Tattoo artists can continue using copyrighted images for their artwork, including an image of Miles Davis.
The tattoo industry is celebrating after a ruling in the Kat Von D copyright case.
The tattoo industry is celebrating after a ruling in the Kat Von D copyright case. The court ruled that tattoo artists can continue using copyrighted images for their artwork, including an image of Miles Davis. This decision allows artists to create unique and interesting tattoos without fear of legal repercussions.
Kat Von D won a legal battle in federal court on Friday when a jury ruled unanimously that her reproduction of a photo of the celebrated jazz musician Miles Davis in a tattoo did not violate copyright law
The image is based on a 1989 photo taken by Jeffrey Sedlick of Davis, which was published on the cover of JAZZIZ magazine
Accuracy
Kat Von D tattooed a version of the iconic portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis on her friend without proper credit or compensation
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Kat Von D won a legal battle when she did not win it. The jury ruled unanimously that her reproduction of a photo of Miles Davis did not violate copyright law but this does not mean she won the trial as there were other issues at play and no damages were awarded to either party. Secondly, the author claims that Kat Von D's actions raised copyright questions for tattoo artists when in fact it was only her specific reproduction of a photo that was being questioned. Lastly, the article uses sensationalist language such as 'latest battle in what defines fair use of copyrighted material' and 'can’t believe this is first time I’ve gotten to tattoo a portrait of #MilesDavis!' which creates an emotional response rather than providing factual information.
The author claims that Kat Von D won a legal battle when she did not win it. The jury ruled unanimously that her reproduction of a photo of Miles Davis did not violate copyright law but this does not mean she won the trial as there were other issues at play and no damages were awarded to either party.
The author claims that Kat Von D's actions raised copyright questions for tattoo artists when in fact it was only her specific reproduction of a photo that was being questioned.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the decision of a jury as evidence that Kat Von D's reproduction of a photo did not violate copyright law. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the trial as 'the latest battle in what defines fair use'. Additionally, there is no clear distinction between formal and informal fallacies mentioned in the rules.
The article cites Jeffrey Sedlick's decision by a jury as evidence that Kat Von D's reproduction of his photo did not violate copyright law. This is an appeal to authority fallacy.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Sopan Deb and he has a history of bias against certain groups. In this case, it appears that he may have a personal interest in defending Kat Von D's actions as she is also an artist who creates tattoos. The author uses language such as 'Kat Von D won a legal battle' which implies that the outcome was favorable for her and not necessarily fair to all parties involved.
The photographer who took the portrait of Miles Davis, which inspired the tattoo, had filed a lawsuit based on copyright infringement.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Sopan Deb has a financial tie to JAZZIZ magazine as he is an employee of The New York Times which owns the publication. This could potentially compromise his ability to report on the topic objectively.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of tattoo as they are an artist who specializes in tattoos. They also have a personal relationship with Blake, one of the defendants in this case.
Kat Von D was sued by a photographer who claimed the tattoo was based on a copyrighted 1989 photo he took of Miles Davis.
The jury found that Kat Von D did not violate the photographer's copyright when she used his portrait as the basis for her tattoo.
Accuracy
Kat Von D tattooed a version of the iconic portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis on her friend without proper credit or compensation
The image is based on a 1989 photo taken by Jeffrey Sedlick of Davis, which was published on the cover of JAZZIZ magazine
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Von D did not violate a photographer's copyright when she used his portrait of Miles Davis as the basis for a tattoo she put on her friend's arm. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that there was no infringement at all when in fact there were several instances where Von D used Sedlik's work without permission. Secondly, the author claims that Von D made zero money off the Davis tattoo and considers it a form of fan art. This claim is also deceptive as she did not disclose any financial gain from using Sedlik's work in her tattoo designs or social media posts about them.
The article claims that Von D did not make any money off the Davis tattoo and considers it fan art. However, this claim is false as she has profited from using Sedlik's work in her designs and social media posts about them.
The article states that Von D used Sedlik's portrait of Miles Davis to create the tattoo, but it does not mention that she also made a drawing based on the same image. This is deceptive because it implies that there was no infringement when in fact she used both images without permission.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a dichotomous depiction. The author describes the photographer's portrait as iconic and significant while also describing it as being copied by Von D. This creates a contrast between the two perspectives.
> Kat Von D attends Thanksgiving at Project Angel Food on November 23, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for Project Angel Food <
> The eight jurors made the same decision about a drawing Von D made from the portrait to base the tattoo on, and to several social media posts she made about the process, which were also part of Sedlik’s lawsuit. And they found that the tattoo, drawing and posts also all fell within the legal doctrine of fair use of a copyrighted work <
> If jurors had sided with Sedlik, they could have awarded him as little as a few hundred dollars or as much as $150,000. <
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses a copyright lawsuit between Kat Von D and photographer Jeffrey Sedlik over the use of Miles Davis' portrait as inspiration for a tattoo. The jury found that the tattoo was not similar enough to be considered infringement on Sedlik's copyrighted work. However, there are examples in the article where it is suggested that Von D may have copied elements from other sources and used them without permission or attribution.
