Mike Tyson's Tattoo Artist Fails to Stop 'Hangover 2' With Lawsuit

By Jo Piazza Posted May 24th 2011 10:28PM

The man who designed Mike Tyson's distinctive tribal face tattoo is suing Warner Brothers Entertainment for copyright infringement over the use of a similar piece of body art in 'The Hangover Part II,' on the face of actor Ed Helms.

The artist, S. Victor Whitmill, claims in his lawsuit that he was never "asked for permission for, and has never consented to, the use, reproduction or creation of a derivative work based on his original tattoo," and is looking to siphon cash from the studio and delay this weekend's opening of the flick.

Those of you planning your Memorial Day festivities around a funny visit to the cineplex should have no fear -- legal experts tell PopEater the show should go on as planned.

The case hinges on the fact that the tattoo is clearly being used as a parody of Tyson's.

"Using the tattoo in the movie is simply part of the joke. It is also transformative in that it makes use of the tattoo in a scene where it adds value to the meaning of the original design," explains attorney Joey Jackson. "The show will go on as no court will order an injunction."

Still, because Whitmill did file a copyright for the tattoo (albeit in April 2011, with obvious aims to collect from the film), Warner will probably be forced into some kind of settlement with the tattoo artist.

"These matters have settled in the past. I believe Rasheed Wallace's tattoo artist successfully settled a copyright infringement suit against the NBA when the tattoo appeared
in their ads," entertainment attorney Yemi Adegbonmire told us. Regarding a settlement in the 'Hangover' case, Adegbonmire added, "Here I would imagine that the court will lean in favor
of the copyright holder for a few reasons: First, the design is registered. That should give a savvy party like a studio notice as to the artist's intent to protect his work."

The original 'Hangover' grossed over $466 million globally. In order to keep this guy out of their hair, it would make sense for Warner just to throw him a mil to keep his mouth shut.

Mike Tyson Talks to PopEater

Tags: Mike Tyson, The Hangover Part II

Comments

(17)

Tuesday 24 May

By Dan

Highest Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

A tattoo is a personal piece of body art owned soley by the peson who has on thier person. The tattoo artist can claim they did the work but they don't own it. The person it is on does. It is not like a painting that can be sold to different people.
If S. Victor Whitmill wins his suit next thing we'll see is him asking for release forms and royalties everytime Tyson is on TV or in a movie. It's just another sham lawsuit and Warner Bros. should fight it. He should have filed copy rights after the FIRST movie.
He is a bad example of what tattoos and tatto artists are and stand for.

By DAN

Lowest Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

YES AND YOU ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WASTED AIR SPACE.
NEXT TIME YOU HAVE A THOUGHT PUT IT IN THE TOLIET WHERE IT BELONGS !

High Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

Harsh reply. Why is that??

By KW

Just another billable hours lawsuit by our abundant PILE of attorneys. Not enough hours to go around so they are constantly being manufactured. Thanks for protecting us.

By jay

Vote down Vote up Report this

to the dueling dans, i think his harsh response came from the simple statement in the story that the artist had registered a trademark, making him the "legal" owner of the design. Harsh dan could have explained that instead of being mean. LOL

By P King

Disclaimer!!!!! This is not legal advice!!!!! Take it from someone that received an A in copyright law. You couldn't be more wrong. The artist owns the design. Even if he did not file a copyright, once he fixed it to a tangible medium (Tyson's face) he was covered. He just had to file it in order to sue in court. Generally, artist own the copyright in their paintings even if they sell them. You buy the art (painting, etc.) itself, not the right to reproduce it. The artist must specifically transfer the copyright as well, otherwise, you just own the painting. You cannot make copies, sell pictures, etc., without permission. This will be an interesting case because the plaintiff will (should) counter with the fact that the parody was of Mike Tyson, or of Tyson receiving the tatoo on his face or just the location of the tatoo, and not the design itself. This could destroy their defense and cost the studio lots of money. Ultimately, if they copied the design fully and the court doesn't buy the parody defense, they stand to lose lots of money in the case. Disclaimer...... Not legal advice, just interesting conversation.

By atsaguy

I totally agree!

By bunsbestgirl

If filming for the movie started and ended in 2010, how does copyrigting the tattoo in APRIL 2011 allow this guy a lawsuit? Unless a tattoo can SPECIFICALLY be attributed to a specific artist (i.e., a logo, brand, etc), how does any tattoo belong to the tattoo artist? If I got a tattoo, it doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the guy who put it on? BULLS***!!! This guy is just looking for a payday without doing any work. Mike's had his tattoo since 2003. Why didn't the guy copyright it then? Then he could have make BIG BUCKS everytime Mike was seen in public.

By Skye

But what about when you go into a tattoo shop and pick a piece of flash? Those will be inked time and time again. Who says that the piece is actually original? Plus if one part is smaller or larger in proportion to the one on MT's face then it is actually a different piece of art. Just saying...

By me

Whitmill registered the tattoo in April of this year, but the movie was filmed in November of last year before the image was copyrighted. Warner Brothers shouldn't have to pay a cent.

By JAY

won't matter, he still owned it before release to the public. Even if they throw him a million or so, the movie will make that hundreds of time over.

By bon

The tattoo looks to be of tribal Maori design...if that's the case, the artist shouldn't be doing it anyway as those designs hold a great deal of spritual importance to the Maori people. A Moko (look it up) is earned, not given...

Warner Brothers doesn't owe him anything..there was no copywrite when the movie was finished last year. Once again someone trying to get something for nothing...yes his design ...but being the idiot he is he should have know what was going to happen since this as happened to him previously. But tatoo artist are not know for their intellegence...maybe their artisic value yes...

Thursday 26 May

By Bam

It's a little ironic to me that you are talking about INTELLIGENCE...

ps, it's copyright, and tattoo.. and intelligence is spelled with an "i"... just sayin'.

Friday 27 May

who cares bam..this isnt a spelling beeeee....the idiot should copyright his work

By lucky

Really, so what tattoo artist owns the right to a butterfly tattoo,that is how stupid this sounds. This artist copied his art from history so shouldn't he be sued by the people he stole the artwork from.

Wednesday 25 May

By uoiuo

/..../...../ˉ\
........('(...′...′....ˉ~ /')
.........\.................'../
..........\................../
............\..............(
.......

Google in the input: = tntn.us ==you can find many brand names, even more surprising is that he will sell you the unexpected o(∩_∩)o

Page 1 of 1