Kat Von D and the Miles Davis Tattoo

[cgw]

Remember this one? Seems she had better legal representation than the photographer:

Kat Von D Beats Photographer in Copyright Lawsuit Over Miles Davis Tattoo

It took a jury less than 3 hours to unanimously decide.

petapixel.com

 

[fishing4sanity]

I know little about copyright laws, but to me that looks 'substantially similar' to the photo, as she has the photo hung there as a reference while drawing the tattoo.

 

[JamesD]

The term they probably should have used is "derivative work."

 

[AlanKlein]

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?

 

[Rickbb]

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?

Mostly, yes. As long as you are prepared to defend it in court. Copyright is protection from economic harm by unfair usage. Printing a copy for your personal use would generally be considered fair use. Similar to making a copy of a song from a cd to a phone or cassette tape for personal use is.

There is no hard and fast rule stating what is harm or not, making it difficult and usually decided in court.

 

[AlanKlein]

Mostly, yes. As long as you are prepared to defend it in court. Copyright is protection from economic harm by unfair usage. Printing a copy for your personal use would generally be considered fair use. Similar to making a copy of a song from a cd to a phone or cassette tape for personal use is.

There is no hard and fast rule stating what is harm or not, making it difficult and usually decided in court.

Rick, But a CD you paid for. Not so with a photo taken from the web. The whole law is very flaky. It;s not clear if you have to go to court to find out what your rights are, on either side.

 

[JamesD]

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.

 

[Rickbb]

The problem is the law is clear as mud on this issue. I've been involved as the primary technical witness in 3 cases where my employer was sued over patent/copyright infringement. And after a few hundred hours sitting in lawyers' offices and court the only thing that I can say is who knows. If you don't sell it, use it on your web site, (unless it's a "news" website), you have to take your chances and have a good lawyer on standby. But most likely you will win, like this person did.