Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Artist Sues To Halt Release of ‘The Hangover Part II’

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Artist Sues To Halt Release of ‘The Hangover Part II’ (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Artist Sues To Halt Release of ‘The Hangover Part II’

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004

posted 05-02-2011 01:58 AM

Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Artist Sues To Halt Release of ‘The Hangover Part II’

Source: slashfilm.com

quote:
Usually it’s ink on a page that can make or break a movie, not ink on a face. In the case of The Hangover Part II though, the tattoo on Ed Helms‘ face could pose yet another problem for the sure-to-be blockbuster sequel. S. Victor Whitmill, the man who designed Mike Tyson‘s famous face tattoo which the film is obviously referencing, is asking for an injunction that would stop Warner Bros. from releasing the film because he holds a trademark on the design. Read more after the break.

The Hollywood Reporter first reported the filing of this lawsuit. Here’s the most pertinent information from the document they obtained:

When Mr. Whitmill created the Original Tattoo, Mr Tyson agreed that Mr. Whitmill would own the artwork and thus, the copyright in the Original Tattoo. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.—without attempting to contact Mr. Whitmill, obtain his permission, or credit his creation—has copied Mr. Whitmill’s Original Tattoo and placed it on the face of another actor…This unauthorized exploitation of the Original Tattoo constitutes copyright infringement.

According to the report, also attached to the lawsuit itself are several important documents including Whitmill’s copyright registration and a release signed by Tyson granting exclusive rights.

In the original Hangover, Mike Tyson had a run in with the boys after they stole his tiger and appears in several scenes sporting his trademark tattoo. In the sequel, at least from what we can tell from the trailer, Stu (Helms) gets the same tattoo in the same place as Tyson while messed up in Bangkok. It’s also being used on all the posters for the film.

The Hollywood Reporter surmises that Warner Bros., who did not comment directly, could argue that the tattoo was changed just enough (the corners are straighter in the film, but that’s about it) or that it was used as a parody, there by making it fair use. If that doesn’t work, though, there’s a chance they’d have to pay a large cash settlement in order to get the film in theaters by its Memorial Day release date. And really, we all know that’s what Whitmill is after, right?

Whenever you make a movie, people are hired to specifically clear all copyrighted images that appear – be it on clothing, posters, store fronts, etc. So it was most likely someone’s responsibility to clear that tattoo, they just probably had no idea you could trademark a tattoo.

Do you foresee this becoming an issue? Did you know that you could copyright a tattoo? And do you fault the producers for not clearing the image?

Audiences all over cheered the awesome teaser trailer that Warner Brothers released for their summer blockbuster The Hangover Part II. It announced that “The Wolfpack is back.” Now they’re really back with a full theatrical trailer.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-02-2011 04:28 AM

quote:
Read more after the break.

Another sloppy copy and paste job by whoever posts these stories.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-02-2011 10:15 AM

Warner Bros. should have known better about this. To me it looks like a clear case of copyright infringement. The question about copyright should have come up when the production chose to copy Tyson's unique facial tattoo. Any piece of artwork is automatically copyrighted the instant it is created. With the tattoo artist going to the extra trouble of trademarking the icon that makes it harder for WB to get around the issue.

I can see some subtle differences in the fake tattoo on Ed Helms' face versus that of Tyson's tattoo, but the differences aren't great enough for it to stand as a different design. Obviously the joke in the movie is that Ed Helms got his face inked the same way as Mike Tyson. Perhaps the production was just being too quick and too cheap to get the original tattoo artist involved. Now they'll probably have to pay considerably more than they would have if they had handled the issue properly.

It should also be noted that Warner Bros. has a history of suing other people for illegally merchandising their trademarks and characters (ranging from DC Comics super heroes to Looney Tunes cartoon characters). Disney, Harley-Davidson and a few others are pretty aggressive at fighting copyright and trademark infringement.

| IP: Logged

Kurt Zupin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 989
From: Maricopa, Arizona
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 05-02-2011 11:30 AM

The problem here is this guy knew about this for almost 4 months, and now with under a month before release he's come to the conclusion that he's going to sue them. A picture of Stu with the Tattoo has been online for almost that time, and its been known even longer that he was going to get it. That was one of the first things about this movie to leak.

