[ad_1]
Nancy Dillon
Celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D won a resounding victory Friday in her copyright infringement trial over a tattoo she gave a friend for free seven years ago.
It took eight jurors less than three hours to unanimously decide that his tattoo, as well as his planning sketch and four related social media posts, were not “substantially similar” to the reference photo he used. They also discovered that three other social media posts that also referenced the copyrighted 1989 portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis qualified as “fair use.”
“I’m extremely happy, grateful and very grateful,” Von D said. Rolling Stone as she left the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles with her father, who accompanied her to the four-day trial.
“It has been a nightmare two years, worrying about the outcome. Not just for me, but for all my fellow tattoo artists and all the people who have been fans of the people who have been tattooed,” Von D told reporters after the verdict. “I knew that if we didn’t fight this, I think it would have done a lot of damage to an industry that has fought for so long to do good things and be a good example of art in this world.”
Plaintiff Jeffrey Sedlik, a professional photographer and adjunct university professor, filed the lawsuit in February 2021. In his testimony, he described how he spent three years planning the photo shoot with Davis and even built a makeshift photo studio on the beach in front of the house. of Davis. in Malibu to make sure the final photo of him was perfect. He described how he personally positioned Davis’ fingers so that the revered trumpeter looked like he was making a “shhh” sound.
“I knew I played quietly so the audience would lean in and savor each note,” Sedlik told jurors Tuesday, explaining how he arrived at that gesture. “I went in and placed his fingers exactly on that arc to represent the musical notation. He was building subliminal things.”
Sedlik had asked jurors to award him $42,750 in actual damages and up to $150,000 in statutory damages for willful infringement. Sedlik’s lawyer said his side planned to appeal.
In his closing arguments Friday, Sedlik’s attorney, Robert Allen, said his client was a perfectionist who painstakingly created works of art and made a living by licensing them. He said that with the portrait of Davis, “every decision that was made was precise.” He maintained that Von D’s tattoo was “substantially similar” to the photo in terms of the “unnatural” hand placement, general pose, “furrowed forehead,” lighting and “the direction of his gaze.” . He said the case was about justice and compensation to artists for their work. “Plagiarists do not benefit by adding additional things to what they have already taken,” he told jurors.
“This is not going to have any effect on the tattoo industry. “Nobody with a tattoo has to worry about the tattoo police coming after them,” Allen added. “That’s not what this case is about. “This case is about permission and respect for art.”
But Von D’s attorney, Allen Grodsky, disagreed. He said artists cannot copyright a camera angle or gesture, and in the case of Von D’s tattoo, she never intended to reproduce it for profit. “This case is very important to my client,” Grodsky said in closing. “It’s important for the tattoo industry and it’s important for people who want to get tattoos.” He said Von D never sought licenses for the reference photographs she used for countless tattoos and that was never a problem.
“We are here because my client, Kat Von D, would not bow to Mr. Sedlik. She wouldn’t tell him how wise she was and how much she appreciated her advice. She acted on behalf of tattoo artists around the world and stood up to him,” she said. Grodsky repeatedly reminded jurors that the tattoo was a gift for Von D’s friend Blake Farmer, a lighting director who testified during the trial that he was a trumpeter himself and a big fan of Davis.
Grodsky argued that Von D never sold a reproduction of his tattoo as a print, poster or T-shirt, and when he posted about it “several times on his Instagram and Facebook accounts, he was not promoting anything commercial.” After the verdict, Grodsky told reporters that the lawsuit should never have been filed.
At least one expert who followed the trial agreed with that assessment. “To the extent that Jeff Sedlik wanted to set a precedent, he may have chosen to sue the wrong defendant to the extent that Kat Von D did this tattoo for free. And she was very personable, which probably affected the jury,” says attorney and intellectual property attorney Matthew Neco. Rolling Stone.
“I probably would have found a substantial similarity in the tattoo, however, there is a good chance that I would have found fair use and therefore no infringement or damages,” Neco says.
Four members of the jury spoke Rolling Stone As they left court, they said they carefully reviewed their instructions but quickly reached an agreement. “It seemed really obvious. The verdict was easy,” said one woman. “A tattoo on a person’s skin is not like selling a painting.”
Another juror, also a woman, said she admired Von D: “She stood her ground. We are proud of her for taking up this fight.”