Well, here's an interesting twist on the lawsuit from Victor Whitmill over the copyright on Mike Tyson's face tattoo. Many people have pointed out that the design appears to be inspired by the Maori, and it appears that Maori tattoo experts think Whitmill doesn't deserve anything at all:

Professor Ngahuia Te Awekotuku, author of Mau Moko: The World of Maori Tattoo, described Mr Whitmill's claims of ownership as insufferable arrogance. "It is astounding that a Pakeha tattooist who inscribes an African American's flesh with what he considers to be a Maori design has the gall to claim that design as his intellectual property," she said.

"The tattooist has never consulted with Maori, has never had experience of Maori and originally and obviously stole the design that he put on Tyson.

"The tattooist has an incredible arrogance to assume he has the intellectual right to claim the design form of an indigenous culture that is not his."

That article notes that a local Parliament member said that it was a "bit rich" for Whitmill to be "moaning about the breach of copyright copied off Maori." Seems like bringing in a Maori tattoo expert would make for an interesting witness if this ever actually goes to trial...

We just wrote about how the judge in the Hangover 2/Mike Tyson tattoo copyright case had said that she wouldn't block the release of the movie, but would let the lawsuit proceed and indicated that the tattoo artist would likely prevail. I thought she just meant on proving the initial infringement, but other reports are saying that pretty clearly mocked Warner Bros.' defenses, including fair use on the tattoo:

Judge Perry briefly discussed the defense's claim of Fair Use, opining that there was no parody or transformative use, the entire tattoo in its original form was used (not in any parody form), the tattoo was not necessary to the basic plot of the movie, and that Warner Brothers used the tattoo substantially in its marketing of the movie.

This seems problematic for a bunch of reasons, but one part that troubles me (and we had some of this discussion in our comments) is whether or not the tattoo is parody. Frankly, I can't see how it's not parody. The reason that people claim that it's not transformative or parody is that it's an identical copy and thus isn't parodying the original tattoo. But that seems entirely wrong. While it's the tattoo itself that's copyrighted, you have to look at the context of the tattoo -- and in this case that includes the fact that it's on Mike Tyson's face. Putting it on Ed Helms' character (in many ways the antithesis of Tyson's character) is a clear parody of Tyson and his tattoo. I have trouble seeing how you could argue otherwise. If the point of the tattoo on Helms' face wasn't to parody the same tattoo on Tyson's face, then what's the joke here? Along those lines, it seems like you could also make the case that it's clearly transformative, in that the original "expression" is the tattoo on Tyson's face. Moving that tattoo -- even if identical -- to Helms' face significantly transforms the tattoo into saying something entirely different. Ignoring the fact that the tattoo goes hand in hand with whose face its on doesn't make any sense at all, and suggests a misreading of the intentions of the fair use setup.

Finally, I have trouble believing the argument that this would somehow negatively impact "the market" for S. Victor Whitmill's "work." Just what is that "market"? How many people want the same tattoo that's on Mike Tyson's face? If anything, it seems like the movie might (if only so slightly) increase the market, rather than diminish it.

The whole case seems like a joke, and the judge's initial comments seem really out of line with the basics of copyright law.

About a month ago, we wrote about tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill suing Warner Bros. for violating his copyright on the tattoo on Mike Tyson's face, since a similar tattoo is used on Ed Helms' face in the movie (Tyson also appears in the movie, but I guess that use is somehow "licensed"). There was some attention paid to the fact that Warner Bros. made a "fair use" claim in its response to the lawsuit, but the entertainment industry regularly claims fair use, so that didn't seem all that odd or surprising. The key early question was whether or not the judge would issue an injunction, halting the release of the movie this week, which would have cost Warner Bros. a ridiculous amount of money considering all of the marketing going into the release.

Thankfully, the judge has denied the request for an injunction, meaning that the movie will still be released. However, she does note that Whitmill has "a strong likelihood of ultimately succeeding on the merits of the case." I find that to be a bit troubling as well, but we'll see how the case goes. Of course, if you accept that fair use is not a right, but just a defense, it is possible to see how Whitmill may succeed in showing infringement, while Warner Bros. could still win with a fair use defense. Still, the whole thing seems pretty ridiculous. If Whitmill still wins, he could receive a large chunk of money in an award and could still get an injunction for future releases (DVD, cable, etc.). Over a parody tattoo.

Of course, there's a clear element of Warner Bros., a leading proponent of stricter copyright enforcement, being hoisted on its own petard, in this case, but it seems unlikely that anyone at Warner Bros. has the self-awareness necessary to recognize that its own constant refrain about the importance of "protecting" copyright is part of what now puts it in this position.

It really was just a couple of weeks ago that we asked the (we thought) hypothetical question of who owns the copyright on a tattoo, and noted it would be a good question for a law school exam. We did mention one case, but it was settled out of court. Now we may have another. Apparently the artist who designed the tattoo on Mike Tyson's face is suing Warner Bros. and seeking an injunction to block the studio from releasing the upcoming movie The Hangover 2. In that movie, Ed Helms apparently ends up with a tattoo quite similar to Tyson's (Tyson appeared in the first Hangover movie). The tattoo artist, S. Victor Whitmill, did in fact register the design with the Copyright Office, and even got Mike Tyson to sign a release making it clear that Whitmill retained the copyright on the work. I would think that Warner Bros. has a number of potential defenses here, including parody fair use. It's certainly difficult to claim that this movie in any way diminishes the market for the original tattoo. My guess is that there may be some sort of quick settlement with Warner Bros. paying off Whitmill to make this go away, which is exactly what Whitmill wants. However, if it does go to court, we can see how good all of you were at answering that law school exam question we posited...