You gotta love the law, really. What an amazing profession and frankly the lawyers behind it are the biggest of rock stars. Hats off to my brilliant colleagues who come up with some of the most creative arguments in representing their clients, really.
“He might be a bit past his prime, but angering Mike Tyson is still an incredibly bad idea, as the main characters of the 2009 hit movie The Hangover learned—repeatedly. But should movie stars like Ed Helms (pictured at left) quiver in fear because of Tyson’s tattoo artist? The tattooist is trying to block the launch of the sequel with a copyright lawsuit, saying that copying his design onto actor Helms’ face is actually a kind of tattoo piracy.
The lawsuit (embedded below) argues that the only authorized version of the tattoo is the one on Mike Tyson’s face, and that any other version is a pirated version. It asks the judge to issue an injunction stopping the movie from launching on schedule. The movie is currently slated to be shown in U.S. theaters beginning on Memorial Day weekend, according to The Hollywood Reporter, which first reported the suit.
Tattoo art is a interesting area of copyright. On the one hand, a tattoo artist should theoretically own the copyright to his work like any other artist. On the other hand, the work is so intimately tied to the place of its “publication”—it’s on another person’s body—that it seems crazy to give the artist, rather than the tattooed person, total control over how the artwork is displayed, photographed, and filmed. (Coincidentally, Techdirt featured two posts earlier this month ruminating on the peculiar position of tattoos in intellectual property law.)”
Before getting the tattoo, Tyson signed a contract (included as an exhibit to the lawsuit) which states that “all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property of Paradox-Studio of Dermagraphics.” Of course, if that clause is taken literally, it would seem to suggest that there’s no reason the artist couldn’t have sued over the first Hangover movie, and could demand royalties from Tyson for having his own face photographed. But the artist, award-winning tattooist S. Victor Whitmill, has chosen not to make that difficult argument here, suing over Ed Helms’ image instead.
UDUAK LAW FIRM BLOG ANALYSIS
This is interesting. We’ve got contract law here. Within the contract is a submission of intellectual property rights from Tyson to his tattoo artist. Hmm . . . what was the consideration (money) he received? If I pay you for your intellectual property, I am not interested in returning the very rights I just paid for unless of course you give me something highly valuable for it. Of course exception to the rules includes licensing etc.
The above excerpt essentially covers it all. Be sure to read up on “injunctions” to know what that means in terms of what the tattoo artist is seeking from the court. Interesting case, innit?
Most cases settle. The parties can work a settlement out. As a practical matter, I do not see the Hangover film makers, after all the investment they have spent on the movie and the huge publicity (albeit negative), refusing to settle so they can release their film.
Paid Content has the Full Story.
Photocredit: Mat Szwajkos/Animal Planet
FASHIONENTLAW blog, authored by Ms. Uduak, was first established in 2010. It is now incorporated, in 2021, as part of the FASHIONENTLAW LAW FIRM blog. The blog is for informational purposes only and provides legal commentary and analysis on the intersection of mainstream America pop culture and the law. It also provides updates on Ms. Uduak’s speaking engagements and press activities. For inquiries on topics covered please email (firstname.lastname@example.org).