likeness rights. I’m sure that artist paid millions for the likeness of Miles Davis… No? That’s alright, because Miles Davis didn’t even MAKE Miles Davis, his parents did! Where’s their fringe benefits from the artist that used their creations (Miles Davis) likeness?
      That’s how stupid you sound

  11. Shirley Major Avatar
    Shirley Major

    I will listen to my 3 Master Artist Award Winning teachers and what they say about copyright infringement. They would say she was wrong to use the photo in any way shape or form without permission (or license).

    1. Pro Jektor Avatar
      Pro Jektor

      The law says fuck your “masters”. Parody is allowed under law, especially if under a completely separate medium. Artists need to check their shit; try and make this the case and watch Disney sue anyone for having their images tatted. Don’t be stupid

      1. Brandon Longwell Avatar
        Brandon Longwell

        Parody is specifically about humor. This is not a parody case.

      2. Jeq Avatar
        Jeq

        Disney has sued several cake makers for doing pieces that get eaten. They send cease and desists to tattoo artists the artists are just smart enough to cease. A parody cant just be the work copied you’re the one being stupid

        In legal terms, a parody
        is a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style
        of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. It is regarded as a
        criticism or comment on the original copyrighted work. In simple terms,
        it has to convey to the audience some type of message about the
        original work.

  12. Trace ʚϊɞ✩ ಌ Avatar
    Trace ʚϊɞ✩ ಌ

    This is hilarious
    Why did he wait Over ten years to whine about it?
    Good luck w that, crybaby?

    1. Anne Telgenhof Avatar
      Anne Telgenhof

      I’m sorry, where did your brain come up with 10 years? They mentioned LA ink running until 2011. That literally has nothing to do with the actual situation. Maybe learn basic reading comprehension before going to war with the keyboard.

      1. Trace ʚϊɞ✩ ಌ Avatar
        Trace ʚϊɞ✩ ಌ

        If la ink ended in 2011 n it’s 2021
        That’s 10yrs
        Learn basic math
        .. n who tf was “going to war w the key board?” I made a fkn comment that it was hilarious
        Move on Tiffany

  13. kristin hersh Avatar
    kristin hersh

    She’s not only going to lose, they could actually either make the person with the tattoo pay also, or order said person to have the tattoo removed (and paid for by Kat Von D).

    1. DavidBrosky Avatar
      DavidBrosky

      You have no idea what you’re talking about. Get off your mom’s laptop.

  14. Grant Howard Avatar
    Grant Howard

    He has a logical case, but I can see them wanting to avoid opening the legal can of worms of photo reference for tattoos. Think of Universal coming after all the Karloff Frankenstein tats out there!

    1. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
      Crackers McQuackers

      That is the exact reason he will lose. If it could be done, all billion dollar corporations would have done it by now.

      1. Jeq Avatar
        Jeq

        Disney sued a cake decorator in 2015 it already happens. The reason it doenst happen more is most companies start with a cease and desist or settle outside of court. If she chose to ignore the option to settle outside of court thats on her.

  15. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
    Crackers McQuackers

    If you could win lawsuits over tattoo copyright claims, Disney would have found a way by now

    1. MegaNickels Avatar
      MegaNickels

      This is a really good point

    2. Jeq Avatar
      Jeq

      Disney regularly files claims

      1. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
        Crackers McQuackers

        I didn’t say “if you could file claims” or “if you could sue”, I said “if you can WIN them”. Literally no one has, and it’s highly doubtful this one will go the distance either. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/tattoos-infringe-copyrights-48743.html

        1. Jeq Avatar
          Jeq

          Ok so you linked something that has zero citation of laws and legality for why it wouldnt be copyright infringement? Is this supposed to prove your point? The lack of precedent doesnt make a lawsuit dead in the water and the fact that most of these dont make it to court is more due to the power of cease and desist than the weight of the case. You can obtain liscensing to use peoples ip if you dont its copyright violation thats the way it works

          1. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
            Crackers McQuackers

            You are real good at ignoring the part where I said “if you could WIN”. That would involve admitting you’re wrong of course, so I see your dilemma. But here’s where your logic takes an absolute nosedive:

            I give you a citation for my statement that it’s highly doubtful this lawsuit will go the distance. Then you argue my citation doesn’t prove a point that I was not trying to make. And you also state my citation contains no citations…all the while not citing any of your own sources.

            Do you see how one of us is staying on topic, giving actual reasons for their statements, being generally handsome – and the other one of us keeps trying to repeat things I never said and ignores actual facts?

