I'm honestly not the most knowledgeable in this, but from what I can see it's actually two separate issues. The first was the actual tattoo, but the second was

I'm honestly not the most knowledgeable in this, but from what I can see it's actually two separate issues. The first was the actual tattoo, but the second was the instagram posts using the tattoo and picture. I could be wrong, but I feel like, as for the issue of the tattoo itself, that's going to end up amounting to nothing. The publicity pictures on the other hand may be more of an issue. As far as my very ignorant opinion, likely not based on reality or laws goes... Copyright on a photo should apply to direct copies being used in in ways photos are typically used. Paintings, tattoos, etc. of photos should not fall under 'usage of a photo' as far as copyrights go. It's ridiculous. It doesn't matter how photorealistic somebody can paint a picture, it's still not the same picture. It's not identical, the medium is not the same, and they're not even competing for the same...I guess...pool of money?...I dunno how to word that...but they don't tend to interfere in eachother's markets. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.