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.
...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.
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... cease and desist order. :(
Sure they can. They can license it out for this particular statue. Once it's licensed, there's no dilution.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You do realize that a logo is a trademark issue, not copyright, and trademarks don't expire as long as they are in use?
A little harsh but dead accurate. They're not legally obligated to sue the grieving parents. They could even draw up a contract and sell them limited rights to have this one statue in perpetuity for a dollar, or some such. For PR reasons, the DC rep could even donate the dollar to the rights purchaser.
There are many ways DC could do this, legally and protected, without being asswipes. They chose "fuck 'em; none of the above".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Trademark is a consumer protection law, not a corporate ownership right. Trademarks are protected to prevent consumers from buying things that they believe are produced by a particular company instead of a fraudulently produced knockoff. Since there is no commerce here, there is no chance of consumer confusion.
Which is why it's on ~1 out of 9 t-shirts, ~4 out of 10 underwear, and 3 out of 100 tatoos. They could license it for 1$.
Perhaps they can get around the "license requirement" for this memorial by purchasing a $10 T-shirt off the shelf. And simply don the product they purchased to the statue after folding.
The product then is already licensed; and the statue is not an article being used in trade.... it makes no difference if you wear it in public or attach it to a statue: you purchased a product that included the right to contain that logo licensed to the apparel distributor ---- the trademark holder's consent simply isn't required (they already consented to the mark's usage).
They could also "treat" the shirt by covering it with some chemicals, plastics, and protective coatings to help preserve and protect it. and possibly take some other steps to "emboss" or emphasize the mark, as long as the logo itself remains unaltered.
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.
I'm having a hard time accepting that you think people deserve/don't deserve to have a fictional fucking comic book character's logo on their damn tombstone.
I mean, OK, you want to be that way? What, then, did Reeve or Reeves ever do that was super? Save a baby from a burning building? Or did they just act in a couple of crappy films? What's so damn super about that?
If anyone "deserves" a Superman logo on their grave, it's the soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save their buddies, by throwing themselves on a grenade, for example. Or firemen in general. Or yea, maybe a little boy who endured some shit that no child should ever go through. Not some B-list actor who sucked at riding horses.
a lot of people are not going to like this
Well good, it gives me hope for humanity that a lot of people instantly recognize ignorant shit-speak when they see it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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
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.
Yeah, you're right, a child's death by starvation and abuse is such a downer and should be forgotten as quickly as possible. That money would do much more good for the world if used to create more cute cat videos and pictures for the internet.
Not like any good ever comes of reminding people child abuse happens and kills. And even if it did, there's no way an interesting statue could possibly generate attention and remind people of the incident for decades to come.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Wow, so that must be where our politicians come from.
"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.
Anybody who would have detected the neglect could have become this boy's superhero.
The monument is to remind us here in Ontario that we have to try harder.
Social services, the school records, neighbors ... there are countless ways this tragedy could, and should have been prevented.
Yup, it has nothing to do with copyright:
Superman will therefore go back to being associated with wholesome, cheerful things, like planets exploding, orphaned kids being abandoned in a Kansas field, and slow death by radiation poisoning from green rocks.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
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?