Court Rules Batmobile Is Entitled To Copyright Protection

schwit1 writes: The Batmobile's bat-like appearance and other distinct attributes, including its high-tech weaponry, make it a character that can't be replicated without permission from DC Comics, the copyright holder, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. "As Batman so sagely told Robin, 'In our well-ordered society, protection of private property is essential,' " states the opinion. "Here, we conclude that the Batmobile character is the property of DC, and Towle infringed upon DC's property rights when he produced unauthorized derivative works of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture."

Comments

It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes without saying that stuff like this should be copyrighted because it's essentially "fanart" that is being sold. You just can't do that.

Though this makes me wonder about Time Machine-modified Delorean's and Ecto-1's

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[91degrees]

Ecto-1 especially. It's just a paint-job on an old Cadillac ambulance, with a bunch of crap on the roof. Is the crap on the roof copyrightable? I guess the "No Ghosts" logo is.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't about the specifics, but about the whole look and character of the thing. If you see Ecto-1 you immediately know it is Ecto-1.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

You never know, it might be the Ecto-2.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[91degrees]

True, but if you see a silver Aston Martin DB5 you immediately think of James Bond, and would that red stripe be enough to violate the copyright on the A-Team van?

There are of course always edge cases. I just wonder how these things would go if challenged.

Curiously, in a similar case, despite the vehicle in question being an unmodified creation of the Met Police, the rights to the Blue Police Box now belong to the BBC.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Met Police wanted to operate their own Blue Police Boxes, they'd probably get an exemption insofar as they did not make them bigger on the inside.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[JMJimmy]

It goes without saying that stuff like this should be copyrighted because it's essentially "fanart" that is being sold. You just can't do that.

Though this makes me wonder about Time Machine-modified Delorean's and Ecto-1's

There goes cosplay.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Soluzar]

"Vehicle", you say?

The Met certainly have never created a "vehicle" fitting that description.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the kind where you buy your costume at the mall? That always needed permission.
But making your own costume is still cool.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC may think that they own the rights to the TARDIS. However, the Doctor has been known to tell people who have demanded control of his TARDIS (such as a certain Mr. Churchill), "I'd like to see you try." We tried to get in touch with individuals who had demanded control of The Master's / Missy's TARDIS, but there wasn't enough left of them to have an open-casket funeral, much less to interview.

Attempts to consult the High Council of Time Lords on Gallifrey were met with a persistent "HTTP 40404 Universe Not Found."

The TARDIS's own database reveals that the TARDIS is a living being, and a highly intelligent one at that - even if the Engineering tradeoffs involved in direct and continual interfacing with the Time Vortex make it difficult for the TARDIS to communicate with flesh and blood beings. As a living being, the TARDIS is presumably no more copyrightable than a Human being or a Time Lord.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[XxtraLarGe]

It goes without saying that stuff like this should be copyrighted because it's essentially "fanart" that is being sold. You just can't do that. Though this makes me wonder about Time Machine-modified Delorean's and Ecto-1's

There goes cosplay.

I'm not so sure about that. I think Marvel & DC are smart enough to realize that killing Cosplay would really harm their industries. Of course, the problem you have with Marvel is their parent company, who is known for it's ridiculous commitment to protecting it's "property".

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[FlyHelicopters]

Ecto-1 is totally copyrightable...

If you see it, it is clear and obvious what it is...

The time machine version of the DMC-12 is the same thing, it is clear and obvious what it is...

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[FlyHelicopters]

If you get a early 80's GMC van, paint it black on the bottom, gray on the top (it wasn't all black), put a red stripe on it, put the red wheels on it, and put a red spoiler on it, then yea, it is a copy of the A-Team van.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[FlyHelicopters]

There goes cosplay.

No, you're allowed to make your own costume for your own private use.

That is "fair use".

What you aren't allowed to do is make 50,000 of them and sell them. That requires permission.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[C0R1D4N]

Maybe, but I really don't see Warner getting into the custom automobile industry. They should have just settled to offer the guy a fairly priced license.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[FlyHelicopters]

Maybe, but I really don't see Warner getting into the custom automobile industry. They should have just settled to offer the guy a fairly priced license.

