Copyright
gets under your
Skin.
Copyright
gets under your
Skin.
of
Can a tattoo artist engrave a design that a customer brings in on her smartphone – without asking where it came from? Does it make a difference if the tattoo artist makes minor changes to the design? And who bears the risk if, in the end, it is not clear who owns the design?
Screenshot as a template
An artist is a tattoo artist and designs individual motifs – always tailor-made for individual customers, never re-licensed, never reused. In August 2020, she published a drawing on Instagram: the face of a woman with striking eyes, an individual neck pattern and a mandala in the background.
In March 2023, a customer turned up at the tattoo artist’s studio with a screenshot of this design on her smartphone. He traced it, engraved it on her upper arm and posted the result on his own Instagram channel. The artist recognized her work, contacted a lawyer and demanded compensation.
Tattoo as a work protected by copyright
The Cologne Local Court had to rule in its Judgment of 22.12.2025 – Ref. 137 C 162/25 first clarify the question of whether a tattoo design can be protected by copyright at all? The court answered in the affirmative if the motif is an expression of a free and creative decision and stands out from purely handcrafted routine products. The court considered this hurdle to be clearly overcome in this case.
The female face in dispute has several individual elements: the particular neck and décolleté pattern, the characteristic earring, the mandala in the background and the specific design of the eyes, eyebrows and hair. All of this is an expression of personal artistic decisions, not a mere craft routine.
The artist’s authorship was also beyond doubt after her personal interview. She was able to describe in detail how and for whom she had designed the motif.
Anyone who reproduces a copyrighted tattoo by means of a copy or plagiarism without the author’s consent infringes the tattoo artist’s right of reproduction.
Neither good faith nor customer orders are an excuse
The copying tattoo artist tried to defend himself by claiming that he did not know who the author of the motif was. Furthermore, he had only implemented his customer’s wishes. The judges did not accept either argument.
Anyone using copyrighted works must first make sure that they are authorized to use them. This is part of the industry-specific duty of care, which is even stricter for professionals than for laypeople. The fact that a customer brings a motif does not mean that she also has the laws to it. Anyone who fails to check this is negligent and liable.
The changes made to the neck and headdress did not change anything either. The court found that all of the defining elements had been adopted and that no significant differences were recognizable.
The calculation of damages: license analogy plus infringer surcharge
The court calculated the damages according to the so-called license analogy. Anyone who uses someone else’s intellectual property without permission must be treated as if they had acquired a license and paid for it accordingly.
The court set the fictitious license fee for the tattoo itself at 750 euros. This was based on a standard industry hourly rate of 175 euros on average (range: 100-250 euros) multiplied by an assumed processing time of five hours. The court also took into account the fact that the motif is permanently visible on the customer’s skin and therefore also has an advertising effect for the copying tattoo artist, and that the photo of the tattoo was made available to a wide audience via Instagram.
A so-called infringer’s surcharge of 100 percent was added for publishing the photo on Instagram. Anyone who posts someone else’s work online without naming the author is infringing their personal rights, namely the law on recognition of authorship. This surcharge is recognized in case law and is particularly significant for tradespeople because the artist is economically dependent on her visibility as a tattoo artist. This resulted in a further 750 euros for the Instagram publication.
What does this mean in practice?
Your own designs are protected. Tattoo artists who create individual designs enjoy copyright protection, regardless of whether a licensing practice exists.
Customer request does not release the customer from the obligation to check. Anyone who engraves a motif brought in by a customer must ensure that no third-party copyrights are affected. In case of doubt, asking is mandatory.
Small changes are not enough. Anyone who takes over formative elements of another person’s work infringes copyright, even if details have been changed.
The risk lies with the tattoo artist if he uses other people’s designs. Good faith does not protect against liability, even if one wanted to assume it. Copyright usage rights cannot be acquired in good faith.
And the customer?
The ruling deals exclusively with the behavior of the tattoo artist. However, customers can also commit a copyright infringement through their tattoos, namely if they themselves publicly disseminate corresponding images of them on social media. This is a case of making available to the public, which goes far beyond the private sphere.
Conclusion
Tattoo artists are well advised to be careful when dealing with motif templates from customers and not to use third-party templates. Prosecution of this infringement is often likely to fail because the author is unaware of the illegal tattoo. However, many people post their tattoos on social media. This not only documents the infringement, but can also lead to further claims by the author.
We are happy to
advise you about
Copyright!