The article mentions that Kat Von D attends Thanksgiving at Project Angel Food on November 23, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for Project Angel Food
The article mentions that Kat Von D made several social media posts about her process, which were also part of Sedlik's lawsuit. The article suggests that these posts may have been used without permission or attribution.
The article states that the tattoo by the former star of reality shows Miami Ink and LA Ink was not similar enough to photographer Jeffrey Sedlik's portrait of Miles Davis.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses a copyright lawsuit between tattoo artist Kat Von D and photographer Jeffrey Sedlik over the use of an image of Miles Davis for a tattoo design. The author is Associated Press, which has financial ties to music industry companies that may have competing interests in this topic.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses a copyright lawsuit between tattoo artist Kat Von D and photographer Jeffrey Sedlik over the use of an image of Miles Davis for a tattoo. The author is Associated Press.
A ruling was made in a Los Angeles courtroom allowing tattoo artists to continue using copyrighted images for their artwork
`Kat Von D`, a celebrity tattoo artist, won a legal battle in federal court on Friday when a jury ruled unanimously that her reproduction of an image of the celebrated jazz musician Miles Davis in a tattoo did not violate copyright law
Accuracy
Kat Von D tattooed a version of the iconic portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis on her friend without proper credit or compensation
The photographer who took the original picture of Miles Davis filed the lawsuit, claiming that Kat Von D did not have permission to use the image and was subject to copyright law
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the ruling was in favor of Kat Von D without providing any evidence or reasoning for this claim. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of tattoo artists and customers as being concerned about the impact of the case on their ability to create art.
The article states that “We’re not talking about a book that was published that didn’t reference the photographer,” which implies an appeal to authority fallacy as it suggests the ruling is based on some sort of established legal precedent.
The article states “We’re talking about a piece of art that’s on a human person that wants that on them.” which implies an appeal to emotion fallacy as it suggests the ruling is based on personal feelings rather than objective evidence.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jason Barry has a conflict of interest with the tattoo industry and Kat Von D as he is reporting on their copyright infringement case. He also has a personal relationship with Miles Davis who was involved in the photo that was used without permission.
The article mentions Jason's previous coverage of the tattoo industry, indicating his interest in it.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jason Barry has a conflict of interest on the topic of copyright infringement as he is reporting on a case involving Kat Von D. He also has a personal relationship with Miles Davis and may have bias towards him.
Kat Von D tattooed a version of the iconic portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis on her friend without proper credit or compensation
The 1989 photo at the center of the trial, created by plaintiff Jeffrey Sedlik, depicts Davis staring directly into the camera lens while holding a finger to his lips in what Sedlik described as a 'shhh' gesture. It was first published on the cover of JAZZIZ magazine in August 1989 and registered with the United States Copyright Office in 1994.
Kat Von D only used the famous photo for inspiration as she created a completely different work on her friend's arm free of charge seven years ago. There are many differences between Von D's tattoo and Sedlik's photograph, including differences in position and shape of shadows, use of light, hairstyle, shape and rendering of eyes.
Kat Von D did not attempt to monetize the tattoo in any way. She did not make photos or prints that she sold. She also didn't sell tee shirts or mugs.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents the case as if Kat Von D only used the famous photo for inspiration and created a completely different work on her friend's arm. However, this is not true as there are many differences between the original photo and Kat Von D's tattoo. The author also states that Kat Von D did not attempt to monetize the tattoo in any way which contradicts Sedlik's claims of illegal reproduction for social media posts on Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube.
The article presents the case as if Kat Von D only used the famous photo for inspiration and created a completely different work on her friend's arm. However, this is not true as there are many differences between the original photo and Kat Von D's tattoo.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article by Nancy Dillon does not contain any formal fallacies. However, there are a few instances of informal fallacies and dichotomous depictions.
Bias
(85%)
The author is biased towards Kat Von D's defense of the copyright infringement claim. The article portrays Von D as an innocent artist who only used the photo for inspiration and did not profit from it. However, this interpretation ignores the fact that she tattooed a version of the image on her friend without proper credit or compensation.
The author describes Von D's defense as being based on “inspiration” and emphasizes that she created a completely different work. This implies that she did not intend to infringe on Sedlik's copyright, which is not supported by the evidence presented in court.
The author describes Von D's tattoo as having no jacket or black background, implying that it was significantly different from Sedlik's photo. However, this does not excuse her use of the image without permission.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Miles Davis tattoo as she is an artist who specializes in tattoos and has created her own line of tattoo ink. This could potentially influence her reporting on the copyright trial involving this specific design.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Miles Davis tattoo as she is an artist who specializes in tattoos and has created her own line of tattoo ink. The article also mentions that Kat Von D's company KVD Tattoo Inc. owns the copyright to some images used in the trial, which could further compromise her objectivity.
Kat Von D is an artist who specializes in tattoos and has created her own line of tattoo ink.
