Tattoo and Sued

We see tattoos of all types on all kinds of people everyday. With the most famous ones coming from celebrities themselves. It is no secret that people love to make fun of their tattoos since many are just plain ugly and hard to believe that someone actually thought it was a good idea. 

That brings the questions, if people own their own bodies, does that mean they own the sometimes awful art they put on it too? Or how much does the tattoo artist own if it is their design? If a celebrity shows up in a tv show or movie and that body art is shown does the artist get a cut? Should they be able to argue that they needed permission?

With this, the Mike Tyson tattoo controversy may come to mind. In 2011, tattoo artist Steven Victor Whitmill, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Warner Bros. for using the tattoo in the movie Hangover II. He argued that the tattoo was his artistic property and was not asked permission for it to be used. Although this may seem like a petty reason to sue, it starts a discussion about artists and their rights to their works.

In this case, I believe Whitmil was in the right to file the lawsuit and receive money for a tattoo he had already registered with the United States Copyright Office in 2003. So it isn’t like he was making a big deal for nothing. I agree that tattoos should be seen as a final product, meaning after the artist is paid for their work that should be the end and would not receive any compensation for anything that body art maybe seen on the client. That is, if the art was not protected under copyright law. The company could have avoided this if they had done some research and asked for permission in the first place.

Someone may argue that in the context of the film that it falls under parody, and that they didn’t need to ask for permission. However for it to fall under fair use, “the new work must comment on the original work being used and not used just with the intent to be funny”, as mentioned in this video on the copyright alliance website.

As for what ended up happening, the case was settled outside of court. I think that the case brought to light some important issues about how copyright law is something that should be taken seriously even by large companies such as Warner Bros. Although the law my look restrictive, it protects creators and their works and when the law is followed it still allows people to create new things while still having freedom of speech.