Kat Von D Copyright Battle Over Miles Davis Tattoo Ends in Victory

Kat Von D's five-year copyright dispute over a photorealistic Miles Davis tattoo ended in her favor when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Los Angeles jury's verdict on January 2, 2026, but the case has since generated legal turbulence that every working photorealism artist should track.

The lawsuit, Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg (No. 24-3367), was filed in 2021 by California photographer Jeffrey Sedlik against Katherine Von Drachenberg and her studio, High Voltage Tattoo. Sedlik alleged that Kat Von D had infringed the copyright in his iconic 1989 portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis, originally published as a JAZZIZ magazine cover story and later featured in Life magazine's "Pictures of the Year." The image, which shows Davis holding a finger to his lips in a "shush" gesture, has been commercially licensed for posters, T-shirts, and art prints. The alleged infringement stemmed from a tattoo Kat Von D inked for free on her friend Blake Farmer in 2017, using Sedlik's photograph as a reference and tracing it on a light box.

The Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel parsed the case into three distinct infringement categories: the finished tattoo, a tracing and sketch made during the design process, and a set of social-media "process posts" in which the original photograph appeared in the background. The Los Angeles jury had already found in January 2024 that the tattoo, the sketch, and four social-media posts were not substantially similar to Sedlik's photograph. Four additional process images that directly reproduced the photo were found substantially similar, but the jury ruled those qualified as fair use. The Ninth Circuit's January 2026 per curiam opinion affirmed all of it.

The case did not land quietly. Two concurring judges, Wardlaw and Johnstone, wrote separately to challenge the Ninth Circuit's "intrinsic test," which asks whether an ordinary observer's gut reaction to the "total concept and feel" of two works suggests similarity. Both judges stated they would have found substantial similarity between the tattoo and the photograph had they not been bound by that precedent. The critique raised an immediate question: if the intrinsic test itself is doctrinally flawed, the verdict it protected may rest on shakier ground than the outcome suggests.

That uncertainty is now playing out in real time. Sedlik filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on February 17, 2026, asking the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider the ruling. The court ordered Kat Von D's team to respond, which they did in March 2026. A decision on whether to grant en banc review remains pending.

For photorealism artists, the practical lesson is immediate, regardless of how that petition resolves. This case demonstrated that legal exposure in reference-based work is not confined to the finished tattoo. The tracing step and any process documentation posted online each attracted their own independent infringement analysis. Studios that photograph work-in-progress sessions and post them to Instagram are creating a separate record of potential liability, distinct from the piece on the client's skin.

If the full Ninth Circuit takes up the case and overhauls the intrinsic test, the legal shield that ultimately protected Kat Von D may not hold for the next artist sued over a photographic reference.