A federal judge today ruled that "hangover: part II" opens in theatres Thursday, but said a continuation of the copyright in the face of Mike Tyson tattoo duplicated in the film would be allowed to go forward.
A trial opened yesterday in St. Louis, MO, threatened to delay the opening of the film, but experts say that the case in progress could still shed new light on murky corners of copyright.
"We are very pleased the decision of the Court which will allow the highly anticipated film the hangover: part II released the calendar this week around the world?". Warner Brothers, behind the film production company said in a statement.
This looks like a joke directly from the upcoming comedy - which has the tattoo on the face of Mike Tyson?
In reality, it is not a joke, but a question of serious and complicated law, today be challenged before the Federal Court. The artist that famous face of Tyson tattoo inked continues the producers of the film to copy the image without paying, a combination which could potentially delay the opening film and shed light on a new corner of copyright, tattoos.
Later in the 2009 blockbuster, actor Ed Helms wakes in Bangkok after a night of heavy drinking with a facial tattoo which closely resembles that of Boxer Mike Tyson, who also appears in the film.
S. Victor Whitmill, the artist who designed and tattooed Tyson faces in 2003, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in St. Louis, arguing that Warner Brothers, the film production company in April, had violated its copyright.
"Mr. Whitmill has never asked for permission to and has never consented to the use, reproduction or the creation of a work derived based on his original tattoo," his lawyers argued in documents filed on April 28.
The reproduction of the Helms face is equivalent to "reckless copyright infringement" according to the combination.
While it might seem paradoxical that someone that the person whose face is tattooed holds the rights to this tattoo, by law, the right to reproduce the tattoo is Whitmill, his lawyer said.
Tyson did not conceal his face or pay Whitmill whenever a paparazzo snaps his picture, but if someone wants to reproduce the tattoo that they would have to pay the artist, with some important exceptions, lawyers told ABC News.com.
It is these exceptions that underlie the Warner Brothers defence ', said the Attorney for copyright Lara Pearce.
In addition, that the first sounds as a frivolous suit related to a face tattoo reproduced for a comedy, opens the door to many issues on the question of whether anyone can own a piece of someone to another bodyWhat kind of art can and cannot be protected, and when is parody impinge on someone is just to earn a living.
"This case is not about Mike Tyson, similarity of Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson the right to use or to control its identity," reads the costume. "This case is about the appropriation of the Warner Bros. art of Mr. Whitmill and Warner Bros. unauthorized use of this art, regardless of Mr. Tyson."
Whitmill a real case, said Pearce who also runs the blog brandgeek.net Act, but Warner Brothers has just as solid defence.
Warner Brothers said in a motion, he reproduced the watermark under the "fair use" provision of the Act and is used for the Tyson parody, which appears in the film.
A copyright must meet four criteria, which are intended to protect an artist losing share market to someone who steals their idea, said Pearce.
"" The first: is the Copier doing for commercial reasons or for non-profit and educational purposes? ".He said. "In this case it is commercial - film wants to make money - but the producers are not sell tattoos which will compete with the artist."
No comments:
Post a Comment