As if we didn't have enough lawsuits in the United States over everything from spilling hot coffee on yourself to retribution for faulty medical practice, there is a relatively new arena of lawsuits coming forward over tattoos. That latest is over the tattoo that adorns the former boxer Mike Tyson's face. It was reproduced for use in the film "The Hangover Part II" in which Mike Tyson also briefly plays a role. It is not Mike Tyson as some might predict who is suing, but rather the artist who created the tattoo and claims that no one asked permission to re-produce his artwork for the film and now wants monetary compensation. There have been a few lawsuits in the past regarding tattoos and their reproduction, but this is just the latests which exemplifies the truly muddy waters that need to be waded through in order to sort this whole mess out. After all, the original work of art, (on Mike Tyson's face) is in the film itself. This lawsuit, apparently, aims at protecting intellectual property or artwork, or the artist who created the design himself. One can make the claim however, that he borrowed ideas from the native Maori's of New Zealand as a basis for the tattoo. I don't see them suing over intellectual property rights over the reproduction of art. The tricky part with tattoos is that while the person whose body the tattoo is inked on owns the tattoo itself, they technically don't actually own the design itself. One could argue that nothing was done wrong in the sense that the tattoo was not reproduced for sale or personal monetary gain (although the artist will claim it was since it "might" make the movie production studio more money) and that since it wasn't, it is ok to reproduce the art.
There is a very fine line in artwork that can't be crossed. To me that fine line is reproducing a work of art, regardless of origin, for the explicit use of making money off of it. As long as recognition is being paid to the original artist, then there should be nothing wrong with reproducing someone elses artwork. Artists, obviously will claim otherwise. But lets look at another example. In the movie, "The Da Vince Code", there is a painting of the Mona Lisa, obviously a reproduction, that is an important part of the movie. The art was reproduced because the original is priceless and would never be used as the reproduced art was in the movie. Additionally, the original artist has long passed away and we would never know if he would file a lawsuit against the movie production studio over the use of his artwork. (My guess is, he wouldn't) In this case, the work of art was not resold to make direct money, just as the reproduced tattoo was not used to make direct money off of. If the tattoo is exactly reproduced by another tattoo artist with the explicit intent of making money, then the original artist has a right to be upset. But in the world of art, borrowing other ideas, making them your own, and building off of them is an integral part of making art. People use aspects of other's artwork all the time. They may not copy it exactly, but they may use different aspects of the work and incorporate them into their own.
In the end, if I was the artist who created the tattoo on Mike Tyson's face, all I would ask for is recognition in the credits for creating the original tattoo. That alone is enough to boost business and attract attention. By suing over the reproduction of a tattoo, I feel that it signals that an artist is not doing as well as he would like to be doing and needs an excuse to get himself in the media to get his fifteen minutes of fame. If I ever was to hunt down Mike Tyson's tattoo artist because of what he did for Mike Tyson (which I wouldn't do to begin with), I would never do so after finding out that he sued over the tattoo. Should the movie production studio have asked for permission to use the tattoo, absolutely, but I believe that the artist suing over the reproduction of his art is a little severe and over the top. Yet, that is the world we live in, where everyone goes overboard with everything they do, seeking retribution for anything that goes wrong, and always looking for someone else to pay. The artist should be greatful instead that he had the opportunity to tattoo Mike Tyson's face and then have that tattoo reproduced for a major motion picture. But no, that is not enough, he must have more. I find it personally ridiculous, but then again, I am probably in the minority here. In any case, let us all seek to be ourselves, be responsible for our own actions, and not constantly look to make other's pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment