Slashdot Mirror
The Copyright Battle Over Custom-Built Batmobiles
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Eriq Gardner writes that Warner Brothers is suing California resident Mark Towle, a specialist in customizing replicas of automobiles featured in films and TV shows, for selling replicas of automobiles from the 1960s ABC series Batman by arguing that copyright protection extends to the overall look and feel of the Batmobile. The case hinges on what exactly is a Batmobile — an automobile or a piece of intellectual property? Warner attorney J. Andrew Coombs argues in legal papers that the Batmobile incorporates trademarks with distinctive secondary meaning and that by selling an unauthorized replica, Towle is likely to confuse consumers about whether the cars are DC products are not. Towle's attorney Larry Zerner, argues that automobiles aren't copyrightable. 'It is black letter law that useful articles, such as automobiles, do not qualify as "sculptural works" and are thus not eligible for copyright protection,' writes Zerner adding that a decision to affirm copyright elements of automotive design features could be exploited by automobile manufacturers. 'The implications of a ruling upholding this standard are easy to imagine. Ford, Toyota, Ferrari and Honda would start publishing comic books, so that they could protect what, up until now, was unprotectable.'"
I would argue the automobile is a sculpture, and therefore protect-able from exact replication using blueprints/tooling. However, like any work of art, it is an interpretation by the artist. If I make a Batmobile-looking car I am making what my interpretation of the Batmobile is, it's not the same as making a Batmobile. As long as I do not sell the item claiming it is, in fact, a real Batmobile or use trademarked brands on the car or in it's promotion then I should be okay.
our childhood.
The educational line has a stylized Ralph Nader talking about Covairs.
It could be called "2 Unsafe 2 Speed"
Actually you do see this. Hyundai was making copies of luxury vehicles for several years (not sure if they still are or if they were successful enough that they were able to stop) - cars that to the casual glance would like BMW, Mercedes, etc.
Hyundai's tact was, "Hey you don't have to pay for a high-end luxury vehicle to get a high-end luxury vehicle."
As far as the other manufacturers, there's nothing to gain from confusing customers.
Cam Corvette, charismatic leader
Johnny Pinto, able to burst into flame
Suzy Smartcar, tiny but strong
and of course, The VW Thing
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
By the same argument, the studios like Warner are liable for every time they depict an existing vehicle. Do they have proof of licensing from the auto makers for showing a VW bug or a Mustang? How about some guy's tricked-out bike? And they've got deeper pockets to hit than some guy in a garage.
If this lawsuit does establish a new intellectual property right, Warner could be in big trouble.
The 1966 Batmobile is a modified Lincoln Futura concept car from 1955. As this is a brand new type of property right, it's unlikely that George Barris who bought the concept car and modified it to make the Batmobile ever bought the 'sculpture' rights to it, so the rights would revert to the 'sculptor' of the original car, the Ford Motor Company. If they win, Warner could not stop clones, as Ford would be the rights holder, not Warner... and Ford would be able to bill Warner for the use of their 'sculpture' in all the toys, films, TV shows that have used it over the years.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
If you read the article, this is basically a trademark battle, with some copyright FUD thrown in for good measure.
Trademark is basically about fraud - would a reasonable person think that they have bought an official Batman car, or just a unofficial replica? So, Warner may or may not have a case, depending on how these are marketed and sold. However, what I think Warner is really trying to do is to spend Mr. Towle under the table, and they are likely to be quite successful in that.
Automakers do not have to copyright their designs, they trademark aspects of them. They also patent aspects of them, and generally only defend those patents and trademarks when others attempt to build new vehicles of mass production.
This gentleman is reproducing something by modifying an existing car to look like another modified car. DC nor the TV producers built the car from scratch, they modified a design for a concept car from Ford using existing Ford chassis to make their batmobile. Arguably, theirs is a derivative work in of itself, which should significantly reduce their ability to claim harm from others also making derivative works.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It's just like clothing. You can't copyright a clothing design, but you can copyright the artwork on it. I can make as many replicas of a $1000 Dolce and Gabbana shirt that I want and sell them for $10 as long as I don't brand them with "Dolce and Gabbana", and it's fair game. But I can't make a t-shirt with a Battlestar Galactica logo and sell it. So in this case, I think he should be allowed to make the car, but he can't put a Batman logo on it without a license...
[How can you copright] Something you can't competitively provide to the public?
Let's turn back the clock to the 80's or 90's before the Internet really got big..
The following scenario doesn't apply to the batmobile issue, but it DOES apply to your train of thought which I've heard from others before...
Young Author: This is great, my new concept of a super hero with backstory X, costume Y, and logo Z is a great idea! I've had it since childhood. Let me just get a copyright and stuff. Maybe show off a self-printed Issue #1 at a covention. I could probably find a printer to make some copies, I could probably sell a few dozen copies.
Evil Publisher: Hey Bob, I was at the convent and I saw a possible new idea for a hero we could use. Let's release it.
(A few months later)
Young Author: W T H! That was my idea. It has the same backstory, costume, and flippin' logo! I copyrighted it and everything. You're selling thousands of copies all around the country!
Evil Publisher: How can you copyright something you can't competitively provide to the public.
Young Author: Oh I guess you're right. I should have listened to that Anonymous Coward.
If they're going to print comic books, they'll need to be *about* the sort of character that'd drive those cars.
;-)
The Vauxhall Astra could get Thirtysomething-married-with-two-young-children-in-the-back-seats-Man.
The Ford Transit gets White Van Man, obviously.
With its contrived, overstyled appearance, the Nissan Juke looks like that puppet from the Saw films, though in reality our hero^w villian driving it would be Twenty-or-Thirtysomething-twonk-with-a-moderate-amount-of-disposable-income-to-spend-on-crappy-"lifestyle-oriented"-pretend-4x4-toy-vehicles-demographic-Man (or -Woman).
The possibilities are endless, problem is that 99% of cars will look like they should be driven by Boring-Stuffed-Shirt-Man or Dull-Suburban-Mother-Woman (er, because in reality... they are).
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
That would depend on where he got the logo from, and if the logo's production was licensed. If he bought a licensed logo from a store and slapped it on then I don't see a violation. It would also depend on if the show has fallen into the public domain. I had heard, for example, that at least the first season Star Trek had fallen into the public domain because its copyright wasn't renewed, but currently I can't find any evidence of that, but if it's true then it would possibly be legal to use elements from Star Trek in other things without royalties.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.