May 24th, 2011
03:33 PM ET
Tattoo lawsuit won't stop 'Hangover II' release
If you’ve got pre-gaming plans for the release of “The Hangover Part II,” don’t cancel them: The movie will head into theaters on Thursday without a hitch.
The movie's opening wasn’t always so crystal clear, however, since the tattoo artist who gave Mike Tyson his memorable face art brought a lawsuit against Warner Bros. for copyright infringement at the end of April. As seen in the trailer for “Hangover Part II,” actor Ed Helms wakes up to find similar ink on his face.
The tattooist was seeking an injunction to halt the release of the highly-anticipated film, but that attempt was unsuccessful. According to the Hollywood Reporter, a judge presiding over the case declined to stop "Hangover II's" release, although the case will move forward.
On Monday, two Warner Bros. execs testified in the federal court hearing, claiming that the injunction would cause “irreparable harm” since the studio’s already dropped $80 million to market the movie. THR reported that same day that "The Hangover Part II" is tracking to bring in more than $100 million at the U.S. box office during its opening weekend.
The judge noted that while an injunction would cause too much stress on the studio and the movie theaters planning to screen the movie this weekend, Whitmill does have “a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of this case.”
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."
soundoff (151 Responses)
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About this blog
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.
Your kid can talk with his best friend at sided of your day without so you can allow a house.
How much money accomplish I want so you can
spend on walkie talkies. It's very easy to be able to forget just what little electrical charge is necessary to power these types of important items.
i would get a soccer ball with a 1 on it and doellr signs on either side of that or just a tatto of General Zapata.ooooohh ik ik ik, get a pic of a toco! hahahahaha. jk jk jk jk. umm maby get like a crusafix or however you spell it.References :
revia 50mg online purchased
Just another guy trying to live off of someone else's money. He'll win, no doubt about it, but he doesn't deserve it. He's probably been waiting all his life for an opportunity to sue a large company.
The guy has a copyright on the tattoo. It is truly illegal for anyone to use that design. He is going to win his lawsuit.
The ONLY reason this tattoo has any value is that it is now a symbol of Mike Tyson.....I think Mike should be getting paid here, the artist was already paid by Mike when he got the tattoo. Or they should calcuate the value by what Mike Paid at the time (how can you sue for Millions over a tattoo and then try to stop the release of the move?). Do you think this artist just came up with this art all on his own? Might be neat to search other eye tattoos and see where this artist stole the original idea from. The real value comes from Mike Tyson and his fame....nothing to do with this artist (if so, where are his other famous works?, yeah, I never heard of this artist before either). Shame that the American dream is now a scratch off lotto tix, or a lawsuit...never about what it used to be IMHO. Fun to go through Every tattoo this artist ever did and make him pay up for all the infringements he owes, but never paid anyone (tattoo artists around the globe would learn to hate this guy if you had to register tattoos to prove any new tattoos given were copyright free).
The word of the day is...Frivolous
I have a new 'Seal Team 6" tattoo... I hope Disney doesn't come after me
Is DC comics going to sue Shaq over his Superman tattoo??
....Lets sue the artist that helped steal it....maybe it was this same guy!! LOL
GOod article on exposing the idiot execs for outright lying! After the judge already declaring in a court me law that the tattoo artist has a strong case against then.
In the creative sector it seems the execs have reached a level me "hot nothing? .. lie!"
Be patient man,.if the film does bring in that much money, you will reap more than the "mother load" This Judge could have done you a great favor! He also seems to have prepared them for you good financial fortune! This could be one of the very best examples of he who laughs last,laughs Best! Maybe WB can make that the sequel!
Marilyn Horsley – I Love this shoot!!! I so Love your work, and the way you capture the feilengs of your subjects. What a Beautiful couple and the locations are just fantastic! 10 thumbs up!!
Do films like hangover encourage or influence young people to engage in substance abuse?
so what if helms actually got this tat from a diff artist in between films on his own time just for himself? would it still be infringement if used throughout the movie and they somehow wrote it into the storyline from the very beginning of the movie? i know this isnt the case but just a thought.
Who is this tattoo artist so I am sure I never go to him. Really? The UGLY "artwork" is a bunch of lines my 5 year old could draw. I am so sick of people being so greedy! He needs to get over himself!!!
Does this mean that I owe George Lucas money because of my Yoda tattoo?
Well if some0ne want a tattoo let them get it...its gest going 2 mess up their body...n y do people care.