Perhaps they did and he turned them down, thinking he didn't have to pay them a cent.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even the Ecto-88. Which is a DeLorean.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[JMJimmy]

That's not fair use because you can use it for profit like the times square people or blogging etc. Then there's issues of it negatively affecting your brand, like if crazy Elmo decides to start attacking tourists.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Mage66]

DC has already sold an exclusive license to another firm, Fiberglass Freaks.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Coren22]

Well, it does "travel" through "time".

https://xkcd.com/209/

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Oligonicella]

"because you can use it for profit" should be "when you use it for profit".

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[JMJimmy]

If I build a batmobile for myself and get bored of it, is it for profit if I sell it? What about in a bankruptcy or estate sale?

I'm just playing devil's advocate... I think the entire system is absurd.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[sootman]

What if someone wants one but doesn't know how to make one, but I do? Can I help them? Can I be paid to help them? Where do you draw the line?

It seems to me (which means I am probably 100% wrong) that he could quit making them first and selling them, and instead he could switch to I-will-make-you-one-upon-request. Or "help" people make them, and as long as the buyer does a certain amount, it's all OK. Or do what he's been doing, but deliver it in pink, and it's up to the new owner to paint it a different color if they want.

Like anything else, if there is a line between "legal" and "illegal", it has to be a clear, definable line. How different does it have to be to no longer be considered a batmobile?

Note: IANAL, I didn't read the actual opinion, and I only skimmed the article.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[LifesABeach]

Lets consider the Apple Phone/Watch, can Chester Gould,(think Dick Tracy), sue for damages then?

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[bruce_the_loon]

I think they'd be covered as the original owners of the prior art that the BBC blatantly stole and copied for the entertainment of the masses. The bigger on the inside feature might well have been added in to get around the Met's existing copyright.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[FlyHelicopters]

All fair points...

It is worth remembering that it is one thing to be right, yet another to pay a lawyer to prove that you're right in a court of law...

Yes, there is some point where it becomes a derivative work, however if you're just attempting to skirt around the edges of the law, I can tell you the courts take a VERY dim view of "game playing" when it comes to the law.

If you should know better, then you should know better.

Judges do not generally have a sense of humor, and such arguments are often not very useful in court.

Source: I've been to court, I've sued people and been sued, it only makes the lawyers money in the end.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[FlyHelicopters]

Then it becomes about your "intent"...

If you made it with the intent of distribution, then you're outside of fair use. If you made it for personal use, word it or drove it for 5 years, then sold it when bored, that could be defended under fair use.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[FlyHelicopters]

Just because something can be used for profit doesn't mean it will be.

I can make a Superman costume at home tomorrow and wear it to a private party for fun, I'm not breaking any laws.

If I make 50 of them and bring them for everyone to have one, then I have.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC did not steal the police box. They seized it for non-payment of license fees. There was a television inside.

Re:It should... but what about Ecto-1

[Anonymous Coward]

Also a cat, spotted by the cat detector van from the Ministry of Housinge.

Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as copyright infringement is not theft; Intellectual property is not property. Intellectual property is merely a legal privilege, a set of rules that allows some people to restrict others in the free use of their own, true property. If anything, Batman's "sage words" defend the copier.

Re: Private property?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Right, the copier is prevented, with violent force if necessary, from doing what he wants with his *real* property, in sacrifice to the chase of possible profits derived from fictional propery rights.

But we expect judges to contort themselves to uphold laws, not to apply reason and philosophy to matters before them. Just don't look for any justice there and you won't find any surprises.

Re:Private property?

[gnupun]

Intellectual property is not property.

Without IP, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather etc. These raw materials are cheap and constitute a tiny fraction of the retail price of the car. You're paying for IP and the processing of these raw materials.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

And without significant limits on "intellectual property" nothing would be made out of fear that some distant relative of some inventor from the 15th century could come in and sue your company into the ground. There is a very good reason why the founders put "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" and "limited times" into the constitution regarding copyrights/patents. Society GRANTS artists and inventors the rights to hold a monopoly over something they create for a LIMITED TIME with the purposes of encouraging them and others to create more, not to grind society to a halt while high priced lawyers dig through centuries of minutia trying to figure out who "owns" an idea.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are saying that there never was and never will be an idea without intellectual property. Now who has the intellectual property of the idea of 'intellecutal property'?

