Kat Von D, a renowned female tattoo artist, is known for her high-end services and high-end prices. According to Tattooing 101, she charges $200 per hour with a $400 sitting fee. However, the rate can vary depending on the size, design, and location of the tattoo. Before her closure, Von D charged between $200 and $210 an hour for her tattooing services.
One of her most famous accomplishments is her record-breaking $200/hr tattoo. Before her LA shop closed, Von D charged between $200 and $210 an hour for her tattooing services. A Los Angeles jury returned a verdict that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D did not infringe the copyright rights of photographer Jeff Sedlik. Sedlik sued Von D for not only producing a tattoo based on his image free of charge but also for posting her work on social media.
The cost of a tattoo by Kat Von D might vary depending on various factors, such as the size, design, and location of the tattoo. Her hourly rate is often approximately $200, and larger tattoos might require a higher fee.
In terms of pricing, the most expensive tattoo artists on this list have been men. However, if you prefer a female artist, there are some options available. The best artists charge by the hour, while lesser experienced or less talented ones usually charge by the piece size.
In conclusion, Kat Von D is a highly regarded female tattoo artist who charges between $200 and $400 per hour for her services. However, her rates may vary depending on the size and design of the tattoo.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Getting an appointment with kat von d? : r/tattoos | I think there’s a $400 sitting fee at LA ink last i heard. that’s if you get a tattoo the size of a pea, or the size of a fist. it’s going to cost 400 bucks … | reddit.com |
| The 15 Highest Paid Tattoo Artist in the World | Hourly rates for these celebrity tattoo artists below can range between $500 to $2,500 per hour. Yup, you read that right, these artists come at … | dermdude.com |
| The most expensive tattoo in history | 10 Masters | Kat Von D is perhaps the most famous female tattoo artist in the world so far, and she charges around $200 an hour. But is it worth paying … | 10masters.com |
📹 The Kat Von D Court Case That Could Ruin Tattooing Forever
Kat Von D was in court this week after being sued for Copyright infringement, after she tattooed a portrait on her friend for free. this …
How Much Do You Tip On A $1000 Tattoo?
Tattoo Tip Cheat Sheet: How Much to Tip a Tattoo Artist
When it comes to tipping your tattoo artist, the general recommendation is between 15-20% of the total cost of your tattoo. A handy Tattoo Tip Calculator can assist you in determining the right amount based on your bill, desired tip percentage, and number of people. For an $800 tattoo, for instance, a 15% tip would be $120, while 20% would be $160.
Here’s a quick guide for different tattoo costs:
- For a $1000 tattoo, tipping between $150 (15%) and $200 (20%) is advisable. If you're extremely pleased with the work, a tip of 20% is a meaningful gesture.
- For smaller tattoos, tips typically range from $14 to $50.
- For half sleeve tattoos, consider tipping between $80 and $125.
- Full sleeve tattoos generally warrant tips between $160 and $280.
The etiquette for tipping involves understanding the artist's effort and the quality of work. It’s often expected that clients show appreciation through tips, particularly if the final article meets or exceeds their expectations.
If you’re wondering how tips scale with other tattoo costs, here’s a breakdown:
- For a $900 tattoo, a 15% tip would be $135, while 20% would be $180.
- For a $1200 tattoo, consider tipping $180 (15%) or $240 (20%).
- For tattoos priced at $1400, tipping could range from $210 to $280.
While common practice suggests a 15-20% tip, your decision can vary based on the artist's performance and your personal satisfaction. It's important to acknowledge the skill and artistry the tattoo artist has provided, thus translating your appreciation into an appropriate cash tip. Ultimately, any tipping amount is often recognized and valued by tattoo professionals.
How Much Are Kat Von D Tattoos?
Kat Von D, a renowned and influential tattoo artist, charges a $400 sitting fee plus $200 per hour for her tattoo services. Known for tattooing celebrities like Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez, she is also the founder of KVD Vegan Beauty, a cosmetics line emphasizing vegan and cruelty-free products. Currently, she has not opened a new tattoo shop, leading to uncertainty around her availability and pricing for future work.
Historically, she had over 100 tattoos, but has been in the process of covering them with black ink after deciding that her original tattoos no longer represented her. This transformation involved almost 40 hours of blackout ink sessions.
Kat Von D's decision to cover up her tattoos began in 2020, stemming from personal reflections during her decade-long sobriety, as many of her prior tattoos were obtained during a period of heavy drinking. She expressed her thoughts on the changes to her body art through an Instagram post, detailing the significant amount of time and transformation involved in her journey.
Her tattoo pricing can vary based on design size, complexity, and location, with reported hourly rates before closing her LA shop ranging from $200 to $210. The tattooing industry has evolved significantly, shedding old stigmas, and Kat Von D stands at the forefront of this change as one of the most famous female tattoo artists globally. The cost of her tattoos, while substantial, is often seen as justifiable given her expertise and notoriety in the field.
In her previous endeavors on the reality show "LA Ink," she gained further recognition, establishing tattoo shops in both Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Despite her successful career, Von D has reportedly not charged clients for tattoos in over a decade, an indication of her evolving relationship with the craft. To provide more insight into her artistic journey, she is working on a follow-up to her bestselling book "High Voltage Tattoo," aimed at a younger audience engaged with tattoo culture.
Kat Von D continues to be a pivotal figure in the tattoo industry, balancing her work as a tattoo artist with her entrepreneurial ventures in cosmetics, all while sharing her story and inspiring others.
Is Kat Von D Still Famous?
From 2005 to 2011, Kat Von D gained fame as a standout tattoo artist on TLC's "Miami Ink" and its spin-off "LA Ink." Born Katherine von Drachenberg on March 8, 1982, in Mexico, she quickly became a prominent figure in the tattoo community and reality television. Her unique style and artistry earned her a substantial fan base, helping her maintain a lasting celebrity status. Following her success on "LA Ink," which ran for four seasons, Von D ventured into the beauty industry, launching a popular makeup line that solidified her as a multifaceted entrepreneur.
However, Kat Von D has experienced significant personal evolution since her reality TV days. She has notably covered many of her tattoos, stating that her former designs no longer resonated with her identity. This transformation reflects a broader shift in her life, as she has severed ties with her past and distanced herself from occult practices. In July 2022, she announced on Instagram her intention to move away from witchcraft and tarot, indicating a strong spiritual journey.
Though originally recognized for her tattoo artistry, Kat Von D is also celebrated for her innovation in makeup. Considered an influential figure in the beauty industry, she has played a crucial role in shaping trends. Despite her previous focus on tattoos, she has transitioned away from being a full-time tattoo artist, notably closing her famous shop, High Voltage Tattoo, in October 2021.
Today, Kat Von D is not just a tattoo artist but also an author, musician, and designer. Her ongoing journey of self-discovery and transformation continues to resonate with fans, showing that she is not the same person she once was during her time on "LA Ink." As she focuses on her music and other pursuits, Kat Von D remains a significant figure in both the tattoo and beauty landscapes.
Does Dr Woo Have A Tattoo?
Dr. Woo, also known as Brian Woo, is one of Los Angeles' most sought-after tattoo artists, consistently booked months and often up to a year in advance. He has gained fame for his intricate single-needle designs and has tattooed numerous celebrities, including Ellie Goulding, Zoe Kravitz, Drake, and Erin Wasson. Dr. Woo works at Shamrock Social Club, alongside renowned artists like his mentor Mark Mahoney. With a significant social media presence, boasting over 1. 7 million followers on Instagram, his artwork garners attention for its stunning detail and hyperrealistic quality.
At his private studio, Hideaway, Dr. Woo continues to evolve his tattooing style while expanding his cultural influence through collaboration and various artistic endeavors. His tattoos are characterized by their fine lines and unique designs that seamlessly blend graphic elements with organic forms.
