Mike Tyson's Tattoo Artist Sues Warner Brothers

[Unitus]

has a tattoo artist ever been found guilty of copyright infringement?

I know Disney once sued a man that was covered in Disney character cartoons for copyright infringement...but they came to some agreement with him to avoid financially destroying one of their biggest fans.

[Bryan]

Saw a sneak preview last night. The judge should had stopped it. Boring movie with the same exact jokes as the first one. Instead of roofies it's muscle relaxers. Instead of a tooth it's the tattoo. Instead of a tiger it's a monkey. Go see Bridesmaids instead.

[lil_tuffy]

has a tattoo artist ever been found guilty of copyright infringement?

Yes. Tim Kern designed a custom piece for Amina Munster. She owns the copyright (transferred from Tim). Some other dude copied the tattoo exactly on another person.

I'll try and find the articles later.

Here's one -- http://www.vainjayne.com/?p=144

[RADAR]

I saw this guy at Disney World.

[Bryan]

I think the Disney tattoo guy is having them all removed. Something like 2,000 tattoos.

[DenisMutter]

I heard a discussion of this case on the radio this morning - is it true the artist only filed his copyright paperwork last month? That doesn't matter (as the copyright exist at the moment the work is created by the artist), but it does speak to the motivation of the case a little. IF it's true.

As to the parody/non parody issue - isn't it true that the tattoo and mike tyson's face pretty much inextricable?

[Mark McCormick]

Some of mr. Whitmill's original work

I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure Mr. Whitmill isn't foolish enough to claim that as HIS 'original' work. It represents his skill at a tattooist.

Tattooists have been replicating other artist's work on skin for a very long time, and I'm not exactly certain what the legalities are regarding that, but I'm sure there is some sort of infringement happening there. But at what point is it worth the effort to hire a lawyer? And really, what harm is it if your art is on some elses skin? Now, if this dude with the Frazetta tattoo appeared in a movie and the producers of the movie exploited Frazetta's art by using it for promotion, I'd say that crosses the line of what's actually worth pursuing. The commercial use of the art, as Ferg already pointed out, is where it becomes the biggest issue.

Where I get tripped up is trying to figure out what this tattoo actually means outside of the context of Mike Tyson. Does it actually mean anything?

The judge pointed out that "Any other facial tattoo would have worked as well to serve the plot device."

...do all tattoo artists have customers sign copyright and usage contracts when they apply a tattoo? Is there a legal precedent there?

This has been an issue in he past... Reed vs. Nike... (this is an old article with crappy links, but you can do a search, there are plenty more to read...)
Damning the Ink: Tattoo Artist vs. Nike & Rasheed Wallace - The Magazine Design Weblog

If I were tattooing someone potentially famous with my own original art, I would be looking into some sort of a contract, for sure.

[Mark McCormick]

Like I said, he's a decent tattoo artist, but he's going to forever be known for one of the most played and bastardized styles of tattooing because of this nonsense.....hope it worth it.

i'd say about 30 million would suffice.

[NIBOT]

if a proffessional tattooist wants to be a little bitch like matt reed, he should already know to either 1.) not tattoo celebrities... their images will be used in endorsements and to make money. duh. OR 2.) include cost of rights in the cost of the tattoo. If someone pays for a tattoo, and its part of their body, they own it. not the guy who did it. he sold it. he should have charged more apparently. but for either of these tattooists to start crying about celebrities with their tattoos appreaing in the media, they need to shut up and stop tattoing celebrities. wtf do they expect.