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 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

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

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 05-04-2011 12:18 AM

I don't get it. Don't companies PAY to have their crap seen in a movie? Why would they insist it be blurred out? Or does the production company blur it out if the product company refuses to pay them for the product placement? Seems like a viscous circle.

As for this Tyson tat, the tattoo is no different than any other copyrighted image. To to make it really clear, what if it was an image on the actor's face that was a near replica of a Disney character? It's a copyrighted image, doesn't matter if it is changed slightly or even substantially, if it is recognizable by most people, it's over.

So if they put that Disney image on an actor's face as a tattoo, could you imagine any scenario where Disney wouldn't persue a suit against WB? Sure as used car salesmen are nothing but pond scum slime, you know they would. Same thing here, just instead of Disney, its this tattoo artist, but the copyright law protects him just as much as it protects Disney. Only difference is, he doen't have three floors full of lawyer henchmen on payroll.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 05-04-2011 10:19 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
Maybe the idiot tattoo artist should have also signed and copyrighted the tattoo on Mike's face, that way there's no question.

It's not necessary to stick the "©" symbol on a piece of artwork. The copyright is automatic the instant it is created. Artists can pay to register their work to have written protection. There's a number of other methods artists can use to protect their work without going through the trouble of registering it. In this case, the tattoo artist went so far as to register the facial tattoo as a trademark.

quote: Joe Redifer
So if one of the billboards you designed appeared in a movie, would you sue?

Not if the movie shoot was done on location and the actual billboard was standing in the background. On the other hand if the movie production created a studio set and reproduced my billboard design as part of the set decoration without my permission then hell yes I would sue.

Likewise, there was no problem in the first Hangover movie showing Tyson's tattooed face. They crossed the line when they deliberately duplicated the same design onto Ed Helm's face without the tattoo artist's permission.

Speaking of the "it's just a tattoo" thing: tattoo art is actually a fairly big business. "Coop" is one of the big guys in that field and makes a good amount of money selling his "flash" to other tattoo shops. Linky Linky The guy is also known for busting tattoo shops who use his art sheets without paying for them.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 05-04-2011 04:10 PM

Frank, what if some random dude got a real tattoo of a Disney character on his face? Would Disney sue him every time he went out of the house? Even when you get a tattoo removed, you can still see it unless maybe you go the skin-grafting route.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-04-2011 10:33 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Frank, what if some random dude got a real tattoo of a Disney character on his face? Would Disney sue him every time he went out of the house?

1) They'd sue the tattoo parlor
2) They'd sue him if he was getting money from having the tattoo.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 05-04-2011 10:43 PM

Hell, Disney would OWN that tattoo parlor and OWN the piece of skin that was formerly on that guy's tattooed face.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 05-05-2011 01:25 AM

Chris, how would they find that tattoo parlor?

Also, what if he was getting paid to appear on shows, but not for having the tattoo? For example, if Al Pacino got Mickey Mouse tattooed on his forehead and he appeared on Conan o'Brien to promote a Dreamworks movie (an appearance he'd be paid for) and no mention was made of the tattoo because it was old news by then. Sue? (Yes, I love ridiculous hypothetical situations).

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-05-2011 11:43 AM

They'd send a guy masquerading as a tattoo enthusiast and ask him "Where'd you get that kickass tattoo?! I want one similar to that." Then they'd sue...

And they'd still sue the guy that's getting paid, arguing that at least a portion of it was due to the tattoo. Like if I had an album of music that had, say, a couple popular hits of mine plus some other compositions and one song of yours which I didn't obtain the rights for, I would have to pay a (arguably small) portion of the album sales to you.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-06-2011 01:39 PM

I think Disney actually likes it when people get their characters tattooed on them. I read an article in a Disney magazine once about a guy who had Disney characters tattooed on just about every visible square inch of his body, except his face. No mention of any lawsuits.

I think the up-shot of this whole story is the tattoo guy will get paid off by WB. What else could happen? It's not like they're going to go in and digitally alter the tattoo throughout the movie. It would be cheaper to pay the dude off.

WB will get paid back when the movie goes to VOD and sells a couple dozen streamings. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 05-06-2011 08:21 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
It would be cheaper to pay the dude off.

Not to mention quicker and much, much easier. I'd hate to be the guy who gets assigned to CGI-ing that guy's face in every scene.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 05-06-2011 11:30 PM

Hollywood.....wackiness ensues.

| IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Film God

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

posted 05-24-2011 01:18 PM

Hangover 2 can be released with Tyson Tattoo, Judge says

quote:

'Hangover 2' Can Be Released With Tyson Tattoo, Judge Says (Update)
Published: May 24, 2011 @ 7:52 am
By Tim Molloy

A St. Louis federal judge has ruled that "The Hangover 2" can be released on schedule this week despite a tattoo artist's lawsuit over the inclusion of a Mike Tyson-style tattoo on the face of Ed Helms' character.

But the tattoo artist is claiming victory because the judge said he had a strong likelihood of ultimately winning his copyright claim against Warner Bros.

Pete Salsich, an attorney for artist S. Victor Whitmill, said U.S. District Court Judge Catherine D. Perry declined his motion to prevent the release of the film this weekend because innocent third parties -- theater owners -- would be harmed.

But Salsich said the judge agreed in open court that the copyright claim was strong, saying, "Most of the defendant's arguments against this are just silly. Of course tattoos can be copyrighted."

Warner Bros. said in a statement: "We are very gratified by the Court's decision which will allow the highly anticipated film, 'The Hangover Part II' to be released on schedule this week around the world. Plaintiff's failed attempt to enjoin the film in order to try and extract a massive settlement payment from Warner Bros. was highly inappropriate and unwarranted."

Whitmill contends that the Maori-inspired tattoo was copyrighted at the moment of its creation and that he registered the copyright later. His lawsuit, filed in St. Louis because he now lives in Missouri, sought to stop Warner Bros. from featuring the tattoo in its advertising or in the movie. Whitmill also seeks damages for "reckless copyright infringement."

In the film, to be released Friday, Helms' character wakes up after another rough night to discover the new tattoo. The image has been featured in almost all of the advertising for the film.

Tyson, who appears in the original "Hangover" and its sequel, has stayed out of the legal dispute.

| 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.