As a member of the prestigious Shamrock Social Club, Dr. Woo is internationally recognized and celebrated for his creative contributions to tattooing. He often shares insights about his work and the experiences of tattooing A-list clients, highlighting what it takes to maintain a prominent name in the industry. Dr. Woo’s journey began in Los Angeles, where he received his first tattoo at 14 and later secured an apprenticeship under Mark Mahoney.
Celebrities like Miley Cyrus, Emilia Clarke, and Cara Delevingne are among his clients, with Clarke notably receiving her first tattoo from him in 2015. Whether it's creating a delicate bumblebee or other elaborate designs, Dr. Woo’s tattoos are distinguished by their elegance and attention to detail, solidifying his status as a leading figure in the tattoo world today.
Does Kat Von D Foundation Cover Up Tattoos?
Kat Von D has garnered attention for her makeup products, particularly the Lock-It Foundation and Lock-It Concealer Crème. These products boast full but lightweight coverage, effectively concealing tattoos, dark circles, and other imperfections. One user shared her experience covering tattoos at work, noting that while the concealer works well overall, it struggles with deep black ink. For optimal results, setting the concealer with powder is recommended, especially when covering darker tattoos.
In a significant personal transformation, Kat Von D has begun replacing her body tattoos with solid black ink. She made this change public in 2020, explaining that many of her tattoos were acquired during her drinking years, a time she has since moved past after achieving sobriety over a decade ago.
Examples of her tattoo cover-ups include a large back piece featuring cartoon characters and phrases, which she's shared on social media. Additionally, she demonstrated the efficacy of her products by successfully covering all of Rick Genest's tattoos, showcasing the potent capabilities of the Lock-It Tattoo Foundation. This foundation is oil-free, fragrance-free, and offers a long-lasting matte finish, claiming to provide a level of pigmentation robust enough for tattoo concealment while maintaining a smooth appearance.
Fans of her line frequently praise the Lock-It Concealer, with many using it for various skin imperfections beyond tattoos, including scars and vitiligo. Kat Von D's focus on full coverage cosmetics addresses the needs of those requiring strong concealment products, making her brand a popular choice for makeup enthusiasts looking for effective solutions to cover dark spots and tattoos.
Do Tattoo Artists Deserve Good Money?
Many cancer and accident survivors transform their traumatic experiences into beauty through tattoos, highlighting the important role tattoo artists play as skilled artisans who offer valuable services to their clients. It is essential to recognize that these artists deserve fair compensation for their talents, considering the costs associated with tattoo supplies, tools, and shop rentals. The way a tattoo artist earns money can vary significantly; some may work on an hourly basis, while others may be compensated through commission.
The financial success of tattoo artists is not uniform; while some can earn six-figure incomes, others face financial challenges, especially in areas with lower demand or higher competition. For those aspiring to enter the tattoo industry, it is crucial to understand that achieving a stable and comfortable income is often a challenging journey requiring substantial investment, skill development, and time dedication. Becoming a proficient tattoo artist typically involves completing an apprenticeship that can last one to two years, during which time considerable effort and commitment are required.
Additionally, many tattoo artists prefer cash payments, as this method simplifies transactions and eases the payment process, avoiding complications that can arise from using banks or online payment systems. However, it’s important to note that if financial gain is your primary motivation, the tattoo industry may not be the ideal fit, as it may take years to achieve a sustainable income.
When questioning how much tattoo artists earn, it is vital to consider various factors influencing their income, such as employment status and the significance of tips. Unlike traditional jobs with fixed pay, tattoo artists' earnings can fluctuate greatly; some may only make $15 an hour, while others command rates upwards of $500 per hour. Even after accounting for expenses like supplies, space rental, and licensing fees, many tattoo artists can still enjoy a respectable hourly wage.
In the tattoo industry, promoting finished designs at clear prices can attract clients, enhancing the possibility of consistent work. Tipping is typically voluntary, yet many patrons choose to show appreciation for their artist by tipping around 15-25%. Ultimately, the financial viability of a career in tattoo artistry varies widely, emphasizing that while some may flourish, bottom-line earnings depend heavily on individual circumstances and market demands.
Who Is The Highest Paid Tattoo Artist?
The tattoo industry features some of the most expensive artists globally, with prices reflecting their skills and reputations. Scott Campbell, a New York-based artist, tops the list, charging up to $2, 000 per hour and being recognized for his talent and passion. Following closely are notable names like Ami James, Anil Gupta, Paul Booth, and Kat Von D.
Scott Campbell remains highly respected in the tattoo community, while Ed Hardy, born in 1945, is also renowned and boasts a significant fortune of $250 million, making him one of the wealthiest figures in the field. Although retired from tattooing, Hardy's legacy includes a respected career, contributing to his high earnings and success.
Paul Booth is another high-earning artist, charging around $300 or more an hour, while Hardy’s average tattoo price is approximately $1, 500. Kat Von D, famous from shows like LA Ink, has a noteworthy career spanning over 15 years in the tattoo industry. Her fees can include a $400 sitting fee along with $200 or more per hour.
The tattoo industry is competitive, with various talented artists moving up the pay scale based on factors such as skills, experience, and reputation. For instance, Oliver Peck started tattooing at 19 and charges around $100 per hour.
Overall, these artists highlight how talent can lead to impressive financial outcomes in the tattoo world. Whether through celebrity connections or exceptional artistry, tattoo artists can command high rates. The demand for skilled artists continues to rise, giving newcomers a chance to achieve similar success if they hone their craft and build a reputation.
In summary, the tattoo industry showcases numerous high-priced artists, with Scott Campbell and Ed Hardy leading as the highest paid and wealthiest respectively. The potential to earn top dollar in this creative field makes it appealing for aspiring tattoo artists. Each artist’s individual journey reflects the value that exceptional skill can bring, establishing a lucrative career in tattoo artistry.
Can I Get A Tattoo From Kat Von D?
Kat Von D, in a recent interview, revealed that her relationship with tattooing has transformed significantly. She stated that for over a decade, she hasn’t charged clients for her tattoos, expressing a continued passion for the craft but a desire to move away from it as a job. In an Instagram post, she discussed her decision to replace many of her tattoos with solid black ink, and it remains uncertain whether she will offer tattooing services again or what her pricing will be when she eventually opens a new shop.
Kat, a renowned tattoo artist and television personality, rose to fame through shows like "Miami Ink" and "LA Ink." Since late 2020, she has been in the process of covering her once-celebrated tattoos, which included various portraits and symbolic ink. Reflecting on her past, Kat shared that her battle with alcohol had led her to quit drinking in July 2007, after it began to interfere with her professional life. She described the struggle with sobriety as immensely challenging, recalling the physical pain and loneliness she experienced.
Among her extensive body art, Von D has commemorated her love for music with tattoos of bands such as HIM, Misfits, and Guns N' Roses. Her first tattoo, a small Misfits skull, was given to a friend at the age of 14 using a DIY tattoo gun. Recently, she has undergone a significant blackout tattooing process, leading to the erasure of many old designs, with an intention to cover around 80 percent of her body in black ink.
While she has indicated that she might no longer work as a full-time tattoo artist, she still engages with her fans through social media, providing updates on her tattoo transformations and her creative journey. Despite stepping back from the tattoo scene, she maintains connections with her loyal followers while exploring new facets of her artistry.
Why Did Kat Von D Cover All Her Tattoos?
In a recent interview, Kat Von D expressed her feelings about her tattoos, stating, "I think I had been fed up with a lot of the tattoos I got over the years for a long time." She highlighted that while some individuals embrace their tattoos as symbols of personal milestones, she found it exhausting to be constantly reminded of them every time she looked in the mirror. Consequently, she has made the decision to cover many of her tattoos with solid black ink, signaling a desire to move away from her past, particularly the tattoos linked to darker periods in her life.
Kat, who gained fame through reality shows like Miami Ink and LA Ink, began working with Philadelphia tattoo artist Hoode in December 2020 to transform her arm tattoos into blackout designs. By covering up artworks that no longer resonated with her, Von D aims to symbolize a fresh start. Before committing to the blackout look, she had personal tattoos including one of her mother named Sylvia Galeano and the phrase "Mi Vida Loca."
