Mike Tyson might have had a good time poking fun at himself in the first Hangover, but the tattoo artist who created the look recently tried to delay the opening of the film after discovering that his distinct facial tattoo was being used in the film.
Now a judge denied that injunction by the tattoo artist allowing the film to be released, however the case remains open. Now the studio is saying that the Bluray and DVD releases may feature a digitally altered Tattoo on acto Ed Helm’s character to avoid any further complications.
“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 theaters because Warner Bros. will digitally alter the film to substitute a different tattoo on Ed Helms’ face. The home video release is currently scheduled for early December 2011, which would allow Warner Bros. sufficient time to make the change if it becomes necessary.”
Now I can see how altering the tattoo for the DVD release makes sense. If the Tattoo Aritst does win, they would be entitled to a cut of the home video income as well – but that would be excluded if it did not contain an image of his iconic tattoo. I don’t see it changing the movie, in fact it might draw some publicity to the DVD release if the announce it as the “New Tattoo Version” and run with the marketing.
Honestly, I am surprised that this is even carrying out this long.
How many movies have longstanding gags spoofing iconic brands and personalities that fall under satire and fair use? Perhaps the character wearing the Tat for so much of the fim is no longer considered fair use. Will this set precidence and restrict other films from taking liberties with popculture references in their comedy?
That seems like alot of stills to edit and cgi over…
How much that gonna cost?
Guys. Guys. It’s the tattoo artist that’s started the legal kerfuffle, NOT Tyson.
And I have to agree with the artist. Creators have the automatic ownership & copyright to their work. Creative agencies know this all to well and shouldn’t have allowed themselves to get caught out like this.
Everyone has a right to protect their work, especially these days where access seems to equate to ownership in some people’s eyes.
I agree fully that copyright needs to be protected. However as an artist myself, I fully understand that designs I create for a client become THEIR property to do with as they please.
I think this lawsuit is just frivolous and the artist is trying to get more fake and recognition out of it even if he doesn’t win.
^This. I work in design and animation and the minute we finish a project it’s owned by the client. Not the other way around.
Copyright needs to protected and respected but I have one question.
If its such a big deal then why until the second film was close to release before saying something? Its not like this is the first time this tattoo has come up (Tyson was in the first film, tattoo and all).
This artist is pulling this stunt for recognition. To me he’s acting in poor taste and frankly I hope he loses any respect had had. Its not like anyone else has tried to claim ownership of the tattoo and even though I haven’t seen the film I highly doubt there is any likelyhood of confusion.
love the word usage of kerfuffle.
How pathetic! Everyone who watched and loved The Hangover will forever remember how awesome the Mike Tyson scenes were, watching him singing Phil Collins’ “In The Air Tonight,” being such a good sport to be in the movie and even poke a little fun at himself. Now, as they decide to pay him homage yet AGAIN in the sequel he is suddenly going to change his tune and go so far as to attempt to delay the film and sue? Lame! As has been stated before, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now after the huge increase in street cred given to him by the fans for his appearance in the first film, its completely besmirched and taken away by this foolishness. I’d be honored if a movie as successful as these decided to model anything after me!!
Someone will have to explain to me how you can copyright a tribal style tattoo.
Anything created by an artist can be copyrighted.
If the storyline had Helms with a McDonalds tattoo on his face for most of the movie, would McDonald’s not have the same claim?
But even with a copyright, I would suspect this will fall under “fair use” or satire and be dismissed. The artist is only doing this for the publicity. Anything he gets out of the lawsuit will be a bonus.
I understand that you copyright specific works of art, but Mike Tyson’s tribal tattoo is nothing but generic. If it wasn’t on his face you wouldn’t know it from any other tribal tattoo.
I would think that most judges would find that this qualifies as parody in terms of the Fair Use doctrine.
If the studio wants to avoid a headache that’s fine, but I think it would be a weak move to back down and alter the DVD / Blu-ray release. The whole joke is that it’s TYSON’s tattoo. If he wakes up with an even less distinguishable tribal tattoo the gag is marginalized.
Welcome to the world of taking copyright to the extreme. My money says he got that design from an actual tribal group and not he wants to claim control over it.
Mike Tyson seemed like a great actor when he said he was serious about Stu removing the Tattoo. I guess he wasnt acting.
i thought the guy who designed the tattoo was the one trying to delay the film, not tyson.
you are corerct
how can you even claim ownership to a tattoo? that’s like stupid Paris Hilton claiming ownership over the phrase “that’s hot”. Had she invented the words “that”, “is” and “hot”, she might have a case, but in reality she’s just stupid. “Careful with that skillet dad…uh…Paris Hilton Catchphrase!”
This tattoo business is equally idiotic.
I think I read somewhere that the tattoo artist had copyrights on the design itself.
Actually, your Paris Hilton reference is not stupid.
It is VERY legal to copyright and trademark catchphrases, slogans. They don’t have to invent the words, but their use can certainly be copyrighted and trademarked.
Bullshit.
where does it end?
how bout the first person to get a “barbed wire” tat. wheres his check?
greed is a joke
Isn’t immitation the most sincere form of flatery? I thought it was the Tatoo Artist and not Mike Tyson that was delaying the film? I would say if anything just get a cut from the royalties of the film rather than attempt to delay or alter the film. I can understand from an artists standpoint that if you have a trademark that is your property and being used without your consent or have the credit given to you. But sometimes it just look like someone trying to cash in on a quick buck.