Slashdot Mirror


Warner Bros. Forced To Fight For Fair Use

V-similitude writes with news that Warner Bros. has been forced into a position of claiming 'fair use' in the defense of an upcoming movie. From the NYTimes: "In The Hangover Part II, the sequel to the very successful what-happened-last-night comedy, the character played by Ed Helms wakes up with a permanent tattoo bracketing his left eye. The Maori-inspired design is instantly recognizable as the one sported by the boxer Mike Tyson, which is part of the joke. (Mr. Tyson makes an appearance in both films, playing himself.) But S. Victor Whitmill, a tattoo artist formerly of Las Vegas and currently from rural Missouri, doesn't quite see the humor. Mr. Whitmill designed the tattoo for Mr. Tyson, called it 'tribal tattoo,' and claims it as a copyrighted work. ... Warner Brothers in its brief also invoked the 'fair use' defense for Hangover Part II, namely the right to parody what has become a well-known tattoo since it first appeared on Mr. Tyson’s face in February 2003."

2 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Fair use when it suits them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, Tyson does not own the copyright to his tattoo. He was merely licensed to display it. Says so in the EULA posted above the door in the tattoo parlor where he got inked.

  2. Re:Isn't it Tyson's? by St.Creed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The artist and Tyson explicitly arranged a copyright transfer to the tattoo artist, which is why he has a rather strong case at the moment: he can show a contract between him and Tyson giving him the rights to everything that's based on that tattoo. The contract also predates the movie by several years.

    Now you can argue about the silliness of copyright on this, but he is an artist and copyright does work this way, even if the canvas is a person. And Warner Brothers is about the last entity in the world that can claim ignorance on copyright issues, so they're probably going to try and get a deal, because if it goes to trial I wouldn't give them much chance. Not when every good defense will also backfire onto your own use of copyright to intimidate people.

    All in all: good news. I hope the artist takes them to the cleaners. Perhaps that will teach them something about why abusing copyright is similar to wielding a bioweapon: it tends to backfire.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)