No Infringement Intended: Can Tattoos Be Copyrighted? The Legal Battle Over Mike Tyson’s Iconic Ink

No Infringement Intended: Can Tattoos Be Copyrighted? The Legal Battle Over Mike Tyson’s Iconic Ink

In an age where body art has become a global fashion statement and an inseparable part of celebrity culture, a pressing legal question looms large: Can a tattoo be copyrighted—and if so, who owns it? This debate was spotlighted in a high-stakes courtroom battle involving none other than boxing legend Mike Tyson, a Hollywood blockbuster, and the tattoo artist behind his iconic ink.

Think of the distinctive lightning bolt scar on Harry Potter’s forehead or the iconic “S” on Superman’s chest—some images are so deeply linked with a person or character that they become inseparable from their identity. Tattoos today have reached that level too.

Tattoos, Copyrights, and the Tyson Case: A Legal Grey Area

From Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s intricate Polynesian sleeve to Post Malone’s signature face tattoos, ink has transcended personal expression to become a cornerstone of public identity. But once a design becomes permanently etched into someone’s skin—and especially if it enters pop culture—does the original artist maintain any legal control? This question was tested not only in Tyson’s case but also in a notable lawsuit involving LeBron James. Tattoo artist James Hayden sued LeBron James and video game publisher 2K Games for using his tattoo designs in a basketball game. However, the court ruled in LeBron’s favour, saying people with tattoos have an “implied license” to display them as part of their own likeness. This legal conundrum resurfaced when tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill sued Warner Bros. over the use of his design in The Hangover Part II.

Back in 2003, Mike Tyson approached Whitmill, known for his expertise in tribal tattooing, for a bold face design inspired by Māori or Tā moko art. The final design, curving around Tyson’s eye and forehead, became instantly recognizable and widely discussed. Fast forward a few years, that same tattoo became central to The Hangover Part II's plot. In the 2011 sequel, Ed Helms’ character, Stu, wakes up in Bangkok with a replica of Tyson’s tattoo—a visual gag that drives much of the film's humour and plot.

Just weeks before the film’s release, Whitmill filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. for copyright infringement, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the movie’s distribution. He argued that his original artwork had been copied without his permission and that its widespread use in trailers and posters could harm both his reputation and the commercial value of his design. Warner Bros. countered with the massive financial and logistical implications of delaying a blockbuster film and raised defences based on fair use, parody, satire, and First Amendment rights.

Legally, to qualify for copyright, a work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. Whitmill had already registered the tattoo design in 2003, and the production company hadn’t obtained his consent. While the tattoo’s simplicity may raise eyebrows, copyright law only demands a minimal level of creativity—a bar that’s been met by even phone directories in past rulings. Courts have accepted simple works before if they are original and fixed. However, the heart of the issue was whether a human body—Tyson’s skin—could be considered a valid "medium" for a copyrighted work.

Warner Bros. enlisted David Nimmer, a leading copyright scholar, as an expert witness. Nimmer had previously suggested tattoos could count as fixations under the Copyright Act, but he changed his stance during this case. He explained how copyright law requires a “substrate” to hold the expression—like paper, a stone tablet, or a computer drive. He compared this to writing words in beach sand that the tide washes away, or drawing on a frosted window that melts—these aren’t stable fixations. David Nimmer warned that granting copyright to tattoos could lead to extreme consequences: artists might claim legal control over someone else’s body, their image, or how they appear in public or media. Nimmer warned, “Copyright law thereby becomes the instrument to impose almost literally a badge of involuntary servitude akin to the mark with which ranchers brand the cattle they own.” If Whitmill were granted rights, he could even claim a say in whether Tyson altered or covered the tattoo—and potentially have claims against media outlets showing Tyson’s face. This idea of “involuntary servitude” highlighted the unusual complications tattoos pose for copyright.

The judge ultimately refused to block the film’s release, citing the overwhelming cost and disruption such an injunction would cause. However, the court also noted that Whitmill had a strong chance of winning on the merits of his copyright claim—suggesting tattoos might indeed be protected works under copyright law. The case settled out of court, and with that, the opportunity for a landmark precedent vanished. The unresolved nature of the Tyson tattoo case leaves a grey area in copyright law. As tattoos become increasingly central to celebrity branding, entertainment, sports, and fashion, the absence of clear legal guidance poses challenges for artists, performers, and media companies alike. While The Hangover Part II was allowed to hit theatres, the larger question still looms: when art lives on human skin, who gets to own the story it tells?

Tattoos as Copyrightable Art in India

India’s intellectual property regime is evolving to acknowledge tattoos as protectable artistic works. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, any original artistic creation fixed in a tangible medium—such as paintings, drawings, or engravings—is eligible for protection. Tattoos, as permanent and original designs inked onto the skin, qualify under this definition. By default, the tattoo artist holds the initial copyright, although this can be altered through contractual agreements, assignments, licenses, or waivers. With India’s tattoo industry valued at over ₹20,000 crore, explicit legal clarity is essential. Recognising tattoos as copyrightable art will empower artists and protect creative expression. In India, tattoos are seen as artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957, with the artist being the first copyright owner. However, conflicts can arise between the artist’s rights and the rights of the person with the tattoo. While the law gives the artist rights to reproduce and share their work, the person tattooed also has rights to privacy and personal freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution. As noted by the Fashion Law Journal, India needs clearer rules to balance artists’ rights with individual freedom.