Pow! With Supreme Court Rebuff, DC Comics Wins Batmobile Copyright Case (newsoxy.com) 176
New submitter Mr. Competence writes: The U.S. Supreme court has declined to review a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court declaring that 'the Batmobile is a character that qualifies for copyright protection.' The case involved Mark Towle, a California man who produced replicas of the Batmobile for car-collecting fans of the caped crusader; selling them for about $90,000US each. The original would cost a bit more.
The caped crusader (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The caped crusader (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You wouldn't download a Batmobile.
Re: (Score:3)
Like hell I wouldn't. I never understood that commercial. "You wouldn't download a car!" Oh, hell yes I would.
Re: (Score:2)
Batman didn't maintain his billions of dollars by just sitting on his ass, ya'know!
Re:The caped crusader (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a copyright holder does not exercise his right to license every possible item imaginable does not mean he loses that right.
This is precisely what is wrong with ever-extending copyrights. The Batmobile is now a part of American culture, and producing replicas of it should not require an appeal to On High, especially if they are not producing their own.
Re:The caped crusader (Score:5, Interesting)
As for why DC might not want a bunch of Batmobiles on the road, they might not like the possibility of a mangled Batmobile showing up on TV after it ran into a train, or a bunch of cops chasing one used in a bank robbery, or maybe something even more silly. Who knows. But that's their decision.
Yes, child, I know how the law works, and it has been perverted. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that a work passes into the hands of the people after a reasonable period.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of copyright is to ensure that a work passes into the hands of the people after a reasonable period.
No, the purpose of Copyright law is to promote the progress of science and art. We know this because it says so right there in the Constitution. What you're referring to is the means -- "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Why the "limited Times" wording was used is unknown, since no records were kept. At bes
Re:The caped crusader (Score:4, Interesting)
But this has nothing to do with extending copyright.
Well, yes, it does.
The unextended copyright terms as of the Copyright Act of 1790 is for 14 years, with a right to renew for a second 14 years if the original copyright holder was still alive.
You know, to grant exclusive access for a limited time in exchange for the copyrighted materials entering the public domain. This was designed to prevent creators from resting on their laurels, but to continue to create, while ensuring that the public would own the works within a generation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they got it right, then credit goes to the Parliament of Great Britain, since the Copyright Act of 1790 was (ironically?) virtually identical to the Statute of Anne. To me, it seems more likely that they didn't feel like giving it very much thought at all beyond "yeah, let's have copyrights... and we can save a lot of time by copying!"
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this being singled out by Slashdot?
Because [we] secretly want a Bat-Mobile. And anything that makes that harder makes [us] unhappy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The caped crusader (Score:3)
Probably from the courts, which ignore the Constitution 97% of the time. What you say is true, in theory, but not in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they got the idea from Article 6.
Re: (Score:2)
Treaties do NOT supersede the constitution. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
Sounds like they got the idea from Article 6.
Only if "they" lack reading comprehension. The quoted passage does not say that treaties supersede the Constitution, only that treaties make up one part of the supreme law of the land, alongside the Constitution and U.S. law. Note in particular that U.S. law is given the same status, and if U.S. law superseded the Constitution then there would be no need for a constitutional amendment process, as Congress would only need to pass a law to override any part of the Constitution.
Re:The caped crusader (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the politician way. Please don't tell me that you think only the Republicans have been bought and sold. We're about to elect one of those to be our first female president.
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh! Don't be daft, it's only bad when the other side does it!
Hmm... I typed out the /s sarcasm indicator but then I thought about it. While it's a fine interesting subject to delve into, now may not be the best time to do so.
In short, very short for me, people really do seem to think that way. I don't actually understand the disconnect, mental process, or the likes. Seemingly otherwise intelligent people get irate, for example, if an opposing party using the the same tactics their favored party uses. A
Re:The caped crusader (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, no. There is already existing laws that pertain to automotive replicas (specifically car design does not qualify for copyright protection). The question is to whether the branding "Batman" should qualify for protection moreso than "A/C Cobra".
Taken to absurd lengths, any vehicle that appears in Batman could be considered a character in the Gotham universe. Anyone building a 1982 - 1992 Pontiac Trans-Am replica could be similarly sued since it was a character in Knight Rider.
