Declaration by Hotscratcher on this October 2024 on the matter of Kat Von D vs. Jeffrey Sedlick and the state of tattoo industry culture regarding the unauthorized use of artist’s original artworks
Have you ever felt misrepresented? Has a colleague ever done something that sets a bad precedent for what you stand for in your industry? I’ll tell you the story of why I care about Kat Von D Vs. Jeffrey Sedlick:
2 precedents are being set by this case that I cannot abide by:
-a tattoo artist can use any non tattoo artist’s creative work without permission
-it is an acceptable action to take legal recourse without attempting to collaborate with a non tattoo artist on using their creative work.
I want to make it very clear. Tattoo is an art, like any other art. Skin is a medium, along with canvas, digital creations, or original ideas. To say a photographer is lesser than a tattoo artist, and that we can freely use their original artworks without permission is not an ethical stance. This position cannot coexist with the idea that a tattoo artist's creative works should not be copied without permission.
I want to make something else very clear. To refuse to collaborate with a photographer or any other creative artist, when that person has reached out and is amicably trying to collaborate on the usage of their original artwork, and to say something to the extent of “I’ll see you in court” when they are asking for reasonable compensation or to simply be credited for their work, is completely unacceptable.
Tattooists have been on the fringes of the art world for a long time. The tattoo industry has suffered prejudice, extreme regulation, and outright illegality. It’s no surprise we have created a culture that does not respect legal action via the justice system. This is important to understand, so that you can appreciate the weight of the matter when a tattoo artist takes the time to speak out on this matter.
For hundreds of years, tattoo artists have created a closely knit community that is widely decentralized and self regulating. Copying works of art has been part of tattoo history and culture for hundreds of years, but since the mid 1900s, the act of one tattoo artist copying another tattoo artist's original artwork has been considered a wildly inappropriate action that is effectively regulated by public shaming within the tattoo community.
This shift came around the 1960s when the tattoo industry saw a new subcategory emerge, the market for custom original tattoo designs. Until that point, tattooing was almost exclusively the commercial style of the traditional iconography of tattoo “flash” that we’re all familiar with: roses, daggers, eagles, religious imagery, etc, and a color palette of mostly black, red, blue, & green. These 2 subcultures exist side by side within the now worldwide, multi billion dollar tattoo industry. Though there is a clear distinction between these two subcultures, like all things in life, the lines between them are blurred, and we see all varieties of both existing on a spectrum throughout the industry.
Despite the variations in the spectrum of these distinct subcultures, one thing is clear, in this moment in October 2024, It is considered unethical to reproduce another tattoo artist’s creative work without permission in ANY medium, and being publicly called out in the tattoo industry for this can literally ruin a tattoo artist’s career. This is important to understand, because even though this action of one tattooist copying another is considered highly inappropriate, it is NOT considered unethical when a tattoo artist copies a photographer’s original work to make a photo realistic tattoo. Even when that genre of tattoo art is called realism or photo realism, when the goal of “realism” style is literally to recreate a photograph as perfectly as possible. This is an industry norm that I find to be problematic.
To put this in perspective and to draw your attention to what I feel is a cognitive dissonance within the current tattoo culture in 2024, let me tell you a story:
A photographer says to a tattoo artist: “ Look, I’d have appreciated it if you had asked first before tattooing this photo of mine. All I’m asking is that you pay the $40 tattoo ticket fee, or you can just go take your own photo to use as reference so you don’t have to pay for a license or use without permission”
The tattoo artist replies: “How am I supposed to go take a photo of a musician that is dead? Besides, I can’t just go out and take photos of different celebrities. Do you know how much time that would take? How much money that would cost?”
The photographer replies: “I do know, that’s literally what I do for a living. I can’t even begin to elaborate how difficult it was or how much money it cost. How many years of work it took to even be able to photograph famous musicians and celebrities, and how much skill it took to actually make those photos good enough, that you would want to use them to do a tattoo with. To, in fact, create an artwork so good, that you would strive to recreate it as perfectly as possible. Now, here I am, in awe of your technical ability and skill, in full appreciation of the years of labor and discipline it took to be able to recreate my artwork perfectly. But still we can’t seem to come to an understanding that I too am an artist that should have your respect? Can’t we just collaborate? You can tag me when you post this, you can make your 1k-2k on this tattoo, I can make my little $40 for the license, and we can cross promote one another to reach new audiences. Maybe this even leads to projects we can even collaborate on in the future?”
After this heartfelt and valid reply, the tattooist replies, “I’ll see you in court.”
This is what happens again and again within the tattoo industry. I don’t agree with this attitude within the tattoo industry. I think, in fact, there is much to be gained by collaborating with photographers and all other types of artists working in different mediums, to work together through licensing and other types of collaborations. This is exactly the kind of cross-industry promotion that will help small tattoo business owners diversify their revenue streams and survive when times are tough as the economy continues to rise and fall as it has throughout the entirety of post colonization tattoo history.
