Kat Von D, the renowned celebrity tattoo artist, emerged victorious in a high-profile copyright infringement trial involving a Miles Davis tattoo. After less than three hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously decided that Von D’s tattoo, along with her planning sketch and related social media posts, did not bear substantial similarity to the copyrighted portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis from 1989. Additionally, the jury deemed three other social media posts made by Von D as “fair use.”
Von D expressed her elation and gratitude as she left the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, accompanied by her father. She described the past two years as a nightmare, fearing the outcome of the trial not only for herself but also for fellow tattoo artists and fans. Von D believed that not fighting the case would have caused significant harm to an industry that has long struggled to establish itself as a legitimate form of art.
The plaintiff, Jeffrey Sedlik, a professional photographer and college professor, filed the lawsuit in February 2021. Sedlik testified about his meticulous planning for the photo session with Miles Davis, which included building a makeshift studio on the beach near Davis’ home in Malibu. He carefully orchestrated every aspect of the shoot, from wardrobe and hairstyle to pose and lighting. Sedlik even positioned Davis’ fingers to create a specific gesture that represented musical notation.
Sedlik sought $42,750 in actual damages and up to $150,000 in statutory damages for willful infringement. His lawyer, Robert Allen, expressed disappointment with the jury’s decision and announced plans to appeal. Allen portrayed Sedlik as a perfectionist who meticulously crafted his works of art and earned a living by licensing them. He argued that Von D’s tattoo bore substantial similarity to Sedlik’s photo in terms of hand placement, pose, lighting, and facial expression.
However, Von D’s lawyer, Allen Grodsky, countered Allen’s arguments. Grodsky emphasized that artists cannot copyright camera angles or gestures. He also highlighted that Von D never attempted to reproduce the tattoo for profit. Grodsky stated that the case was crucial not only for his client but also for the tattoo industry and individuals who wish to get tattoos. He pointed out that Von D never sought licenses for the reference photos she used for numerous tattoos, and it had never been an issue before.
Grodsky reminded the jury that Von D had created the tattoo as a gift for her friend, Blake Farmer, who testified during the trial as a trumpet player and avid Miles Davis fan. Von D had never sold reproductions of the tattoo as prints, posters, or t-shirts. The few times she posted about it on her Instagram and Facebook accounts were not commercial promotions. Grodsky firmly believed that the lawsuit should never have been filed.
One legal expert, Matthew Neco, agreed with Grodsky’s assessment. Neco argued that Sedlik may have chosen the wrong defendant to establish a precedent since Von D had done the tattoo for free. He also noted that Von D’s likable personality likely influenced the jury’s decision. Neco stated that he would have likely found substantial similarity in the tattoo but would have also considered fair use, resulting in no infringement and no damages.
Several jurors shared their thoughts with Rolling Stone after the trial. They expressed that the verdict was obvious and easy to reach. One juror emphasized that a tattoo on a person’s skin is not comparable to selling a painting. Another juror admired Von D for standing her ground and taking on the fight. A third juror believed that every tattoo is unique.
Von D’s trial garnered attention as a potential test case for fair use following a Supreme Court ruling in 2023. The ruling had made it more challenging to prove fair use, as evidenced by the court’s decision that Andy Warhol’s painting of Prince violated Lynn Goldsmith’s copyrighted photo.