> Without IP, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather [...]
> You're paying for IP and the processing of these raw materials.

FTFY: Without processing of these raw materials, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, you might be retartet.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Without IP, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather etc."

Which is total nonsense. Machines were built before anything like IP law was invented. Cars are just one type of machine.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what would happen if you met a real pirate, or if one of those copyright infringer had to live one day like a real pirate. I guess he would die before noon.

Re:Private property?

[ultranova]

Without IP, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather etc. These raw materials are cheap and constitute a tiny fraction of the retail price of the car. You're paying for IP and the processing of these raw materials.

Without IP, my car might be more or less advanced, that's all. On one hand there would be less incentive to research new features, on the other, the manufacturer could incorporate any they want without paying license fees. And as new manufacturing techniques, such as 3D printing, drive down the cost of making one-off prototypes, research will become cheaper and eventually reach the point where hobbyists can engage in it. At that point IP will unquestionably be a hindrance, if it isn't already.

Re: Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, what of legitimate aftermarket products. So you want to produce a new automobile widget, but the automakers have copyright on their rolling works of art. Your new bolt on widget therefore necessarily creates a deriverative work.

God damn. I want off of this ride.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as copyright infringement is not theft; Intellectual property is not property. Intellectual property is merely a legal privilege, a set of rules that allows some people to restrict others in the free use of their own, true property.

So what? Property is merely a legal privilege, a set of rules that allows some people to restrict others in the free use of the physical artifacts that they consider belong to them, and grant them legal control over the companies for which they own a signed paper.

Where exactly do you see a philosophical difference there? Both exist as long as others are willing to respect such property and play by its rules, but there's nothing in the universe that makes one concept somewhat more real than the other.

Re:Private property?

[penguinoid]

Quit trying to defent piracy. Yes, piracy. It is what copyright infringement is called.

I wonder what it's called when someone steals (as in, prevents the owner from using) something from the public domain, such as, say, the "Happy Birthday" song.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what would happen if you met a real pirate, or if one of those copyright infringer had to live one day like a real pirate. I guess he would die before noon.

No need to worry about scurvy, then!

Re:Private property?

[rubycodez]

No, guess again.

  UNCLOS Article 101:

  Piracy is (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private
ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on
board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any
State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with
knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b)

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you asking for the philosophical difference of an idea and a thing? You know that looks very stupid.
Well to be fair you ask for the difference of owning an idea and a thing.

Yes there is a big difference: we both can use the same idea during the same time while this is not possible with things. Historically that meant that you had to defend your things with force, but you had to keep your ideas secret because no force would stop them from spreading. Because no one can know who knows which ideas.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are saying that there never was and never will be an idea without intellectual property. Now who has the intellectual property of the idea of 'intellecutal property'?

> Without IP, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather [...]
> You're paying for IP and the processing of these raw materials.

FTFY: Without processing of these raw materials, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather.

without processing, your steel, plastic, rubber and leather would be rocks, oil, sap and dead animals.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was called "copyright infringement" as you had indicated.

Piracy is what Blackbeard and his friends use to do on the high seas in the 1700's

Even wikipedia agrees ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
"This article is about maritime piracy. For unauthorized use, copying, modification or distribution of content, see Copyright infringement."

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without IP, your car would be a heap of raw materials like steel, plastic, rubber, leather etc. These raw materials are cheap and constitute a tiny fraction of the retail price of the car. You're paying for IP and the processing of these raw materials.

Without IP, my car might be more or less advanced, that's all. On one hand there would be less incentive to research new features, on the other, the manufacturer could incorporate any they want without paying license fees. And as new manufacturing techniques, such as 3D printing, drive down the cost of making one-off prototypes, research will become cheaper and eventually reach the point where hobbyists can engage in it. At that point IP will unquestionably be a hindrance, if it isn't already.

IP is unquestionably a far greater hindrance to those who obey the law than not having IP would be.

