Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: Liam Neeson's Cameo Cut from 'Hangover 2' 
  
 Filed under: Movie News 
  
 Thinking fast, the director turned to a friend, Nick Cassavetes (director of 'The Notebook'). "We were in a complete time crunch, so I called up Nick and asked if he would do the part," Phillips explained. "He came in and crushed it, and that is the scene that you will ultimately see in the film....It turned out great."Neeson, at 58, evolved into a full-blown action star this year with the opening of the PG-13 thriller ' Unknown .' While promoting the flick, he opened up in an interview about his urge to stay busy in Hollywood after losing his beloved wife , Natasha Richardson, two years ago: "It's easy enough to plan jobs, to plan a lot of work," he said. "But that's the weird thing about grief. You can't prepare for it. You think you're gonna cry and get it over with. You make those plans, but they never work." ||||| The new, full trailer for the highly anticipated 'The Hangover Part II' has finally been released.In February, Warner Bros. released a teaser for the sequel -- which sees the three caballeros from the first film repeating their Las Vegas mistakes -- in Bangkok! Now the studio has given us a bit more of the plot, which suspiciously copies the plot of the first film, but adds a monkey to the mix.In the follow-up to the record-breaking hit comedy 'The Hangover,' Phil ( Bradley Cooper ), Stu ( Ed Helms ), Alan ( Zach Galifianakis ) and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to exotic Thailand for Stu's wedding.After the unforgettable bachelor party in Las Vegas, Stu is taking no chances and has opted for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. Things don't always go as planned, however. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens in Bangkok can't even be imagined. ||||| “Mr. Whitmill has never been asked for permission for, and has never consented to, the use, reproduction or creation of a derivative work based on his original tattoo,” argues the lawsuit, which was filed April 28, and will be taken up next week. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 The suit isn’t frivolous, however, legal experts say. They contend the case could offer the first rulings on tricky questions about how far the rights of the copyright holder extend in creations that are, after all, on someone else’s body. They are questions likely to crop up more often as it becomes more common for actors or athletes to have tattoos and as tattoo designs become more sophisticated. 
  
 Warner Brothers responded on Friday in a brief to Judge Catherine D. Perry, stating that any delay in releasing the film would have huge economic costs. It also argued that there was no legal precedent for Mr. Whitmill’s assertion of copyright, saying he had put forward a “radical claim that he is entitled, under the Copyright Act, to control the use of a tattoo that he created on the face of another human being.” 
  
 Copyright and trademark law can be hard to understand intuitively — for example, the idea that you can “own” a photograph or a letter, but not own the right to reproduce its content. The example of a tattoo, where “ownership” means having it become part of your body, actually does little to clear up the matter. 
  
 The wrinkle in the “Hangover” lawsuit is that Mr. Whitmill has taken pains to leave Mr. Tyson out of it. “This case is not about Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson’s likeness, or Mike Tyson’s right to use or control his identity,” the complaint says. “This case is about Warner Bros. appropriation of Mr. Whitmill’s art and Warner Bros. unauthorized use of that art, separate and apart from Mr. Tyson.” 
  
 “One of the things that the copyright law gives you as an artist is control over your work — and he lost control here,” said Michael A. Kahn, the lawyer who is representing Mr. Whitmill. The complaint includes a photograph of the tattoo being inked and a statement from Mr. Tyson agreeing that “all artwork, sketches and drawings related to my tattoo and any photographs of my tattoo are property” of Mr. Whitmill’s business. 
  
 If a tattoo clearly violates copyright — say, exactly reproduces a Keith Haring drawing or an Annie Leibovitz photograph without permission — could a court order it removed? 
  
 Photo 
  
 The case gets more serious, according to Christopher A. Harkins, an expert on copyright and patents who has written the definitive law review article on the subject, when someone tries to profit from the copying — by, for instance, selling photographs of the infringing tattoos. 
  
 “I don’t see a court forcing someone to remove it, or wear a burqa, but they may not allow me to profit from that work that I had tattooed on my body,” he said, adding that it would be very unlikely that this action could delay “The Hangover Part II” from being released. 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 The range of material that individuals and businesses are seeking to get copyright protection for has only been expanding, often at the insistence of movie studios. Mattel has gone to court to assert the copyright of the face of its Barbie doll; fashion companies have been lobbying Congress to pass a law to protect unique, nontrivial new designs. And trademark, which is governed by different laws and is much more contextual, has been used by athletes and coaches to get a measure of control over terms like “three-peat” or “Revis Island.” 
  
 In 2005, Rasheed Wallace and Nike were sued by a tattoo artist, Matthew Reed, over a commercial that outlined a tattoo as he discussed why he had it created; the case was settled. David Beckham and his favorite tattooist, Louis Molloy, had a public dispute that year over his plan to highlight them in an advertisement. The feud culminated in an interview with Mr. Molloy in The Daily Mirror that ran under the headline “I Own Beck’s Tattoo .. and I’ll Sue.” 
  
 “It is such a nascent area,” Mr. Harkins said, “and courts are always struggling to keep up with technology. I don’t think Rasheed Wallace ever thought about copyright infringement.” 
  
 Warner Brothers in its brief also invoked the “fair use” defense for “Hangover Part II,” namely the right to parody what has become a well-known tattoo since it first appeared on Mr. Tyson’s face in February 2003. 
  
 “That’s the real question: the copyright act balances the copyright owners’ rights and not stifling the creativity of the owners — it would stifle creativity to not be able to make a parody,” Mr. Harkins said. 
  
 Issues like how central the tattoo is to the plot, how much of the film it is in and whether it is shown in a non-parody context were the kind of factors a judge would consider when determining if “fair use” was in play, he said. 
  
 With so many factors in play, and the motivator of ever-rising legal fees, Mr. Harkins said, “it will be settled out of court, as most of them are.” 
  
 Mr. Whitmill declined to be interviewed, but Mr. Reed, the tattooist who sued Rasheed Wallace and Nike, spoke from his shop in Portland, Ore. 
  
 While he would not comment on his case directly, he explained that one could think of the process as a collaboration between the tattooer and the tattooed, “owned by both people, based on the trust that is used to create it.” 
  
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
  
 “It’s there for everyone to enjoy,” Mr. Reed added, “but if you think you are going to make money from it, you should get the artist’s permission.” |||||
Output:
Mike Tyson's infamous Maori-inspired tribal tattoo is back in the spotlight. Tyson's tattoo artist is suing Warner Brothers on the grounds that the studio committed "reckless copyright infringement" when it allowed the well-known marking to appear on the face of Ed Helms' character in the upcoming Hangover sequel. The lawsuit, filed in St. Louis federal court, asks that WB not display the tattoo in the film and strike it from all marketing materials, the New York Times reports. That would likely delay the movie's launch and cost WB lots of money. Legal experts say suits like these are likely to become common as more celebrities ink their bodies with designs that might lend themselves to imitation. Already, sports stars Rasheed Wallace and David Beckham have endured disputes about drawing explicit attention to their tats in marketing campaigns. WB contends it was entitled to use the tattoo under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law, citing the clause that permits use for parody. The rub, as one copyright and patents expert points out, is that WB plans to profit from using the symbol. The suit will be taken up next week. (Click to see whose cameo in the Hangover II was recently cut from the film, or here to watch the full trailer.)