Slashdot Mirror
DC Entertainment Won't Allow Superman Logo On Murdered Child's Memorial Statue
An anonymous reader writes Jeffrey Baldwin was essentially starved to death by his grandparents. Funds had been raised to build a monument for Jeffrey in Toronto. The monument was designed to feature Jeffrey in a Superman costume, and even though Superman should be public domain, DC Comics has denied the request. "The request to DC had been made by Todd Boyce, an Ottawa father who did not know the Baldwin family. Boyce was so moved by the testimony at the coroner’s inquest into Jeffrey’s death last year that he started an online fundraising campaign for the monument. DC’s senior vice-president of business and legal affairs, Amy Genkins, told Boyce in an email that 'for a variety of legal reasons, we are not able to accede to the request, nor many other incredibly worthy projects that come to our attention.'... For Boyce, it was a huge blow, as he felt the Superman aspect was a crucial part of the bronze monument, which will include a bench. The coroner’s inquest heard from Jeffrey’s father that his son loved to dress up as Superman."
This has nothing to do with copyright. The Superman logo is a trademark, which has different protections and rules about maintaining those protections. They can't loan it out without risking dilution.
But since this is a corporate bullshit decision, you should probably hold their bullshit corporate owners responsible.
But if well-deserved hate had any effect on that particular company, I'm pretty sure we would've noticed by now.
Or continue to collect that princely sum of $20,000/year that DC agreed to pay them after the lawsuit forced them to.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
No, without trademark protection, anyone could write Superman comics and sell them as such. I think you're thinking of copyright protection.
I'm pretty sure he was thinking of the sixty four year long legal battle between S-Cape Artists Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel and DC Comics over just who owned Superman, without which DC comics could write Superman comics and sell them as such without paying a dime to the original creators.
What is this...
I think it's called "sarcasm".
You do realize that trademark law concerns the exchange of goods and services, not the appearance of symbols on sculptural works constructed as permanent momuments to the dead, don't you?
Copyright is one of the few things that DC Comics could plausibly assert if this is a one off produced by an artist -- i.e., the logo does not attempt to designate a good, service, or source of such goods and services.
You'll notice that the summary takes a shot in saying that the logo "should be public domain," not that it is, and that DC does not actually claim that trademark law is involved. Thanks for offering the trademark theory, if only because it provides an opportunity to show non-lawyers that trademarks are not equivalent to never-expiring copyrights.
I really like that the parent here is moderated "funny".