Through her ongoing transformation, Kat has updated fans via social media, revealing that she has spent considerable time, nearly 40 hours, inking over significant pieces, including portraits and symbols that she once cherished. In explaining her motivation, she noted that many of the tattoos represented chapters of her life that no longer align with her identity today. This choice has also been infused with her recent conversion to Christianity, suggesting a deliberate shift from the reminders of her previous lifestyle.
Kat emphasized that her tattoos had become "landmarks in dark times" for her, leading to an even clearer choice in removing them. Although she has not publicly detailed the reasons behind every tattoo covered, she previously cited renouncing the occult and macabre as part of her transformation.
The tattoo artist finds the process of blacking out her body both satisfying and liberating, as it allows her to appreciate her old designs while moving forward. In her view, while some people are comfortable retaining their tattoos, she finds fulfillment in erasing these past markers of her life. Von D's journey not only reflects her artistic evolution but also resonates with personal growth and a renewed sense of purpose.
How Big Is A $500 Tattoo?
When considering a tattoo, a budget of $500 can yield a tattoo of decent size, typically ranging from small to medium. For instance, a tattoo sized approximately the length of a palm on an arm or leg may cost between $300 to $600, whereas larger tattoos, such as full back or chest designs, can easily exceed $1, 000. For a $500 budget, one could expect to get a medium-sized tattoo, around 2-4 inches, or an area akin to the size of a credit card.
Tattoo artist rates vary, often falling between $120 to $150 per hour. The total cost hinges on the time invested, as larger tattoos—like half or full sleeves—begin at $500 but can escalate to $4, 000 for extensive designs. To estimate a tattoo’s area, multiply its length by width, giving the area in square inches.
For smaller tattoos that cost roughly $100, one might expect simple designs that take approximately 30-60 minutes to complete, fitting into a 3x3 inch space — ideal for detailed symbols or meaningful quotes. These dimensions often culminate in a total area of 6 square inches.
The size of tattoos can generally be categorized into three ranges: small (up to 4 inches), medium (4-8 inches), and large (over 8 inches). When assessing the size, consider both the height and width alongside the desired style, be it traditional, realism, or black and gray.
Average costs vary by placement; for instance, tattooing the buttocks or genitals can range from $500 to $900 for small to large sizes. In contrast, chest tattoos may start at $250. Individual experiences with tattoo costs can widely differ. For example, a tattoo measuring 7 inches may cost around $500, whereas a full sleeve generally requires a budget of $1, 100 to $1, 200.
In general, the pricing for small tattoos might range from $50 to $100, medium tattoos can be priced up to $200, and large tattoos typically cost over $250. Notably, a standard tattoo on the hip or thigh running about 12 inches can cost around $500 for the outline only, possibly reaching $2, 000 when fully detailed.
Is Kat Von D Living In California?
After Kat Von D departed from the show Miami Ink to lead its spinoff LA Ink, she became known for her love of living in California. However, in late 2021, she announced her decision to sell her California home after purchasing real estate in Indiana. Kat had made her mark in Los Angeles as a tattoo artist and was the star of the reality series LA Ink. By 2016, she sold her gothic mansion in California for $7.
75 million, a Victorian property showcasing elaborate bedrooms and moody bathrooms. Although she has settled in Indiana, Kat expressed a few nostalgic feelings for her life in Los Angeles, stating, "I live in the middle of nowhere in Indiana."
After 14 years in California, she officially closed her renowned tattoo shop, High Voltage, which had been established in 2007 alongside her reality show. Kat Von D's LA mansion, built in the 1800s and once featured in "Cheaper by the Dozen," was on the market for $10. 95 million. Originally from the East Coast, she spent her formative years in Southern California, crediting its Latino culture as a major influence on her tattooing career.
In October 2021, she publicly declared her move to Indiana, looking to escape California’s strict pandemic-related mandates. By March 2022, she had relocated to Vevay, Indiana, taking residence in the historic Benjamin Schenck Mansion. Following her move, she listed her Isaac Newton Van Nuys mansion in Windsor Square, Los Angeles, and by March 2023, she successfully sold that property as well.
Kat Von D’s shift to Indiana marks the end of an era not just for her personal life but also for her business, as she transitions away from the vibrant tattoo scene of Los Angeles. Her decision reflects both a desire for a different lifestyle and her criticisms of restrictions enacted during the pandemic. In her new Indiana home, she aims to establish a fresh start for her family after a long-standing presence in California’s entertainment and tattoo culture.
📹 Kat Von D SUED Over Tattoo Reference Photo
The video discusses a lawsuit filed against Kat Von D for using a photographer’s photo as a reference for a tattoo. The video explores the legal implications of using reference photos in tattooing, particularly in the context of realism tattoos. The creator expresses confusion and seeks viewers’ opinions on the ethical and legal boundaries of using reference photos in art.
I do fine arts and we were told in school to avoid these lawsuits by changing it by 50% so if I use a reference photo I need to modify it to make it my own. However if someone wants a realistic tattoo of a celebrity idk how you would change it… Without changing the celebrity’s face 🤷♀️ same goes for realistic celebrity art
I’m a music photographer, and I’ve had lots of my photos of musicians turned into tattoos! I have always been very flattered, and think it’s amazing that I’ve captured something that someone would want to wear forever! However…if it was an artist as big as Kat Von D, maybe I would feel different? I do really appreciate it when I am credited I.e “tattooed this portrait of Oli Sykes based on @devplacephoyos image!” Or whatever. I think if it was a big artist like Kat I would probably reach out and just ask that I had a mention? That can be really important for growth & potential clients etc. I do think this guy has gone a little overboard in terms of the compensation he’s wanting tho…
I’m a tattoo artist and recently had a client of mine post an eyeshadow pallet collab she had worked on and they had used a photograph of the chest tattoo I had designed/tattooed for her as the cover art on the pallet…My first thought was “wow neat I can’t believe she never even said anything”, my second thought was “I wish they had contacted me for the PDF of the design” because it looks messy as a photoshopped photo of her actually tattoo, and then my third thought was “it’s a bit disheartening that I wasn’t credited for my design.” Yes she paid for it, yes it was designed for her but…it was still my work and to not even be asked or be mentioned felt pretty disrespectful.
Imagine if Sam Shaw’s family sued every tattoo artist who has tattooed Marilyn Monroe’s “flying skirt” scene onto someone. Imagine if Disney sued every tattoo artist who has tattooed an exact replica of a scene from one of their films or VHS covers. Imagine if Hayao Miyazaki sued every tattoo artist who has tattooed an exact replica of a scene from My Neighbor Totoro. For the sake of the tattoo industry, I hope the photographer loses this fight.
2 thoughts: 1: tattooing a photo is very different to copying intellectual property due to the time/skill commitment required. Someone selling bootleg tshirts can just slap the photo on a T-shirt, but a tattoo artist takes so much time and energy to recreate something (and celeb photos etc aren’t something they can just create their own reference for) 2: intellectual property seems to have a loophole in tattoos, otherwise why aren’t all Disney/Simpsons/etc tattoos being treated in this way with every tattoo artist being sued?
So feel free to skip over this, because it’s gonna be long winded haha. I actually have some opinions on this because I have a degree in graphic arts and this is similar to some things we talked about. I actually kind of feel like I’m in a grey area on a lot of this. For me, if I design a logo for someone, once it is paid for, that design for that logo belongs to them, and I don’t understand why tattoos wouldn’t work the same way. You aren’t just paying for the work to be made, you’re paying for the design process and the final design. IMO, the customer then owns the piece. Now for tattoos, I don’t think it’s fair for the customer to then take that design and then start selling it on T Shirts, but the specific piece that is on their skin belongs to them because it was designed and created for them. If it belonged to the artist, then they would be paying the client to put it on them. But then it gets blurry. For example, on my left arm I have a portrait of an anime/manga character that I initially designed the layout of and that my artist remade to fit the placement. Neither of us own the character, and I paid for the design, and he redrew it, so who would legally own that design? And for a SPECIFIALLY a portrait (this wouldn’t apply to other types of photography) that image is owned by the person it is of, because it is their likeness. If someone takes a picture of my face, that is now my picture, unless copyright is given and/or changes are made to the portrait. And you can’t just get up with every celebrity when someone wants a tattoo of them, either.
