HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s … 
Toronto Fest Lands World Preem Of Godfrey Reggio’s … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown … 
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Up … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
Warner Bros is breathing a sigh of relief this morning as a St. Louis judge just ruled against Mike Tyson’s tattoo artist’s request for an injunction, allowing The Hangover 2 to be released as scheduled on Thursday. “We are very gratified by the Court’s decision which will allow the highly anticipated film, The Hangover Part II to be released on schedule this week around the world,” WB said in a statement. “Plaintiff’s failed attempt to enjoin the film in order to try and extract a massive settlement payment from Warner Bros. was highly inappropriate and unwarranted.” Warner Bros took the lawsuit very seriously, dispatching two of its top executives to St. Louis on Monday to testify in the case.
No Tattoo Holdup: Judge Rules ‘Hangover 2′ Can Be Released As Scheduled
-
Marketplace
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
Wait mike tysons tattoo artist was sueing??
How convenient for a publicity stunt. Too bad that’s the only original idea the movie promoters had because the movie is an exact copy of the original, just with a monkey in Bangkok instead of a baby in Vegas. I saw it last night, it’s not terrible, just not that great
Although the preliminary injunction was not granted, the judge also said that Warner Brother’s defenses were “silly” and that tatoos are copyrightable. This was by no means a loss for Whitmill.
I saw it last night in NYC. Is it structurally similar to the first Hangover? Absolutely. Is it the funniest film to come out since the first Hangover? Absolutely. It goes places no studio comedy has ever gone before.
It’s clear why they used the same structure. It worked the first time. It was part of the massive appeal. It’s part of having a “massive hangover”.
Honestly, the film is going to be gigantic because the comedy delivers on the hype.
I wonder how they would have ruled if the tattoo was of Mickey Mouse?
I wonder how they would explain the difference?
WORST movie of 2009? Really? I guess you didn’t see Transformers 2 (which made me want to poke out my eyes and ears) or G.I. Joe or Land of the Lost. Clearly you didn’t see very many movies that year.
Congratulations Hollywood.
This judge just weakened copyright law.
KC
How so? Yes the case has some merit, but so does the studio in claiming parody. This is a long established grey area. There is nothing in this case of any significance that will change copyright law.
I agree with Cleary.
In the past this studio and others have gone to court to prevent characters in films from wearing tee shirts etc with Superman, Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse on them.
Now they have argued for the exact opposite treatment of intellectual property that just happened to not belong to them.
WB should have just made a deal for a hefty fee for the artist but they got their “bully” on instead.
So this is now legal precedent that can apply to their IP as well.
It’s open season for characters to wear Superman and Batman logo tattoos in their bodies now in any film as long as it’s parody?
Now that’s gangsta.
There are big differences between copyright and trademark protection. Any copyright on the original Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, or Superman characters have expired, but trademark protection lasts while the public associates a mark with a specific source, whether disney, WB, or DC comics. This artist is not claiming a trademark in the tattoo, as far as I’ve heard, so the law applied to this case and to t-shirts is not the same. I believe the allowable parody standards for copyright and trademark law also differ, although I don’t recall the specific differences.
Ugh… how stupid can you people be? First, just because a tatoo is copyrightable it doesn’t mean this one was. Mickey Mouse and other cartoon characters and copyrighted and registered trademarks that are unique and distinctive not a generic tribal that the guy probably ripped off of someone else’s work to begin with.
Regardless, the only precedent here is that someone who thinks they have a claim against a studio can’t hold up the release of a film over a flippin’ tatoo. That was extortion, plain and simple.
This was simply a ruling denying the request for the injunction against the release of the film. This was not a summary judgment in favor of WB. The lawsuit can proceed normally and he’ll have his day in court to prove that he is the intellectual property owner of the art in question.
Seriously, go to your local community colleges and take a couple of basic civil procedure classes.
“Plaintiff’s failed attempt to enjoin the film in order to try and extract a massive settlement payment from Warner Bros. was highly inappropriate and unwarranted.”
Bullshit! It is perfectly warranted. The tattoo artist created something entirely new & unique (aka an intellectual property) which WB is using without the artist’s permission. This is typically called “stealing.”
So I guess that means it’s OK for me to set up show at the WB gates selling bootlegged t-shirts of all the WB characters they own, right “your honor?”
Thank God we won’t be deprived of a sequel to THE WORST MOVIE OF 2009!
The worst movie of 2009? Do you really believe that?? Land of the Lost? Confessions of a Shopaholic? Bruno? You’re really going to maintain that it was the worst film of 2009?
The Hangover made half a billion around the world. Made people laugh their asses off during an “economic downturn”, oh the horror. Imagine making something and having that kind of impact on tens of millions of people. Oh, I forgot, it’s cool to be cynical.