Tattooing cannot exist outside of other creative artistic mediums and still hope to have intellectual property protections. I’ve seen countless times, the outrage of a tattoo artist when a fashion brand steals their original artwork for a clothing drop without permission. This is why the case of Kat Von D Vs. Jeffrey Sedlick sets a bad precedent. The general belief in the tattoo industry is that tattoo artists see their art form as being allowed the protections of Intellectual Property law or at least the protection from our self regulating, decentralized system. The majority attitude is this: Don’t steal. Don’t copy. Be original. Respect other tattoo artist’s creative works. Be a good enough and respectable artist to create your own original ideas.
But, despite all this, we can at least try to understand why this cognitive dissonance exists. It may not justify it, but I still believe it’s important to understand the history that brought us to this situation we are in today.
Through the long, rich culture of using and copying traditional tattoo flash iconography, and the shift from street parlor style shops to private studios doing custom original works, along with the technological advancements and hard won skills of perfectly recreating a photograph or painting on skin, we can understand that the line between what a tattoo artist can use with or without permission may be blurred. It is understandable, the defensive position of a realism artist, through the “sweat of their brow” has spent countless hours through years of carefully honing a skill to be able recreate a photograph perfectly on the skin. It’s understandable they may feel defensive for their hard won craftsmanship. But the fact remains, it’s not acceptable to use another artist’s creative work without permission. And to make it worse, it’s never been so easy to identify who owns the rights to an image, and to collaborate with photographers or other artists to obtain permission or a limited license to use their works.
In the case of Kat Von D vs. Jeffrey Sedlick a key part of Kat’s defense was that the tattoo was not commercial use because the tattoo was done for free. But it must be said this stance is absurd. Widely known creators on social media receive large amounts of streaming revenue. Their social media accounts are registered businesses, with linked business bank accounts and fein numbers, that receive payouts from companies like Meta and Youtube. To say this wasn’t commercial use when the image was perfectly recreated on skin in a photo realism style, and when the social media accounts are monetized registered businesses that receive streaming revenue payouts, is absurd.
The fact remains, that Kat used another artist’s original creative work without permission for commercial use, and when that artist reached out to amicably settle the matter, her response was not collaborative.
There is even a tattoo industry norm for using another’s creative artwork, it’s called a “tattoo ticket” and the average cost is around $40. This limited use license is easily purchased on many artist’s websites. For example simply look up tattoo tickets for Flow So Fly, Micah Ulrich, or Julia Roblin. These are all fine artists that sell “tattoo tickets” for a limited use license to do a tattoo of their original creative works. Often it’s even easier than this. You can ask any tattooist who has reached out to other artists to use their creative works and they will say most of the time an artist will simply ask to be credited for their work and are happy to allow the tattooist to use their work without monetary compensation. I personally have done tattoos where my clients have given me a tattoo ticket from artist @flowsofly. I’ve even paid typography artists for the use of their fonts in my tattoos.
Even further evidence for how easy it is for tattooists to attain permission to use other artist’s creative work is that the cost of attaining tattoo tickets almost always falls on the client. Even when a tattooist does use an image in their tattoo design without permission, it doesn’t matter much, because the value of a tattoo is so low in the world of licensing, this cost can be easily settled in almost every situation if the artist reaches out to you after the fact.
So now that you can see how these situations have arose, and we can understand how everyone involved feels, I want to make it clear again:
-I do not believe tattoo artists should be able to freely use other artists' creative works without permission.
-I believe tattoo artists are part of the art world, and our creative works on paper or skin should not be considered greater or less than any other art medium.
-I believe Kat Von D’s refusal to collaborate when Jeffrey Sedlick reached out, and instead taking legal recourse, sets a bad precedent in an industry with a long history of effective self regulation for the unapproved use of another artist's artwork.
-I believe there is mutually beneficial monetary gain to be had through cross industry collaboration via licensing. It’s a wholesome endeavor that leads to industry growth across mediums and creates new opportunities by growing our networks.
As a final note, I want to say that the legal system is problematic. The strategies needed to effectively build and argue a case, can often fall outside what is ethical. The legal system is often used to exploit people who face marginalization. Though I can’t outright condone the use of legal recourse, I still feel the use of it can be important to set precedents and introduce regulation that can protect the safety of clients and the livelihood of artists. This case is an instance of that. This is why I’ve stepped forward to speak on this matter. I see this as an opportunity to inform and educate as we continue to navigate further technological advancements in the art world, especially with the fast growing use of artificial intelligence.
May we in the tattoo industry and elsewhere be able to respect the creative original works of our colleagues. May we grow through cross industry promotion via licensing and other project collaborations.
We will need to work together as a team to navigate the world of artificial intelligence, to set ethical standards as new gray areas arise, and to protect the livelihood and safety of creative arts business owners and our clients.
-Ross C Berg
@hotscratcher
October 28th, 2024
Los Angeles
