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."
Superman, standing for truth, justice and IP rights!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They must have the same guy in charge of their PR that they have in charge of their movie division.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Then, while they're tearing it down, get it on film...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
If they had not asked, DC probably would never have noticed that their logo was used there. On top of that, even if they had, I doubt they would have acted on it. Suing a grieving family over a harmless supposed trademark violation isn't too good for the company's reputation.
If they tried to use the logo now, after having been denied permission, DC would probably have no choice but to sue since this is in the public spotlight.
This would have been a total non-issue had they just done it and not asked anyone or publicized it.
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.
Even if the works were public domain, there are still trademarks in play here. I don't see why they *can't* do this, though, I think they just don't want to get dragged into anything or set a precedent. I say this because they were deliberately vague about which legal reasons were preventing this, lest anyone offer them solutions.
...one good thing DID come out of this. We now know that DC are a bunch of heartless asses.
I guess finding this out is good for society. Makes me want to be their customer less, that's for sure.
"and, we're assholes!"
a) don't know how different the copyright rules are in Canada vs. US, but hopefully Warner would have a bit more trouble b) VERY publically call them out in the press should they try to have it taken down; the PR flack should give them second thoughts
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... cease and desist order. :(
Faster than a speedy bullet
More powerful than a large train
Able to leap tall structures easily
It's a bird, it's an airplane, it's Jeffrey Baldwin
Stuff that Matters?
Clearly some rights just aren't worth protecting because they come at too much expense.
Watch what happens to the donation fund if they try to sue.
Watch what happens to their reputation if they try to sue (remember what Superman stands for to the character's fans).
Make the logo more diamond shaped and the S a five.
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.
Well, that explains why you never see any licensed Superman merchandise!
They can license it for $1 and maintain their rights. If they sell this single artist, a single license for this project, then they keep all rights and there is no issue.
If they give it away, then they risk diluting the copyright / trademark status.
They certainly made their money selling licenses to whomever created the Superman costume that the kid had been wearing in life.
You do realize that a logo is a trademark issue, not copyright, and trademarks don't expire as long as they are in use?
This here is a monument to a random child who was treated badly, he's not more or less special than millions of other children treated badly, just someone with nothign better to do found it moving
Copyright and Trademark arguments aside, I feel that DC made the only decision they could. If DC allows the monument for this child, what's to prevent some other family asking for the same use of the superman logo (likeness?)? Where do the requests stop? What criteria should DC use to allow or deny the use of the logo?
Its a slippery slope that DC is right to avoid with a flat out denial.
Depict the kid in a skintight suit and a cape. Design a trianguar shield featuring the first letter of his own name. It would evoke Superman, but be non-actionable.
I am rarely at a loss for words. DC comics has me just shaking my head.
They say that boycotts rarely work but from now on I will never buy or see
anything that DC makes. Because it is the right thing.
Fuck these motherfuckers.
There aren't a variety of legal reasons they couldn't "accede to the request." They could have licensed it for a penny. They're just jerks.
British law allows more exceptions to copyright than American. The Queen holds a perpetual copyright to the King James Version of the Bible and I believe Peter Pan has a perpetual copyright because royalties go to a children's hospital.
Perhaps Canada's parliament could do something similar and declare Superman in the public domain. Let DC Comics stew, whine and complain. Even the threat of doing that might lead them to change their mind about the little boy.
...and dare DC to sue you and take the huge PR hit...
The guy who wants this doesn't even know the family. The kids parents were abusive, and his grandparents turned out to be just as bad.
It's not like this monument has some special significance to his family. Its not like the kid himself did any thing heroic or self-sacrificing. This story is a horrible one from beginning to end, but I don't see how this monument with the kid in a superman outfit is so important in ending it.
So the kid liked his superman outfit. Lots of kids do. People need to move beyond this specific point, because its just not that important in this case.
Hasn't anyone considered that the Superman logo didn't belong on a memorial in the first place? It's supposed to be about a particular child, not a fictional character.
The child was starved to death. Clearly this entitles him to use anyone else's Intellectual Property.
