Hollywood, FL – At the BKFC 62 event, the crowd was abuzz with excitement as BigFace, the charismatic host of Knuckletown, interviewed one of the most formidable fighters in the bare knuckle boxing world, David “The Redneck” Mundell. As the reigning BKFC middleweight champion, Mundell’s absence from the ring has left fans eagerly awaiting his
9. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc. In 1999, to the dismay of musicians around the world looking to sell albums, Shawn Fanning, an 18-year-old whiz kid studying computer science at Northeastern University, created Napster, a peer-to-peer music sharing service that allowed users to download MP3s for free. A&M Records, part of Universal Music Group, a heavy hitter in the music industry, as well as several other record companies affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America slapped Napster with a lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused Napster of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The case went from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where Napster was found guilty on both counts. In 2002, Napster was shut down. Grokster, another music-sharing site, surged on for a few more years, but it too stopped operating when the Supreme Court ruled against it in MGM v. Grokster in 2005.
In 2011, the art world witnessed a crucial moment when Mike Tyson’s tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill took a bold step by filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against entertainment giant Warner Bros. just prior to the release of “The Hangover Part II.” Whitmill’s claim was clear: the facial tattoo worn by actor Ed Helms in the film infringed on the copyright of a tattoo he had artistically crafted for none other than Mike Tyson.
5. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc. Barbie was 42 years old when the exotic, puffy-lipped Bratz dolls Cloe, Jade, Sasha and Yasmin strolled onto the scene in 2001. Tensions escalated as the Bratz seized about 40 percent of Barbie’s turf in just five years. The Bratz struck first. In April 2005, their maker MGA Entertainment filed a lawsuit against toy powerhouse Mattel, claiming that the line of “My Scene” Barbies copied the big-headed and slim-bodied physique of Bratz dolls. Mattel then swatted back, accusing Bratz designer Carter Bryant for having designed the doll while on Mattel’s payroll. Bryant worked for Mattel from September 1995 to April 1998 and then again from January 1999 to October 2000, under a contract that stipulated that his designs were the property of Mattel.
Tyson once again had the opportunity to fight for a heavyweight championship in 2002. Lennox Lewis held the WBC, IBF, IBO and Lineal titles at the time. As promising fighters, Tyson and Lewis had sparred at a training camp in a meeting arranged by Cus D’Amato in 1984. Tyson sought to fight Lewis in Nevada for a more lucrative box-office venue, but the Nevada Boxing Commission refused him a license to box as he was facing possible sexual assault charges at the time.
Zhang, like George’s situation, understands more English than he can speak, but when George corrects something that isn’t to the American perfectionist’s liking, Zhang responds, “Yes sir.” The goal, it would seem, is to have Zhang absorb George’s smooth, New York-style 126 boxing division to go along with his innate physical abilities.
Mike Tyson doesn’t have his tigers anymore; instead, he now owns a poodle named Mars. He even has his own Instagram account. But while he’s given up the wild animals of his past, he will be revisiting another notorious moment soon.
For Tyson, the tattoo holds significant personal meaning as it is a representation of his identity and individuality. By choosing such a bold and distinctive design, he is making a statement about his personality and his willingness to defy convention and embrace his true self.
Since the tattoo is part of Mike Tyson’s skin and face, then when Tyson is acting and his face is engaging in expressions, delivery of dialogue, and such, can it be argued that the tattoo is engaging in a “performance?” Remote, but then so is this whole topic. I also credit another legal commentator for pointing out that human organs generally are not subject to intellectual property ownership. The skin is an organ. While the tattoo and ink are not organs, once permanently embedded in the skin, they would seem to be part of that organ. I’ll let you take a shot at piecing an argument together based on that interesting line of thought.
One fateful day in the winter of 2003, Mike Tyson decided to get an enormous tribal tattoo right on his face. You might think that’s the sort of thing he’d look back on now at the age of 50 and regret, but no.
While the outcome of the case was not precedential, Perry’s comments were the first time that a government official commented on the copyrightability of tattoos. They were also significant in drawing a distinction between the tattoo’s design and application. Despite the case settling, it prompted further discussion of the topic and speculation as to how the case might have proceeded if it had gone to trial.
Leave a Reply