Get the hell outta hear! if thats the case the Mari people should sue the tattoo artist that did it because hes not even pacific islander & thats a tribal thing. he shouldnt get any money for it!!!!
Just desire to say your artcile is as surprising. The clearness in your post is just cool and I could assume you're an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the gratifying work.
Could he sue everyone who photographed and published Mike's picture with the tattoo?
Excuse me but how do you copyright a private person's face, each and every person you put a tatoo on is not going to be the same, just because we are human beings and are all different.And, like hell, he put his tatoo on Mike Tyson cause he purchased it and for him to get noriety he probably gave ole Mike a good price and proabaly tried to talk him out of it at first..I keep thinking of all the women with a tatoo of a butterfly at the tail of their backsides, who or which tatoo artist is going to so sue who..>>> this is so rediculous, how can anyone own a design on a persons body to not duplicate in movie, saturday nite live, or a standup mimicking someone without someone coming out of the woodwork to gain financial worth.. this world is really going to hell if we are not there all ready...
Well looking at both tattoos there is a slight difference between them so its not an exact copy. Yes they are pretty similar but still different. As long as they give credit to what inspired the tattoo its not really breaking the copy right law since it obviously isnt the same exact tat.
Gee, and I was gonna get a tattoo on my face, too. Good thing this came along. I sure wouldn't want to get sued.
@ssshhhhh- great comment! ABOUT SUMS IT ALL UP YALL.....HUSH!
I have a tattoo of Calvin from Calvin and Hobbs. Don't tell anyone. I'd hate for my tattoo artist to get sued
O My GauD Kurt !!
why didn't Hines get a blog after he WON DWTS?? You all have been shoving it down out throats all season but he doesn't get ANY acknowlegdment when he won?? There would have been 3 stories in Kirstie had one. Why the snub??
This Guy Is Worried About Grammar Right Now!! Someone Put HER In The Restroom !!!!!!
Yeah, sure....and you see that the artist "signed" his face like a canvas?!?! Please. Ive never heard such s***! And, he didnt have a copyright when original was put on tyson's face. So tell your two friends that there are about a million copies of their tat as well (like other comment stated Taz, etc.....go sue em'!
This is rediculous. It's a temporary tat to make fun. Good Lord. What does the movie "make" from using this tattoo?? Some laughs....WHOA! What an infringement!
good I can't wait lol
Aren't tattoo artists constantly inking tattoos that are the same as or similar to the tattoos being inked by other artists? And don't many of them incorporate unlicensed copyrighted/trademarked characters, names, slogans, and logos? For a tattoo artist to claim he owns the rights to a paritcular tattoo is pretty dumb. Does this guy really want to live by the precedent that would be established if he wins this case?
@conrad shull- lol thats a good one!
Who cares if youve seen copies of others tats...lil wayne, kobe....???? Sure. But, at any rate a copy is a copy. If you change it 20% there is no infringement. Do you really think the execs that made the movie didnt think about that??? Come on. And the new zealand islanders dont care...and who cares if we borrow art from that culture??? How many fake picasso and mona lisa copies are out there without this idiot saying they are his??? Its b.s.
I had a Hangover LONG before either of these movies were made. I want MY MONEY!
A tattoo is pretty much the DEFINITION of a work for hire. As such, the artist shouldn't enjoy any IP protection for this work.
I don't see any merit to this case. If successful, it will simply become reason number 8,000,008 to ignore the ridiculously mismanaged copyright system of this country.
Fair use has a posse.
Before release, Warner Brothers should spend a million bucks to digitally alter the tattoo in the movie to the point where it is sufficiently unique to enable them to tell the tattoo artist to go fkcu himself.
its just a movie, come on people its not like he really got the tattoo. plus even if he did really get it, who cares! why do tattoo artist display the tats and have them on their walls in thier studios for people to get. those aint copied. Judgement day is here we are fighting over a fake tattoo lol
Who cares, Isn't Tyson in this movie. The artist work is done. Tyson paid for the tattoo so there fore its his.
It's a Maori warrior tattoo, he can't copyright something that's been used previously before. Those tats are signature of New Zealand islanders. s
EVERY tattoo artist has done a tat of a Warner Bros character at some point (usually Tazmanian Devil). WB should counter sue!