A simple way to analyze this is as follows:
What is "X" the value of the PURELY NOVEL inventions you may come up with?
What is "Yn" the accumulated value of all human knowledge to date?
We then have two cases:
1) If X1>Yn then copyright, patents and trademarks all make sense for some person,"1", personally.
2) If X2>Yn (X2>>X1) then copyright, patents and trademarks all make sense for some genius, "2", personally.

To solve requires a complex set of mathematics that I will summarize as follows:
1') Most people aren't that smart.
2') And neither are you, nor anyone else at this point.

Consider two frameworks:
1) Strong IP
Let's suppose I hate the cold and just today, I discover and patent "fire" and copyright all methods of describing how to create it. That means if you infringe my patent for fire, you go to jail (contempt of court for not paying the civil fines after being unable to pay my not-at-all fair license fees) and if you learn of it, that means someone else infringed and they go to jail via copyright violations->contempt. The world devolves into those who can afford to transfer wealth to me for fire and those who live in the cold.

2) No IP
Let's suppose I hate the cold and just today, I discover "fire". Patents and copy rights don't exist. I still get to be warm, but now you can too. I'm under no obligation to teach you, but if I'm an ass, you can kill me and take my fire, so it's in my interest to show you how to make your own. Or at least charge you a reasonable fee to give you a torch from mine. Maybe a piece of fish or rabbit - you go hunt and I'll man the fire. We can specialize and advanced economies can exist.

I like option #1 much better if I get the rights to "fire", but since those odds are 1 in 7 billion, I'll vote for #2. So will anyone who isn't both statistically challenged and a sociopath.

Is there a middle ground? Maybe, but since we can't agree on the details, pick the extreme you like better.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mostly the processing of the raw materials, not the IP.

The custom sheetmetal forms and other fabrication dies are the majority of it. Sheetmetal is remarkably close tolerances on modern vehicles, honestly.

For example replacing all of the ECU's in my Toyota Yaris would run about $2500, out of the $12500 price of the car. So... about the cost of a high-end computer system, what I'd expect from what it is; essentially a high-end (albeit for durability not performance) computer system.

So yeah, about $2500 of the car is the raw materials (rubber, copper, aluminum, etc), and another $2500 is the various computer modules, but the other $7500 or so is just the 'labor' involved more or less, so not the IP at all just raw hours and custom tools needed to create one.

~ WolfWings, too lazy to login to /.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already hit that point.

The $20 Teensy 3.2's have a full-speed CAN bus signalling system on-board. It takes another $5 for the CAN transceiver to allow it to directly interface with the industry-standard CAN bus so many car-makers standardized on.

So at this point it's only a $25 'barrier to entry' to make custom systems on a car, and to tinker a complete ODB-II interface can be assembled by a hobbyist for $50. At that point it's 100% limited only by the code they decide to run on the microcontroller.

~ WolfWings, too lazy to login to /. in ages and ages

Re:Private property?

[gnupun]

but the other $7500 or so is just the 'labor' involved more or less, so not the IP at all just raw hours and custom tools needed to create one.

ORLY? Is the processing cost for components of a $1 million bugatti really 50 times more costly than your $20k compact car? I really doubt it. With the Bugatti, you're paying for the 0-60 times, top speed, handling etc. and the prestige of owning a supercar. Most of these features come from ingenious IP the company creates, and have little to do with how much it costs to convert raw materials to car parts.

Re:Private property?

[Anguirel]

Most of those costs come from the name and rarity, and the high price point that drives certain types of people to want it simply because it is expensive and rare. The ingenious IP isn't that expensive, or said costs could easily be recouped just by spreading it in lots of additional vehicles at a lower price point (as eventually happens). Or are you going to tell me this $41,500 purse is filled with ingenious IP as well?

Re:Private property?

[gnupun]

Of course, designer fashion accessories are all about the IP! You can find a cheap clone for a few hundred bucks in many other countries that use almost the same materials, built by copying/stealing IP.

Also, the name you mention, comes from having a reputation of having good IP and manufacturing ability.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are things that can be used at the same time by several people. By the same logic, it would be stupid to defend that private property can apply to such things as land, forests, or rivers. I believe the native Americans thought that way.