The child is never going to know that he didn't get to be considered a Superman for starving to death, and I really don't feel too bad for those who let him starve and now want a monument.
While I feel no compassion for those who want to hijack Superman in this case, I do agree completely with the idea that our copyright laws have been hijacked by big business (lead by Disney). The Constitution makes it clear that copyright protections are given for a limited time in exchange for the Intellectual Property passing into public domain. To let corporations like Disney buy politicians who openly admit that they never intend for some IP to pass into public domain is another case of American's right being completely disregarded by Washington.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
There is no grieving family. His family murdered him. His parent abused him and lost custody to his grandparents. Then, those grandparents starved him to death 10 years ago!
Then just bury him in the costume as a tribute and get on with your life.
Imagine this headline:
DC Comics donates statue for murdered boy's grave site.
That statue would cost less than the lawyer's fees for this fiasco and a hell of a lot less than a full page ad in the New York Times, but would get them 10x the goodwill.
No, OP is correct. Everybody involved in this story is horrible. And now I'm horrible for posting in this thread.
Someone tell the site maintainer that it's time to reset the counter to zero:
http://hasdcdonesomethingstupi...
I say, they should do the monument exactly as they imagined it, just without the "S". I'm sure some volun^H^H^H^H^Hvandals will gladly paint a nice big "S" on it once it's installed.
BRB, off to the hardware store for some red enamel pa... um... screws.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
DC?
More like DiCks, AMIRITE?
Last i heard, if you dont protect your trademark you lose it. I dont think there are any 'humanitarian exceptions' to that rule.
However, they could 'lease' the rights to his family to use it, lets say for a dollar... Then they dont look like jerks, and dont risk the legal implications for inaction.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
DC has two good options. Number one have the statue made and donate it. Two Have the statue made and sell it to them. Both protect their trademark.
Just buy a Superman costume and dress the statue in it. IP is already paid for.
I was thinking, what if the kid liked to dress up as Hello Kitty, or Worf from Star Trek, or Darth Vader? Would they be so gung-ho? Or how about if he like to dress as a girl? I'm unclear why his choice of outlet, apparently to get away from abusive parents and grand-parents matters. DC is not the bad-guy here (well, not for this).
And to the person below, I don't think anyone is suggesting we forget all about this. It's just that the kid being in a Superman costume has little to do with his memorial.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Yeah, this too. I didn't get the whole "Gotta be a Superman outfit or nothing" deal. Seemed like a stupid idea in the first place.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Art in some countries can tell a copyright holder to STFU legally. IF Canada protects art then do it anyways.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Build the monument with a frame where the 'S' is supposed to go. Have volunteers (I'm thinking grade schoolers in particular) draw new 'S's to go into the frame, replacing as needed. Of course, you say put nothing down on paper about this being the plan.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Kids starves to death -> build a monument where you feature him as superman. There must be some crazy logic going on to come to that course of action.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You could base the monument off of Flashpoint's alternative universe superman, who was imprisoned in a bunker far away from the sun for his entire life (where he sickened and weakened).
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kiggy007/12982942/28852/28852_300.jpg
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
2 major problems
1. The request is initiate by a 3rd party
2. Asking public for donation
If they let this through it would be a giant nightmare for future cases, especially if someone use it frauduently
It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Often but not always ---
The truth is that the cemetery association will have the final say here --- and it won't give an inch until DC and their lawyers sign off on this. Probably not even then.
Please explain. Does something I create automatically become YOURS when I die?
Last I checked, all of my worldly possessions become part of MY estate upon my death, to be disposed of by the trustee according to my wishes. Estates don't die, so MY property remains part of MY estate for as long as MY estate exists.
Most of mine are the property of Disney Corporation and Time/Warner.
Todd Boyce is raising $25,000 for a statue of Jeffrey Baldwin.
I appreciate his caring about children, but wouldn't the time and money be better spent in other ways? Maybe working to write or enforce child-protection laws, or supporting shelters for neglected and abused children, or encouraging people to have children only if they want the children?
Symbolism is fine, but I think more direct support of children would do them more good. I think a statue would help other suffering children, only if the statue had a plaque or something that told the story of Jeffrey.
