Mike Tyson's tattoo artist may get cash from Warner Bros. over "Hangover Part II" ink

The tattoo artist who inked Mike Tyson' face may get payment from Warner Bros. over the tattoo on Ed Helms's face in Hangover Part II. (via Chas Edwards)

• [Mister44]

  I don’t see how he has any legal leg to stand on. Marvel can’t sue me for my bitchin’ chest tattoo of Wolverine dressed as Dr. Frankerfurter.

• [GIFtheory]

  This case would have been so much more interesting if Tyson had gone through with his original plan of getting a heart tattooed on his face.

• [Anonymous]

  This guy is a total douche bag. I happen to live in the town his shop is in. Waynesville missouri. He runs paradox tattoo company on the square. He is an amazing artist ill give him that, but also one of the most stuck up Jack bags ive ever come across. Just my opinion of course

• [Anonymous]

  That guy is such a tool. As has been pointed out already, he himself called it a Maori piece, which I would have thought meant that intellectually it belongs to the Maori people, not to him. This really adds insult to injury as far as Maori are concerned as many already believe it’s wrong to appropriate the visual style of their tattoo art without understanding the (very extensive) cultural background to it. So essentially this ‘artist’ has copied indigenous artwork to make money for himself, and then tried to get even more money when somebody else copied it off him. Can’t have your cake and eat it too, buddy.

  Interesting but unsurprising to see that this side of the issue didn’t even get paid lip-service in the above article.

  • [Stooge]

    That guy is such a tool. As has been pointed out already, he himself called it a Maori piece, which I would have thought meant that intellectually it belongs to the Maori people, not to him.

    He may be a tool, but what you would have thought is completely wrong. He hasn’t copied a Maori tattoo, he’s based his design on a Maori style. That doesn’t mean Maoris own the copyright any more than Romans hold the rights to all mosaics.

    Unless the use qualifies as parody, I don’t see why he should be any less entitled to payment than any other copyright holder whose work appears in a movie.

• [Anonymous]

  Needles and Sins, which is run by a heavily tattooed lawyer has a solid breakdown of the situation:
  http://www.needlesandsins.com/2011/05/tattoo-copyright.html

  • [Mister44]

    I just read this and my head hurts and it just seems like a lot of jackassery.

    • [emmdeeaych]

      Who would have guessed that a story involving hollywood, lawyers, and mike tyson might involve a lot of jackassery? It is truly shocking to see these noble institutions stained by petty ego plays.

• [jtropp1]

  Awww…Xeni, where’s *my* Submitterator shoutout? :–(

  Does mocking Mike Tyson’s facial tattoo constitute protected “parody?” (http://mediadecoder.blog)
  S. Victor Whitmill, who penned the now-famous design tattooed on Tyson’s face, tried to enjoin Warner Bros. from releasing The Hangover II. The District Court Judge, despite noting a “strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits for copyright infringement,” will allow the movie to be released as scheduled, as the harm to the “public interest” from stopping it outweighed the harm to Mr. Whitmill. As for the studio’s attempted “fair use” defense, the Judge said: “This was an exact copy. It’s not a parody.” — By jtropp1 at 5:01 PM Tue

• [bardfinn]

  I beg to differ with the judge. The use of the tattoo was, in fact, a parody – however, it is not a protected parody, because

  A: it was not, in fact, necessary to reproduce the exact work in order to parody it;
  B: reproducing an entire work in another context is a way to parody the work, but also involves the reproduction of the entire work. Which is what copyright intends to protect from.

  … one might also conjecture that it’s not a parody, in that it’s not possible to parody something that has no dignity in and of itself. I might be persuaded by this argument.

• [Anonymous]

  It’s funny how if you make a derivative work of some copyrighted work, you’re infringing. Yet someone can take public domain works, make derivatives of those and those don’t infringe the public domain and can be copyrighted. Whitmill can borrow and derive from Maori designs w/o paying a penny because copyright is broken and should work both ways. Just like Walt Disney Company. It’s a bunch of BS :/

• [Brainspore]

  I’m not sure this artist realizes the precedent he’s set. If Warner Bros. ever finds out he slapped a Tasmanian Devil on a client’s bicep then they’re gonna make him wish he never brought this up.