This really is a dilemma… Can a portrait really be a copy? 🤔 I would personally feel different if she used a reference of something abstract or a landscape … but a face needs to be 100% accurate. But then again, she choose to ignore the “problem” and disrespect the photographer.. sooo… I guess she will never change 🙄
Personally when I’ve looked for tattoo references, I’ve used the usage rights filter on google images to search for them or look for free stock images. My step mum’s niece once had one of her photos (a self portrait) used as a print on a t-shirt in River Island without her permission, it was a crazy situation. I dabble in art and photography (no where near a professional level) and know I’d be gutted to see someone copy my art or use my photo without at least crediting me for it. I could only imagine how Sedlik must feel especially when it’s valued at $13,750. When I’ve also seen drawings/art that I’d like to get tattooed, I ask permission and buy a print of the artwork so at least they’re getting something. I might just be overly cautious about things like that be it gives me peace of mind so I’ll continue to do it.
Genuine Question: Isn’t it the Skin the real owner of the Tattoo Art? …. I’m asking this because, I’m a Graphic Designer and if a client pays me money for an original logo design or illustration the owner of that art piece is my client, yes I can post it on my portfolio but only if I have my client permission to do it, a secondary question is Why is different with Tattoo Industry?
Honestly I find this lawsuit so ridiculous. It’s a freaking reference photo. I don’t think there’s any way this person wins this and I don’t think they should either. Because it’s a freaking reference photo. She didn’t take his photo and started selling copies of it, she looked at it to make a drawing on someone’s skin. And 150 THOUSAND dollars??? Get out of here my dude.
The issue there with the statement that “tattoo artists own it” changes if you paid for your tattoo. Basically, when you pay for an art piece it is yours. So thechnically if it became their property (the art piece itself, meaning the tattooed skin) it would have had to be for free. Now the intellectual property remains theirs, which means you can’t authorize reproductions of the piece, but all in all, the piece is yours and you paid for it, so you can do with it as you see fit. I saw in ink masters a tattoo artist being pissed because the “canvas” made modifications to the finished product. If the “canvas” paid for the tattoo it is hers and she can do as she pleases.
You look so good in literally every hair colour 😭✨ As for the topic – it’s quite complex. I can’t imagine it’s easy to do realism from imagination so it’s understandable need for references. Like every creative field you need to check copy right but like you said sometimes it’s impossible. Specific to KVD she had the chance to resolve this quietly but she chose not to so that one is on her. There are probably some proper laws that will resolve this
Hi. I am a photographer. I am a professor of photography. Yes, photographers own the copyright to their photo the same way a tattoo artist does. So, perhaps legally the guy is partly right. But I think he is being dramatic. As far as copying or appropriating artwork with in the art world, there is no set amount the image/sculpture has to be changed in order for it to not fall under copyright. I personally do use appropriation in my own artwork. It is my opinion this guy is going over the top but you know dollar signs influence people.
I have an entire animal realism sleeve. They are exact copies of the photos because the animals anatomy needs to be perfect. I hope I’ll never get this problem because I love my sleeve. And some of them I later found out other people used the same picture. My lion has been done thousands of times by now. It obviously all looks slightly different, because they have been done on different skins and by different artists. Always a little sting to see “my” lion being the same on someone else, but that’s just what happens with photo realism. 🥰
I feel like this is a special case where famous tattoo artist used a famous photographer’s photo of a famous musician… Even with fan art though it’s proper etiquette to ask the artist for permission to use as tattoo reference. Also there’s a difference between using an image as reference and straight copying. But that does leave photo realism in a gray area.
I believe when you pay for a custom tattoo, the tattoo is yours. At the end of the day it’s on your skin, the final design has some of your references… You gave the references to the artists, it wasn’t fully his/her idea, the artist is definitely the author of the piece and the designer of the final result. So the tatt will always have his/her sign… But the artists put their work for sale, to be displayed on someone’s skin; therefore they giving you the right to own it and show it. Regarding the Kat Von D and this case, honestly, I believe this is just a cash grab case. The photographer wants to get some money from her. Yes, she is a problematic bit** and definitely not the best artist out there, but let’s be honest, every single tattoo artist who does realism pull the images from Google and they barley make any changes from the original pic. It’s realism. There isn’t too much you can change… If you don’t want your photograph to be “stolen”, then make sure it doesn’t end up on the Google images search. There are ways to do that and display it on more private sites or exclusively on your personal website.
As an artist myself I absolutely think the photographer and Kat is in the wrong here. Something I believe in is using reference photos, when you use reference photos you are learning how to draw something or when you can’t get something quite right from memory. However I do not believe in tracing if you are DRAWING from reference. When it comes to tattooing it is not the same as drawing or painting, you are putting ink into someone’s skin using needles controlling how far the needle penetrates and how you create the image onto the person’s skin even if you are using a guideline. While I do feel like when you’re using a reference photo for drawing or for tattooing you shouldn’t have to pay to draw it or tattoo it, it’s a general respect thing to give credit to the reference photo which I don’t believe Kat did, but it’s absolutely ridiculous to demand money from it. With tattooing you are paying for the service, this photographer is not able to tattoo you so why would he get the money off of the tattoo? T.L.;D.R. Kat and the photographer are both in the wrong because Kat didn’t give credit to the photographer and the photographer shouldn’t be demanding money from a service he’s not able to perform himself.
This is pretty wild. Hm. I dont think this will stop tattoo artists, but there might be less pictures on IG now. I feel like this is a stretch if were just talking about the tattoos themselves. I could understand with making merch or something, but this is a lot. Capitalism has everyone going THATS MINEEEEE!!! What would this mean for the future of fan art as well?
My feeling on tattoo ownership is, they own the design but don’t own me. Thus if I just showed up on camera, they cant sue me for being paid to be on camera. But if I took their design and put it on a shirt, then they could. Otherwise every actor who got a tattoo could only do Voice Over, ect. It’s unethical to say you own someone’s skin, it’s fine to say you own the design.
What makes this more interesting now is the fact that Kat didn’t get paid for that tattoo she did it for a friend pro-bono. How can you sue for money that wasn’t made. Also Kat was already famous so how can he prove that her posting that image increased her revenue? Hundreds of people already wanted her to tattoo them before this one was posted so how does one calculate who was influenced by this tattoo vs who was influenced by her televised works? What actually is he suing for and why does he have a right to anything when, potentially, 0 profit was made from his work? For people that know more please fill in the gaps cause this case is starting to get confusing.
While the photographer may have some claim of that particular composition of the image, he does not have any ownership in Miles Davis’ face or likeness, and it’s unreasonable for him to think he does, or to demand anyone pay him an exorbitant amount of money for using it as reference in a one time project in which she was compensated one time for her time and skill, not for the image itself.
The general consensus i feel like among the art community is that if you’re using a photo reference for any kind of art that the safest thing to do is to ask for permission and/or give credit. Yes, It could get really tedious when you’re a realism artist and need those references, but I think it’s probably worth the time, especially if you have any sort of popularity on social media that would make you a target for legal action. Everyone should always give others credit where credit is due.
the art community has really become insufferable.. the extreme ‘copyright’ drama was what drove me completely away from the arts when i was younger. i wanted to be a writer, an artist, a singer, etc but now just thinking about doing any of these things as a job stresses me out lmao. i do think it is kinda sad that copyright issues, online drama, and (what is now called) cancel culture managed to kill my passion for the arts……. but oh well
You’re allowed to use references if they’re transformative. If I reference a pose or picture but make a completely separate work, say take accurately ref an image of a celeb but use it to make a piece of the celebrity in completely different clothes (reffed from another photo) and so on, as long as the final image is different or it’s own thing it doesn’t matter anymore and there’s no legal trouble. You have to alter your ref like 60% but all professional artist use photo references. You just need to use several in one piece instead of just one
I’m now thinking about Fandom tattoos (anime, tv show characters, etc.) would that be an infringement? This is interesting to think. I am not sure what is right, I get that the form is different since it’s a tattoo and will be different but I also get the creator’s side. It’s a tough thing but I think it’s good to think about. Thanks for bringing this us!
