Mike Tyson's Tattoo

I have resisted writing about this for as long as I have resisted seeing the movie but by now everyone has heard about the recently settled lawsuit arising from "The Hangover Part II" specifically over Ed Helms replica of Mike Tyson's face tattoo.

Victor S. Whitmill, the tattoo artist who first gave Tyson his signature Maori-warrior inspired facial tattoo sued Warner Brothers for "reckless copyright infringement".

The concept may appear silly or sinister until one is reminded of the purpose of copyright --which is to protect "original works of authorship" including works of visual art. I have never represented a tattoo artist but I have represented professional photographers and graphic artists and I can attest that their rights are routinely violated by others who are either ignorant or unconcerned with their intellectual property rights in and to their own work. In this respect, Mr. Whitmill's lawsuit against the makers of "The Hangover Part II" has real significance.

Because the lawsuit settled we will never get to examine the more fascinating issues of the case – Warner Brothers' apparent defense of fair use (i.e. Mr. Helms' tattoo was allegedly a parody of Mike Tyson's tattoo) or my initial question – was Mr. Whitmill's tattoo "fixed in a tangible medium of expression"( as is required by Section 102 of the Copyright Act) but scholars will still have an opportunity to debate these issues for some time to come.

The RIAA filesharing lawsuits: a new chapter

I have been meaning to write something about the creative legal assaults on the RIAA filesharing lawsuits. First, I was impressed by the fact that Jammie Thomas’ attorney Brian Todder had convinced the court to overturn the jury verdict in her trial in Minnesota and I was similarly impressed by a Harvard law professor’s constitutional challenge against the RIAA in his defense of Boston University student Joel Tennenbaum. I am not an advocate of illegal downloading, I just think that the file sharing lawsuits are not the right way to address the problems of the record business.

However, I was not prepared for the article in the December 19, 2008 Wall Street Journal which indicated that the RIAA was poised to abandon its legal assault on file sharing. The article did not specifically say whether the decision would affect all existing suits or simply apply to new suits. There is also some potentially troubling news about an alliance between the RIAA and various ISPs that sounds a little like the Patriot Act ver. 2.I can’t help but think that some of these recent developments made the RIAA less confident of their strategy. On the other hand, perhaps they finally realized the stupidity of suing their own customers. This was a bad idea to begin with. As far as I can tell, the lawsuits had no discernible effect on the worst offenders. The music industry needs to find a way to embrace the new generation of music fans and bring them into the fold. I don’t know if anybody has the idea but lots of people have good ideas. I am old enough to remember some of the great marketing Warner Bros. did in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s which made people life long fans of many of its acts. They basically gave away a lot of free music to anyone who would pay for postage. I can’t help but think that this was more effective than suing a bunch of college students and high school kids.