In 2017 Kevin Brophy, a California surfer and tattoo model, sued rapper Cardi B (Belcalis Almanzar) because his distinctive back tattoo had been photoshopped onto the male model on the cover of her mixtape Gangsta Bitch Music Vol. 1. The case went to a jury in 2022 and became a reference point on a question every label and designer now faces: when does a body part, a tattoo or an AI-generated figure on an album cover identify a real person?
This guide explains the case, compares the US right of publicity with Italian image rights, and sets out what changes now that AI-generated artwork is subject to the EU AI Act and Italian Law 132/2025. For the general framework, see our right to image guide and our image release guide.
In short
- A California jury found for Cardi B in October 2022: the tattoo was not sufficiently identifiable with Brophy, and its use in the cover was transformative.
- In Italy the analysis would start from a different place: Article 10 of the Civil Code and Articles 96–97 of the Copyright Act protect a person’s image, and courts have recognised that distinctive features can evoke a person even without a face.
- Since 2 August 2026, AI-generated or manipulated images that look like real people must be disclosed under Article 50 of the EU AI Act; in Italy, spreading AI deepfakes without consent that cause unjust harm is a criminal offence (Article 612-quater of the Criminal Code).
- For any cover distributed in Italy or the EU, clear every identifiable element: faces, bodies, tattoos, and AI figures that resemble real people.
In this guide
The Brophy case
Cardi B released Gangsta Bitch Music Vol. 1 in 2016. The cover shows her in the back of a car, drinking a beer, with a man kneeling between her legs in a sexually suggestive pose. The model’s face is not visible; his back is. The graphic designer who created the cover replaced the model’s own tattoos with part of a tiger-and-serpent back piece he had found by searching online: Brophy’s tattoo, which had appeared in tattoo magazines.
Brophy, who had never posed for or authorised the image, filed suit in October 2017 in the federal District Court for the Central District of California (Brophy v. Almanzar). He claimed misappropriation of his likeness under California common law and the statutory right of publicity, and invasion of privacy by false light, arguing that the cover implied conduct he had never engaged in. He sought at least $5 million in damages.
The verdict and what the court said
After a four-day trial in Santa Ana, the jury returned a verdict for Cardi B on 21 October 2022. The defence argued that the cover model was a Black man with visible hair, while Brophy is white with a shaved head and neck tattoos absent from the image, and that the tattoo was only one modified element in a larger composition.
In December 2022 Judge Cormac Carney rejected Brophy’s attempt to overturn the verdict. He found that the jury had an ample basis for its decision: it could reasonably conclude that the tattoo was not sufficiently identifiable with Brophy to amount to misappropriation of his likeness or a false-light depiction, and that its use was transformative, given that the cover’s economic value did not derive from the tattoo. Brophy appealed the judgment.
The practical lesson is that, under US law, a body part or a feature without the face can still identify a person, but the plaintiff must prove that ordinary viewers would recognise him, and the defendant can rely on the transformative character of the work.
The US right of publicity
The right of publicity protects a person’s control over the commercial use of their identity. It is state law and varies from state to state: California has both a statutory right (Civil Code § 3344) and a common-law tort; New York relies on its Civil Rights Law. The usual elements are use of the plaintiff’s identity, for a commercial advantage, without consent, causing injury. Courts balance these claims against the First Amendment, which is why the transformative-use defence carried weight in Brophy.
How Italian law would see it
Italian law protects a person’s image through several overlapping rules:
- Article 10 of the Civil Code: a court can stop the display or publication of a person’s image where it is not permitted by law or where it harms the person’s dignity or reputation, and award damages;
- Article 96 of the Copyright Act (Law 633/1941): a person’s portrait may not be exhibited, reproduced or put on the market without their consent;
- Article 97: consent is not required for well-known people or in contexts of news and public interest, but never where the use harms their honour, reputation or dignity;
- GDPR: an image of an identifiable person is personal data.
Two features of Italian law matter for a case like Brophy’s. First, Italian courts have accepted that a person can be identified by distinctive features that evoke them, without reproducing the face: the classic example is the case brought by singer Lucio Dalla over an advertisement evoking him through his trademark woollen cap and round glasses (Pretura di Roma, 18 April 1984). A tattoo as distinctive as Brophy’s could fall within this reasoning if people who know him recognise him. Second, a sexually suggestive context that damages a person’s reputation is exactly what Article 97 and Article 10 exclude, even where consent would otherwise not be needed.