It is only copyright infringement if it is an exact copy. Everyone's face is dIfferent so no matter what happens the tattoo will look different. In music some songs have similar tones or words, but not exactly. It is almost impossible to copy a tattoo exactly because of the lines in someone's face. Lool at Tyson he has a huge head, this guy's head is smaller and it lays out differently. It may look similar but in many cases before similarity gets you zero
And the best picture CNN can provide fails to show the tattoo?
Someone else out there is sporting the same " tribal tramp stamp" on their back, neck, or wherever else. He has no right to say that a pic that was chosen off a wall or out of a book is his and should halt the movie....opportunist idiot!
Maybe the tribal peoples of New Zealand should file suit against the tattoo artist.
...funny in any language....
If anybody who uses the birthday song in any type of film has to pay WB because they pretty much own it, then it shouldn't be such a big deal that WB has to pay an artist for making money from his work.
Ok good. Im glad to hear that the movie will be allowed to go on. I am also happy to hear that this lawsuit will continue. U cant just steal and take whatever u want becuz u have a movie with high acclaim. They should just paid the artist b4 they did it
If it was copyrighted then the copyright symbol should have been tattooed on Mike Tysons face. Good luck explaining that to Tyson.
All this controversy with the movie (the trailer, the cameos, etc., and now the tattoo) makes me wonder if it's even worth it to have had a sequel to 'The Hangover'.
But in this day and age, it's the controversy that brings in the big bucks.
this is a win win for the artist. the relation with his work and its use in the second movie clearly shows... its not just a random image you doodled at work and ramdomly appeared in a movie. big coorporations like WB making billions knows something like that would fine its way back to them (just hoping the guy would be happy with the bulicity), and knows they will pay to make it go away. so copyrighted or not this guy will get paid. They don't play fair if you think you might be right you should sue these big wigs... got nothing to lose doesn't hurt to try..
What is it with Americans and advantageous lawsuits? Ridiculous.
Dude get over your self, so that means that every movie or tv show that shows ink (like a tribal that everyone gets)can get sued?
FYI – This way more than just 100k. We're talkin millions... Warner Bros screwed up.
They will settle. I'm sorry but this tat is to freakin similar and the movie is clearly taking the Tyson ink and using it in the movie. Warner Bros got busted.
What's sad is this dude will probably get an enormous settlement $100,000 or more...probably 10 times more than he could ever hope to make off his copyright tattoo.
This is so pathetic that we can just sue for whatever we want. I would like the media to shine the spotlight on him for a while...until he crumbles, cracks and fades under pressure.
The Hangover movies are for stupid people. And for lonely women who get off on men looking stupid. And for losers who like looking at that fat, bearded moron's naked butt. And for people who've never heard of Porky's (same stupid thing). Warner Bros. will make a lot of money, but not off smart people. Hangover = Stupid.
The only R-rated 'bro-comedy' that I MIGHT consider to be funny is the one that purportedly started it all, 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin'. But other than that, I agree with you.
My momma took one.
Ok im just wondering why anyone cares what happens i mean it really dosent effect anyone but the company and the artist i mean its like reading about celebritys its retarted to argue over this cause our opinions/Thoughts dont affect what happens ok he wins or loses big deal its still retarted to go on about something you cant change or help
and you just gave your oppinion... based on your thinking you shouldn't comment on why we share our oppinions either
ITS A BLOG
Its a tattoo. Can this dude prove that not one other artist ever drew that design n maybe no retard wanted it on his face. Tattoos might be something new in the USA but all over the world its been done for thousands of years prove that not 1 artist made that same drawing since tattoos started thousands of years ago. Do not pass go do not collect 200$
@Ted Nugent, why do you think they are stupid? You put them in places where people don't really see it's ok. One don't have to look like a freak like the chick in LA Ink...just saying. I have three but I do have to say as I get older, I would have thought otherwise to getting them. They are not big and ugly..thank God (tasteful so to speak).@John, bet it stunk.
I wanna see vixens tats 😉
Its a simple concept, intellectual property. Its not so common for a tattoo design to be copyrighted, but this one was, and it is legal to copyright ones artwork. He'll win the case. Its no different than if someone swiped a famous wall hanging then tried to make money selling it, they'd be successfully sued as well.
The movie makers have entire legal departments meant to avoid issues like this. Someone didn't do their homework, and he'll get a nice paycheck for their violation. Good for him, and smart move covering his famous work.
