Rachel Valadez

Contact Rachel

This month, the legal blogosphere has been all atwitter about aMissouri tattoo artist’s lawsuit against the studio behind The Hangover 2, and the artist’s attempt to stop not only the release of the film, but even block the studio’s ads and promotional materials. In case you aren’t up-to-date on your face art-related news (there’s just so much out there!), let’s catch you up: St. Louis tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill has sued Warner Bros. claiming that a tattoo featured on the face of one of The Hangover’s main characters, Stu Price, played by Ed Helms, infringed Whitmill’s copyright in a very similar tattoo he placed on boxing-champ Mike Tyson’s face back in 2003. A cursory comparison of the two tattoos shows how strikingly similar they are, and when coupled with Whitmill’s allegations, perhaps how worried WB should be. (Hat tip to TMZ for the side-by-side comparison.)

Whitmill alleges that in 2003 he created “one of the most distinctive tattoos in the nation” — one that looks nothing like a facial version of the tramp stamp gracing the lower back of half of the current denizens of Hollywood nightclubs — by placing an original “tribal tattoo” (the registered name of the copyrighted work) on the upper left side of Tyson’s face. At the time he applied the tattoo, Whitmill apparently had Tyson sign a release (attached as an exhibit toWhitmill’s complaint). Although the release primarily contains typical tattoo/piercing CYA language (the signing client represents they’re over 18, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc.) it also contains a provision stating “I understand that all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property of Paradox-Studio of Dermagraphics” (Whitmill’s d/b/a, which pretty ingeniously linguistically science-ifies tattoo artistry).

While Whitmill’s release language seemingly purports to grant him ownership of any image of Tyson in which the tattoo is displayed (the actual photographers might have something to say about that, I think), Whitmill kept silent as Tyson and his tattoo made their big cameo in 2009’s summer juggernaut, The Hangover. It wasn’t until a look-a-like tattoo appeared on Ed Helms’ (extremely pained-looking) face in ads for The Hangover 2 that Whitmill decided to bring an infringement claim. And already, bemused legal eagles are wondering if it’s “the best copyright complaint ever.” Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Matt Galsor

Contact Matt

Q: I read in the trades that a studio bought the rights to a nonfiction book based on a historical figure during the Gold Rush – Deadline. If historical events/figures are open game for the public to write about, when is it necessary to secure nonfiction book rights? If not legally necessary, is there any benefit in doing so?

A: Nikki Finke has taken over Hollywood (news) and has become the “trades.” Just like this blog has taken over ultra lucrative entertainment law blogging, I’m pleased to report, bankrupting, forcing into foreclosures, and running out of town most of our feeble competition. No wonder Nikki is a devout fan of this blog. (Or so I’m told by our go-to anonymous, ax-to-grind source; or maybe the source was talking about Nicky Hilton? It’s hard to know; the source was wasted.) Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Matt Falley

Contact Matt

Now listen to my story ‘bout an actress named Donna.

In case you don’t recall The Beverly Hillbillies (read: are under the age of 40), the series (which ran on CBS from 1962 to 1971, and which has enjoyed a long life in syndication) followed the Clampett family, a group of poor yokels who strike it rich after accidentally discovering oil (“Texas tea”) on their generically Southern swamp, move to Beverly Hills, and inexplicably continue to drive around in a jalopy and dress like extras from The Grapes of Wrath. One of the show’s highlights was buxom, come-hither Clampett daughter Elly May, played by an actress named Donna Douglas, whose principal non-Elly May-related claim to fame is some obscure on-set philosophizing with Elvis during the shooting of Frankie and Johnny. (And one of its lowlights was a tragic 1993 attempt at a feature film — with Playboy model and Baywatch babe Erika Eleniak reprising the role of Elly May — which garnered such rave reviews as “Unbearable,” “Was this really necessary?” and “Four writers worked on the script, and they all should hang their heads in shame.”)

Last week, Douglas sued Mattel in federal court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana over the toymaker’s recent release of an “Elly May” Barbie, asserting claims for false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of the Louisiana right of publicity statute, common law misappropriation, and unjust enrichment. In her complaint, Douglas asserts that the packaging and publicity for the Elly May Barbie use Douglas’s photograph and name, and that the doll itself copies Douglas’s “distinctive attributes in the portrayal of the Elly May character.” Douglas also claims that she never endorsed the doll or gave Mattel permission to use her name or likeness to promote sales of the Elly May Barbie. As Elly May herself might say: “Well, come on, baby. Let’s wrassle.”

