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."

Comments

Fair use when it suits them

[betterunixthanunix]

For Hollywood, copyright has one meaning: inflating their profits. Unfortunately, almost everyone in America has forgotten that copyright is supposed to exist to improve the people's access to works of art and science, not just to make money for copyright holders, and so Hollywood manages to get away with their abuse of our legal system.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[Stormthirst]

And you have completely mis-read the OP. He's not arguing that people should be able to pirate Hollywood's content as and when they please. He's arguing that Hollywood abuses the legal system, and does so to extort more money out of the people than Hollywood are due by suppressing Fair Use, and in this case parody. The irony here (seeing as you don't seem to understand it) is that WB are using the parody clauses of copyright law to get out of paying someone damages.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[Omnifarious]

You seem to think that the goal of the system is to give you open access to anything you want on your terms. That has never been the point of copyright. The point has always been to set up a system whereby creation can be incentivized - which works wonderfully well. We have more creative output and more access to it now than ever before, and every trend is upward.

That shouldn't mean everyone gets what they want when they want it merely because they want it.

Yes, anytime anybody criticizes copyright in any way, you should accuse them of being a deadbeat or a thief. You go on with your bad self!

I had a co-worker who did this. Discovered later he was being paid 20% more than I was, and he did poorer work that was eventually thrown away. But, as they say, correlation is not causation.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[trout007]

Did you ever wonder why the movie industry is located in Hollywood? It was because Edison who owned the patent to motion pictures was very strict as to the types of movies that could be made. So all of the famous studios you know today were started out west where they could easily avoid the patent enforcement that was happening back east.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[Omnifarious]

Actually, in the creation of software, it loses. There is a reason that about 80% of the startups around here use Open Source software.

I think the reason we have more creative works and greater access to them than at any point in history is because of the Internet. And these things are happening in spite of copyright law, not because of it.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[vadim_t]

And it fails quite badly at that.

For instance, why is LOTR still under copyright? Somebody is obviously getting all those royalties, but how does that incentivize creation?

If incentivizing creation is the true goal, then copyright should be much shorter, perhaps the original length of 17 years. Authors should have a good reason for producing multiple works during their lifetime even if they strike gold (especially those, as they proved they can write good stuff), and publishers and similar should be encouraged to find new authors instead on relying on collecting the benefits of works created a century ago.

But copyright keeps getting pushed to an ever longer length, because its current purpose isn't about incentivizing creation, it's about owning as many works as possible and collecting profit from them, which gets easier the longer copyright lasts.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[Undead Waffle]

Patent and copyright are two very different beasts....

So different, in fact, that there is only one clause in the Constitution granting Congress the power to create both of them.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[Runaway1956]

The system simply does NOT work. Your position seems to be similar to Hollywood's position that copyright "entitles" you to a constant income forever, and ever, amen. And, probably ditto with patents.

Neither system was meant to ensure that any author or inventor could sit on his arse for the rest of his life, while his "intellectual properties" generated wealth for him. They were ONLY meant to ensure that if ANYONE were to make a coin from his works, then he should get some of it, for a limited time.

The time limits have been raped unrecognizably, fair use has been treated similarly, and parody the same.

What is a reasonable time limit on copyright? How about 15 years for most forms of print, movies, and other media. And for software, 7 years. If there is money to be made from any copyrightable material, that money should have been made within those time frames. After that - it's public domain. And, I don't give a small rat's ass for any arguments to the contrary.

Re:Fair use when it suits them

[Tharsman]

Both are forms of intellectual property, but both are still very different in scope and execution.

Patents cover inventions. Also, patents require thousands and thousands of dollars to apply for, and it may take millions to defend against a patent claim. It can take at least 5 figures to attempt get a patent invalidated, no matter how unfair it is or how much prior art there may be. Patents also work as a blockade, as soon as you have them, you can legally stop anyone from inventing something that is too similar or depends on similar ideas, even if the new inventor had no knowledge of the existence of your patent.

Copyright covers arts and literature. Copyrights are automatic. As soon as you write a page of a short story or do a doodle, the copyright belongs to you. Although a copyright case can also eat a lot of money, it is focused on proving the infringing artist was aware of your work before he made his. If he had no clue of it, and you had no evidence to the contrary, there is no case. If you have evidence, then things can get more complex and things like Fair Use come into play. Copyrights do not work as a creative barricade. As long as my work is unique enough, similitude or reuse of certain ideas is fair game, even if you were aware of the original art.

Without copyrights, a writer that comes up with a script and attempts to sell the script to a studio can forget about it. As soon as he shows the script, the studio would be able to just make the movie and never give a penny back. An indie developer would also get screwed. He would spend months or years working in a game, publish it, and now any big studio can decide to just copy his work and sell it in big stores without giving him a penny.

The only problem right now with copyright law, is how it's used by the music industry to harass civilians, specially the use of precedent to claim absurd amounts from theses poor people, cases that were originally ruled upon the idea that a big corporation doing the infringement should not feel the consequences of being caught to be negligible. Citizens should not be pursued under that same standard.

Patents are horrible, and turn the inventing into an over encumbered practice. You are expected to do insane amounts of research before you can even proceed with the most ridiculously small segments of inventions, you may find that a round knob in a centered position on the top of a box to be patented. It is nearly impossible to do and ends up making it a huge gamble for anyone but large corporations to invent anything without running the risk of being sued to bankruptcy.

Patents need to be killed. They are horrible and just get in the way of progress, counter to what they were designed to do. Products name and design should be allowed to be copyrighted as the only way to protect the creator from being ripped off.

copyrighting meat canvas

[Anonymous Coward]

does this make Mike Tyson a work of art or a piece of work?

oh now I feel dumb

[Osgeld]

I thought it was the face tattoo from star trek voyager's Chakotay

This should be a non-issue

[Anonymous Coward]

According to US copyright law, when you perform a work for hire, such as a painting or a tattoo, the work becomes the property of the person the work is performed for unless otherwise agreed upon.

So the work belonged to Tyson, not the artist at that point (unless they agreed otherwise). And if Tyson gave permission for it to be used, then there is no problem.

Whitmill's mistake

[frovingslosh]

Warner Brothers further stated that Mr. Whitmill failed to use any DRM when creating the tattoo, which would not only have protected the tattoo but also effectively served to keep it out of public domain even after the copyright expires, circumventing the intent of copyright law as spelled out in the Constitution.

Re:Whitmill's mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

But he did include DRM. The DRM was putting it on the infamous boxer Mike Tyson.

A question

[Vinegar Joe]

Does S. Victor Whitmill have permission from the Maori people to produce tattoos based on their designs?

Re:Isn't it Tyson's?

[St.Creed]

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.