A tattoo may be permanent, but the artwork behind it can raise questions that have little to do with skin. Who owns a tattoo design? Can an artist use someone else’s photograph as a reference? And what happens when a tattoo based on copyrighted artwork is shared online or used to promote a business?
These questions have returned to the spotlight through a closely watched U.S. copyright case involving tattoo artist Kat Von D and photographer Jeffrey Sedlik. The dispute began after Von D used Sedlik’s well-known photograph of Miles Davis as the reference for a tattoo. Sedlik argued that the tattoo reproduced protected elements of his photograph without permission. The case eventually went to trial, where a jury found in favor of Von D and determined that the tattoo was not substantially similar to the photograph for copyright purposes.
The case became even more interesting in 2026. In January, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the result, but two judges raised concerns about how the court evaluates “substantial similarity” in copyright disputes. Their opinions questioned whether the existing approach gives juries too much freedom to decide whether two works have a similar overall look and feel, even when many individual creative elements appear to have been copied.
Then, in June, the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc, meaning the case will be considered by a larger panel of judges. The January appellate opinion was vacated, and the new hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026, in San Francisco. That means there is currently no final Ninth Circuit ruling from the January decision that can be treated as controlling precedent.
The case matters because tattooing sits in an unusual place between art and personal expression. An artist can transform a reference image into something designed specifically for a person’s body, but that does not automatically answer whether the original creator’s copyright has been respected. The question becomes even more complicated when a tattoo artist posts the finished work online, uses it to promote a studio, or builds part of their professional reputation around it.
For tattoo artists, the dispute highlights a practical issue that is becoming harder to ignore: using a reference image is not necessarily the same as having permission to reproduce it. A photograph found online may be easy to access, but accessibility does not make it copyright-free. At the same time, tattoo artists regularly adapt references through changes in composition, shading, scale, placement, and technique, making the line between inspiration and copying difficult to define.
The discussion also affects clients. Someone may choose a photograph because they love a particular pose, expression, or composition, without realizing that the image itself may be protected. Asking an artist to recreate it as closely as possible can therefore create a very different situation from asking for a tattoo that simply captures a similar idea.
What makes the Sedlik case particularly important is that it could help clarify where that line sits. The Ninth Circuit’s upcoming en banc review could influence how courts approach the relationship between copyrighted images and tattoos, as well as how much creative transformation is enough when an artist turns an existing work into body art.
For now, the question remains open. But the case shows that as tattooing becomes increasingly recognized as a serious creative industry, copyright is becoming part of the conversation too. The next chapter may determine whether the law sees a tattoo primarily as a new work of art, a reproduction of the work that inspired it, or something more complicated in between.