Aside from raising questions about Mattel’s marketing strategy here — I’m guessing this is a “collector’s item,” because have any adolescent girls ever even heard of The Beverly Hillbillies? — Douglas’s lawsuit highlights a potential collision between the right of publicity and the rights granted to copyright owners. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Aaron Gafni

Contact Aaron

For those readers who have ever wondered how we at Law Law Land come up with blog topics, know that it is a very sophisticated process. Case in point:

Associate 1 agrees to wear a pig beanie recently worn by actor Jared Leto if Associate 2 takes him out to breakfast.

Associates 1 and 2 cannot find the actual pig beanie worn by said actor.

Associate 2 finds the following alternatives: close, closer, and way off but it flies.

Naturally, Associate 2 believes that Associate 1 should wear the flying pig hat (how could he not). Associate 1 protests. Associate 2 emails other associates for support. One of those associates notices that one of the “Customers Also Viewed” suggestions on Amazon is a food truck-themed pornographic film named “The Flying Pink Pig.” Another associate points out that, according to TMZ, the owners of the Flying Pig food truck had recently sent a cease and desist letter to the film’s producers, claiming that they were led to believe that the food truck would be used as a backdrop for a normal film (rather than a prop for a Ron Jeremy sex romp). Alas, a blog post is born.

This situation has implications that touch far beyond the comparatively limited food truck community (though these days, there may be more food trucks than people in Los Angeles). Any property owner who decides to rent out a property for a film shoot should take note — especially if it happens to be in the San Pornando Valley. What happens if you rent your home/business/food truck for a film, and the film turns out to be something a little more unseemly than you expected? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q: I wrote a screenplay as a collaborative effort with three other people, and the four of us have a signed agreement regarding our collaboration. I registered the work with WGA (listing all four of us on the registration) and one of the other people took care of copyrighting the work. Well, he took the work and copyrighted it as him being the sole author. He did not put my name or either of the other two people’s names on it. It was not his idea, he is not the producer, and he did not write the screenplay. He is simply one of four that has developed the story. Now what do we do?

A: See, this is the problem with people. You try to work together, everything appears to be going along swimmingly and then one of them runs off and does something like this. Faithful readers, this is why your Law Law Land bloggers never interact with anyone, let alone each other. We find people as pleasant as the razor blade scene in A Prophet. That’s why we sit in our respective offices with the doors closed, shades drawn, pouring over legal documents, writing blogs, pounding 5-Hour Energies, and trying desperately hard to post humorous comments beneath the photos at http://www.awkwardfamilyphotos.com/. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Julia Haye

Contact Julia

Sorry for vanishing this week, dear readers. Between Kate Middleton locking down Prince Wills and Navy Seals taking down Osama, it’s been a nonstop news frenzy, and there’s very little we have to say about any of it — except, perhaps, to wonder what sort of legal claim the extremely unhappy-looking little girl in the bottom-left of this photomight assert, or to discuss my potential claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on being subjected to the rogues gallery ofRoyal Wedding hats (egad!). But now that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are busy living happily ever after, it’s time to look forward to the next big wedding, coming soon to a theater near you: the marriage of Bella Swan and Edward Cullen. (Big sigh from Team Jacob.)

Twilight fans are dying to witness the magical wedding of the innocent Bella to her sexy vampire boyfriend Edward (previously known as Cedric Diggory), as well as other monumental events that occur in Breaking Dawn, the final book in the Twilight Saga. (Umm, of course I wouldn’t know anything about that…it’s not like I read the entire series cover to cover. Nope, definitely not me!). The first installment, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1, is scheduled to hit theaters on November 18, and Part 2 will follow in November 2012 (way to milk the franchise, Summit Entertainment). Just as the excitement for the film is building, someone always has to go and ruin the fun.

Several weeks ago, several unauthorized screenshots from Breaking Dawn were leaked and illegally posted on Twitter by anonymous users. Needless to say, Summit Entertainment was not happy. Filmmakers issued a statement pleading with fans not to view the photos or distribute them online. Robert Pattinson even made his own Cullen-like appeal to fans, asking them to “punish” the infringers and to “police your own.” (Of course, producers have let someofficially-sanctioned scraps out for the well-behaved Twi-hards of the world.) And most producers would stop there, with only their angry-sounding statements and impassioned pleas to fans to protect themselves. But Summit, you’ll recall is the studio that sued the makers of high-profile wardrobe pieces from the Twilight movies for advertising them as high-profile wardrobe pieces from the Twilight movies. It’s the studio that came after a lonely defendant for statutory damages for copyright infringement for leaking photos from last year’sEclipse. And now, it’s the studio that has taken the uncommonly aggressive step of filing a lawsuit against ten “John Doe” defendants. What does this mean? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Be Sociable, Share!

•