Only reason he's sueing is to get a nice fat payday! And he'll get it and be all the happier, probably end up at the red carpet premier as well.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-02-2011 11:33 AM

This is clearly a spoof and, as such, ought to be allowed. But Warner Brothers will settle this with money because of how much they stand to lose if the movie's release is disrupted. And this publicity will certainly help the movie anyway. But if I were a meany-pants attorney for Warner Brothers I would try to find examples of Maori facial tattoos which inspired the Tyson tattoo and try to put some doubt into the ability to copyright something which was, itself, a rip-off.

I mean, Huey Lewis convinced a court that the Ghostbusters song was a rip-off of "I Want a New Drug," so anything can happen.

EDIT: Actually, that one was settled out of court so I guess all he did was convince Ray Parker Jr. and the record company that they couldn't win the fight.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-02-2011 05:52 PM

quote: Kurt Zupin
The problem here is this guy knew about this for almost 4 months, and now with under a month before release he's come to the conclusion that he's going to sue them.

No one files suit against a movie studio on impulse if he thinks he has any chance at all of winning. In some clear cut cases of copyright infringement the movie studio can still beat the plantiff on the basis of what either side can afford in court fees. They just bleed the plantiff's wallet dry on lots of procedural moves and delays.

My father could have filed suit against Sony Pictures for things they did to rip off content out of one of his non-fiction military novels for their production of Sniper. After the experience of battling in court for years against his first publisher due to no royalties being paid (he ultimately won and won back his book rights) he decided tangling with a global media company wasn't worth all the years of fighting and all the legal costs. Plus it might have ruined some possible future deals.

quote: Greg Anderson
This is clearly a spoof and, as such, ought to be allowed.

I disagree. This sequel to The Hangover is not "editorial content." It is a commercial endeavor. The fact movie studios such as Warner Bros. have to gain legal clearances to use copyrighted music, the likenesses of people in the background and so many other things just underscores this tattoo being one critical legal detail in copyright they overlooked.

And to repeat, Warner Bros. likes to sue people over unauthorized use of their intellectual properties. Maybe they should be held to the same standard.

We get people coming into my place of work from time to time wanting things like Harley Davidson logos, Wile E. Coyote, etc. made into decals for their car windows and such. We won't do it. It's illegal. We have too much to lose to get dragged into court by a major company over trademark infringement or copyright infringement. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-02-2011 06:30 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
This sequel to The Hangover is not "editorial content."

Neither are Weird Al's songs and he can definitely get away with what he does even though he seeks permission from the original artists to retain good relations. He has said so much himself. A movie can be a spoof or have spoofs within it. If we really get so stingy and tight-assed, we won't be allowed to do a damn thing without someone getting all butthurt about it and suing. We are the most litigious nation ever because we are such dumbfucks and pricks. I say to hell with these people. You put it out there, prepare for it to be made fun of. If you don't like that, well fuck you! If you are afraid of something like this, don't ever, EVER let the public see your "work".

That being said, Hangover 1 was boring as hell, part 2 is not worth my time.

quote: Kurt Zupin
The problem here is this guy knew about this for almost 4 months, and now with under a month before release he's come to the conclusion that he's going to sue them.

This is possibly a publicity stunt from the studios. It keeps it in the headlines and "controversial" which is exactly what will attract the morons who want to see this type of movie.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-02-2011 07:38 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
You put it out there, prepare for it to be made fun of. If you don't like that, well fuck you! If you are afraid of something like this, don't ever, EVER let the public see your "work".

Fear of public reaction (like "you suck" laughter) isn't the issue. One person creates the "work." Somebody else profits off the "work" without gaining permission to use the "work," much less share any profit or provide credit for the "work."

Based on some of the gripes I've seen over the years more than a few people believe any and all artwork created should just be free for everyone to use. Fuck that. I'm not doing my day job and freelance work for free.