          2. Jeq Avatar
            Jeq

            Your citation having any leaning on the ability to win a case would imply it lists one of two things. The laws for why it isnt copyright infringement and thus is a failed case. Or precedent in listing cases where suits have failed. Instead they have all been settled outside of court which usually involves paying the people suing you to shut up. You have presented a total of zero information for why someone wouldn’t win a case that made it to court. For the article that you linked as a citation to have any sort of weight it would need to be backed for reasons why its making that claim. It has no reasons why its making the claim other than the cases have been settled outside of court a settlement being reached means that the party pursuing lawsuit has been appeased. A citation that says “We think this” with nothing to back it is just an opinion piece.

          3. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
            Crackers McQuackers

            You can say I haven’t, but a quick read through this back and forth shows that I have. My original statement was ‘if you can win lawsuits over tattoo copyright infringement, Disney would’ve done so already’. You have provided no proof whatsoever that they have, and I have provided evidence that as of 2012 there was no precedent in that regard, and stated such lawsuits most likely will not go the distance. Settling = not going the distance = not winning a lawsuit. You can keep twisting it to sound like I said something different, and keep trying to pretend you have provided any contradictory information other than your own personal opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact that if winning lawsuits over tattoo copyright infringement was feasible, Disney would have done it by now.

          4. Jeq Avatar
            Jeq

            What is it you think happens when a lawsuit is settled outside of court? Do you think its disney etc being told to go shove it and just being like “mmm sure we can do that.” Or do you think its the person under the gun paying them so they dont potentially face worse damages in the courtroom? The fact that the cases have been settled out of court leans credence to the awareness of people that they are likely to lose a claim. If you cant make tshirts with copyrighted images if you cant make cufflinks? If you cant make physical art with copyrighted images why would you think that tattoos would have some magical grand difference? That article stating its OPINION over how they feel a court case would go is just that an opinion backed up with zero citation of law and precedent with the only history being that people facing suit have settled up outside of court. Which is how these suits have all ended previously now we have one going to court to set a precedent which spoiler the dude is going to win because you cant just change the medium of something copyrighted and be like “hurrr i cant be sued”

          5. Ethan Avatar
            Ethan

            lol you are really bad at this. What do YOU think happens in a settlement? One side just gets everything they want? No. Each side works out a compromise. Nobody gets everything they want. In other words, they don’t WIN. Try and get that concept in your head for your own sake man. That is my point, and no amount of your deflection and redirection and making things up is going to change that.

          6. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
            Crackers McQuackers

            lol you are really bad at this. What do YOU think happens in a settlement? One side just gets everything they want? No. Each side works out a compromise. Nobody gets everything they want. In other words, they don’t WIN. Try and get that concept in your head for your own sake man. That is my point, and no amount of your deflection and redirection and making things up is going to change that.

          7. Jeq Avatar
            Jeq

            Im deflecting and redirecting and your only reasoning behind them losing the case is lack of precedent. You have zero legal or historical reason to believe a copyright case like this would be lost. You have zero documentation to show that it isnt copyright violation. There is zero basis for there not being a winning case and every basis for it being a winning case unless you try and argue that they arent violating copyright law. If they are violating copyright law then why would they lose the case?

          8. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
            Crackers McQuackers

            You have zero legal or historical reason to believe a copyright case
            like this would be won. You have zero documentation to show that it
            is copyright violation. See how easy it is to just say things? Of course, in your case it’s because you keep ignoring the evidence I’ve cited while you continue to just quote and repeat yourself.

            Let me bring you back on track again: I said if you could win a case like this, Disney would have done it by now. You even admitted they DON’T WIN, they settle, thus inadvertently proving my point. That’s YOUR post right up there saying it, unless you want to deny that too? Maybe twist it? Or ignore it like you have been everything else because you can’t fathom the concept of being wrong?

          9. Jeq Avatar
            Jeq

            I have every legal reason to believe it would be won….. are you just ignoring copyright law in all of this? Do you genuinely believe its just not copyright infringement at all? You havent cited any fucking evidence none the fact that someone hasnt been to court over it isn’t fucking evidence. Your citation literally said tattoos were copyright infringement your own fucking “evidence”. Ill do you favor and link it below further as i said previously a defendant and their lawyer wouldnt settle out of court if they thought the case would be lost a settlement requires appeasement of both parties and it would certainly require a promise to not repeat the violation the fact hat court cases get settled doesn’t prove your fucking point that they wouldnt be won if anything it makes it more likely they would be won since noones fighting them and are trying to settle up so as to avoid being in court on a case they would lose.

            Tattoos and Copyright Infringement

            Based on current law, some tattoos could infringe on copyrights. Generally
            speaking, the copyright holder must prove the copied work has a negative
            effect on the work’s value or potential market. A tattoo artist who
            inks a cartoon character onto a client without obtaining permission from
            the original illustrator may be infringing by affecting the potential
            market of the character; the illustrator could sell drawings to tattoo
            parlors for use on clients.