I bet the legal department thought tattoos are public domain since you really can't sue one artist for inking another's design (no clear monetary gain since you only charge for time and materials). But, in this case, he'll win because it's someone using his design to generate money, not reproducing a tattoo. I think case could go through a lot of appeals and set some more guidelines on public domain.
It definitely could be interesting, the arguments made.
Just on the base issue though, I'm a professional artist, so I get the inner workings of legally "owning" your work, and the protections of artists works by law, even when not copyrighted. If a work is "public domain," it inherently means the creator of that work has zero control over it. However, going through school and working in the artistic field, I know for a FACT that if I swiped something, say from the internet, and used it to call something my own, I would be successfully sued by the creating artist if I made a single cent on what I used it for. This movie is out to make money, there's really no other purpose for making movies.
He'll win the suit, and the copyright just cements his ownership of the creation.
Getting dry humped by a donkey to the tune of Happy Birthday doesn't make you a professional artist.
It's not identical and tattoos are stupid anyway.
While the conversation about what qualifies as copyright is spot on, you are leaving out some important criteria for proving "infringment." The act has to involve stealing another's design and, if you want monetary reward, using that design or creation for financial gain. Tattoo artists would have a good argument that they aren't charging for the design, just the materials and time needed to create it. That is the same argument used by company's who create "customized" products like vinyl cellphone skins. The creators of the film, however, are using the design to further a financial goal (i.e. Make you laugh so you'll tell others to pay to watch the movie).
Most tattoo artists might only charge for the time and material, but when speaking about famous people, they DO in fact charge for name branding and priority. Its artistic work, its intellectual property, and he legally copyrighted it. Whether it seems odd or not, he's got the right of way in a court case.
The only out for the studio is if the reproduction is different *enough* to qualify as more an indication for the joke of it referencing Tysons. If its very similar though, they might not be able to argue comedic license.
We are not paying to watch him because he has a tattoo on his face and frankly it did not matter what kind of tat was on his face. It would of been even more funny if he had woken up to a unicorn on his face or somehitng in that nature not a tribal tat. or whatever it is supposed to be. OPPS apparently the tatoo artist ripped off the tribal people who been doing this long then he has been alive! If he does not want others to get ideas off of his tat or copy it then he needs to get out of the profession and all the templets that the tatoo artists have in their shops need to come down because they are not all created by them! they were created by somone else. They are selling them and gaining monetary gain. THey sell them for hundereds of dollers. So they are guilty and so is he of doing what he is sueing for.
Some of the grammar on here makes me wonder if you all are drop-outs.
Complaining about grammar on a public forum makes me wonder if you've ever used one before.
When they load a "spell check" feature on here, let us know, kay?
Grammar is not fixed with a spellchecker. Retard.
The irony is that you prove my point even as you miss it, numbnuts.
Some of the replies on here makes me wonder if you all are drop-outs...
This Art of using your lawyer to get rich has to End. We are losing as a whole when this is taught to one another.
More Lawyers= Less Jobs
Realistically I think this guy should be compensated. For exactly the same amount he charged Mike Tyson, minus the labor of actually putting the tattoo on.
Its a copyrighted work, and he should be compensated the same way any broken copyright is compensated.
After examining mike Tyson's face in a picture, I can not find on the "artwork" tattooed on his face and head, displaying a Copyright symbol or word, with the artists name, signature, or company and year. How else is the studio reasonably to know, if the copyright is not properly and publicly displayed on Tyson's face or head? The judge is incorrect, no case here.
You're right, he IS a money grubber. However, he is not required to put a copyright symbol on any work he has created. He IS legally required to protect his copyrights from infringement if he does not wish to lose those rights though. According to previous stories, the artist had an explicit written agreement with Tyson in which the artist retained all rights regarding the tattoo and artwork.
It's a cheap shot at a settlement, but if he has the copyright, and can prove it (all he'd need is the contract with Tyson and a good lawyer), he'll probably cash in. Unfortunately, that's how law works here.
I love when people try to segment artistry they don't appreciate. EVERY artist enjoys intellectual protections by law, at least in the civilized parts of the world. This artist copyrighted his work, and protecting that work does not make him a "money grubber." The personal insult you ASSUME ignores the point that the studio had no legal right to reproduce his work without his permission. Thats how copyrights work, if you didn't know. The studio goofed, and its on their own heads if they have to pay out to the artist they wronged.
Hey boys and girls can you say money grubber?
If his work was that original/important to begin with why wasnt it patented/copyrighted as soon as Mike Tysons face was finished? As a writer I make sure all my work is protected at all costs. If he is a true artist he would too. I think the man just saw easy dollar signs.
