The photographer who launched a legal battle against Kat Von D over a tattoo revealed why he filed the controversial lawsuit.
Professional snapper and college professor Jeff Sedlik sued the makeup guru, 43, for copyright infringement in 2021, before he eventually got his day in court last year.
He alleged that the former LA Ink star - real name Katherine von Drachenberg - had used one of his most famous photographs as a reference for an arm tattoo that she gave her friend free of charge.
Sedlik claimed that Von D had violated copyright laws by supposedly replicating the 1989 portrait he took of jazz icon Miles Davis without giving him proper credit or compensation.
Advert
The lawsuit gripped the attention of both tattooists and photographers alike, and the case was believed to be the first-of-its-kind to reach a court room in the US.
This kind of situation was quite a grey area legally, as it all hinged on whether Von D's recreation was defensible under the 'fair use' doctrine, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission.
If the court found the tattoo artist had adequately 'transformed' the image into something new, she'd be in the clear.
In his opening statement at the trial, Von D's lawyer Allen B. Grodsky told jurors that she had used Sedlik's snap purely for 'inspiration', claiming she had created a 'completely different' depiction of it on her friend's arm.
Advert
"You will see that there are many differences," he said, adding that these were evident in 'the position and shape of shadows, the difference in the use of light, difference in the hairstyle, differences in the shape and rendering of the eyes'.
Sedlik, on the other hand, presented a very different story - as he alleged that Von D had 'attempted to precisely replicate every aspect of the Iconic Miles Davis portrait in the form of a tattoo', Rolling Stone reported.
The photographer explained that he had gone to great lengths to get the perfect shot of Davis, claiming it took him three years to plan.
Discussing how he came up with the trumpeter's pose, which is similar to a person making the 'shhh' gesture, Sedlik said: " I knew he played quietly to get audiences to lean in and relish every note.
"I went in and placed his fingers exactly in that arc to represent musical notation. I was building subliminal things in."
Advert
In his lawsuit, Sedlik said that Von D had used a social media post of the tattoo inspired by his work to promote her brand.
Sedlik told the court that he doesn't mind going out of his way to defend the copyright of his work, even when it comes to tattoos.
He said he'd experienced a similar issue back in 2014 with another tattoo artist, who he raised his grievances with before receiving a 'respectful' reply.
Images of the inking were taken down from the web and Sedlik was given an apology - and the snapper said this prompted him to grant the tattooist a retroactive license for no fee. Sedlik viewed it as an 'educational opportunity'.
Advert
During the three-day trial, Von D insisted she had made 'zero money off' sharing the image of the Davis inking online and that she was 'not mass-producing anything'.
Her lawyer told the court: "Kat Von D’s interpretation of Miles Davis had a sentiment that was more melancholy than Mr. Sedlik’s.
"And you’ll see that it has movement that’s not found in his. Kat Von D did not attempt to monetise the tattoo in any way. She did not make photos of prints that she sold.
"She didn’t sell tee shirts or mugs. She didn’t sell products in any way."
Ultimately, the jury ruled in Von D's favour and Sedlik's lawsuit was dismissed - and although she reigned victorious, the TV star said she didn't think she would tattoo ever again.
Advert
“I think I don’t want to ever tattoo again, my heart has been crushed through this in different ways," Von D said. "We’ll see with time."
After the verdict, her attorney Grodsky said: "We’ve said all along that this case never should have been brought. The jury recognised that this was just ridiculous."
At the time, Sedlik's legal team explained why he was appealing the decision.
"If those two things are not substantially similar, then no one’s art is safe," his lawyer Allen said. "It’s about copying others’ protected works. It’s not going to hurt the tattoo industry. The tattoo police are not going to come after anyone."
Sedlik's Instagram bio currently states: "I support my family by licensing my images. Please respect the rights of all artists."
Von D - who said she 'lost weight, hair and many nights sleep' over the lawsuit - announced she had spent nearly '40 hours' blacking out a ton of her tattoos which 'no longer align with who she is today'.
"Some people are fine with keeping these types of landmarks in time on them - I personally grew tired of waking up to them, and seeing those constant reminders every time I looked in a mirror," she said.
The makeup mogul has since shared an update on her ink-removal journey with fans, as she revealed she is extremely excited that she'll 'soon be able to wake up to a clean slate' in terms of her skin.
Topics: Art, Celebrity, Celebrity News, US News, Kat Von D
Olivia Burke