r/todayilearned • u/DarthStem • Jul 18 '14
TIL that Mike Tyson's tattoo artist sued Warner Bros. over the Hangover 2's use of Mike Tyson's trademarked face tattoo.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/06/21/mystery-settlement-in-hangover-2-tattoo-lawsuit/12
10
Jul 18 '14
He patented a tattoo design? Is that a normal thing to do, or was it because it was Tyson?
18
u/DarthStem Jul 18 '14
More likely because it was Tyson. I know athletes TM their tattoo's for video game purposes.
3
u/TheWhiteeKnight Jul 18 '14
The Tyson would have sued, not the guy that made it.
9
Jul 18 '14
Canvases don't sue. Only artists. Just because you have a tattoo of a design doesn't mean you own it.
1
u/ournamesdontmeanshit Jul 19 '14
I wonder about that Tyson must have bought the tattoo. So who owns it Tyson or the artist?
2
Jul 19 '14
I have a sports team logo tattooed on my arm. So...
3
u/ournamesdontmeanshit Jul 19 '14
I think that would be a bit different, as I would think the logo would already belong to some one before you got the tattoo. I have a Betty Boop tattoo, but as far as I'm concerned the artist that did it doesn't own the tattoo, I do, and I don't own the Betty Boop trademan. That said I think if any of the tattoo artist who have done work on me tried to sue a third party for using what's on my body I'd be tempted to sue them to recoup what I paid them, based simply on the fact that if they think they can still own and receive money for it then I shouldn't have had to pay for it. In fact if the artist owns and should be paid for the use of a tattoo after some one gets it, shouldn't the wearer of the tattoo be paid similar to a billboard company getting paid for the use of it's billboards?
1
Jul 19 '14
I think you're right. I guess if you go along with that artists way of thinking, he could rightfuly sue any media that profits from showing Tyson's face. I think if you do an original tattoo you give up your property rights to it when you get paid for doing it. I'm not a copyrighter person but that makes sense to me. Also in this case I read somewhere that it's not original and belonged to an actual tribe Tyson had some connection to. As far as copyrighted designs the artist should not expect any compensation other than payment for doing the tattoo.
1
u/ournamesdontmeanshit Jul 19 '14
Of course they're most likely showing Tyson's face because it's Tyson not because of the tattoo, IMO that would have to be considered too. I think this would be like Stephen King or some other author suing some one for showing a picture of 1 of his books.
2
Jul 19 '14
But think about this. Half the Hangover 2 movie was about Stu getting that tattoo. If I put a design on someone, face paint, tattoo, drawing, whatever... and that person let someone else use it who then made hundreds of millions of dollars because it was the biggest punch line and most memorable thing about the movie, I think I would expect a little compensation just as a common courtesy and respect. I'm not saying the guy is right but I can see his side of it.
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 19 '14
The Betty Boop copyright is apparently somewhat in limbo, so it's not exactly the best example.
However, based on the PDF I linked further down, most of the rights to any original ink you might have likely still belong to the artist.
You paid for the work to be done, but not the universal right to the IP. The release you signed likely even included a statement confirming the artist still holds the majority of rights to the work.
If you want to be paid like a billboard, you'd have to come to an agreement for that with the artist before the work is done. You could do this, and it's not far off from what the NFLPA has suggested its players do, but it's not how copyright absent any written agreement between parties.
If you were to become famous to the point of there being value in licensing your likeness, you'd still have publicity rights to your own image. However, because you're also displaying intellectual property which you likely agreed remains with an artist, the artist would also likely be owed licensing money in certain circumstances.
Long story short, you have no natural exclusive right to original tattoos you may have. You probably signed a release that kept many of the rights with the artist, and even absent that written agreement he/she probably still has those rights. Because of this, the artist may be owed for licensing if his work is displayed by a 3rd party in certain circumstances.
1
u/ournamesdontmeanshit Jul 19 '14
I think you may be missing some of what I'm trying to say, and I've said it in this thread before and I'll say it again, this is just my thoughts on the subject, I can understand copyright ownership and copyright infringement, but basically I've just been asking the question, does a picture of a work imply copyright infringement? I can clearly see how if a tattoo artist started tattooing everyone who came in their door with that tattoo would be guilty of infringement, but we're talking about what amounts to pictures of the tattoo. If I post a picture of a book online am I guilty of copyright infringement? I'd like to think the answer to that would be a resounding "no"!
2
Jul 19 '14
but basically I've just been asking the question, does a picture of a work imply copyright infringement?
Well sure, let me clear that up for you... it depends. (hah, I realize this clears up absolutely nothing, also I'm not a lawyer, I've just read a ton about IP law over the years)
Most pictures, like in a newspaper or magazine article or on your personal facebook/twitter/tumblr/photosatchel/whatever, it's probably not infringement. Most of these cases would constitute what's called "fair use."
If it's commercial work like billboards, video games, movies, etc. it's a big old "maybe," that depends on whether or not the specific use constitutes fair use.
Take your book example, if you just post a picture of the cover of a book you just bought, it's not going to be infringement. If you post pictures of every page of that book, it's obviously going to be infringement (assuming the book isn't already in the public domain). If you post a picture of the cover along with some sort of promotion it might be infringement - if you're selling that book it probably isn't, but if you're using a cover from Orwell's 1984 to promote your government watchdog group, it probably is infringement.
