“Everyone is wondering how the Supreme Court will address the fair use doctrine in the Warhol Foundation case,” Branvov stated.
The courtroom discovered that the advert was not infringing.īut Warhol nonetheless looms massive over the upcoming trial. In March 2017, Von D, whose authorized title is Katherine Von Drachenberg, revealed the primary of two Instagram posts of a tattoo based mostly on a Sedlik’s 1989 of Michael Jordan and Nike’s Michael Jordan advert. The Instagram account for her Los Angeles tattoo parlor, High Voltage, has greater than 900,000 followers. Von D has parlayed her success as a tattoo artist into appearances on the fact television sequence Miami Ink and LA Ink. “It is, as far as I know, the first case in which a tattoo artist has been sued for an allegedly copyrighted image on a tattoo on a client’s body,” Aaron Moss, an lawyer at Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP, who will not be concerned within the case, advised Bloomberg. Sedlik versus superstar tattoo artist Kat Von D is because of go to trial. If you copyright a murals, does that forestall different folks from turning that picture right into a tattoo? That’s the query set to be determined by a jury in California federal courtroom, the place the case of photographer Jeffrey B.
