We’ll try to keep this short-it’s not going to work. People have their opinions on AI generated art. Many folks are suggesting boycotting tattoo shops that use AI. So we wanted to be clear on the subject, and we wanted to discuss why we’ve made this choice. If you disagree, we would gladly like to hear why we should do things differently, but we’re not getting into a shouting match online, because honestly, it’s pretty dumb.

The artists at Lighthouse Tattoo reserve the right to use any and all available technology to produce the best work possible for our clients, this includes the use of generative AI. We will use the tech to generate comps for clients so they can have their ideas fully rendered and see what they are getting (or very close to what they’re getting) ahead of time without having to pay some sort of exorbitant drawing fee. This helps eliminate any guessing games or uncertainty when scheduling an appointment to get a tattoo that may well cost hundreds or thousands of dollars. We will use the tech to generate different views of the same subject matter when rendering animals or other generic subject like gladiators or vikings or angels, stuff we get a lot of requests for and images we want to make original enough that they haven’t been done a thousand times before. It speeds things along nicely, it doesn’t tread on anyone’s toes and it does a great job of keeping costs down for our clients.

What we won’t do: Generative AI has a real problem with regard to respecting Intellectual Property (IP) and copyright. In short, it doesn’t respect it at all. While improvements are being made, it’s clear this is a function of the legal system and social pushback more than the desire of the AI companies’ to move forward ethically. Using AI to generate artwork to look like someone else made it is a bit of a problem (wait for it) and we simply will not be using AI to emulate some specific artist’s work.

However, tattoo art has long been one of paying homage to other art forms and as such, the very act of turning an existing piece of artwork into a tattoo has been ruled Fair Use as recently as 2025 in the court case Sedlik v Von Drachenberg (the tattoo artist known as Kat Von D). A summary of that case as follows: Kat von D tattooed a portrait of musician Miles Davis on a friend using a famous photograph taken by photographer Jeffrey Sedlik. Sedlik then sued Kat for putting a picture of the tattoo on Instagram without getting his permission and paying him a fee, arguing that she should have to pay him to use his photo as reference for a tattoo. Without getting into the legal weeds, the courts ruled in Kat Von D’s favor, stating that since she turned a photograph into a tattoo, that constituted enough of a change as to be an obvious instance of fair use. Since the tattoo artwork couldn’t possibly be mass produced due to it’s nature and Von D wasn’t trying to sell prints of the tattoo online or anything, that Sedlik wasn’t deprived of any income and thus was not harmed by the use of his photograph in the creation of the tattoo. Miles Davis died in 1991, FYI.

Why is this important? Because some of it applies laterally to tattoo art in general. Tattooers have been putting Mickey Mouse and the Tazmanian Devil on people for DECADES, all without fear of being sued out of business by some huge corporation because, honestly, to do so would be kind of silly wouldn’t it? First of all, most tattooers don’t have Kat Von D money (let’s be real, none of them do, that why Sedlik sued her, she’s rich), secondly, going after fans of your characters/art is pretty shitty, and last, we’re not making cartoons folks, we’re making tattoos.

In short, Tattooers have been biting off of other artforms since the inception of the artform, and easily for at least the last hundred years. Can’t tell you the number of times we’ve put a sculpture by Bernini on someone or tattooed pieces pulled anywhere from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to the middle of a MARVEL Comic book. Let’s not even get started on Pokemon and Anime characters, people love that stuff.

Also, the claim that AI is stealing because it’s learning to produce this artwork by scouring the internet is a bit obtuse. Learning from other artworks and artists is exactly what LIVING artists do.

But it’s artificial, so it’s bad, we get it. Except, is it? I mean, electric guitars make an artificial sound, sometimes wildly different than what is possible on an acoustic. What about the camera filters on our phones? Are those evil? All the while the people bitching about the horrors of AI are doing it on the largest purveyors of AI and data centers in the world: Social Media. Hmmm, hypocrisy? on the INTERNET?! Wild.

So here’s our take. If every single artist on the planet boycotted AI, it would not slow the construction of a single data center and would not change the inevitability of whatever is coming down the pike from AI for any of us. AI companies are planning for a future none of us understand but they know if they don’t get there first or produce a tangible benefit for whoever does create AGI then it poses an existential threat to their business. That, my dear friends, is why we should all be a little concerned and also why none of us can do much to stop it. How long have you been Googling stuff? Google’s search engine is a rudimentary form of AI, so is Facebook and Instagram and Pinterest. So let’s not be coy, it’s not AI that these people have a problem with, it’s the level of capability that they feel threatens them.

And we have bad news for you. It’s that same technology what killed Big John Henry.

You can’t close Pandora’s Box; can’t give fire back to the gods; can’t put the cat back in the bag. Since you can’t eliminate the developing technology and trying to do so will effect nothing, we will use it here to give our clients the best experience we can give them.

Now, so the so-called art purists out there can take a chill pill, if you don’t want us to use AI in the creation of your next tattoo, just say so and we won’t. It’s not a tool we use everyday anyway. But those people won’t be coming here, because they’re too busy threatening boycotts for tattoo shops on social media to look in a mirror long enough to see they’re being shortsighted.

To whit: Using AI or not is about one thing really, it’s about choice. Some of our clients may choose to use it to help with visualization just as some of our artists may use it to help with their busy schedule and to communicate with someone who doesn’t have our skillset. It is simply a tool and the ethical use of any tool must be considered. A blanket ban on generative AI won’t work to curb any intellectual property concerns; the environmental impact of data center proliferation; the elimination of jobs in the field of visual art (or music, for that matter); and threatening businesses who use AI is so hypocritical, hell, I mean it’s just really hypocritical. Come on.

So Lighthouse Tattoo reserves the right to use any and all available technology to create the best finished tattoo we can for our clients. If you, the client, would prefer that we didn’t while producing your artwork, we won’t. Simple as that. If you decide that you’ll never come here because we MIGHT use AI for SOMEONE ELSE’s tattoo and we’re evil because of that, honestly we really appreciate that, you sound puerile. Google it.