The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court judgment favoring celebrity tattoo artist Katherine Von Drachenberg, known professionally as Kat Von D, in a high-profile copyright infringement case involving a photograph of jazz legend Miles Davis.
Photographer Jeffrey Sedlik filed the lawsuit under the Copyright Act, alleging that Von Drachenberg and her companies, Kat Von D Inc. and High Voltage Tattoo Inc., infringed his copyrighted photograph of Miles Davis through various works including tattoos, sketches, and social media posts.
The case went to trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California before District Judge Dale S. Fischer. Following jury deliberations, Von Drachenberg and her tattoo parlor secured a complete victory on the infringement claims.
The jury evaluated 10 allegedly infringing works in total. For six works—including a tattoo, a sketch, and four social media posts—the jury determined these were not substantially similar to Sedlik's original photograph. This finding meant these works did not constitute copyright infringement under federal law.
The remaining four social media posts, referred to in court documents as the "Process Images," presented a different legal analysis. These images depicted Von Drachenberg in the process of creating the Miles Davis tattoo and contained reproductions of Sedlik's photograph. Von Drachenberg stipulated that these Process Images were substantially similar to the original photograph.
However, the jury found that even though the Process Images were substantially similar, they did not infringe Sedlik's copyright because they constituted fair use under federal copyright law. Fair use is a legal doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
The fair use determination represents a significant aspect of the case, as courts must weigh four factors: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the market for the original work.
Following the jury verdict, Sedlik appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. His appeal challenged various aspects of the district court's handling of the case. However, the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Salvador Mendoza Jr., and Anthony D. Johnstone affirmed the lower court's judgment in its entirety.
The appeals court issued a per curiam opinion, meaning the decision was rendered by the court as a whole rather than attributed to a specific judge. The court also issued separate concurring opinions from Judge Wardlaw and Judge Johnstone, though the full text of these opinions was not included in the available court documents.
One significant procedural ruling from the Ninth Circuit addressed Sedlik's challenge to the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. The appeals court held that this denial was not reviewable on appeal because it did not involve a purely legal question independent of disputed facts. This ruling underscores the limited circumstances under which appellate courts will review interlocutory orders from district courts.
The case has broader implications for the intersection of copyright law and tattoo artistry, a relatively emerging area of intellectual property law. As tattoo art has gained mainstream acceptance and celebrity tattoo artists have built substantial social media followings, questions about copyright protection and fair use in this medium have become increasingly relevant.
The outcome also highlights the importance of the substantial similarity test in copyright infringement cases. For a work to infringe copyright, it must be substantially similar to the original copyrighted work. The jury's finding that six of the ten works were not substantially similar to Sedlik's photograph provided a complete defense against infringement claims for those items.
For the tattoo industry, the decision provides some clarity about the boundaries of copyright protection when artists create tattoos inspired by existing photographs or artwork. The fair use finding for the Process Images suggests that documentation of the tattooing process may receive some protection under copyright law, though each case will depend on its specific facts.
The case was argued and submitted to the Ninth Circuit on July 14, 2025, in Pasadena, California, with the court filing its opinion on January 2, 2026. This timeline reflects the typical appellate process duration in federal courts.
Von Drachenberg's victory represents a significant win for the tattoo artist, who has built a substantial business empire around her artistic talents and celebrity status. The case demonstrates the complex legal landscape that emerges when traditional copyright principles meet modern forms of artistic expression and social media documentation.