A trial date of February 21, 2012 has been set for the dispute between tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill and Warner Bros concerning the use of a tattoo, created by Whitmill, in the movie The Hangover Part II. You’ll recall that the Courts refused to grant Whitmill a preliminary injunction to prevent the release of the movie. However, since then Warner Bros has gone on record in a brief to the Court stating that if the dispute is unable to be resolved before the DVD release date, which is scheduled for sometime in December 2011, the movie will be digitally altered to remove the allegedly infringing tattoo. If the use of the tattoo in the movie is found to infringe Whitmill’s copyright, this move will save Warner Bros from additional liability as well as deny Whitmill the chance for additional monies in the way of a larger award. Instead, Whitmill will have to rely solely on the use of the tattoo in theatric showings as well as on promotional marketing to determine damages. Since a private mediation session has already been scheduled for June 16, it’s likely that this case will be settled (confidentially) long before then.
Copyright Archive
Update: The Hangover Part II – Tyson’s Tattoo
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in Copyright, IP and Business, IP Litigation, TrademarkGhost Hunters TV Show Concept Allegedly Stolen
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in CopyrightThe television show Ghost Hunters, which airs on the Syfy (previously Sci-Fi) channel, chronicles a team of investigators who travel around the country studying paranormal activity. Currently in its seventh season, Ghost Hunters has had relative success as a television show. However in November of 2006, a complaint was filed against, among others, NBC Universal Inc. (owners of the Syfy channel) and the producers of the show, Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc. That complaint culminated in a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[1]
According to the original complaint, Larry Montz, in 1981, “conceived of an idea for a television show that would follow a team of paranormal investigators conducting field investigations.”[2] Between 1996 and 2003, Montz pitched the idea to television studios, including NBC and the Syfy channel. Read the remainder of this entry »
Mike Tyson’s Tattoo Center of Copyright Litigation
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in CopyrightMike Tyson’s Tattoo Center of Copyright Litigation
Warner Bros.
The tattoo artist that designed the famous tattoo (similar to those found on the faces of the Maori people of New Zealand) on the left side of Mike Tyson’s face is suing Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. for copyright infringement for their use of a nearly identical tattoo in their upcoming movie The Hangover Part II.[1] According to the complaint, in 2003 S. Victor Whitmill created and applied the tattoo in question to Tyson’s face. Read the remainder of this entry »
Application for Copyright Satisfies Registration Requirement for Litigation
By Robert H. Bejcek II | Filed in CopyrightA federal copyright registration is a perquisite to filing a lawsuit against an alleged infringer.[1] However in a recent Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case, Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/InteractiveCorp, decided on May 25, 2010, the issue was raised as to what qualifies as a copyright “registration.”[2] Specifically, is a copyright “registered” at the time it is filed or at the time the U.S. Copyright Office actually issues the registration certificate? Considering a number of factors including the literal language of the Copyright Act, the intent of the Act, and the practicality of both positions, the Court held that, for purposes of civil litigation, a copyright is registered when a complete application is submitted to the Copyright Office.
Industrial Designs; The Intersection of Art and Engineering
By Dominic A. Frisina JD, MA | Filed in Copyright, Design Patent, Industrial Designs, Trade DressIndustrial designs are the aesthetic appointments that make finished goods attractive. For instance, the functionality of Apple’s iMac® does not depend on its unusual combination of a personal computer and video screen in a single artfully formed unit, but it certainly is both appealing and distinctive, and that is value worth protecting. However, at the intersection of form, function, art and engineering certain unique problems arise that render the proper choice of intellectual property (IP) less than certain.
