The Hangover Part II

Lost-in-bangkok

Warner Bros. Will Change Tattoo for DVD Release

by at .

Warner Bros. Pictures has decided to change the tattoo featured on Ed Helms face in The Hangover 2 for the DVD release of the film.

We recently reported that The Hangover 2 would be released as planned in theaters despite a lawsuit from S. Victor Whitmill, the tattoo artist who created the original tattoo for boxer Mike Tyson.

The artist sued Warner Bros. on April 28, seeking an injunction and damages for copyright infringement.

The judge in the case allowed the film to be released as planned, but has now set a trial date for February 21, 2012.  It doesn't seem like that trial will ever happen since the studio has decided to digitally retouch the tattoo to make it look different before the DVD is released in December.
Lost in Bangkok
Here's what the court document revealed, courtesy of THR:
"If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, Warner Bros does not intend to make any use of the allegedly infringing tattoo after the film ends its run in theaters because Warner Bros will digitally alter the film to substitute a different tattoo on Ed Helms' face. The home video release is currently scheduled for early December 2011, which would allow Warner Bros sufficient time to make the change if it becomes necessary."

That is not going to be easy.  Helms has that tattoo on his face for most of the film and it would take quite a team to alter it for every single scene. 

Tags: , , ,

Related Stories

    Comments (3 Total)


    You are posting as a guest. To post as a user, please Sign In or Register


    Avatar
    Reply

    I think it's plain stupid of him. There are many people in the world who have WB characters tatooed on them so should WB sue the millions out there with bugs and daffy tattoos? C'mon it's a movie for crying out loud who liked the tattoo and decided to use it. So instead of being proud that his tattoo was in a major film he decides to sue for copyright related issues. Please we all know he's just after the money. Why else sue over a STUPID tattoo?

    Avatar
    Reply

    The artist is within his rights to sue if they did not have permission to use his work. If you had created a piece of original art and someone used it to promote a movie, book, painting, etc, than you would feel robbed as well. This isn't an old ideal, everything is copyrighted. People who paint Disney characters on walls, or even some pieces like a vase in a painting are breaking the law if they do not have permission from the original creators of it.

    Avatar
    Reply

    We wonder why tha world is coming 2 an end...ppl place a dollar value on everything now adays....what happened to go old America...when u could just do, say, and show what you wanted without ppl trying 2 get paid from it...life is 2 short to be worrying about trying 2 get paid for every little thing and enjoying tha beauty of making a movie funny and entertaining