# A Tattoo on the Wrong Back: Brophy v. Almanzar and Cardi B's Mixtape Cover

> A jury rejected a $5 million right-of-publicity and false-light suit over Cardi B's 2016 mixtape cover, which photoshopped a man's distinctive back tattoo onto a model.

Topic: Right of Publicity  |  Author: Lidiia Levitska  |  Source: Intellectual Property Law (outsideipcounsel.com)
Canonical: https://outsideipcounsel.com/blog/brophy-v-almanzar-cardi-b-tattoo-right-of-publicity/


The cover of Cardi B's breakout 2016 mixtape was deliberately provocative: a man's tattooed back, a woman crouched suggestively, and the title *Gangsta Bitch Music, Vol. 1*. The trouble was whose back it appeared to be. Kevin Michael Brophy Jr., a California man with a distinctive tiger-and-snake tattoo covering his back, said a designer had lifted a photo of his ink off the internet and Photoshopped it onto a model, making him look like a participant in the lewd image. He sued for millions. In *Brophy v. Almanzar*, No. 8:17-cv-01885 (C.D. Cal.), a federal jury sided with Cardi B on October 21, 2022, and the trial court later upheld that defense verdict and shifted fees to Brophy. The case is a modern marker of how far the right of publicity stretches in the cut-and-paste era.

## At a glance

- **Case:** *Kevin Michael Brophy, Jr. v. Belcalis Almanzar, et al.*, No. 8:17-cv-01885 (C.D. Cal.); see *Brophy v. Almanzar*, 2020 WL 8175605 (C.D. Cal.).
- **Court:** United States District Court for the Central District of California; Judge Cormac J. Carney presiding.
- **Posture:** Jury trial culminating in a defense verdict on October 21, 2022; post-trial motions denied and the verdict upheld in 2023.
- **Holding:** The jury found Cardi B and the other defendants not liable on Brophy's misappropriation-of-likeness and false-light claims; the court then ordered Brophy to pay the defendants' attorneys' fees and costs.
- **Significance:** A high-profile application of California's right of publicity and false-light tort to digitally altered imagery, testing whether a recognizable tattoo alone can establish actionable identity.

## The cover and the claim

Belcalis Almanzar — the rapper known as Cardi B — released *Gangsta Bitch Music, Vol. 1* in 2016, the mixtape widely credited with launching her career. For the cover, a graphic designer took an existing photograph of Brophy's elaborate back tattoo, a tiger fighting a snake, and digitally placed it on the back of a different, faceless man shown between Cardi B's legs in a sexually suggestive pose. Brophy, who is not a public figure, said friends and acquaintances recognized the tattoo as his.

Brophy sued in 2017, asserting both California statutory and common-law misappropriation of likeness — the right of publicity — and false-light invasion of privacy. He argued that even without his face, the unique, fully documented tattoo made him identifiable, and that the raunchy composition falsely implied he had participated in or endorsed it. He sought roughly $5 million in damages, later describing the tattoo at trial as his "Michelangelo."

## What the defense argued

The defendants countered that the cover did not actually depict Brophy at all. Only the tattoo was used, grafted onto an entirely different body; the model's skin tone, build, and hair differed, and Brophy's face never appeared. On that view, a reasonable viewer would not understand the image to be Brophy, defeating the "readily identifiable" requirement at the heart of a misappropriation claim. The defense also pressed that the artwork was a transformative, expressive use rather than a straightforward commercial exploitation of Brophy's identity.

On the false-light claim, the defense maintained that because the image was not recognizably Brophy and was understood as provocative cover art, it did not place him before the public in a false and highly offensive light. The collision was between Brophy's theory that his singular tattoo functioned as his identity and the defense's position that a tattoo divorced from his body and face was just an image, not him.

## The verdict and aftermath

After a trial in the Central District of California, the jury returned a defense verdict on October 21, 2022, rejecting both the misappropriation and false-light theories. The jurors were not persuaded that the cover misappropriated Brophy's likeness or portrayed him in an actionably false light. Brophy moved for a new trial and to overturn the verdict, but Judge Cormac J. Carney denied the motions, finding the request both untimely and without merit, and declined to disturb the jury's findings.

The court went further, ordering Brophy to pay Cardi B's attorneys' fees and costs — a notable consequence for a plaintiff who had demanded millions. The outcome did not announce a sweeping new rule; it was a fact-bound jury determination. But it offered a practical lesson on the limits of identity claims built on a single body feature when the person's face and body are absent and the work is contested as expressive.

## Open questions

- **When does a tattoo equal identity?** The verdict shows the theory can reach a jury, but it leaves unsettled how distinctive a feature must be, and to how many viewers, before a likeness claim succeeds without a face.
- **How transformative is digital recompositing?** The case did not produce a definitive appellate ruling on whether Photoshopping a feature onto another body is sufficiently transformative to defeat publicity claims as a matter of law.
- **What standard governs altered imagery?** Cut-and-paste and AI-assisted compositing will keep raising the question of which doctrinal test — identifiability, transformativeness, or false light — does the real work.

## Implications

- **Identifiability is the threshold fight.** Misappropriation requires that the plaintiff be readily identifiable; using only a feature, without face or body, makes that element hard to prove.
- **Juries decide close identity questions.** Whether a tattoo or other trait signals a specific person is often a fact question, and reasonable jurors can find it does not.
- **Losing big can cost more.** A plaintiff who overreaches on damages and loses may face a fee-shifting order, raising the stakes of pursuing publicity claims to trial.
- **Designers should clear source imagery.** Lifting photographs of real people's tattoos or features for commercial art invites litigation even where liability ultimately fails.
- **Altered imagery is the new frontier.** As compositing and generative tools spread, expect more disputes over recognizable fragments of real people stitched into new works.

## Frequently asked questions

**What was Cardi B sued over?**
Kevin Brophy sued over the cover of Cardi B's 2016 mixtape *Gangsta Bitch Music, Vol. 1*, which used a Photoshopped image of his distinctive back tattoo grafted onto a different model in a sexually suggestive pose. He brought misappropriation of likeness and false-light invasion of privacy claims and sought roughly $5 million.

**How did the case turn out?**
A California federal jury returned a defense verdict for Cardi B on October 21, 2022, finding no liability. The trial judge later denied Brophy's post-trial motions to overturn the verdict and ordered him to pay Cardi B's attorneys' fees and costs.

**Can your tattoo make you legally identifiable?**
Potentially. Brophy argued his unique full-back tattoo identified him even though his face was not shown. The case shows the theory is viable enough to reach a jury, but the jury was not persuaded that the cover misappropriated his identity or placed him in a false light.

## Authorities and sources

- Loeb & Loeb case summary, *Brophy v. Belcalis Almanzar*: https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2020/12/brophy-v-belcalis-almanzar
- Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity, "Cardi B Wins Jury Verdict against Tattooed Plaintiff": https://rightofpublicityroadmap.com/news_commentary/cardi-b-wins-jury-verdict-against-tattooed-plaintiff/
- Billboard, "Cardi B Wins Trial Over Mixtape Cover Art, Tattoos": https://www.billboard.com/pro/cardi-b-lawsuit-rapper-wins-mixtape-cover-tattoos/
- Rolling Stone, "Judge Upholds Cardi B's Victory at Back Tattoo Trial": https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/cardi-b-back-tattoo-cover-art-kevin-brophy-victory-upheld-1234653688/