Majority of art derives influence from other art (photos, paintings, etc.), the lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous in my opinion and I’d be surprised if she actually gets charged… Another thing….. So I have a degree in graphic design and for that you need to do a course on copyright law and I don’t think the point about the artist owning the tattoo ON the skin is 100% accurate. As said tattooing is a service and in most cases, design specifically, once something is paid for by a customer/consumer it is there property (even more so for tattoos cause it’s now a part of the body). For the artist to own the work after an exchange and payment there has to be an additional agreement or a clause in the original contract before hand that the artists keep the rights to the entirety of the work. I think when it comes to tattoos specifically the artist owns the art itself (sketches, drawings, prints, etc.) but doesn’t own the tattoo. That’s roughly how it was explained to me by lecturers and a few artists I’ve spoken too. Hope this was helpful!
Usually when we talk about using other tattoos or artwork as reference in the creation of a new design, the new tattoo has to be different in some significant ways to avoid being labeled a copy. This seems to be the issue here. Not that she used the photograph as a reference to understand the person’s features and draw her own interpretation of the photograph, but that she copied the portrait exactly as it was taken (lighting, composition, pose, etc.). Speaking as a photographer, there are photos I’d be pretty upset about someone doing this with and there are other photos I think it’d be really flattering someone wanted tattooed on them. But I have had photos used without my permission in ways I definitely wouldn’t have agreed to and it sucks, so I can empathize with the photographer here.
Personally I think this is a bit far, and I’m the last person to defend KVD but in this situation I’m okay to do so! Photos of celebrities and pop culture images are used for tattoos all the time. I mean, is the creator of Bambi gonna come for the artist who tattooed Bambi on my arm? It’s definitely a fine line, and like you said it’s not like she took the image and profited off of it, and you can’t do a realistic portrait tattoo without a photo of the person. I think the photographer is chancing their luck personally, if she was slapping the image on a tshirt and making money from it then fine but she didn’t do anything with the original photo at all, she traced over it to get the details and turned into a workable tattoo
This is a whole other level of madness! I think the photographer should be proud that his picture was good enough to be used as a tattoo. He should try to get the picture sold in other ways instead of trying to punish someone who was able to freely download it off the computer. He is ooening up a can of warms that would sensor the internet more strictly and I believe he will find it MORE difficult in the future to get money for his photographs if he wins this lawsuit. I will stay tuned for the result of this madness.
Honestly, if you’re making a direct reproduction of a photograph, you should have to pay for the rights to use the photo. It should be a part of the overall cost of the tattoo and it wouldn’t be difficult to communicate to the client that the photo they’re choosing must be licensed in order for that tattoo to be possible.
I’m really conflicted with this one, it’s difficult because although the art has been created by someone as a photograph so it belongs to them it’s also of somebody’s face, so I’m a little bit conflicted about who would actually own that right, if anything I would’ve thought the person whose face it is would’ve had more right to how their face was used. As someone who has portraits myself of several famous artists some of which who are no longer with us, my artist had to use a reference photo to create the portrait, artwork is multiplied all over the Internet so it would be near impossible to find out exactly who took a photograph, especially when we are talking about famous people and the amount of photographs taken of them on a daily basis. Unless tattoo artists are going to hire people specifically to take on the role of finding and gaining permissions for references, I don’t see things ever changing.
I think a major question to ask is could anybody copy the image in this way? Could any tattoo artist use this image to create a tattoo of that quality or does it rely on her skill as an artist? If only a skilled artist could do it then does this mean enough of her artistic talent has gone in to the process to justify it, since it’s that artistic talent that is paid for more than image itself?
But….then where does this stop exactly? If we’re going by the logic that you cannot use copyright protected photo images, then you also cannot tattoo ANYTHING that’s copyright protected, no? If you have a tattoo of a copyright Disney character, for example, like a Tinkerbell or Mickey Mouse tattoo, is that also considered a copyright infringement? This gets so messy so quickly. I feel like tattoos need to have their own categorized protection from copyright infringement when we’re talking about references for tattoos. BUT that will also get messy because then how do you protect the intellectual property of one tattoo artist to another (ie: tattoo copycats)? My head hurts now haha.
I Get It If It Was In The Context Of Selling An Image, Printed On Something That Can Be Mass Produced And Bought In A Shop, But A Tattoo Takes The Skill Of An Artist To Replicate Rather Than Simply A Printer. It’s A VERY Slippery Slope, What If Someone Wants A Painting Tattooed? A Famous Monument? Album Artwork? Those Are All Images Made By Another Person.
Would the tattoo not be considered a transformative work? She’s using it as a reference and the person that’s paying for the tattoo wouldn’t be in the same market as someone buying a print of the photo. I think crediting other artists is always a good idea and I don’t really like kat, but she’s recreating someone’s likeness. She has to draw the whole thing out in someone’s skin, she’s not just selling prints of the work
God the bigger problem here in my opinion is neither Kat using the photo as a reference for the tattoo, nor the photographer suing for it’s usage in advertising her business. I’m not a fan of KVD anymore so I can easily see where she should have done a little footwork and maybe tried to find if there was photographer she could credit for the portrait she was tracing. Because she WAS tracing the photograph in that one article, which can look pretty damning to people who don’t understand the process of tattooing. And she and her people tried to deliberately ignore the problem. I do, however, believe the artist is going overboard and I have to question, as someone else pointed out in these comments, if he would go this hard or ask for so much if it was, say, Nico Furtado or another artist who wasn’t so famous in mainstream Hollywood. My real concern here is after a ruling for this case, what sort of precedent does this set moving forward for tattooing? Where do we draw the line? I mostly follow tattoo artists who specialize in fan tattoos. So Disney, cartoons, and mostly anime. These artists have IGs full of nothing but copyrighted characters and what happens to them? What if Disney decides to sue every tattoo artist advertising their business or services for every Stitch tattoo on their profile? Or what if some of the mangaka decide that the tattoos of the innumerable beloved anime characters are actually copyright infringement because those designs were originally drawn by the mangaka?
I found a bad ass pencil drawing online that an Englishman drew when he was here in CA 30-40 years ago. I emailed him and asked his permission and he was stoked I would want his art on my body. He must have stopped doing art and settled down with a family etc. (life changes) because when trying to remember when it was drawn he said something like it’s been 25 years since I picked up a pencil. He seemed like a very nice man, and I get a bad ass tattoo out of it (with the artist’s approval).
There’s a lot of thought and creativity that gets put into photographic portraits in terms of lighting, posing, etc., but I don’t think it’s quite the same as an original design. It’s still simply a photograph of someone. It’s not comparable to taking someone’s art, slapping it on a tee shirt and selling it for profit – at least in my opinion. A piece of art is completely original, whereas a photograph is just an interpretation of something that already exists.
I think this is a bit much. A comparable situation is if I go to a plastic surgeon and say “I want to look like Kylie Jenner ” and the surgeon successfully does it.. does Julie’s plastic surgeon then have the right to sue my plastic surgeon?? And a second point is if a plastic surgeon does boobs on someone they don’t then own those boobs, so I don’t agree thar a tattoo artist owns it. Once I buy it it’s mine! LOL not saying copying is OK but there has to be some lines, we can’t just sue people over everything.
I think every situation is a little bit different, but in general photographers need to take the stick out of their own butts, if you’re going to make somebody go to the process of getting your permission to use your photo you’re hindering somebody else’s creative process and another art form, does that mean photography is more important than realism tattoos? I think if flair and style is added to the reference photo that is a unique signature of that tattoo artist it should be fine.
