I can imagine that, but I see it as a derivative work so it'd be fine with me. I'm not a famous or professional photographer, though.
I would be touched and honored beyond belief that anyone cares about my work enough to have it permanently inscribed on their skin to carry it with them through life and into death. And to have a talented artist doing the inscription would be beyond belief.
I'm not saying the photographer ought to feel that way, that's just my reaction as Joe Schmoe.
There's no harm to the marketability of my art. Frankly, the person getting tattooed probably cares more about it being Miles Davis than it being an exact replica of that photo. If I made a stink, they'd just change the tattoo design enough to be fair use. Make it Miles Davis doing "hear no evil" instead of "speak no evil" or something.
I just don't see this tattoo taking anything away from the photographer, so I don't see a need for Kat Von D to pay.
Moreover, it's fine for Kat Von D, who can afford a legal team and probably charges enough to have them verify that a tattoo doesn't infringe. Your average $75/hr or $100/hr artist doesn't have those options, and will be open to being bombarded with copyright claims of varying quality, including trolls.
> So is transferring a picture to a r-shirt, yet there we recognize the rights of the artist.
This is notably different because it is often a literal digital copy. I have had T shirts made, you can just send them a digital image. I didn't have to transcribe it or put in any effort.
> It’s funny that if someone was copying her original tattooes the she would obviously be arguing that it was infringement.
I don't think this is particularly relevant. Kat Von D can be both a hypocrite and not guilty of copyright infringement. I also think there's a difference between transcribing art between formats and imitating a piece of art in the same format.
Paraphrasing a book is very different than converting it to a play.
I would be touched and honored beyond belief that anyone cares about my work enough to have it permanently inscribed on their skin to carry it with them through life and into death. And to have a talented artist doing the inscription would be beyond belief.
I'm not saying the photographer ought to feel that way, that's just my reaction as Joe Schmoe.
There's no harm to the marketability of my art. Frankly, the person getting tattooed probably cares more about it being Miles Davis than it being an exact replica of that photo. If I made a stink, they'd just change the tattoo design enough to be fair use. Make it Miles Davis doing "hear no evil" instead of "speak no evil" or something.
I just don't see this tattoo taking anything away from the photographer, so I don't see a need for Kat Von D to pay.
Moreover, it's fine for Kat Von D, who can afford a legal team and probably charges enough to have them verify that a tattoo doesn't infringe. Your average $75/hr or $100/hr artist doesn't have those options, and will be open to being bombarded with copyright claims of varying quality, including trolls.
> So is transferring a picture to a r-shirt, yet there we recognize the rights of the artist.
This is notably different because it is often a literal digital copy. I have had T shirts made, you can just send them a digital image. I didn't have to transcribe it or put in any effort.
> It’s funny that if someone was copying her original tattooes the she would obviously be arguing that it was infringement.
I don't think this is particularly relevant. Kat Von D can be both a hypocrite and not guilty of copyright infringement. I also think there's a difference between transcribing art between formats and imitating a piece of art in the same format.
Paraphrasing a book is very different than converting it to a play.