YEP!!!
So the right way to handle this is to do it anyway. DC then fakes outrage and sends a threatening letter. Threatening letter is received by competent IP lawyer who pretends not to know how this will all play out. Said lawyer sends an 'oh dear how can we avoid this controversy' letter to DC. DC replies easy, you assign any rights accrued through your use of the mark to DC, and we agree not to sue you. IP lawyer says "what a novel idea, sounds great!"
DC has policed its mark, the mark is on the memorial, no money changed hands and nobody had a chance to screw up a license... everybody wins.
i bet if it were marvel with the avengers logo marvel would of allowed it
I don't think it's appropriate to point the finger at a company who denies trademark use requests and say, "Bad!". This is truly a tragic story and it's hard to believe grandparents could treat their own grandchildren in such a terrible and disgusting way, however, just because DC wont grant a trademark request for some dreamed up statue in remembrance of one tortured soul doesn't mean they deserve a finger wagging. It would be great if they allowed the licensing of the trademark to the statue or the third party who is responsible for putting this all together, however, they should be fully allowed to refuse such a request, otherwise we must hold all requests to use all trademarks for all 'awww' stories in equal regard, no? If I loved coffee, and if I died in a car accident or whatever, does anyone really think my parents would be granted the right to use the Starbucks logo on a tombstone with my name on it?
Is this correct?: If the Superman logo is trademarked in the United States, then I can not legally draw a Superman logo and sell it in the United States.
If I drew the Superman logo somewhere outside of the United States, then you bought it from me somewhere outside of the United States, then you brought it back into the United States, would it be legal for you to possess it in the United States?
If I drew the Superman logo somewhere inside the United States, then gave it to you at no charge, would that be legal?
Um, just do it anyway, without DC's money or support.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
I've got a Wonder Woman figure beside my deceased wife's ashes. Am I in trouble?
They could make a law called the Jeffrey's Act, and make Superman public domain (as it should be). Would DC lawyers risk the hatred involved with fighting that? Nor that it would matter, governments being sovereign and all
When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
I know I'll be modded Troll for this but here goes.
This isn't the reason IP law is bad. This is actually, for once, a legitimate case of protecting IP. It's also a typical example of using kids as cannon fodder to push/assault/overturn/manipulate legislation.
Moses is often depicted with horns, but the _correct_ translation is with laser beams:
http://www.transpanish.biz/translation_blog/did-a-bad-translation-put-horns-on-moses-head/
The 51st state, eh?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
How could DC even stop it? It is not for commercial use. A trademark is NOT property. It is meant to avoid consumer confusion in the same market. There is none.
Ironically, this incident was the result of nanny-state interference. The claim was that the boy's parents were abusive, but they don't say much about that other than some "allegations of shaking". So the state takes the kids away and sticks them with some truly evil monsters and apparently didn't do much of a job of checking up on them to see how it was all going.
Children's Aid Societies are NGOs who "receive funding from, and are under the supervision" of the government but their nannying is quite autonomous.
Also, they can operate without order or warrant.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ht...
Apprehension without warrant
(7) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,
(a) a child is in need of protection; and
(b) there would be a substantial risk to the childâ(TM)s health or safety during the time necessary to bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 47 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2),
may without a warrant bring the child to a place of safety. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 40 (7).
All they need is to believe.
One might say that CAS are private organizations who are given a lot of liberty and leeway with their work and in their judgement.
With obviously little control or oversight.
Sounds a bit libertarian to me.
Particularly the part where they take the money from the government but refuse ceding any control to the government even while acknowledging their own faults and that they would not have happened HAD there been more control.
While happily accepting even more money "for training" from the government.
And refusing government investigation into their work on account of it being "expensive".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
...deal.
It's "Why do they have to be dicks about it?" deal.
And no.
"Because copyright", "because trademark", "because association with death" or "cause everyone would be starving their children to death then just to get a Superman statue" is NOT a valid answer.
