Image Credit: Melinda Sue Gordon
Warner Bros. filed court papers on Monday indicating they intend to digitally alter the tattoo on Ed Helms’ character’s face when The Hangover Part II is released on home video, according to court documents. Tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill, who gave Mike Tyson the Maori-style tattoo that the film references, sued the company for copyright infringement. In their most recent filing to prevent Whitmill’s request for an expedited trial, lawyers for Warner Bros. said, “If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, Warner Bros. does not intend to make any use of the allegedly infringing tattoo after the film ends its run in the theaters because Warner Bros. will digitally alter the film to substitute a different tattoo on Ed Helms’s face. As a result, there is no reason for the highly accelerated trial Plaintiff has asked this Court to hold on Plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction.”
A mediation hearing is slated for June 16, and a court date is set for Feb. 21, 2012.
Read more:
Warner Bros. releases ‘Hangover Part II,’ tattoo case continues
Additionally, the monkey will be smoking a walkie-talkie instead.
lol
Hello my dear readers!!
I met my man via —–BlackWhiteCupid .℃○M- – . it gives you a chance to make your life better and open opportunities for you to meet the attractive young man and treat you like a queen.Meet black, white, gorgeous, beautiful, hot singles for romance and enduring relationships ! Maybe you wanna check it out or tell your friends–They won’t have to. This is all about extending the court process long enough that the tattoo artists can’t afford it and settles.
while(1) printf(“+1\n”);
I own the rights to the heart-with-an-arrow-through-it tattoo. So, ka-ching for me!!!
Comment of the day. Well done!
OTF!!! That was a genius comment!!!! well played!
I feel most for the graphics team that has to do this.
more money for them…
They won’t have to. This is all about extending the court process long enough that the tattoo artists can’t afford it and settles.
Lame. Tyson’s tatoo isn’t even original, it’s a public domain Maori image. Warners should have held their ground.
They are, that’s why they’re fighting this in court. They just didn’t want to risk getting an injunction.
They should erase the whole movie.
Haha! Yeah, I was thinkIng the same thing.
but a comicbook movie would have taken it’s place
Then They have no reason 2 go 2 the tattoo shop…how r they going 2 get most of the info on what they did?
Even though the (misleading) headline says the tattoo will be “erased”, the article actually says that they’re going to digitally substitute a different tattoo in.
If they get rid of the tattoo, it ruins the joke because it’s a reference to meeting Tyson in the first film. It also ruins the joke later in the film when Tyson tells him he better get rid of the tattoo. It’s parody and clearly fair use.
That’s what I keep thinking!
The joke will be ruined with a different tattoo
They don’t have to change the WHOLE tattoo, all they have to do is change a curve here or there. Just enough to say what copyright this is a different design. You can’t copyright tribal tattoo around the eye.
As long as it looks close enough then Mike can still say what he said
But by the time Tyson got that tattoo, he was already a parody of his former self, so maybe you can’t parody a parody…
Tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill is such a jerk. He should be thrilled that his ugly tattoo is being featured in a major movie.
He should be sued by the Maori people for ripping off their culture!
I’m happy. Whitmill shouldn’t be immortalized on film. Let him disappear into obscurity with Tyson. No tears for the producers either for extending Tyson’s career. Robert Crumb, THAT was an artist. Tony Danza, THAT was a boxer who could act. Put them together with Tony’s KEEP ON TRUCKIN’ tattoo…immortal.
Wouldn’t that ruin a lot of the movie?
I’m pretty sure the movie ruined the movie.
Corporate GREED strikes again. If you or I used a lady gaga song on our business website, or made a commercial using any artist’s song even if it was altered a little. We could expect LEGAL action. If everyone else has to get permission why can’t multi-million dollar companies???
Ignorance of the law strikes again. If anyone (you or a big company) wants to use someone else’s copyrighted intellectual property in either of the two examples you give (a business website or commercial for a product), that person or company will be sued and will lose if they try to fight it. But ANYONE (you or a big company) can use anyone else’s intellectual property any way they want IF they are using it as parody. (There are a dozen or so other exceptions too, but parody is the one that matters here). So if you (or anyone else) wants to make a parody version of a Lady Gaga song (ala Weird Al), there is nothing Lady Gaga can do to prevent you from doing it and you will win any law suit she tries to bring against you. The same would apply to you as it would a multi-million dollar company. Here, the tattoo is a clear example of parody. WB did not need to get permission and neither would you.
I don’t think the fair use defense of artistic parody in this case is as cut and dried as you may believe it to be. I don’t know whether the simple placement of a copyrighted tattoo onto a comedic character necessarily substantiates parody of the “image”, which is what is required. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My guess is that it will be settled before any new interpretations of the law are made.
I hear you, Zed. And I agree with you. I probably shouldn’t have worded my response in “absolute” terms like I did because there are certainly arguments to be made that it technically isn’t parody. My post was more of a response to Joe’s post that implied a typical attitude of people today that the average person doesn’t have the same rights as big companies or rich people. The point of my post was that the outcome would be the same whether the defendant was some poor individual or some huge multi-million dollar corporation. But I agree with you that in this case, the tattoo artist COULD make a decent argument that its NOT parody and therefore outside of the fair use doctrine. And I definitely agree they’ll probably settle before it’s ever decided by a court.
i think people should not go to this tattoo idiot, people are always trying to get a quick buck, he should of used this opportunity as some free advertisement, but instead went on trying to get some quick cash for a stupid ugly tattoo.
Should HAVE. Should HAVE. Not “should of.” This drives me nuts.
yeah what OF it irritates you =P
their are so many grammatical errors on this sight every day, it’s just knot worth the time to correct any one
i no for affect eye should have left the “are” out, cause most people would have but hey I had too ad it.
I’m with Dan on this. Basic typos do not bother me, but grammitical errors like this are very annoying.
Darnit…”grammatical”…LOL
Errors in people’s comments don’t bug me that much. What irritates me though, is grammatical and spelling errors in journalism. I’m not in any way using this article as an example, but if you are going to write a story as a professional, PLEASE make sure you get your facts right and your words right. I think it shows a lack of integrity to blatantly ignore both.
Maybe they should alter the film.
Why is this an issue , the tattoo in the film should be considered satire and therefor protected under the first amendment
It shouldn’t be an issue because Tyson had the tattoo in the first movie, therefore they should own the right, at least in part, to the image of the tattoo itself or technically, they would have to remove the tattoo from the first movie as well
They should digitally replace the tatoo with something nasty said about the tatoo artist. That’d teach him to complain.
OH…and I smell a South Park episode coming with subsituted tatoos.
I am coining a new phrase here: “Substi-toos” is now part of the English language as of this post. Don’t you dare copy it or I’ll sue your pants off.