I think by tattooing someone you’re basically selling the rights to that work to the person you’re tattooing. Like a commercial license. You can’t expect them to pay you everyone time they show their tattoo off! As for using a photograph… the art community gets into huffs about this too. But references are so important! I guess we all just have to use Getty Images if we want to use pictures of celebs? Ugh, the whole thing is a bit dumb but I can also see the problem. Which makes it extra annoying 😂😭
Not that long ago in a Facebook group I was in, an artist made a post about also being sued by a photographer. Neither artist or photographer were really famous, so it also hits smaller artists. I remember them asking for advice on what to do and explained they already had to pay the photographer a fine of 3000 or something. So since then I myself have been a bit more careful. It’s an interesting topic to discuss anyway, can it be considered stealing art? Who owns the design once it’s tattooed?
I feel like this opens up too much of a rabbit hole. I could see if he was suing because she was using it on merch or as a reoccurring flash but if trademark/copyright owners could start suing over one-off commissioned tattoos the whole industry would have to change. What about tattoo artists who use photo references of inanimate objects such as flowers or buildings? Or artists who tattoo their renditions of famous works of art and storybook illustrations? & BIGGEST QUESTION- Would companies be able to sue for tattoos of all trademarked/copyrighted material?! Can an artist tattoo a bottle of Coke without paying Coca-Cola? How about song lyrics? Famous characters? Where would they draw the line? This case just seems too far fetched. Maybe there should be rules over crediting reference images/inspiration but to make tattoo artists get permission and pay every time they use one would be insane
In acting, even if you’re just a background actor, if you have tattoos, the tattoo artist has to give the okay before you can film. And if you get something like comic book art/some other popculture IP the people who did the original work also have to sign off. I had to reach out to James Jean to approve my tattoos to be filmed, haha!
If you’re directly copying a photo with no significant artistic changes made, thats stealing. If you’re going to copy someone’s work the very least you can do is make the effort to contact them and get permission. If someone started tracing tattoos, slapping them on a canvas, and selling them for a profit, you would all see a problem with that
I find tattoos SUCH a gray area when it comes to ownership and copyright. An artist should be held acocuntable for neglecting to look up if something is licensed for use, you are not allowed to redistribute and/or sell other people’s art of which they make a livelyhood. This hits kinda close to home because I had someone rip my art and re-sell it as merch without my knowledge… In my world taking a licensed photo and reselling it is not ok, especially when the owner of it has put down hardline clauses in their licensing contract. Where it gets hard is if the art (no matter what said art is… articles, music, paintings, tattoos) is transformative in nature, this is often the key factor to copyright issues like these. It will come down to opinion mostly, the opinion of if this tattoo is a direct ripoff of the original work, or if it is transformative in nature (I would call Lauren’s celeb tattoo transformative, it is a stylized remake of a celeb in a photo, it is quite clearly original work based off of a real image).
Derivative works, or art created using other art as a reference, is covered by copyright law, so depending on the license the photo or other artwork is published under, it can definitely be a breach of copyright, if the original artist doesn’t allow people to make derivative copies. It’s the same as if someone uses a riff from a piece of music without permission. A lot of artists publish their work under licenses that allow derivative work to be made from them, but unless copyright has expired, the license of the work is definitely something that needs checking, if you want to make sure the copy is legal.
The one place he might have a decent case is the part about advertising, if she’s used her reproduction of his image to advertise (or if her Instagram is deemed advertising) it’s being repeatedly publicised in a way that it isn’t by just existing on the person who has it, and having the photographers work associated with a business he didn’t agree to promote. Yeah the whole reference thing is difficult, have a look at the Little White Lies case from over a decade ago, they used to get different artists to redraw photos in their own style for their cover every month, until one photographer recognised their work, sued, and won. They had to change their whole process.
I feel like if he has a specific webpage with the photo in regards to copyrights, then I feel like the “guilty” one is the client more than the tattoo artist? Because the person tattooing is doing their job, and a lot of people have portraits of famous people so how would they know if someone has gotten acceptance from the actual photographer? Like that would be be a lot of work for the tattooist, and I feel that lies on the client to do the research sort of? But guessing Kat Von D has more money, making it easier to sue than the client… but like you say, she gets paid for the tattoo, but doesn’t get paid by instagram etc for featuring it? It’s weird… but idk don’t like KvD, but still an interesting case!
What about the people who’s face it is? Ok, Miles Davis is no longer alive. But let’s say, celebrities who are alive start suing for people getting their face tattooed. I mean this is a rabbit hole we could go down forever until a large part of the tattoo industry is dead. Also: let’s be real. People only sue those they think they can get a lot of money out of. Aka celebrities and large companies. And even then it doesn’t even mean they’ll win the suit.
I don’t care how big a tattoo artist is, this is not how things should be done. You don’t have to give credit to a reference that you use for a tattoo. It’s utterly ridiculous. I mean if that’s the case it’s on that person’s body shouldn’t the client be responsible for it as well? So every tattoo artist should pick up photography, and copyright all their references they made for them. And this is my feelings about her put aside because in reality I do not like her on many levels and I always saw her tattooing was super shitty from the very fucking beginning I’ve never seen her do a great tattoo. Nonetheless I don’t think it was right that she was sued,at all. If anything she was targeted strictly because she’s well known.
There’s google reverse image search that bring up what web addresses said image appears, it takes a minute of an artists day to find someone who’s most likely the original photographer and at least credit them and preferably ask permission 👁👄👁. I do both art and photography and don’t appreciate having either used for others profit, but get when using reference images it’s a grey area, since the art’s represented in a new medium and not a copy/paste digital copy.
I don’t believe necessarily realism tattoo artists will be out of jobs, I do think some amount of effort to track down the photographer must be done though that would potentially mean that realism tattoos would become a little more expensive, as a result of possibly having to pay royalty fees if the photo being used as a reference is copyrighted this feels like a similar issue within the art community, tracers- some artists see it as a form of flattery while others don’t, likewise, it will vary a lot from photographer to photographer whether or not they are okay with their photos being used as references in cases like this, common sense would have to be used- is the photo being used as a reference clearly an artistic expression? then it likely had a lot of planning behind it, and copying it for a tattoo would be like copying a piece of artwork (because it is) that’s just my personal opinion though, so take it with a mountain of salt rather than just a grain
this is ridiculous. it’s a tattoo. it’s not like the person who wants the tattoo could go get the tattoo from the photographer. the dude’s just pissed b/c it’s KVD and yeah she’s a pos but that’s what the issue is, not that it’s a tattoo of his photo. and it’s not like the tattoo is going to be mass produced and the photographer will never make money off of his photo again. homeboy just wants to get recognition for his work.
There’s an immense difference between “reference” and “copying”, and I say this as an illustrator. When an artist uses reference, it’s generally to keep track of things from like poses, to how many legs a bug has. A good artist reinterprets their reference material. In this case, the issue stems from the fact that this was a copyrighted photo, and with copyrighted work there’s rules about how you’re allowed to use it and reproduce it. This photographer set his personal boundaries on the usage of his work. She crossed them. Regardless of how the lawsuit’s settled, it’s not okay to cross someone’s boundaries. I do think we need to consider where our reference material comes from and how we use it.
I was thinking about the whole “who owns tattoos?” question the other day and whilst I’d never “steal” the artwork to make a profit I did commission the artist to design it and put it on my skin and if the artist did own it would they be able to copy it for another customer (I’m talking about a custom piece here, not a flash. I know they’re different)
As a realism artist myself I could never draw without reference. I don’t have a photographic memory like that. This just sounds like a dude who was running out of money. Like my tattoo artist literally googled roses for my tattoo. Photos should be fair use if it is for artwork in my opinion. I’m not going to hop on a plane to Africa to go take a picture of a lion if I can just Google one.
from a photographers perspective: the photographers image is the original art. if someone used my image and replicated it exactly either as a tattoo, or a drawing or painting, I’d be pissed. When you take a photograph, you automatically own the copyright unless you sign it over to some one else. every photo I’ve ever taken is my intellectual property. within the art community, a lot of photographers feel that we are not seen as artists even though our work takes just as much skill and creativity. If a local tattoo artist asked me if they could do a tattoo of one of my photos, I’d be SUPER flattered, but it would only be fair if I got paid for it as well.
