Judge: Hangover 2 Can Still Be Released; But Tattoo Artist May Prevail In The End
from the fair-use-is-dead dept
About a month ago, we wrote about tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill suing Warner Bros. for violating his copyright on the tattoo on Mike Tyson's face, since a similar tattoo is used on Ed Helms' face in the movie (Tyson also appears in the movie, but I guess that use is somehow "licensed"). There was some attention paid to the fact that Warner Bros. made a "fair use" claim in its response to the lawsuit, but the entertainment industry regularly claims fair use, so that didn't seem all that odd or surprising. The key early question was whether or not the judge would issue an injunction, halting the release of the movie this week, which would have cost Warner Bros. a ridiculous amount of money considering all of the marketing going into the release.Thankfully, the judge has denied the request for an injunction, meaning that the movie will still be released. However, she does note that Whitmill has "a strong likelihood of ultimately succeeding on the merits of the case." I find that to be a bit troubling as well, but we'll see how the case goes. Of course, if you accept that fair use is not a right, but just a defense, it is possible to see how Whitmill may succeed in showing infringement, while Warner Bros. could still win with a fair use defense. Still, the whole thing seems pretty ridiculous. If Whitmill still wins, he could receive a large chunk of money in an award and could still get an injunction for future releases (DVD, cable, etc.). Over a parody tattoo.
Of course, there's a clear element of Warner Bros., a leading proponent of stricter copyright enforcement, being hoisted on its own petard, in this case, but it seems unlikely that anyone at Warner Bros. has the self-awareness necessary to recognize that its own constant refrain about the importance of "protecting" copyright is part of what now puts it in this position.
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 whitmill
Companies: warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
I'm sure WB is so big that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and WB's legal department comes up with the crap they do to ensure their long-term survival.
If only the petards were some of the ignorant politicians and media writers whose lip service supports the big entertainment cause, we would be getting somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
The word you were looking for there to describe politicians is "retards".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
If by "small bomb" you mean politicians, "gates and walls" you mean the Constitution, and "fortifications" you mean the US; then yes, I can see it. I've seen less legitimate reasons to repurpose a word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
1590–1600; < Middle French, equivalent to pet ( er ) to break wind (derivative of pet < Latin pēditum a breaking wind, orig. neuter of past participle of pēdere to break wind) + -ard -ard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
Thanks for the intights, er insights. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Hephaestus on May 24th, 2011 @ 11:53am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, but - Piracy!
I'm particularly interested in the shitstorm (legal and possibly physical) that will erupt when the guy who came up with the teardrop prison tattoo learns of this - imagine the reaction of the murderers when they learn they're wearing unlicensed ink!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, but - Piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, in order for it to be a work made for hire, both the tattoo artist and Mike Tyson would need a mutually agreed upon written contract. It is doubtful that this contract exists.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly in this case, is that the Tattoo would have to be "for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas". I don't think tattoos would fall under any of those categories.
Remember, just because you paid someone to create something that is copyrightable, does NOT mean you own the copyright. And because of the categories allowed, even if you do have a contract, still doesn't necessarily mean you own the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. Knock it off.
If you're going to try your hand at armchair lawyerism, try harder. "The thing was done for money" is not the legal definition of "work for hire"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to review your definitions, Mike. Parody, "humorously exaggerated imitation". Clearly this was a 1:1 copy or a clear attempt to be, as the picture you posted showed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Haven't we learned already that the big studios are all greedy whores?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your conclusions is right, though. I see no reason why that tattoo would be considered "parody" under any definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? My first thought was that this was an obvious parody and fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rather, it just seems to be a joke that Ed Helms got a Mike Tyson face tattoo before his wedding.
I guess you could argue that his freakout shows the ridiculousness of getting a face tattoo, and therefore it's a criticism of the original face tattoo, but that doesn't not seem like an obvious slam dunk argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
excellent
2) Sue WB
3)??
4) profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The tattooist moaning about the breach of copyright copied it off Maori. Bit rich to be claiming someone stole his 'design'."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short, the guy is a hypocrite and a thief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hnfph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tattoo/skateboard art infringing?
http://www.paradoxstudios.com/paradoxstudios.com/Toys_For_Tots.html
Not to mention this--->
http://www.paradoxstudios.com/paradoxstudios.com/victor/Pages/airbrush_art.html#9
an d this-->
http://www.paradoxstudios.com/paradoxstudios.com/victor/Pages/airbrush_art.html#7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]