There was already case law specific to automotive replicas that the justices completely ignored, torturing copyright law to fit an absurd notion of "character".
I hope Ford sues the living hell out of DC since the Batmobile was derivative of the Lincoln Futura, and somehow DC now owns rights to the design.
This is preposterous.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. There is already existing laws that pertain to automotive replicas (specifically car design does not qualify for copyright protection).
That wa sthis argument and he lost, because he wasn't simply copying a line of cars but one very specific model, down to Batman logos and color schemes. He may have been ok since the Batmobile had simply been a a production car with some added trim and over 25 years old but that was not the case.
The question is to whether the branding "Batman" should qualify for protection moreso than "A/C Cobra".
The Cobra was a production car over 25 years old, based on the A/C chassis with a Ford drivetrain' a very different scenario than the Batmobile. In addiotn, AFAIK Cobra replica manufacturers don't attach Shelby logo
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, Ford Bought Shelby from the estate after Carol died.
According to the Shelby website Ford is a licensee and they have a relationship with Ford, no mention of a purchase. I could be wrong, got a link?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone building a 1982 - 1992 Pontiac Trans-Am replica could be similarly sued since it was a character in Knight Rider.
I would say that there is a difference between the Batmobile which have been one of a kind creations and a version of a mass-produced car like Kitt. The defendant, Towle, made replicas of the 1966 Batmobile which was based off of the 1955 Lincoln Futura concept car and the 1989 Batmobile which was designed by Anton Furst for the film. Neither car was available to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
There are Dildo's in the shape of all the avengers - not made by Marvell either.
I suspect Marvell wouldn't sue - if only to avoid giving them more publicity but even if they did - ironically - they have a better chance of winning than this guy did. You could make a reasonable argument that using characters popularly thought of as "children's fiction" for dildos is clear parody, and thus protected fair use.
Now of course fair use isn't well defined and must be decided on a case by case basis by the judge, so
Re: (Score:2)
Then, outside of movies and their leftovers at car shows, there will never be real Batmobiles you can buy as DC won't risk the liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Although it hasn't reached the SC, there have been recent lower rulings that a person cannot use copyright to forbid usage to people they don't like, as that is not what copyright is for, which is to secure exclusive rights for income.
Re: (Score:2)
If you refuse to pay for your right, we will refuse to let you have that right.
You've got a funny idea of the concept of rights.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why was it any longer and why should a "right" NEVER ACTED ON be retained?
I've never used the 5th. I'd still like to retain that right, thanks.
Someone above mentioned that there were no official Batman dildos and never would be. I suspect you'd suggest that DC loses their right to restrict people from making them because they, themselves, have never made or authorized making them.
The Copyright Joker strikes again (Score:1)
Truer words were never spoken crusader
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if no Batmobiles can be made, then Fatmobiles for Fatman. (Playing on the word play by the Joker)
Re: (Score:2)
So... http://montclairfilmfest.org/w... [montclairfilmfest.org] ?
Well, don't HIRE the guy, morons. (Score:4, Interesting)
Since it's rather hard to prove he was ultimately damaging the image for the organization who owns the rights to Batman and associated representation, I find this ruling senseless. Regardless of copyright fine print, he was making these for diehard fans, and actually perpetuating the brand. If he was a salesman working for DC Comics making these things right now he would likely be earning a decent salary plus bonuses for the car sales.
So, instead of hiring the guy to work for DC Comics and further perpetuate the image, they choose to legally rape him along with their most hardcore fan base. America once again proves there's nothing like using the law to shoot yourself in the foot.
Welcome to our future. Where Capitalism will be raped by senseless laws instead of working together to benefit all.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably argued that it devalued their own replica cars, which they totally might build some day maybe. Never mind that they don't make them, what's important is that some potential future profit was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably argued that it devalued their own replica cars, which they totally might build some day maybe. Never mind that they don't make them, what's important is that some potential future profit was lost.
OK, so argue against future profits you could have made right now by hiring the guy who likely is smart enough to build profit into his creations that represent the brand accurately and fairly.
Gun, meet foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with having to prove damages is that it's almost impossible.
Could they prove a profit fairly easily instead by hiring the guy who built the creations?
The answer is likely yes. How quickly we forget the point of Capitalism.