I think this is a once kinda thing from what I took from it the photographer stated that this photo couldnt be copied in any form of art it is exclusively for him to sell and him alone and it does state that. However most photograhers I assume wouldnt really mind if someone used there work as inspiration its only if someone was claiming there images as there own it would be a problem. Just to be safe anyway if you do find a photo you wanted used as reference and you can contact the original artist or photographer without a whole process its always good to get there permission .
I totally agree it’s just a very confusing topic and like yea it can be really hard to track down photographers and stuff, ig you would just have to find a reference that you can find the photographer or add and blend in a bunch of images to make it look different from the original photo. To me it’s just really confusing in that aspect like I’ve never thought about the photo part of it I’ve always looked at the subject that I was trying to get. I suppose there’s a little bit of ignorance in that, like I respect photographers as artists of course it’s just kind of confusing. I mean there’s a bunch of examples I could get into that makes it hard to track down the artist but if u find the pictures on Instagram or the photographer directly talks to you about it it would be nice to talk to them about it even if it’s after the fact cuz that’s better than nothing 🤷♀️
Many photographers care very much. It’s just that most of them don’t see how many tattoo artists have stolen their art or if they do, they don’t have the money to wage a legal battle against some big name inker. I believe that since tattoo artists are so precious about their own images being copied they might try to show a little more respect to fellow artists working in a different medium. But they don’t. Btw Getty Images is a site from where you can buy images they have copyright over. But many photographers retain copyright over their own images. Most of the truly great ones do it that way. Just as you can’t record a song from your favourite band and sell copies of it without paying royalties, tattoo artists need to recognise that they cannot trace a photograph and not pay for it.
I understand it. From standard copyright of intellectual materials it would mean that photo realism artists would have to make sure they get the permission from artists and what not. I don’t disagree because if you think of famous photographs of celebrities, if you are to show them in film or TV you have to get copyright clearance. Think of it as someone tattooing your design you popped up in Instagram without changing it to their style or asking you for permission to tattoo said design and giving you a portion of the profits as a designing fee, would it be considered that ‘a photo realistic render of a picture the client brought in’ or art theft?
Interesting that this is happening! For those interested in photography infringement and recreation in other arts I suggest looking up the case Rogers vs Jeff Koons! This is an interesting topic especially in the age of the Internet where it is sometimes difficult to find the original creators of content whether visual works or written works. But it sounds like an open shut case to me since the Rogers vs Koons case provides precedent that changing the medium doesn’t cut it.
Movies/tv shows are in the public domain. The public domain means that something is so popular, well known, and accessible that there are laws stating the owner of the work cannot profit off of it outside of profiting from the original work. The most well known example is the song Happy Birthday. It was written by someone, but we do not have to pay them every time we sing Happy Birthday and it is published on social media, etc. In the case of a tattoo, the judge will most likely rule in KVD’s favor because, while she did use this person’s work, he published it in the public domain and this allows others to see and use it in other forms. The reason for copyright laws is so that no one can use someone else’s work, duplicate it exactly in the same form, and claim it as their own. This would mean KVD took the picture, did not change it, put it online, and said she took the picture. It is also clear that the tattoo is not the photograph taken and put on his skin in exactly the same way. Even changing it by using a black and white photo and putting it in color makes it different, and therefore not an exact copy and Sedlik will not be able to argue that she stole his work or broke copyright laws. Key word: copyright. You have the right for your work to not be exactly copied and claimed by another person. KVD did not do this, so she did not break the law.
Thats such an interesting topic! Copyright and copyright infringement within the tattoo industry is a huge grey zone and something most people don’t really think about. Contrary to what most people think you don’t own the design of your tattoo (at least in most countries), you just pay to get it on your skin. The artist still has the rights to the artwork! I think you can have your artist transfer the rights to you but it’s not the default. Because of that you can absolutely get in trouble for monetising your tattoo. This for example means your tattoos can be in a photo you make public but they can’t be the focus. So if you’re a model you can have your picture taken with your tattoos on show and profit off of it but you can’t have a photo in a tattoo magazine centered around a tattoo. Most artists don’t care but they absolutely could get you in trouble if they wanted to. Another huge problem is getting copyrighted material tattooed. The example in this article is just a small part of it, I think what most people don’t realise is that you can get it trouble legally for getting anything tattooed that is copyrighted. Everyone and their grandma has a Disney tattoo, but Disney could absolutely sue because of copyright infringement. Neither the artist nor the client owns the character, therefore infringe on someones copyright by copying it. I’m not an expert or a lawyer or anything like that so this is just what I read about the subject in the past, but this is so interesting to me. We always talk about tattoo copying and how wrong that is but it’s industry standard to tattoo copyrighted material, at least if it comes from bigger companies.
so as a photographer myself (and future tattoo artist), i personally wouldn’t mind having my photos tattooed onto someone, because it’s not like they are copying the same thing since it’s on a different medium, however, i’d prefer if the person would ask for permission before getting it, but just for a matter of politeness, same as if i ask to borrow a pencil from my coleague even tho i know for sure that they will lend it to me, if that makes sense? that being said, i think that if my work was as huge as having it all over the internet i personally wouldn’t get that mad at the tattoo artist bc i assume it would be really hard to reach to me, but i understand if other photographers get annoyed by it anyway
I think depending on what the image is this is the same as tattoo artists copying artwork (like painting/ graphic art) made by someone who doesn’t tattoo, a lot of the time artists will have some kind of system for letting people get their art tattooed like having a statement saying it’s okay/ not okay or having a voucher you can buy so they get some compensation for their work being used. I think this could get confusing but it does make sense, it really is just copying someone’s art work, maybe everyone will just have to get more used to crediting/ asking to use references if they don’t used something that has free commercial usage rights. That really would be difficult though like you say because it’s all already not credited, so confusing!
I see where the photographer is coming from. He has it copy writes I think that is where it gets tricky. She is using the tattoo to bring more business in because she likes it. She doesn’t want to compromise it seems, which doesn’t look good for her. Being friends and willing to talk goes a long way.
When you draw over the image like kat did with the photo it’s not using the photo as a refrence she is tracing it. Using refrence usually implies you looking at a image and then drawing. You can measure the photo to get the proprtions right but that’s what art school taught me about stuff like this. And if you wanna sell it you kinda need to change it like how the fan art industry works.
Not me trying to scroll the article down as Lauren was reading it 😂😂 As to this situation, generally I would consider this to be under fair use – Kat Von D is not infringing upon the market the photographer would have for his picture (for example, if you wanted his photo hanging on the wall in your home or shop, getting a tattoo isn’t exactly going to fill the same need/desire). That being said, the fact that she used this specific reference photo, even though the photographer explicitly said that his photograph cannot be copied, rubs me the wrong way. I wonder whether the client (if they wanted this specific photo) or Kat could have messaged him and asked to use it as a reference.