Being dicks about it is hurting them far more. They chose that. So be it...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Sad that the boy died the way he did. But who really cares about the statue? Even the people who donated toward it did it just to make themselves feel good. In a week, this story will be forgotten as it should be, as newsworthy news.
They just want to eliminate paroles, abolish insanity and diminished capacity pleas, and trial kids as adults.
While privatizing prisons.
How did you put that?
NOT LIBERTARIAN to allow private organizations COMPLETE CONTROL of the freedom of an individual, whether that individual is a child or not.
Well shit... You better start informing those people that they are not real Scotsmen.
http://www.lp.org/the-libertar...
3. Get Tough on Real Crime
In part because of the diversion of resources to fight victimless crime (see above), real criminals increasingly escape punishment. As Figure 2. shows, the cost a criminal can expect to pay for committing a crime has declined for 20 years, while crime rates have steadily increased.
The Libertarian Party believes that individuals should be held responsible for their actions. This includes swift and certain punishment for those guilty of committing violence or fraud against others.
But today, criminal sentences seldom mean what they say. On average, a criminal will serve only 37% of any sentence imposed. As a result, 51% of all violent offenders are released from jail after serving two years or less, and 76% were released after serving four years or less.
When a Judge imposes a sentence, the criminal should serve that sentence. Parole and other forms of early release should be severely restricted. Virtually every study on the subject has shown that parolees have a high recidivism rate. For example, one 1987 study found that 69% of parolees were rearrested within six years of their release.
One deeply disturbing trend is the increasing tendency to excuse individuals from responsibility for the crimes they commit. From the "Twinkie defense" to the Menendez and Bobbitt trials, juries have been too willing to excuse a defendant's guilt. Insanity and diminished capacity defenses should be abolished or severely restricted. The insanity defense can be replaced by a plea of "guilty but mentally ill," which would enable the offender to receive medical help, but would still require him to serve the appropriate sentence for his crime. The use of alcohol or drugs should never constitute an excuse for criminal conduct.
The juvenile justice system should be radically revised to ensure that juveniles are held fully accountable for the crimes they commit. Juveniles commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. From 1982-1991, the number of juveniles arrested for murder or manslaughter increased by 93%. In 1990, individuals under the age of 21 were responsible for one-third of all murders. Yet, only 5% of violent juvenile offenders are tried as adults. In some states a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to serve a term past the age of 25 -- no matter how serious the offense. Juveniles who commit adult crimes should be tried as adults and pay adult penalties.
While scrapping welfare cause poor breed on it like rats. Eating, fucking and committing crimes all day.
5. Address the Root Causes of Crime
The root causes of crime are no mystery. As Peter Greenwood, a criminal justice expert with the RAND Corporation explains, "We know the risk factors for violence and what creates it. Kids being born into poverty, to parents who can't take care of them." It is our current social welfare system that has created the risk factors that breed crime.
Nearly all social scientists agree that there is a direct link between out-of-wedlock births and social problems such as crime and drug abuse. For example, one study found that children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. Another study found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single-parent households were tw
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It seems that this story is overlooking the something important: Memorializing a kid this way is FREAKIN' WEIRD.
Hail the Corporate States of America!
Wow, just... Wow. Is humanity lost? We are bickering back and forth about what legal, fair, copywritten and owned. This child was left to rot. He was 5 years old. 5... Years... Old. He liked to dress up like his super hero idol. That was when he was happiest. Is it wrong that one would want him to be remembered that way? When he was happiest? This whole thing is bull. It's bloody shameful.
This is a special case and they should let him have it. I live in OHIO where you can have it on your license plate. I know the state gives DC money for that. But I wonder how many people with these have committed crimes, since DC didn't want to associate the murder of this child with superman.
Probably not going to cause the kid too much trauma, considering.
Are you Superman? My head is spinning so fast with all that spin-mastery that I think I am gonna hurl. Or maybe I'm gonna hurl because you justified being a total asshat as being a GOOD thing.
Not only that, but did you notice that all of their "supporting" data seemed to be old. Really really old. Why are they quoting studies from 1987? Maybe because that was the last year that supports their "premise"....
http://time.com/2970048/superman-logo-boy-memorial-statue/