Gun, meet foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was my first thought -- just sell the guy a license to make the replicas, the same way they would charge a toymaker to make toy replicas of the Batmobile. Given the price he charges, I'm sure his buyers have an expectation of detail and quality that goes way beyond what DC Comics would expect of any toymaker and probably matching what would be expected out of a big budget Hollywood production.
And maybe they did, but the terms were so onerous that the finished product wouldn't be economically viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The design they would license would be the visual design, not the engineering. I would wager that any licensing agreement would be language making the licensee responsible for the engineering safety and possibly even requiring end buyers to also sign a waiver agreeing to hold DC comics harmless for any flaws in the vehicle's mechanical safety and reliability.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was already a ton of precedent for this in civil case law if not actual statutes governing this. Car customiz
Re: (Score:2)
If you can be ordered to pay out $5 billion to compensate one family, none of whom died, because a drunk driver slammed into the back of their 14-year-old car [www.cbc.ca], anything is possible.
When Apple sells a defective power cord that was made by someone else under license, it's Apple that is on the hook for the $$$, even though they didn't make it. Licensing deals will always get you dragged into a case - that's what lawyers, at least the competent ones, do.
Also, since a licensing deal for the visual design for u
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's rather hard to prove he was ultimately damaging the image for the organization who owns the rights to Batman and associated representation,
That is an argument that you'd make for a fair-use defense. This was a ruling on whether the car was copyrightable. And apparently it is copyrightable, which isn't surprising since even a squiggle on a paper is copyrightable.
So now he can try raising a fair-use defense (unless he's already done so, the article doesn't mention).
China will win (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why China will beat us:
- Cost of designing something - rapidly falling due to better CAD technology, improved manufacturing techniques.
- Cost of making something - rapidly falling due to improved manufacturing and robotics.
- Cost of determining whether your rounded rectangle is sufficiently different from someone else's - the sky is the limit.
We created an industrial base that reduced real scarcity to amazingly low levels, and now we are taking the things with no natural resource limit (ideas) and are busy creating as much scarcity out of them as possible. My only hope is that when we tell our grandchildren's generation how this works, they will not believe anyone could be that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They suffer the same problem that all leftist regimes do - they cannot allow their people to think freely, because to do so would be their own end.
Rightist regimes do the same, speak out against their favorite corp sponsor, don't be surprised if laid off or some other consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news for RFP fans (Score:3)
Which Batmobile (Score:2)
There have been different Batmobiles throughout the history of the comic and movies
My favorite is the Adam West one from the late 60's
I saw one of those in real life at a Con a few years back.
Anyway who are they going to sue next - tool companies that make utility belts?
Re: (Score:2)
There have been different Batmobiles throughout the history of the comic and movies
I'll admit, that has my curious.
If you look here [tumblr.com], for example, you will see various versions of the Batmobile.
So is it the issue that this person is making his own "Batmobiles"? If he made really cool-looking cars but didn't market them as "Batmobiles", would that make a difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Useful Works Not Copyrightable, But The Name Is? (Score:2)
DC Comics v. Towle [documentcloud.org] at first appears to add to a slippery slope that would eventually see all car designs as copyrightable the moment they roll off an assembly line or a garage.
But, a closer reading of the decision seem to show that what's at issue isn't the shape of the car so much as the names it is marketed under. The 9th Circuit built their opinion atop Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg. [findlaw.com] , to wit "an automotive character [Eleanor] may be copyrightable even if it appears as a yellow Fas
Re:Weird decision (Score:4, Funny)
A car only becomes a character if it has the qualities of an intelligent entity.
So Glenn Beck can't be copyrighted?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, you can't copyright small planets.
Re: (Score:1)
When did copyright become only applicable to characters?
The imaginary world of Gotham, including iconic vehicles within it, is a creative expression, and these replicas are derivatives. The decision's wording may be weird, but the outcome isn't wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
True but I think there's a legal principle here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:True but I think there's a legal principle here (Score:4, Informative)
You're thinking of trademarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Which pretty much means you have to be an asshole about copyright all the time if you want it to be valid.)
Not true. You can let 100 people rip off your works without asking you permission, but if you decide to sue the 101st, that's still your right.