At university we were told to change the original photo by over 50%, and legally we’re not allowed to use images with active copyright protection without permission. In essays, in artwork or reference don’t use any photo that’s under copyright, because artists & photographers can pay to protect the right to their work. So examples like this article don’t happen. You can’t copy a makeup palette once under copyright and it’s the same for photographs, music etc. if it’s under active copyright without permission. I think Kat Von D is in the wrong, same with Jeffree Star and his law suit over using someone’s likeness without copyright permission. You get the permission or don’t use the image imo
There is so much grey area. My thinking is if you get a flash from a tattoo artist and you pay them for it then it becomes yours. The artist no longer owns the rights to the artwork, they are still the artist of course but they can’t tell you want to do or not do with it. Like buying a car, chevy or ford made the car but you own it now. The whole reference photo for realism tattoos thing is a headache though lol
just like tattoo artist, photographers need to be compensated for their work. it’s not like this was the only photo available to kat. if you’re going to use someone’s photo to copy exactly as a tattoo maybe reach out and and pay the artist to use their work? or use non copyrighted material. i don’t think it’s necessary to pay a photographer if you’re only referencing the photo but, if you’re copying the photo exactly it’s not right to get monetary compensation for something you couldn’t have done without the photographer. tldr: if you can’t create the tattoo with the reference photo you need to compensate the photographer
Tricky situation, but I think it would be a good faith gesture to reach out to photographers when possible, search for images with the right license types, etc. It might seem hard at first, but between reverse image search and the ability to easily filter by usage rights I think there’s a lot of great reference content out there for which either the photographer’s name can be found, the photo is already cleared for use, or (as is the case with Getty photos) the photo includes all the information alongside the cost of licensing (so artists can decide whether or not they want to use that reference, pay for it, adapt it significantly, etc.)
This opens up such an unnecessary can of worms. You could even argue that for portrait photography, the subject of the photo is the “product” and the physical photograph is just the by-product. So by that logic, you would not only have to get the approval of the photographer but ALSO the approval of the subject of the photo for using their image. What a mess 😅
So to clarify, tattoo artists own the design, NOT your skin lol. Once applied, the design is part of your likeness so talking about and showing off your tattoos on your body -or if you model for example, you won’t owe your tattoo artist anything for making money off your own likeness. There the client’s rights end however, they cannot take the design and share, copy, profit from, etc.
As an artist I’m super weary about making drawings from photos where I don’t know the usage rights. I won’t do commissions based off a photo I don’t own, the client doesn’t own, and isn’t a free-to-use stock photo or open domain. If there are rights attached to a photo, I wouldn’t use it without explicit permission from the photographer. In this case, I feel that Kat Von D was wrong, because the photographer explicitly states that his photo should not be used for art work. If you are going to recreate or use a photo as reference, I believe you need to change at least 30% of it to avoid copyright. However, most artists will change it a minimum of 50-60% to be safe. Personally, if I need to do the likeness of someone in a drawing (especially if they are well known), I will use more than one reference, usually 3 to 4, and completely create my own image. Sometimes I will use articles to confirm the likeness. But I don’t like doing portraits of someone such as a celebrity anyway. I’m not a tattoo artist but I think most artists know the dangers of just straight copying an image that they do not own.
I can honestly say I’ve never actually thought about who “owns” a tattoo before – I always think of them as “mine” because they’re on me, so it’s really strange to think of them as technically belonging to someone else! I have a pet portrait tattoo that’s based on a photo that I took, that my artist then recreated in her style and tattooed on me, so theoretically, what would happen in this situation? I took the picture and the tattoo itself both is and isn’t an exact copy (because of the style it’s in) but you can tell right away which photo it’s based on because she did such an amazing job on it… so who “owns” it? The dog, maybe, since it’s her likeness? 😂
I feel like if anyone should be getting permission to use a photo, it should be the client? The client is the one that wants that image reproduced on their skin so the client should be the one to ensure they are allowed to have it? The tattoo artist is just the person who is translating the photo from one medium into another. I think with the tshirt comparison – in this situation, KVD is more like the tshirt printing company and the client is the one who is requesting for that image to be printed on the shirt? idk
Im a pro fashion photographer, and designer. As much I wouldn’t put a photography of someone on a tshirt, I wouldn’t find any problem with the tattoo. It’s a reproduction using a really different medium, which needs skills, its an art piece by itself. Photographers who sue tattoo artists for those things are just assholes and fucked up people.
I think that a photograph used as a reference is fine if it’s not going to be tattooed exactly as is, but as much as I agree with not copying someone else’s tattoo or flash, I’d say there is a difference here in that those designs are not usually copyrighted by the artist. If you’re copying a photograph or a drawing (hand drawn too, but especially digital), those may be copyrighted and if so you have to have legal permission to use it. So if the photograph in question was copyrighted the original photographer absolutely has the right to take action here.
I’ve wondered the same thing. What about everyone who gets replicas of famous paintings, to trandemarked characters… I feel like recreating a portrait in a tattoo is very different than taking a picture or art and putting it on something to mass market. The artist is getting paid more for their skill and time than making money off recreating an image over and over and over. also what if the recreation was bad and looked nothing like the photo? is that person off the hook cause it isn’t an ‘exact replica’? does intent matter (intent to copy) or only outcome (outcome IS a copy)? I totally get the frustration of the photographer, but I wonder what this would mean for the world of realism portraits
As a photojournalist I’m biased here but I do think that it would be worth it to reach out to the photographer to check with them. Because honestly since a tattoo is a one-off unique thing they’ll probably say that it’s totally fine. Especially with the Brad Pitt one too, they used a reference photo but in a stylized way. As long as the tattoo artist represents the photo well I don’t think it would be a big deal. I would say that the artist should put in the work to find the photographer if possible, like I said, because if you find a photo and do a reverse image search on Google it’s not too hard to find, and in the case of Getty, they own the copyright especially for paparazzi photos like the one of KVD. It would be good practice just in case to check with Getty or the photographer, whichever applies just to make sure you’re not making either of you look bad at least.
I don’t think celebrity photographers should be suing tattoo artists over using the image to know what the celebrities face looks like. The photo may have been taken by a specific person but it’s the celebrities’ face at the end of the day. Artists need to get the likeness right for it to be realism. This just sounds absurd
Idk what to feel about this. On one hand, paying for license seems fair, but on the other hand it seems a bit petty of this photographer to demand this much for it. Tattoos are a different medium, it’s not like she’s getting rich on this one particular tattoo. It’s nice if tattoo artists ask the creator for permission or at the very least plug their social media when using their images and maybe even pay a little fee, but I think this photographer is insane for demanding this much. If it was me, I think I’d feel flattered that someone wanted a tattoo of my art in the first place, and I would probably just ask the tattoo artist to leave a link to my instagram or something.
Honestly, I’m on the side of the photographer here. Photography is art just as much as tattooing is art. You wouldn’t copy someone’s tattoo, so why would it be okay to copy someone’s photograph? It’s okay to use other artists’ work as reference in a transformative way, or if you ask the person to use it; neither of which she did, so if the photographer wants to take legal action, I’m sure he’s well within his rights to do so. Honestly, if you think it’s “too much” to ask a photographer to use their work, you’re discounting the validity of it. That’s the same argument art thieves use when they repost other people’s work…
i don’t know about this… I mean, I feel like considering the medium we are talking about, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Im a creative director and I do advertisement and we are very careful with this kind of stuff. If I were to use the picture for a campaign, I would have to pay for it, since I am using it with commercial intentions. But in this case, the client would be the user, not the tattoo artist, which means he is not making money out of it but taking it for personal use, which is legal even if the picture has rights. At least that’s how I see it.
Think it depends on the photographer and who or what they photograph! He really wanted to make sure that photo didn’t get used! He must have known when he took it that it would be something special! You don’t always know that and if you take a photo it matters to you. It could sting if others come around and just take it. I’m not a photographer but I can’t take great photos occasionally and share them on my Facebook or Instagram. It would bug me if someone then tattooed it on someone. Most I’m hoping to get tattooed on me!! Lol
There is also the part where if you do not defend your copyright, you LOOSE your copyright. She made it overtly public that she used HIS copyrighted licensed work. The fact that tattoo artists have been getting around claims of art theft because they are translating an artwork from paper to flesh, should be heavily looked at for the amount of art theft going on amongst themselves over social media. As an artist, yeah sure, you can be complimented, but unless you were paid for it, it was stolen. Especially if anything signifying that artwork as yours is omitted. Just google search “can you use a licensed photo as a reference photo without paying” if you need to ad in the usa, then add that to it. Sedlik is someone who has been consulted by the United States Copyright Office, so he knows his copyright laws and how to word them, does workshops and seminars on creativity, copyright, and licensing for artist groups around the country.