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.
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. :(
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).
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?
Welcome, visitor from Krypton. One of the first pieces of knowledge that you will need to be introduced to on this planet is this tidbit: Nerds like comic books. And now that we've covered that, we move on to the fascinating world of nerds and their love of Star Trek....
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
Its a slippery slope that DC is right to avoid with a flat out denial.
I see the potential for a slope, but that would be with the type of request IMO - and on that level you still have the power to say yes or no. So they would need to come up with some criteria, if they did, that would end the potential slope right there.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
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.
They should have seen the income opportunity here and said we will license it out for headstones/memorials at a cost of $X. Then he would have to go raise that much more for his monument. Done deal. They still look like dicks, but then everyone can have their way if they're willing to cough up the cash.
I refuse to sign
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!
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
Assholes like you are why we cannot have nice things and why people are not treated humanely.
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?
Why would this be a problem?
As in what, precisely, would be wrong with allowing parents to use your trademark of a beloved children's character on their dead kids' tombstones?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That's awesome and all, but this is taking place in Canada.
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.
The 51st state, right?
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
I hate to get in the way of a good rant, but the players in this little drama are all Canadian.
As you may know, Canadians are notorious for ignoring the US Constitution.
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
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.
Wow, so that must be where our politicians come from.
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!
"I really don't feel too bad for those who let him starve and now want a monument."
What the F*** are you talking about. The ones who starved him are in jail.
The man sponsoring the monument simply does so because he feels the poor boy deserves to be remembered as a stark reminder that we have to try harder to prevent such abuse.
Anybody could have been this boy's Superman if only the neglect would have been detected earlier.
I am not sure what planet you're yabbering from. They made a request. This is the opposite of hijacking.
From DC's point of view, it's called being nice. They need only send a letter agreeing to it, and they get good will. If they are tied up in exclusivity contracts, you have a quick conference call with those other businesses and explain the following: At this point, I would be in favor of an organized boycot of the upcoming Superman/Batman movie
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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.
I'm sure it would appear crazy to someone who didn't actually read the article. Third link in the summary above:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gt...
Which begins with the words: Before he died of starvation at the hands of his grandparents, Jeffrey Baldwin dreamed of being just like Superman.
Right under this photo of the kid in a Superman costume: http://www.thestar.com/content...
Koans and fables for the software engineer
No, just some of the ones from Texas.
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.
Obama is from Texas?
No, but Ted Cruz is.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Well, you could have phrased that a little better... I do think it's odd that a Superman costume would be so integral to this monument when the only suggestion that the kid cared about Superman at all was a single comment by his abusive father.
Random Stranger who's organizing this didn't know the kid at all... which is itself also rather odd. Monuments like this aren't for the dead, after all, they're for the living, those who still remember and care about the people who have passed, and Random Stranger never knew this kid. Random Stranger doesn't know the first thing about his personality. Why is it so important to Random Stranger whether or not the statue is dressed like Superman?
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?
I would be in favor of an organized boycot of the upcoming Superman/Batman movie
I would be in favor of a disorganized ignoring of the upcoming Superman/Batman movie just because I expect the movie to stink. DC's movie series start strong but fail fast. It's like the only stories they can do well are origins, and those are pretty boring.
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.
And he's Canadian for those that missed the joke. Or was, he surrendered his Canadian citizenship so he can pretend he's a real American. Otherwise when he talks about making gay people illegal, forcing women to be barefoot and pregnant, abolishing access to birth control and abortion people might question why this Canadian is pretending to be a Texan with values completely the opposite of the nation he held a passport in.
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
The 51st state, eh?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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
Otherwise when he talks about making gay people illegal, forcing women to be barefoot and pregnant, abolishing access to birth control and abortion people might question why this Canadian is pretending to be a Texan with values completely the opposite of the nation he held a passport in.
It's always nice when someone self-identifies as someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
...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
I never knew about a 'horned Moses'. Thanks for the enlightenment.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
And what believes and desires would that be, pray tell?
The death of this child touched many people here in the GTA, and trying to ensure he is not forgotten is nothing but a valiant attempt to ensure it doesn't happen again.
If you cannot relate to this, then search the Internet for your misplaced humanity. Maybe reading up on the case would help.
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
The ones who starved him are in jail.
I had not heard of this case before today, but sheesh, the GP's really shouldn't be jail. They should be in the ground. Buried alive.
I don't know if it's nice, but it sure is hilarious !
I'm actually curious how abusive the father really was. None of the articles I read talked about that part.
Let's start with the obvious: I have absolutely no faith (ha!) in the competence of the Catholic Children's Aid Society to judge whether or not a given couple are fit to be parents. He and his sisters were taken because, quote, "allegations of abuse were against their parents". One presumes there was some degree of due process there, but "allegations" by themselves would not normally be considered sufficient evidence of actual abuse. A different article I read said the parents were young (quite believable, given the grandmother's age) and the fact that they apparently kept on having babies even though they kept being taken away does suggest a certain degree of... let's say "lack of wisdom" on their part. The (maternal) grandmother is also borderline clinically retarded (IQ of 69), which doesn't speak well for the mother's probable intelligence.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
The air they breath is indeed a waste of good oxygen. They are monstrous.
If psychology was good for anything it should have allowed to pick up on their depravity before children were placed in their care.
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.
Shitty try dude. Nowhere in his post did he say anything xenophobic. He simply pointed out cowboy Ted is not really a cowboy. Kind of like how you rightwingers keep swearing up and down that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan. The only difference is we're right and you're wrong :P
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.
I was going to starve my child to death, but then I drove past a graveyard and saw a statue of Superman.
Yeah, right.
Obviously you have some problems grasping the concept that in a complex urban society is not only the (none-)care-givers that are involved.
This child's death could have been entirely avoidable if the system hadn't completely failed him.
This statue, as well as this faux controversy, helps to keep the story in the fore-front, and that is an entirely good thing.
Obviously you have some problems grasping where the system actually failed and what could have been done to prevent this failure. None of the points of failure would have been swayed by a statue.
Look, as somebody who lives in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) I've followed this story very closely as soon as it broke. There needs to be corrections and consequences imposed by the provincial government.
This only happens when this story is kept in the forefront and MPs feel this is something their riding cares about.
It's really local politics 101. Presumably you are American and think your broken barely democratic system represents how things work anywhere in the world. Thankfully it doesn't.