Guy Who Did Mike Tyson's Tattoo Sues Warner Bros. For Copyright Infringement

from the well-that-was-quick dept

Fri, Apr 29th 2011 6:33pm — Mike Masnick

It really was just a couple of weeks ago that we asked the (we thought) hypothetical question of who owns the copyright on a tattoo, and noted it would be a good question for a law school exam. We did mention one case, but it was settled out of court. Now we may have another. Apparently the artist who designed the tattoo on Mike Tyson's face is suing Warner Bros. and seeking an injunction to block the studio from releasing the upcoming movie The Hangover 2. In that movie, Ed Helms apparently ends up with a tattoo quite similar to Tyson's (Tyson appeared in the first Hangover movie).

The tattoo artist, S. Victor Whitmill, did in fact register the design with the Copyright Office, and even got Mike Tyson to sign a release making it clear that Whitmill retained the copyright on the work. I would think that Warner Bros. has a number of potential defenses here, including parody fair use. It's certainly difficult to claim that this movie in any way diminishes the market for the original tattoo. My guess is that there may be some sort of quick settlement with Warner Bros. paying off Whitmill to make this go away, which is exactly what Whitmill wants. However, if it does go to court, we can see how good all of you were at answering that law school exam question we posited...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, ed helms, mike tyson, tattoo, victor whitmillq
Companies: warner bros.

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Honest Injun, 29 Apr 2011 @ 6:59pm

Tattoo ownership
How will this choad win when he aquired the design from Tā moko, the Māori face marking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 29 Apr 2011 @ 9:32pm
  
  Re: Tattoo ownership
  The same way Disney gets to own the copyright on its derivatives of European, Asian and American folk tales, I guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
indeciSEAN (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 7:07pm

From what I can tell, it's not even a very close replica - I think Warner could easily let this guy try and take them to court, only to be laughed out.

A shitty tribal tattoo is still just a shitty tribal tattoo, it just so happens few enough people are stupid/crazy enough to put them around their eyesocket and so we recognize what they're going for, with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Apr 2011 @ 7:17pm

Does the artist also get to cash in whenever some entity publishes a picture of Mike Tyson wearing the tattoo in question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SUNWARD (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 7:36pm

simple solution in the future
actors will not be allowed to have tattoos if they appear in a movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 30 Apr 2011 @ 6:14am
  
  Re: simple solution in the future
  Or they will have to cover their tattoo with something if they wish to appear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Oizo, 30 Apr 2011 @ 11:51pm
    
    Re: Re: simple solution in the future
    Think Teal'c and the hat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - McCrea, 1 May 2011 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: simple solution in the future
    Like blur out Tyson's face everytime he's on T.V.?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 29 Apr 2011 @ 9:25pm

what so special about it?
its just a new zealand Maori style tatt, nothing new here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 29 Apr 2011 @ 11:06pm
  
  Re: what so special about it?
  That'#s the issue, it's been around longer than copyright itself has. The question is can you copyright Art?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 30 Apr 2011 @ 6:16am
    
    Re: Re: what so special about it?
    Not when it is part of a cultural identity and has been used by MANY MANY people over the years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oded Burger, 29 Apr 2011 @ 10:18pm

Relevant caselaw
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/70/497885/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2011 @ 11:53am
  
  Re: Relevant caselaw
  Merely FYI, the rule within the federal courts is that a decision by a circuit court of appeals is binding only with the area of the US where the court has appellate jurisdiction. Presuming the case is pending in California, which is located within the 9th Cirsuit, a decision by the 2nd Curcuit is not binding. Of course, it may be relied upon by any other circuit for its analysis of the legal issues addressed in the opinion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2011 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Relevant caselaw
    Merely FYI, I've never seen so many different ways of spelling circuit in one comment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bigpallooka (profile), 30 Apr 2011 @ 3:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Revellent coleslaw
      Dreary FYI, I've never seen such a pointless post reply..........except maybe this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2011 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Relevant caselaw
      ;)
      
      I make no claim to being a good typist...but looking past that the reply is otherwise accurate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
theskyrider, 30 Apr 2011 @ 3:32am

Warner Bros deserves it.
I have no sympathy for Warner Brothers or any copyright maximalist and the organizations they front. (RIAA, MPAA, You name it.)

They started this with their mine! minE! miNE! mINE! MINE! MINE! crap.

Let me tell you a story. "Once upon a time, a young girl who also happened to be an aspiring artist, walked into a museum with her sketch pad. She proceeded to sit in front of an artwork and make a copy of it on her pad. As she drew, an evil security guard admonished her for trying to copy famous art. The aspiring artist was not only crushed but escorted from the museum. The end."

Moral here? You tell everybody everything is copyrighted, (which is what the guard seemed to think), expect to be sued when you copy an idea. They opened this can of worms.

Making a strong point of copyright (IP) in trade negotiations is why Columbia is getting sued for showing the brief virtual destruction of some some statue in some country in South America.

Reap what you sow.

)Pretty soon fart and burp noise styles will be copyrighted and people will be afraid to pass gas in public.(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrLemurBoy, 30 Apr 2011 @ 7:27am

I know this lawsuit seems silly, but maybe he's just trying to save face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 30 Apr 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  I see what you did there -.-
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 30 Apr 2011 @ 4:55pm

Tat
Give it up! Nice try. Just a money grubbing move....again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coughing Monkey (profile), 1 May 2011 @ 5:24am

Mike's ink
If clowns can have their faces patented so may tattoo artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sailor Jerry's Intellectual Property, 1 May 2011 @ 6:50am

(C) copyright mark of the beast on a tatto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sailor Jerry's Intellectual Property, 1 May 2011 @ 6:54am

(C) copyright mark of the beast on a tattoo
Dammit! Double post!

I've seen an arm tatoo that included a (C) symbol, a date, and the tattoo "artist's" name. It was on a guy that I believe to be especially stupid, so I wasn't surprised by it. Especially Stupid Guy got this tattoo at least 8 years ago, in South Western Colorado. The tattoo didn't look particularly original to me, but I'm not an expert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billy Wenge-Murphy (profile), 1 May 2011 @ 11:05pm

That's a pretty stupid design; the kind of thing a kid draws in their notebook in math class

(Am I still allowed to say that when it's "cultural"?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dena drake, 28 Jun 2014 @ 6:50pm

There should be no laws for getting a tattoo that some one else had money hungry people in this world tattoo work is art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
funnymaker, 8 Mar 2015 @ 4:07am

Tattoo_Freakz
popular designs own creation that is fantastic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]