Apparently, she claimed that the tattoo she did was not for sale and was put on only her friend. So does that mean I can print someone's photo on line and hang it just in my house or a friend's house without selling it?
In practice, what you do in your own house is generally not an issue. Right or wrong, it's unlikely anybody would come after you for that if for no other reason than they are unaware of it and/or don't care enough to pursue it.
But aside from that, if you use someone else's work for purposes that copyright is intended protect, then it becomes a problem. That includes publicity. If the tattoo artist had just done the tattoo and not publicized it, thereby bringing attention to their business, it's unlikely this lawsuit would ever have seen the light of day.
The question of whether the infringer made any money off of it is really irrelevant to whether it was infringing. If you make copies of someone else's book and give them away for free, or even if you pay people to take them from you so you're operating at a loss, it's still infringement. Although they do/can take profit and other usage benefits (like publicity) into account when awarding damages.
I'm honestly surprised they decided this case this way, because it's pretty blatantly a derivative work of a single photograph.
Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, I've just studied copyright and trademark in a fair amount of depth. Which is why I'll also say, you just never know, because it's probably the third most *complicated* area of law in the US.