It’s said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Such flattery, then, is often seen in art the world over. But where does one draw the line between imitation and inspiration, between flattery and flat-out disrespect? This would be an ongoing argument for artists of all types, who constantly find themselves in scenarios in which their work is either compromised or copied. What constitutes as a copy, though, would not be left solely to the artist, but also to our legal and judicial system. With that thought in mind, I must ask -can we talk?
On May 19, 2011, a great portion of the world took a collective sigh of relief. Not as result of the famed and farcical The Hangover II having been released, as one would think, but because it almost wasn’t. $80 million, weeks of filming and editing and years of planning were nearly lost because of one single set of symbols temporarily marking the face of actor Ed Helms in the film. To the film’s near demise, Ed’s face bore a temporary (prop) tattoo crafted in the fashion of that plastered on the side of boxer Mike Tyson’s face, created and applied for him by Las Vegas tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill.
April 28th, 2011, Whitmill made efforts to sue Warner Bros. studios for copyright infringement, stating that his tattoo design was used in the Hangover II installation without his permissions and without any reference to his original work. Marcus Stephen Harris writes that, “In his complaint, Whitmill sought not only damages but an injunction to stop the release of the film and a permanent injunction against the film.”
In a 2012 interview with Graham Bensinger, Mike Tyson shares with the world that the markings on his face have meaning beyond simply looking kind of scary; they’re tribal marks. This would indicate that they are not originally designed by the tattoo artist himself, simply arranged in a specific manner. That’s where artistic property and intent of use come into play, which is quite the thin ice to skate on.
Mike Tyson explains the origin of his tattoo.
“Without any changes or adjustments introduced while creating artwork under the influence of another piece of art, then you’re simply in the presence of plagiarism.” Saved Tattoo, “Is It Rude to Ask a Tattoo Artist to Copy a Tattoo?”
In short, Whitmill accuse the studio of plagiarism -knocking off his work for “personal” profit or gain. A closer look at the prop used for the film, however, would leave one a bit dissatisfied. The marking is very much a replica, in every way imaginable. I’ve seen knockoffs sold from a trunk in China Town which more closely resembled handbags sold inside Louis Vuitton than Ed Holmes’ face drawing was “identical” to Mike Tyson’s tattoo.
My thoughts: No, I do not believe that the artist should receive compensation for his work having been referenced in the Hangover II installation. If anything the film served as free publicity for him, considering his work was portrayed not once, but twice in the same franchise.