I would have more sympathy for the "defendant" in this case if the movie was some small independent production. Being that it is Warner Bros. they know better. They sue other people over this shit. In doing so, they need to be better prepared when they break the same rules.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-02-2011 07:55 PM

quote: Kurt Zupin
The problem here is this guy knew about this for almost 4 months

If you're within the statute of limitations there's no problem, legally. If you are sued by someone and argue that "he waited too long", the judge's hands are tied to determine that they didn't if he had filed within the required time frame.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-02-2011 08:26 PM

Timing here isn't the issue. In fact, the guy could have sued after the movie's theatrical run (after knowing how much money the movie will have earned) and then attached a specific pay-off price. But trying to stop the movie from getting released makes the studio more desperate to settle this.

In Australia, a publisher sued because they said Men at Work's song "Down Under" ripped off part of a song used by the Girl Scouts. This lawsuit happened just a couple of years ago! (Maybe you should have sued when Men at Work still had money... just sayin'.) The songwriter is dead but the publisher is claiming damages. And a judge bought it. [Roll Eyes]

You Tube video of the Australian News Report

| IP: Logged

Kurt Zupin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 989
From: Maricopa, Arizona
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 05-03-2011 03:13 AM

I'm not saying he isn't within his rights to file when he did or what not, Fox did the same thing to Warner Brothers when they were doing "Watchmen" Fox waited untill the movie was already filmed and ready to be released and then filled a lawsuit saying WB had no right to make the movie and that they could not release the movie. That fox owned the rights and WB had stolen it.

I'm just saying its nothing more then a move because they know that they are goign to do just about what ever they need to to make sure it gets released on time. Paying what ever they might have to do.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-03-2011 04:57 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
One person creates the "work." Somebody else profits off the "work" without gaining permission to use the "work," much less share any profit or provide credit for the "work."

It's a different work of a parody nature. Otherwise Mike Tyson should be sued for appearing in the first movie and making money off of his face tattoo. Let the tattoo stay. I don't see any copyright notice on his face.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-03-2011 10:26 AM

But the tat on the actor's face is neither derivitive nor a parody -- it's nearly an exact copy. A parody would be if they they changed the tattoo in some way to look funny or weird or in some way be different enough to make some kind of statement. This isn't. And no way anyone could say it doesn't look almost like an exact copy of Tyson's tat. To say turning up the corners slighly saves them from infringment is like saying if you were to hard mask a DVD copy of a WB 1.85 movie slightly more, to say, 1.89:1 and release it, that this would not be the same work; it won't fly.

Boo hoo, WB is being asked to play by the same rules it uses to protect its own material and under which, as everyone knows, they won't hesitate for a second to bring the fully power of their legal department to crush any alleged infringers (although Disney wins this crown hands down).

Was it intentional or just stupidity? Doesn't matter, the copyright law is a harsh mistress -- it cares not. You step in it for whatever reason and you've got really bad stink on your foot that will cost you BIG TIME to clean off. This guy will negotiate HANGOVER II points, wait and see, unless WB arranges for him to have an unfortunate accident....oh, sorry, that would be The Rodent.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-03-2011 07:11 PM

Why didn't Mike Tyson get sued? He is displaying and profiting from the tattoo all the time! As far as I'm concerned, Mike owns the tat. I think copyright laws are going too far in this case. It's a DAMN TATTOO! Maybe the idiot tattoo artist should have also signed and copyrighted the tattoo on Mike's face, that way there's no question.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Fuck that. I'm not doing my day job and freelance work for free.

So if one of the billboards you designed appeared in a movie, would you sue? Or should the billboard be blurred out? I see that all of the time these days... stuff blurred out. It's really distracting and detracts from the enjoyment of whatever I am watching. And it's all there because people in the US are so incredibly sue-happy. Instead of free advertising, we feel more and more entitled to everything. No wonder our youth is growing up with such a sense of entitlement... they are getting it from the idiot adults who want money for everything! But in the case of the billboard, the decision would not be yours, it would be the decision of whoever paid for the billboard. If Mike was complaining, then I would understand.

| IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 05-03-2011 07:45 PM

A few years back I played Something More, a movie that was filmed in Regina, the largest city near here ("near" meaning about 100 miles away).

Even though it wasn't much of a movie, I had some pretty hefty crowds because "How many times do you get to see Regina on the big screen?" Everyone had lots of fun figuring out what each building was and so on.

If everything was hidden and blurred out, nobody would have come to see it.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.