Chris Pizzello/Associated PressMike Tyson poses with a poster for “Hangover II.” A tattoo artist who claimed that the film used his design without permission has settled his suit against the movie’s studio, Warner Brothers Entertainment.A lawsuit by a Missouri tattoo artist that threatened to stop the distribution of the blockbuster sequel “Hangover Part II” has been settled, the movie’s studio, Warner Brothers Entertainment, announced this week.
The tattoo artist, S. Victor Whitmill, had gone to Federal District Court in St. Louis in April to argue that Warner Brothers had failed to get his permission to use his design for a face tattoo, created in 2003 for the boxer Mike Tyson, on one of the central characters in the movie.
Mr. Whitmill’s suit sought to stop the release of the movie over the Memorial Day weekend because of what it called “reckless copyright infringement.”
In a brief statement, the studio said: “W.B. and Mr. Whitmill have amicably resolved their dispute. No other information will be provided.”
In the movie, the tattoo that is on the left side of Mr. Tyson’s face had migrated to the strait-laced character Stu, played by Ed Helms, who along with his buddies can’t quite recall what happened the night before.
Days before the movie was set to open, Judge Catherine D. Perry rejected Mr. Whitmill’s request. And in the nearly four weeks since it opened, the movie has grossed more than $230 million, including an opening weekend of $85 million.
But Judge Perry made it clear in her comments to the lawyers that she was sympathetic to Mr. Whitmill’s argument, noting that he had a “strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits for copyright infringement” and that most of the arguments put forward by Warner Brothers were “just silly.” On Friday, the two sides met with a mediator in St. Louis as ordered by the judge. By Monday, the studio had issued its terse announcement of a settlement.
With the settlement, however, there is still no clear legal guidance on the tricky questions raised by copyright claims to tattoos, which, after all, live on another person’s body. An earlier case, involving a Nike advertisement that used a tattoo on the shoulder of the N.B.A. star Rasheed Wallace, also settled.
And there is still no significant written decision on the subject. Judge Perry’s comments on tattoo copyright were clear, but they were spoken. While allowing the movie to be released she said: “Of course tattoos can be copyrighted. I don’t think there is any reasonable dispute about that. They are not copyrighting Mr. Tyson’s face, or restricting Mr. Tyson’s use of his own face, as the defendant argues, or saying that someone who has a tattoo can’t remove the tattoo or change it, but the tattoo itself and the design itself can be copyrighted, and I think it’s entirely consistent with the copyright law.”