14 DAY TRIAL // The sequel to the insanely successful “Hangover” may not drop in theaters at the scheduled date, since the tattoo artist behind boxer Mike Tyson’s face tattoo is suing for copyright infringement, and is asking a judge to ban the movie studio from marketing the film using images with it.
As the trailer to “Hangover 2” shows (check it out below), one of the characters in it wakes up after a night of wild partying with a face tattoo that bears a striking resemblance to the one Mike Tyson got back in 2003.
S. Victor Whitmill, owner of Paradox Studios, is taking legal action against Warner Bros., saying it took the original tat he did for Tyson and is using it for profit by putting it on the face of one of the characters.
As Whitmill sees it, Warners is in violation of copyright, and is therefore asking for a judge to rule that the movie studio can’t promote or sell the film if it includes images with the tattoo in question, the Daily Mail informs.
Since all the posters and promo materials released so far show at least a glimpse of the facial tattoo, that would mean pushing back the release date until all the images are altered or edited out – a huge undertaking, to say the least.
Worst case scenario, the film will not be released at all, since the tattoo represents an important element in the plot, as fans must already know.
“Mr. Whitmill has never been asked for permission for, and has never consented to, the use, reproduction or creation of a derivative work based on his original tattoo,” an attorney for the tattoo artist says in a statement to the media, as cited by the British tab.
In other words, if Warner Bros. wanted to use a tattoo derivative from him in the film, it should have asked for his permission first.
Warners, as expected, doesn’t feel the same, saying that the suit is a “radical claim that he is entitled, under the Copyright Act, to control the use of a tattoo that he created on the face of another human being.”
Because the two tattoos (Mike Tyson’s and the one in the film) are not identical, the latter falls under “fair use because it parodies a very well known piece of our culture,” reps for the movie studio fight back.
The issue will be settled in court today.