There are other rules -- like if you want to sue for money, you generally have to have registered your work with the Copyright Office -- but those are just details.
Re:Weird decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weird decision (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowledge = PE (Potential Energy)
How silly do you have to be to comment on a sig?
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge itself is power - "ipsa scientia potestas est" Meditationes Sacrae Francis Bacon 1597.
It's hard to contradict a a person so great that the best food known to man was named after him.
Secondly how would Knowledge=PE follow the 1st law of thermodnamics, what energy is converted when you learn?
Re: (Score:2)
That was good!
I have to work on that. Here's a start:
Let see now. We have a change in internal energy which is equal to heat added to the system minus work done by the system.
Therefore:
Knowledge requires the input of (axioms | theorems | facts) as well as work done to understand these (axioms | theorems | facts)
Therefore the change (read increase) in knowledge = input of facts - minus the work needed to understand these facts.
Let s=friction caused by ignorance
Re: (Score:3)
2 * Battle = Knowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was profiting off their ideas, not their property.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that he was somehow hindering the sales of their cars.
Which would certainly be an argument for little or no damages, but he can still be forced to cease infringing the copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
It's spelled FANTASY and it's FINAL.
Hang on a second, I'm getting a phone call from someone called "Square Enix"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Weird decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright protects all the creative elements by default, not just Batman but Gotham and pretty much the whole fictional universe they're in including everything that by itself would give rise to copyright. For example it seems pretty clear to me that this elven leaf brooch [elvenesse.net] from LotR is copyrighted, it's one tiny irrelevant accessory in the movie but it's also clearly a work of original art. So if you make a car and it's instantly recognizable as the Batmobile, I actually agree with this verdict. Either it's fair use or you need to make it a licensed product.
Yes, there's some degree of function here but that has never prevented the copyright of the creative elements, like if I make a painting and hang it on the wall or I paint it on the hood of my car it's equally copyrighted. Take for example dresses, everybody can make a princess dress. But if you make one that looks totally like a Disney princess for commercial sale, I'm not surprised that lawyers come knocking. Unless you want to argue that there's a functional reason it must look exactly like the Batmobile from the movies, I don't think that's a valid defense.
Re: (Score:2)
It's America so er... 30 seconds before the heat death of the universe I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Damn you. I'd thought I'd missed something and we'd actually learned if protons decay and what their half-life is. I fired up a new tab and meandered over to Wikipedia (good enough for this) and... Yeah, no. I was all sorts of ready to be excited, like a dog when he hears his family on the other side of the door and thinks they might have brought him something with a flavor.
For those playing the home game, it's a well known unsolved problem in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A character is a well defined literary concept. A car only becomes a character if it has the qualities of an intelligent entity. For example, KITT in Knight rider. In this context, the Batmobile may qualify for trademark protection but not copyright. I think we have an issue with legal fiction being too disconnected from reality to the point of legal delusion.
Batman has no character either yet he's fine?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but copyright law is not concerned with literary theory. So far as I know the notion that characters are copyrightable isn't written into any statutes. It certainly isn't written into the US Constitutional grant of copyright establishment powers to Congress. It's a matter of case law distinguishing between things like characters that are unique enough to copyright and things like themes which are universal enough to be impossible to copyright.
So if a judge decides that the same reasoning that says c
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the judge is an idiot according ot you as well then - since it was the JUDGE who declared the car is copyright protected and JUSTIFIED that conclusion on the basis that it's a character in the comics.
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that this is just a brief summary by comparison to actual rulings in case law, and that this is limited to just photographs, only one subject of Copyright Law. But yes, there is very much a distinction on context.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They should have copyright *bats* and then sued the *man* for infringement: being "batty" without a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
They created the demand.
If he'd been selling completely-original Ratmobiles, he would not have sold as many, nor commanded so high a price.
I've got plenty of gripes with copyright law. This is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is true. I have a huge, all in special plastic wraps, collection of comic books. As in thousands of them - multiple boxes. Someone needed some money, I loaned them the money, and they gave me the comics in exchange for paying me back. This was years ago.