The alternative is that property can apply to land, even if it can be used by several people at once; but then, so can you apply it to ideas. So it's not nonsensical. Not that I agree it should be done, but it's not that different to "classic" property.

Re:Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to the above: "I believe the native Americans thought that way, and they were not stupid".

Well that settles it then

[GeekWithAKnife]

MANY MORE people will start creating batmobiles and replicas of other DC comics things.

Thanks you DC comics for taking part in the same lowlife copyright troll activities so many of us loath. It will help my decision the next time I see a DC comics movie listed...

In my absence of your upcoming film premier please enjoy this fine tune by Duck Sauce -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Well that settles it then

[GrumpySteen]

MANY MORE people will start creating batmobiles and replicas of other DC comics things.

That's actually okay and they won't do anything to prevent people from creating those replicas. It's only when someone decide to go into business creating and selling replicas that they'll take legal action to stop it.

Re:Well that settles it then

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had read the article in question... it's about a company that sold replica batmobiles and parts to make a car look like the batmobile. While the latter is likely treading on thin ice... the defendant in the suit was selling full-up replicas of batmobiles from the TV series and Tim Burton movies, for profit, and without any licensing agreement. You would be able to tell the batmobile from whatever car James Bond used in that one movie, right?

Re:Well that settles it then

[MrKaos]

That's actually okay and they won't do anything to prevent people from creating those replicas. It's only when someone decide to go into business creating and selling replicas that they'll take legal action to stop it.

I wonder what happens if instead of them selling it, they are asked and paid to build one instead.

Re:Well that settles it then

[GeekWithAKnife]

So really, all they need to do is create more special looking cars and block out possible creation of most future iterations of vehicles...the elephantmobile, the ninjamobile, the triturbomobile...and their "weapons" and...this is from decades ago.

I see some flaws with this, do you?

Re:Well that settles it then

[GrumpySteen]

There isn't a company on the planet with enough money to produce every possible variation on a 'look'.

From your suggestion of an elephantmobile, a company would have to cover all possible variations of trunk length and diameter, ear length and width and angle from the body, tusk length and curvature and diameter and color, tail length, proportion of leg length to body length, color of skin and dozens of other factors in order to try and block out all other possible elephantmobiles. Millions upon millions of elephantmobiles would have to be produced just to lock down this one single look.

And even then, someone would still be able to add butterfly wings and glitter and go into the market with the fairy elephantcar with no chance of you being able to stop them unless you'd thought of the same thing.

Re:Well that settles it then

[Anonymous Curmudgeon]

How far does this "character" concept extend? Do you need permission to sell your home-made stormtrooper costume? Do stealth airplanes and the "invisible" flying aircraft carrier violate the "character" of Wonder Woman's invisible airplane? Are you allowed to sell your Pontiac Firebird after installing a K.I.T.T. kit?

Re:Well that settles it then

[dirk]

While you are probably correct, my issue with this thinking is that they CAN go after anyone for making a replica. If the intent is that they will only go after people selling them, then that is how the law/ruling should read. The law currently gives them the ability to go after anyone creating a replica, even something as silly as a 10 year old kid making one out of cardboard (no, I don't think they would ever be dumb enough to do that, but legally they could). We should never rely on companies to do the right thing and not abuse power. If we want that to happen, we shouldn't give them the power to begin with instead of just hoping they would never use it.

Re:Well that settles it then

[hink]

You MIGHT get away with it so long as you thoroughly document that the patron provided the ENTIRE design AND all materials. Then demonstrate that you only provided your skills and tools, and that you are available for hire for other custom automobiles.

However, as my friend who was a screen printer told me, it can still lead to a costly legal defense for HIM if he "knowingly printed copyrighted or trademarked art". He said that being right, and paying a lawyer to prove you are right, are two different things. In his case, he was providing the materials, machines, labor, and often the final artwork. So his business would be facilitating, and profiting from the infringement. He also had personal concerns with copyright and trademark infringement. As an artist, he wouldn't want someone to rip HIM off.

