TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

'Hangover 2'

HUGE Victory In Tattoo Lawsuit

5/24/2011 8:27 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Mike Tyson's tattoo artist couldn't K.O. the "Hangover 2" ... TMZ has learned a judge will NOT stop the movie from being released after the two sides battled over the use of the face tat in the flick.

0524_hangover_warner_BN

Warner Bros. released a statement saying, "We are very gratified by the Court’s decision which will allow the highly anticipated film, The Hangover 2, to be released on schedule this week around the world."

The rep continued, "[The tattoo artist's] failed attempt to enjoin H2 in order to try and extract a massive settlement payment from Warner Bros. was highly inappropriate and unwarranted."

As we previously reported, the tattoo artist claims he owns the copyright to Tyson's tat because he created it -- and WB never asked him for permission to use an exact replica of the design on Ed Helms' face in "Hangover 2."

UPDATE: The tattoo artists's attorney tells TMZ they're "disappointed" the motion was denied, but are "pleased by Judge Perry's finding that Mr. Whitmill proved a 'strong likelihood of success' on the merits. We look forward to further vindicating our client's rights at trial .... including a permanent injunction preventing further distribution of the movie."

81 COMMENTS

No Avatar
31.

karlew    

If the artist copywrited the work then the design is his intellectual property. The movie should be released but Warner Brothers failed to negotiate in good faith to use the copywritten material. They're gonna have to pay and rightly so.

1061 days ago
32.

spinner25    

To be identical for purposes of lawsuit (as explained by a lawyer who was previously involved in a situation like this) the tattoos must be EXACT.

EXACT meaning the same length, width and shape of ALL parts of the tattoo.

These tattoos are not identical. I can see that with a naked eye. Creating laminates of the two and holding them together would prove that they are truly not IDENTICAL.

Also, what happened to the freedom of speech to parody?

1061 days ago
33.

Robbie    

What a moron now hes going to be broke from all the lawyer fees fooooollll

1061 days ago
34.

look carefully    

It's NOT and EXACT replica

1061 days ago
35.

sarah    

Judge just couldn't wait to see hangover 2 (as the first one is the best funny film I have seen in years) go Judge LOL :-D

1061 days ago
36.

Jodi    

Glad he couldn't stop the movie from coming out...I want to see the movie he should get restitution from WB for using the tat without his consent. They do look identical.

1061 days ago
37.

June    

He didn't lose idiots. In fact the Judge said Warner Bros defense to copyright infringement was silly, will expedite the trial for damages, and said Whitmill has a strong likelihood of winning.

1061 days ago
38.

Skeeter    

I agree with Tom, the tatoos don't look identical to me either, very similar yes, identical NO!

1061 days ago
39.

Dimi    

The tattoo design is awful and that is what makes it so funny.

1061 days ago
40.

Joe    

This tattoo artist is a straight up idiot. Go to Ft. Lauderdale and tattoo skanks for your money....greedy punk

1061 days ago
41.

Ty    

STupid random tattoo. Any child could draw it. Its typical, nothing special and only so famous because of the person wearing it on his face. The couldve drawn any similair shaped tribal tattoo and everyone wouldve known its a homage to Tyson.

1061 days ago
42.

TMZgossip    

you know mel gibson is behind this lawsuit. he is still butthurt that the actors and crew threatened to boycott if he didnt get dumped from the film

1061 days ago
43.

the artist formerly known as hand turkey    

You don't have to go get a copyright on things you create, they are copyrighted as soon as you create them, BUT this tattoo artist did not invent the "tribal designs" HE is copying from, so his work is not original. His designs are NOT unique and are not distinguishable from other "tribal designs."

1061 days ago
44.

TheBrain    

Mike Tyson should charge the artist for advertising space on his face. After all, he has been showcasing and promoting this design for a number of years.

If someone buys an original painting from an artist, who then owns the art? Is it the artist or the person who bought the painting. I would think the person who paid the artist owns the rights to the work.

If something is copyrighted it should be made known that it is copyrighted so something like this doesn't happen. The artist should have included the little TM on Mike Tyson's face.

1061 days ago
45.

the artist formerly known as hand turkey    

If you buy a painting, the artist still owns the copyright, not the person who buys it. Copyright is not the same as a trademark.

1061 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web