|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
In the film, Ed Helms gets a tattoo that resembles the exact same one that Mike Tyson has on his face. Anyways, the guy who gave Mike Tyson that tattoo owns the copyright to said design, and wants to sue Warner Bros. for copyright infringement.
Warner Bros. has been actively trying to reach a settlement with the man before the issue ever has to go to court, but he refuses, and wants to take the issue to court.
Warner Bros. wouldn't comment further, but they did say they would digitally alter the tattoo for the film's dvd/vhs/blu-ray release if a settlement cannot be reached between the two parties; which would clear them of any and all copyright infringement issues that the complaintent may have. Anyways, what are you're thoughts on this?
Edit: Here's a link if you want to read more details:
http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/1522- … -exclusive
Sounds like the guy wants a "public" court date to draw more attention to his work. In Hollywood, that is the best Advertisement. A quite settlement does not give free advertisement.
Warner Brothers are wrong, they have materially profited from the Tattoo, no matter how small a part in the movie it was. The guy who owns the Tattoo is entitled to some of that if it is used.
However if WB offered him a settlement and he refused either WB offered something too small, or this guy is being too greedy.
it is debatable how much difference the tattoo made to the film, but, it was used in at least one of the TV campaigns, which means it could be considered one of the film 'highlights'.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.