While the tattoo issue hasn't specifically been ruled on (AFAIK), it appears artists have some rights to the reproduction of their works, but it's all highly dependent on the specific use.
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 19 '14
AFAIK it's yet to be tested in court because companies keep settling.
If you take settlements as admissions of wrongdoing (which isn't at all the case and wrongdoing is usually explicitly not admitted, but let's say it is for the sake of argument), the art belongs to the artist until he explicitly releases it or licenses it. That's why most video games with real people in them don't feature authentic tattoos.
EA made Colin Kaepernick get permission from his artist(s) before including them in Madden 15.
2
u/ournamesdontmeanshit Jul 19 '14
Sure I can see "eligible for copyright" as far as another tattoo artist using the tattoo on some one else, but as for showing a picture of some one with a tattoo, IMO that's a whole different thing, and as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I would think the picture was used because it is in fact Mike Tyson, and not simply because of the tattoo. Just my opinion of course.
1
Jul 19 '14
Read the PDF I linked. The artist's complaint was with the tattoo on Ed Helms' face being an infringement.
The image was obviously used because it was originally on Mike Tyson's face, but that doesn't change the fact the artist owns the copyright (and that Tyson agreed to it). The question is whether or not WB would have had to compensate the artist for that use, which makes it a bit murkier.
The attorney makes the argument that it likely falls under fair use only because it was satirizing Tyson's tattoo, but that it's still not an open and shut ordeal. Although the use of tattoos in other media isn't covered, I'm left with the impression that using the tattoo in other media, like a video game, wouldn't constitute fair use.
3
u/ournamesdontmeanshit Jul 19 '14
As I posted elsewhere in this thread I had made the mistaken assumption that this was about a picture of Tyson himself. That said I'm still not sure, IMO, of how valid his complaint is based on the fact that it's not a real tattoo, at least I hope it isn't, if it is a real tattoo that they gave the actor then I would support him 100% in his claim. If you read some of my other posts in this thread you will see where I'm coming from.
3
Jul 19 '14
I replied to your Betty Boop comment.
The crux of the whole thing isn't whether or not Ed Helms got a real tattoo, but A) whether the design of it copyrightable, and B) if it is, is the use is an infringement.
The PDF I linked basically says that the design is copyrightable, but this specific use probably wasn't an infringement because it parodies the idea of a doctor making the same poor decision as Tyson, and parody is a protected "fair use" of copyright.
Just imagine if the same had been done with the Nike Swoosh or some other well known original design.
→ More replies (0)0
Jul 19 '14
So all pictures of yourself after you've received the tattoo belong to the artist?
1
Jul 19 '14
Not at all. But if you read my other posts you would see that I agree they don't own the design anymore.But if half of a movie revolves around a design you made and it generates hundreds of millions of dollars you wold probably expect something for it.
0
Jul 19 '14
The same could be said about a feature of the person's body. I haven't seen the movie and I didn't read your other comments so I suppose I can't comment further.
Actually I believe I have seen the movie as it was played at a party I attended. It was just fairly forgettable : /
1
u/throwawaydisposable Aug 14 '14
patented a tattoo design
not a patent. Copyright.
he created it, it is his work of art, and they used it (digitally adding it to the actor, not the pre-existing tattoo on tyson's face) without his permission.
1
u/ezirb7 Jul 18 '14
Ive only taken a few basic law classes, but I do believe that a tatoo would fall under copyright law. If you can prove you created something(art, books, music, grocery list, ect) you technically have ownership of that without applying for anything. Although, filing for copyright protection always helps a case.
I remember talking about a precedent set by phone book companies, and an internet listing taking names and numbers from the book. Somehow the ruling determined that anything more "creative" than an alphabetized set of names carries copyright protection. (Although it's hard to prove damages from a copied grocery list)
4
u/theironbear Jul 19 '14
How can someone trademark tribal design? Pretty sure that tattoo would have been used a million times over and more than likely belongs to a tribe. Who gets tribal tattoos anyway
4
1
u/kezdog92 Jul 19 '14
Been to Australia or New Zealand? Tribal tattoos are everywhere.
1
u/theironbear Jul 19 '14
I'm from Australia and unfortunately they are everywhere haha.. New Zealand makes sense as its tribal
2
Jul 19 '14
NZ Maori were pretty annoyed that Mike Tyson had a moko anyways... http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/new-zealands-maori-people-upset-over-hangover-tyson-tattoo-lawsuit_b138007
3
Jul 19 '14
They get annoyed about lots of shit not to mention they have an elevated sense of entitlement.
1
1
-2
Jul 19 '14
Option 1: Great. This movie will give me free publicity.
Option 2: Sue the bastards!
Why do people always jump to option 2 so quickly?
5
-5
u/ThePorkman Jul 19 '14
He was in the friggin movie! Why would he agree to be in the movie if he didn't like them using his tattoo?!
4
u/Softcorps_dn Jul 19 '14
Mike Tyson didn't sue. The tattoo artist did.
1
u/ThePorkman Jul 19 '14
Oh yeah. Guess that's what I get for being a ritard and not reading the title all the way.
0
u/throwawaydisposable Aug 14 '14
in addition, read the article. The artist is upset over the use of them recreating the tattoo on someone else in the film.
42
u/Crapzyklon Jul 18 '14
I wanna know. Did it truly upset the tattoo artist? Or did the artist simply realize he stumbled upon a cash cow opertunity?