They had them appraised at something like $6000 retail price. They only owed me $600. I want to say it was 1996. I have no idea what they're worth today and I've not read a damned one of 'em. I figured it was a good investment but it turns out that I di
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you 800 for the lot, no questions asked. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame you for the offer. I won't be back in Maine until April - maybe the start of May. I just took a peek online and it looks like first editions and appearances of Wolverine (he was quite a fan) are worth a bit of money. I'm a bit lazy in my retirement so it's hard telling how much effort I'll put into finding out a more realistic value but, assuming they'd go to a good home, I might be willing to consider an offer. You might want to wait for me to get home and go through a few boxes and then give
Re: (Score:2)
I've emailed you. Let me know if you haven't received it. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have it. Curiouser and curiouser. The email is valid, properly spelled, and is not obfuscated. (I'm not scared!) Another /.er used it just yesterday.
I am not entirely sure why it's not there. It is not in junk nor is it in my inbox. I just checked all the other folders - not there.
Re: (Score:2)
Sent you another email from a different address... hopefully that one will get through. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool beans. I'll check it later - there's no huge rush, I hope? I won't be back in Maine until later this year (spring) and I'm actually trying to go to Cuba today or tomorrow. Today is no longer looking likely. I'm trying to get it expedited as I've never gone to Cuba directly from the US before (it was illegal) and I've never had my passport stamped with a Cuban stamp. I want to go there before they're more heavily influenced by the influx of Americans and, maybe, I'll look into some business opportunitie
Re: (Score:2)
No rush at all! And I'm envious... I've not been to Cuba yet, either. I think I'll have to add that to my list for holiday travel for this year. Well, if you need a security architect in your business ventures, let me know. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
We shall see. I've been on the phone with a guy that I met the last time I was there. I'm working on ways to bilk the tourists. ;-) (I'm not kidding. I'd give more details but let's just say that's the goal.)
No, i didn't say defraud the tourists. Just a minor bilking is all. It looks like approval did not go through today.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't bilking the keystone of tourism? That's precisely why I despise 'tourist-y' things.
Good luck getting your approval tomorrow. Sounds like great craic!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL Still no approval. *sighs* It could take a while and, if it does, then I will not have time to go. But, I'm hopeful.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes reasonable sense to me.
s/ comics/ "fossils or minerals"
I've given people specimens worth hundreds of pounds on field trips which I'd spotted, then "guided" the novice towards. Let them have the joy of discovery - I've got the pleasure of another interested and enth
Re: (Score:2)
That's akin to what I figure. I'm not a collector but I know some people take it seriously. Some of the comics go back to the 60s so I'm guessing that they're of value to someone for reasons other than monetary. I've absolutely no need for money and I am able to appreciate that some people are interested in things that I am not. So, I'd much rather that they end up in good hands than to be locked away or just turned around and sold. Meh, call me weird, I guess.
I don't really "collect" anything but I do end
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking at selling them, you are pretty much looking at pennies per comic, or a certain price per standard comic box. 99% of them probably aren't even worth those pennies per comic but the people who buy collections are looking for the other 1% that are worth money. Collection from the mid-90's is sort of rough as it was when collecting was big and everybody was buying to speculate on the next big thing so there's lots out there. With the movies that have come out, prices have been upped for some
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the kind of thing you'd get a lot more money for today because it's easier to find buyers using eBay. Looks like a first edition Wolverine is anywhere from $300-$4000 [ebay.com] alone, depending on the particular magazine and grade. I guess a lot depends on the source of the collection, if they bagged mint editions it'll be worth much more than used magazines that then were collected for preservation. Pretty sure you did a good investment.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to say that there's also his first appearance in there as well. I don't remember all the details but there's actually a list of what's in the collection and an itemized retail value for everything. I'll have to OCR it when I get home. Then I can probably just script something to get a price list/average for them at retail and have some idea of the retail value. There's a scanned list somewhere on my NAS but I'm not spotting it. It's in with insurance documents, I figure they can do the work if someth
Re: (Score:2)
What they're asking and what they're getting are not nearly the same thing. It's not unusual to set up several accounts, each selling the same comic (or other good) at different inflated prices, to make the lowest one look like a steal
Golden age comics, and some silver age comics, are worth money. The problem is that when comic book collecting became big, people started buying them and stuffing them in mylar sleeves with acid-free backing boards, hoping to make money off them. The fact that there are so ma