This so called tattoo artist should have used the movie as an advertisement to his artwork instead of an indesperate call to his poor income. I really hope he gets nothing but a FOOT UP HIS REAR END! Freaking sorry artist, so sorry....
this is just silly. there are so many people with similar tattoos. the amount of flower, tribal, or cross tattoos is insane. if this guy gets anything, even a settlement, the court systems are going to be really sorry. there will be so many tattoo lawsuits nothing else will get done. i have tattoos and know it's impossible for any thing i have or get to be truely original. anyone who has or does tattoos should know that.
All this guy is looking for is a big payout! For the tattoo to be copy-righted, doesn't that mean he has to apply for a
copy-right? Com mon here, this guy just wants money on someone else back! Geetz Louise!
No, it doesn't.
Dude just wants more money. Just like everybody else.
Thats ridiculous! The tattoo artist shld b thanking the the movie production. Even if its a copy of his work, He will get so much business from it. He shld b happy.
What a Dick. So what Thay used a desighn. Stop a movie for that. If anything he should be happy he's getting free Pub. Some body tell that Dick head. Treat it like gum in his hair and cut it out.
this is stupid. argue about something that matters.
well thatll opn up the door for disney....how many ppl have that tatood on them....wasnt that design....from hawii tribes man? second lawsuits are becoming rediciulous....
Flash art covers the walls of tatoo parlors,he just saw dollar signs but forgot the studio has way better lawyers...
Warner should go into the guys tattoo shop and determine if any of the Looney Tunes characters are on display as options for tattoo's. If the tattoo artist in question does not pay a license fee to reproduce those characters, then Warner Bros should demand repirations for every infraction.
Another option, as this is clearly a play on the original Tyson appearance in the first Hangover movie, it is then a parody; and therefore protected under fair use. A similar lawsuit regarding the character Spa-am (pig character) in Muppets Treasure Island was sought by Hormel and struck down as a parody and protected fair usage.
Does the tatoo have a trademark? Did the artist think this is a way to get his 15 minutes of fame?
i dont have any tattoos and the force is with me.
Yeah, but Aunt Beru told me about that Tinkerbell you had Dremeled onto your metal butt-plate...
Does this give the studios permission to sue every tattoo artist out there who put Tweety Bird or Betty Boop on someone's rear side? I'm going to take a wild guess that a lot of character tattoos were not paid a royalty. If I were him, I'd be wary of opening that can of worms.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. People will think of anything to make money without the hard work. This is what I hate about humanity.
its an interesting case. the tattoo artist owns the artwork. this issue will likely be decided by the context that its used in the movie – i suspect that there will be direct reference's to mike tyson's tattoo as inspiration to Ed Helms art. If thats the case the artist will probably have a valid case. As to the producers assertion that the artist invalidated his rights to sue because Mike Tyson and his Tattoo appeared in the first movie seems like a stretch. Mike Tyson is a public person and appearances with a facial Tattoo are reasonable and expected. I think we will see a "settlement" with a non disclosure agreement before this gets too far.
It's funny cause he fat.
I think we're missing the point, it isn't really a tattoo on Ed Helms face, its makeup, so are we not allowed to play make believe without copyright infringement?
FUNNY AND TRUE...ITS NOT EVEN REAL....
Nothing's stopped The Hangover 2, not Mel Gibson, not Liam Neeson, and certainly not some tattoo artist nobody knows or cares about.
Chuck Norris could stop Hangover II...
So if I get a tattoo on my ass, my ass becomes a legal copyright property of some tattoo artist?
Ok what they should have done is given the actor a tribal arm band tattoo so that way he would be more original and less likely that someone else has the same tattoo.
LMAO This is by far the best comment on the page!
Someone needs to copyright the word "tattoo" boss de plain, boss de plain!!!
Gee, whoever came up with the idea to put "Mom" on a tattoo should be very wealthy if this guy wins his case!
Turn about is fair play...The movie companys all sue whenever they feel like they have been infringed upon, either real or imagained, so why not sue them for a change.
Fans of star trek: voyager know that a character on that show had a similar tattoo, before tyson. The producers of the hangover can easily claim that was the original inspiration. Not to mention thr original cultural source of such face tattoos; maybe the maori should sue...