I didn’t like the original either, but, c’mon man, “the worst movie of 2009″? Get a grip.
whatever haters, I saw it last night and laughed my ass off , which is what matters when u go yo watch a comedy, It’s definitely worth the money, I will go watch it again!
This does not prevent the artist for continuing a suit for infringement, he just cannot stop the film from being shown. Artists have been very successful in getting compensation for unauthorized use or copying of their original artwork. And Lytton S is right – if this had been Mickey Mouse it would have been serious business.
Being as this a comedy, and Ed Helms is certainly no Mike Tyson, might not the tattoo fall under the category of parody? Protected speech?
Parody is fair use….
Not always. Again, take a law course or two.
Actually, Kevin, the judge did no such thing. Before a trial on the merits, in the face of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the claimant must prove “irreparable harm” if the injunction is not ordered, as well as a likelihood of success on the merits. Here, if the the claimant wins as to copyright infringement, the trial would then move to the “damage phase”, where the court would determine the amount of money owned to the plaintiff. Because Time Warner is financially capable of paying such damages, there would be no irreparable harm if the movie is now released. Hence, the court denied to motion for preliminary injunction.
The plaintiff will still get his day in court.
Thank you, B. for explaining that for the multitude of legal scholars posting on this thread who can’t figure out the difference between a ruling denying a injunction and a summary judgment against a plaintiff’s claim.
They have hyped the interest of this movie right out of me.
1. Mel gibsons gonna be in it.
2. No wait!!! the whole cast would boycott if he’s in it.
3. Mel gibson was replaced by Liam Nieson
4. Liam Nieson demanded his part be cut out
5. Mike Tyson is angry he was the lowest paid
6. Mike tysons tattoo artist is suing
7. zac efron was orignially cast….no wait that was was all hype
8. no wait!! zac efron was originally part of the sequel
9. It was originally to take place in mexico…but they couldnt film becase of the drug cartels…no wait that was was all hype
10. Wait Bill Clinto was supossed to play a tatto parlor worker…wait that was all hype.
enough hype…release the film, make your cash and go away.
Looks like the wealthy and powerful Goliath just stomped on David. Original art is original art. I doubt the artist could afford strong enough representation to fight the WB Legal Firm. And so, got squashed.
Hope David at least got paid.
Did you even read the article? It was only a paragraph.
Can anyone sue for a bitten ear? Are teeth marks copyrightable?
“the tattoo artist created something entirely new and unique”?!? WTF. Have you seen just about every Maori tribal design. That tattoo is neither new or unique. Very, very different than “Mickey mouse”.
I wasn’t as crazy about the first one as everybody else. Hangover part 2, however, is hilarious. I was at a pre-screening and the whole audience was laughing and at times gasping at the antics of the Wolf Pack. Great movie not just great sequel.
It’s a fuckin tribal tattoo… They didn’t make a replica of the Mona Lisa or anything.
How can you claim a few pointy lines to be original/signature content? Seriously?
I can’t imagine any of the folks mocking this case, feeling the same way if THEIR intellectual property was purloined for comedic and commercial purposes. The design is specific and copyrightable. Besides, what’s up with WB legal dept. if they did not catch this in the first place??? Someone was asleep at the wheel and WB should pay up.
A Mona Lisa tattoo? The Louvre would sue.
“Parody is fair use….”
Yes, but Warner Bros have argued elsewhere that there is no such thing as “fair use”. So now they’re saying that they have a defense under the law while denying it to others whom they sue.
No. What it means is that one guy can’t hold up the release of a film over an intellectual property complaint. He can still sue.
Isn’t it better for the artist for the film to be released and make craploads of money – because then he can sue for more? The more money it makes, the more money he can argue his tattoo is worth.
That tattoo is not Maori, it is a take off the neo tribal art created originally by Leo Zulueta years ago.
Hardly original, that style has been done to death.
The tattoo artist is being a little putz.
And even if it were Maori, you would have the natives of New Zealand up in arms for trashing their beautiful style, they take their mokos very seriously.
As a tattooist I think that artist needs to get over himself. Giving the rest of us a bad name
He did nothing original
Did the artist get paid for Tyson’s tattoo in the first film? Does he get paid now that Tyson has his own TV series? Is he a Maori tribesman? WTF. It’s a tattoo… that frames Tyson’s (and now Helm’s) eye. Has the artist seen “Blade”? There are TONS of facial tattoos that are similar. This was a ridiculous suit. Obviously, the character is paying homage to Tyson’s tattoo, but mimicking TYSON is the joke, not copying the “amazingly unique” design.
Now if they distributed temporary tattoos of the design as art of the promo campaign, I could see his point. Otherwise, get over yourself, dude.
If you retards read it right on copy right all the judge ruled is that it is to be released in time and that the tattoo artist has a strong copy right case
This Tattoo every one seems to be so concerned about you will find that its been ripped off from the Maroi people of New Zealand. But you Americans would sue anyone about anything