Guy Who Did Mike Tyson's Tattoo Sues Warner Bros. For Copyright Infringement
from the well-that-was-quick dept
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).
Filed Under: copyright, ed helms, mike tyson, tattoo, victor whitmillq
Companies: warner bros.
Comments on “Guy Who Did Mike Tyson's Tattoo Sues Warner Bros. For Copyright Infringement”
Tattoo ownership
How will this choad win when he aquired the design from Tā moko, the Māori face marking.
Re: Tattoo ownership
The same way Disney gets to own the copyright on its derivatives of European, Asian and American folk tales, I guess.
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.
Does the artist also get to cash in whenever some entity publishes a picture of Mike Tyson wearing the tattoo in question?
simple solution in the future
actors will not be allowed to have tattoos if they appear in a movie.
Re: simple solution in the future
Or they will have to cover their tattoo with something if they wish to appear.
Re: Re: simple solution in the future
Think Teal’c and the hat.
Re: Re: simple solution in the future
Like blur out Tyson’s face everytime he’s on T.V.?
what so special about it?
its just a new zealand Maori style tatt, nothing new here
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?
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.
Relevant caselaw
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/70/497885/
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.
Re: Re: Relevant caselaw
Merely FYI, I’ve never seen so many different ways of spelling circuit in one comment.
Re: Re: Re: Revellent coleslaw
Dreary FYI, I’ve never seen such a pointless post reply……….except maybe this one.
Re: Re: Re: Relevant caselaw
😉
I make no claim to being a good typist…but looking past that the reply is otherwise accurate.
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.(
I know this lawsuit seems silly, but maybe he’s just trying to save face.
Re: Re:
I see what you did there -.-
Tat
Give it up! Nice try. Just a money grubbing move….again!
Mike's ink
If clowns can have their faces patented so may tattoo artists.
(C) copyright mark of the beast on a tatto
(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.
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”?)
There should be no laws for getting a tattoo that some one else had money hungry people in this world tattoo work is art
Tattoo_Freakz
popular designs own creation that is fantastic