Chakotay right? Hmm maybe the creator of the show should sue the tattoo atrist who gave tyson the tattoo ... then the maori could sue the creators of star trek voyager ... and so on and so forth ... people are pathetic
There's just one problem with that, Star Trek Voyager didn't have any fans.
Similar in that it was a tattoo on his face, maybe, but not really similar. Do a google image search for all three tats and you will see that Chakotay's is very different while the other two are very, very similar.
What's next, haircuts?
Next will be plastic surgery, visible dental work, eyeglasses, breast enhancement, etc.
Really? They really let people bring lawsuits against anything now a days. He shhould be honored they used the tattoo as it will just bring the guy more publicity. But so do lawsuits I guess. Im going to copywright fart noises...
HI Our Good Friends. : ) I hope everyone is doing good. Gosh it has been hot outside.
Ted, I have a fire in my bunghole...will you put it out?
Hi Ted, Peace! @Peace, finally the sun is out today 🙂
I hear ya, Ted. Needles & I don't mix !
Lots of people really like them but i guess they arent for me.
Whats that women? Same here. Ted, what is your gay phone number.
If this case is allowed to win, it will open up lawsuits to too large a class of people; every tattoo artist will have the right to demand damages from another tattoo artist who makes the same design; does it encourage independent artistry? Yes. Does it allow "trends" to develop? No. It protects the "original" artist, but the chances of ever determining who that is conclusively would be next to impossible.
Next to impossible indeed. Inking or tatts are a copyright infringement because very little work is original, there's always an inspiration. As fast as a tatt its finished its copied.
If he didnt copyright it then it should be fair game. Any tattoo person can legally copy it as far as I know. (but then I am an ignoramous)
Ted... no – Copyright is instant but the burden to prove your copyright is harder if you don't register.
Straight from the Government's copyright page
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
and who's to say that another artist couldn't have drawn the same design? kinda like the cross that every person in the world gets.. you know the one.
Except it wasn't designed by anyone else, it was designed by this gentleman. And it appears to meet the critera for a copyright (and was granted one) which means while Warner may not be enjoined from showing their movie this week, they will probably be paying the artist a large settlement or judgment later. Along with companies that have made similar copies the artist chooses to sue.
So Dan, does that mean anybody who has ever published a phot of Mike Tyson is also guilty of copyright infringement? What about the first Hangover movie? Did WB get the tatoo artists permission to show Tyson's face? Gimme a break.
The fact that you only think of one person when you see that tat makes it unique. I have seens many copies of the tat's that 2pac, Lil Wagne, and Kobe have on their bodies. I never have I seen anyone with the one Tyson has, nor do I know anyone dumb enough to get one. It is not just a tat for that reason, it is a work of art and should be protected.
What about the family of the Maori warrior that originally came up with the design?
The problem isn't that you can't show Mike Tyson with the tattoo. The issue is they made a "copy" of the copyrighted material. I have 2 co-workers that have tattoo's from the same artist, and they are copyrighted as well. They are signed by the artist, just as if it was a painting. The only difference is the canvas is actually someone's body. There is nothing that says you can't display an original piece of art, or show a picture of that original piece of art. The problem would be if you try to make a copy of the piece of art without the approval of the copyright owner.
Ok, so the tatt was similar, big deal. It's not like the actor bit off anyones ear in the movie !
Lol funny! So what will be next? Is he planning a lawsuit against the Maoris in New Zealand? Their work is awfully similar to his.... Oh wait a minute... They have been doing this for a bit longer than he has.... Hmmmm...
I think the Supreme Court has already ruled that parody is an acceptable form of fair use and Copyright doesn't apply in that case. Clearly the movie is making a joke of the tattoo by putting it on Ed Helms face. They'll probably pay this guy off in the end to make it just go away but if it went up through the courts I think he'd lose in the end.
Great!! I'm looking forward to seeing this. It's got to better than that Herr Mel Gibson movie where aged Mel works a puppet for an hour screaming at a child to button his shirt so nobody will see his chest.
Suddenly reminded of Eddie Izzard.
"You can't claim this land. We live here. 500 million of us!"
"Ah, but do you have a flag?"
"We don't need a flag. This is our home!"
"No flag, no country! That the rule .... that, uh, I just made up"
Shouldn't he pay the studio for advertising? He could owe them millions!
Seriously? There are other things in this world to be worried about. How about send the money you paid to the attorney for this ABSURD lawsuit to some charity or recovery efforts in Tuscaloosa, AL or Joplin, MO????