There is no Italian equivalent of the US transformative-use defence for image rights. The outcome would therefore turn mainly on identifiability and on harm to reputation, and a cover distributed in Italy is subject to Italian law regardless of where it was produced.
Who owns the tattoo?
Brophy sued over his likeness, not over copyright. The tattoo design itself, if original, can be a protected work, and the copyright normally belongs to the tattoo artist rather than to the person who wears it. A cover that reproduces a recognisable tattoo can therefore raise two separate claims: one by the wearer for image rights, and one by the tattoo artist for copyright. Both should be cleared.
AI-generated covers: the 2026 rules
AI tools now make it easy to produce cover artwork with figures that resemble real people, or to alter photographs of real people. Two sets of rules apply in Italy:
- EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), Article 50: since 2 August 2026, those who publish AI-generated or manipulated images, audio or video that resemble real people, objects or places and would falsely appear authentic (deepfakes) must disclose that the content is artificial. For evidently artistic, creative or fictional works, the disclosure can be made in a way that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work;
- Italian Law 132/2025: it introduced Article 612-quater of the Criminal Code, which punishes with one to five years’ imprisonment anyone who causes unjust harm to a person by spreading, without their consent, images, video or voices falsified or altered with AI and capable of misleading viewers about their authenticity.
Image rights also continue to apply: an AI figure that evokes a recognisable person can engage Article 10 of the Civil Code and Articles 96–97 of the Copyright Act in the same way as a photograph. For more on AI imagery, see our guide on AI and photography.
Clearance checklist for labels and designers
- Obtain a written release from every identifiable person on the cover, including those identifiable only by body, tattoos or distinctive features;
- For composite images, clear each source element separately: the photograph, the person depicted and, where relevant, the tattoo artist;
- Require designers to declare the sources of every image they use and whether AI tools were involved;
- For AI-generated or AI-altered figures, check that they do not resemble real people and plan the AI Act disclosure;
- Be especially careful with sexual or otherwise compromising contexts, where Italian law gives the strongest protection;
- Remember that global distribution means several legal systems apply at once.
DANDI.media reviews album artwork before release, drafts image releases and AI clauses for artists, labels and designers, and handles disputes over image rights and artwork. To discuss a cover or a claim, book a consultation with Avv. Claudia Roggero or Avv. Donato Di Pelino.
FAQ
Can a tattoo identify a person under Italian law?
Yes, if it is distinctive enough that people who know the person recognise them. Italian courts protect not only the face but also features that evoke a specific person.
Do I need consent to use someone’s image on an album cover in Italy?
As a rule, yes. Article 96 of the Copyright Act requires consent for commercial use of a person’s portrait, and an album cover is a commercial use. The exceptions in Article 97 are narrow and never cover uses that harm a person’s reputation.
Do AI-generated covers have to be labelled?
If the cover contains AI-generated or manipulated content that resembles real people and could pass as authentic, yes: Article 50 of the EU AI Act has required disclosure since 2 August 2026. For artistic works, the disclosure can be discreet.
Who owns the copyright in a tattoo?
Usually the tattoo artist who created an original design, not the person who wears it. Reproducing a tattoo on artwork may therefore require the artist’s authorisation as well.
Related guides
| Topic | Resource |
|---|---|
| Copyright Law in Italy and Europe | /en/copyright-law-italy-europe/ |
| Right to Image: Protect Your Likeness | /en/right-to-image-how-to-protect-your-likeness-online-and-offline/ |
| Image Release and Consent | /en/privacy-rights-release/ |
| Preventing Image Theft | /en/preventing-image-theft/ |
| AI Photography (Eldagsen) | /en/ai-artificial-intelligence-photography/ |
| OpenAI Sora (AI legal issues) | /en/openai-sora-shut-down/ |
| Warhol v. Goldsmith | /en/prince-copyright-image/ |
Dandi Law Firm provides legal assistance in several Practice Areas. Check out our Services or contact Us!
