Would it be wrong if someone else used a piece of work that you created for promotional piece? The most common answer would be yes correct? But what if it was something like a tattoo design? If you understand what I’m getting at here then great, If not strap in because I’m talking about the tattoo lawsuit for the movie: The Hangover Part 2.
Now to be completely honest, I have not seen The Hangover Part 2 or any of the other movies of this series. So some research was required for this movie from my perspective. At first I thought the tattoo on the character “Stu” played by Ed Helms, was a reference to Mike Tyson, who interestingly is also a character in this movie series. But Mike Tyson appeared in the series before Ed Helms played his role in the series.
However, I noticed that the tattoo on Stu’s face was heavily advertised before the movie’s release in theaters for the Memorial Day weekend in 2011. It’s no wonder that the tattoo artist went and sued Warner Brothers. The artist, S. Victor Whitmill, was seeking damages for copyright infringement of the Tyson tattoo. He was also tried to prevent the movie from being released in theaters through injunction but was denied by the judge who handled the case.
Personally, I’m kind of split on this. On one hand, I do believe that Whitmill should get the money because the tattoo does consider as a work of art for its unique tribal design. As art, according to the article from Timothy Bradley of Coats & Bennett PLLC, it falls under the copyright realm of law. There was a similar case with a tattoo from NBA champion who was featured in a Nike commercial in 2005. The tattoo artist who created the tattoo sued Nike but was quickly settled.
On the other hand, I think Whitmill was wasting his time because he was being petty and just wanted compensation. As mentioned earlier Tyson appeared in both movies with the same tattoo. The tattoo didn’t have any real significance to the story itself and it was only one tattoo that was used in total. If it was more than one designs from the artist shown in the movies or even trailers, then maybe it would be a different story in my opinion.
However, I do believe that Warner Brothers was also at fault here because they should not have promoted the Tyson tattoo on the Stu character’s face heavily during its marketing of the movie. According to Travis Burchart of LexisNexis, the movie company were unauthorized for promotion of the tattoo, despite its irrelevancy, from the judge’s addressing the plaintiff’s likelihood of Success of the Merits factor. Although, the judge then stated if the injunction were in favor, the movie would had been halted and Warner Bros would lose millions of dollars as a business.
In the end though, what’s done is done. Whitmill’s copyright claim failed as the judge stated that Mike Tyson’s character appeared in previous movies and that if Whitmill made the copyright claim in the previous movie then he would have won. I believe that it’s just a tattoo that was simply used one time so there’s no harm in it. If anything it gives S. Victor Whitmill more exposure as a tattoo artist and that his work is excellent enough to be copied.
The Bloggiest of Blogs to ever Blog (AG) 