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

This is topic Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Artist Sues To Halt Release of ‘The Hangover Part II’ in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007243

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-02-2011, 04:28 AM:

quote:
Read more after the break.

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

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 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.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 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.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 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

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 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.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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).

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-06-2011, 11:30 PM:

Hollywood.....wackiness ensues.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 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.