          10. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
            Crackers McQuackers

            Getting your panties all in a bunch over it and once again ignoring what I actually said doesn’t help your argument any. You are bringing up whether or not it’s infringement, and I never said anything about that one way or another. So keep bringing it up all you want, that’s not what you disagreed with me about. Once again, I said if you could WIN these types of cases, Disney would have done so. Eventually you admitted they DON’T WIN them, they settle. Thus you inadvertently agreed with me (and it was quite satisfying to see you not realize it). But go on, get pissed and ignore that again. I’ll just keep reminding you what I actually said and you can keep ignoring it since you want to be right so bad.

          11. Jeq Avatar
            Jeq

            So lets break this down you think that because disney gets appeased by people rather than dragging them into court…. that the cases are likely to be lost? So the people being sued by disney are so confident of their ability to win these cases that they just dont even try and instead on some level give into disneys demands which definitely include ceasing the infringement. Secondly you seem to think whether or not its infringement doesnt have bearing on the likelihood of a case success? You know what man you do you if that means you continue being a dumbass because you cant use critical thinking when you come to a settlement its to mittigate the damage that going to court can result in because you know the person suing you is likely to win and probably get more damages than they would if you just made them happy

          12. Crackers McQuackers Avatar
            Crackers McQuackers

            If assuming you know what i am thinking and claiming I’ve said things I never said helps you to convince yourself you’re right, you’ll have to forgive me for not stepping into that imaginary world. Like do your eyes just automatically skip over the very simple statements I’ve made so you can’t see you’re wrong? Is it a coping mechanism or something? I know the name-calling and tantrum is, just curious how you keep coming up with imaginary statements I’ve clearly never said. I mean you do realize we’re writing here, right? Like you could just go back and see where I never said any of the things you’re claiming I did. Baby steps though man. If that’s too much, get some rest, try again tomorrow.

          13. Jorge Bardales Avatar
            Jorge Bardales

            Legally speaking, Kat Von D will win. Her work on the tattoo doesn’t negatively affect the photographers works. It also doesn’t have a negative effect on the photographers potential market. These are the 2 things you need to prove to win a copyrights infringement case. If anything her work will be a positive for the photographer.

            For the record, you’re assuming that the people being sued by Disney are giving in. If they know they’ll win, but Disney agrees to settle for nothing but an apology, why wouldn’t they? You don’t know what the settlement was for. You’re basing your entire argument on imaginary victory that can just as easily be a devastating defeat. Defendants have no reason to go through the entire court process, they don’t benefit from a winning verdict, only the plaintiffs win anything. So logically speaking, settling out of court is most likely a win for the defendant.

    3. Jeq Avatar
      Jeq

      Also Disney has sued several bakers for using their copyrighted products when decorating cakes

  16. Steve Slate Avatar
    Steve Slate

    People just don’t respect copyrights these days. She should stop her unresearched approach to this. Whatever the law is, she should be responsible. What makes people think they can use any picture they want to? It’s stealing… why should it be any different.

    1. Pro Jektor Avatar
      Pro Jektor

      It’s not stealing, you’re just retarded… You’re retarded enough that it’s not worth the time to explain it to ya, anyhow.

      1. Steve Slate Avatar
        Steve Slate

        There are copyright laws for a reason. She could’ve altered the image to look different, but she didn’t. I hope your cries don’t fall on deaf ears when someone steals from you. Maybe then you’ll have a different perspective.

  17. Hollywood8 Avatar
    Hollywood8

    Tattoo artists may use an image for inspiration but it’s not color by number on the persons body. Wishing there wasn’t so much freaking animosity towards others. #Getoverit

  18. Robyn Vogel Barnes Avatar
    Robyn Vogel Barnes

    If I remember correctly, if you make at least 3 changes when using someone else’s art then it is no longer copyright infringement. I am sure there are a minimum of 3 differences between the tattoo and the photograph. First difference is the medium used?

    1. Jeq Avatar
      Jeq

      The medium doesnt matter someone can sue a cake decorator for using their licensed character. Secondly the three changes is just people that dont know anything talking on the internet its nowhere near that simple and what she did was a direct copy of the work.

  19. Heather Morales Avatar
    Heather Morales

    It literally says, “The portrait has been sold with a non-exclusive license to reproduce, distribute and display ever since it was created.” This means he has no right to sue. If the portrait was originally sold with non-exclusive license he can’t require anyone to obtain a license to have or use the image.

    1. Jequannic Avatar
      Jequannic

      A non-exclusive license to reproduce and distribute doesn’t put it in public domain. It gives WHOEVER was granted the license the right to reproduce it. You may have skimmed the copyright laws and thought you were correct because someone who holds a non-exclusive license to reproduce cant sue the original copyright ownere however can,

  20. ShishkaBerry Avatar
    ShishkaBerry

    The bigger question is how is this anti vax nazi still in business?