Re:Well that settles it then

[Anonymous Coward]

1. To the extents determined by law and litigation.

2. Hell yes.

3. Stealth airplanes operate under engineering principles, and generally are operated by sovereign states that have immunity for such actions. The concept of invisibility is far beyond that of DC Comic's Wonder Woman, and I'm pretty sure that there is no flying aircraft carrier in that series, that would be SHIELD from Marvel, though the concept itself is likely reasonably generic though a specific implementation is another matter.

4. Assuming the kit is licensed, it wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Well that settles it then

[Anonymous Coward]

and selling

That should be "and distributing". Even if you give it away for free they can take legal action. It's a common misconception that it's only infringement if you charge money for it.

Re:Well that settles it then

[FlyHelicopters]

How far does this "character" concept extend? Do you need permission to sell your home-made stormtrooper costume? Do stealth airplanes and the "invisible" flying aircraft carrier violate the "character" of Wonder Woman's invisible airplane? Are you allowed to sell your Pontiac Firebird after installing a K.I.T.T. kit?

If you're selling a one-off home-made Storm Trooper armor set, I doubt Disney cares. That happens all the time.

If you're selling thousands of machine made Storm Trooper armor sets that you had imported form China, you're going to lose.

Re:Well that settles it then

[FlyHelicopters]

even something as silly as a 10 year old kid making one out of cardboard

That is covered under fair use, it would not be infringing...

Re:Well that settles it then

[Agent0013]

How do you see that implied. The 1966 TV show Batmobile is "the one" everyone thinks of as the original Batmobile. I never saw another one before that one. And every Batmobile made for the movies is a knock-off on that one. It certainly does not look anything like the comic version that I had to look up in a Google search and have never before seen in my life.

This judge is saying that a newly created car, that looks nothing like any car made before, is a derivative and a copy just because of the name. So then every elephantmobile would be a copy of the first elephantmobile. Even if it looked completely different, the fact that it has any elephant appearance at all would make it a copy. So then, wouldn't Hello Kitty be a copy of Catwoman?

Re:Well that settles it then

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually okay and they won't do anything to prevent people from creating those replicas. It's only when someone decide to go into business creating and selling replicas that they'll take legal action to stop it.

I wonder what happens if instead of them selling it, they are asked and paid to build one instead.

Duh, it's the same thing!

Re:Well that settles it then

[GrumpySteen]

a newly created car, that looks nothing like any car made before,

REALLY? You're going to claim that THIS DAMN NEAR PERFECT REPLICA of the Batmobile from the 1966 show doesn't look anything like any car made before even though it looks EXACTLY like the one from the show?

Re: Well that settles it then

[Agent0013]

You know what? I think I was mistaken on what is said to be infringing. The summary states that "Towle infringed upon DCâ(TM)s property rights when he produced unauthorized derivative works of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture." I thought that meant the 1966 show and 1989 movie were the unauthorized derivative works. I thought that seemed weird because I had never heard that the original show was unauthorized, but that's what it looked to be saying. Sorry about the confusion.

Re:Well that settles it then

[nytes]

a 10 year old kid making one out of cardboard

Batman: "Quick Robin. To the Batmobile!"

Robin: "Damn it, Batman! The rental again?"

nana-nana-nana-nana

Re:Well that settles it then

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, better for DC comics, obtain a licensing fee! Basically they want a cut of the action and to see their 'brand' is not depricated.

someone draw the line

[ihtoit]

I'd like to know where "derivative works" meets "cold replica"?

Re:someone draw the line

[Anonymous Coward]

And then what about the originals?

In the 1943 serial they used a 1939 white-top black Cadillac convertible. And in the 1949 serial it was a Mercury convertible (also white-top).
In both cases: top-down == Wayne's private car; top-up == Batmobile.

The collector's markets for Deloreans just died

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason for owning one is because you want to make a back to the future car.

Court Clearly Doesn't Understand

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bat Mobile and likeness thereof would be a Trademark issue, not a Copyright issue.

Re:Court Clearly Doesn't Understand

[gnupun]

The word "Batmobile" is trademarkable, whereas the actual physical/ornamental design of the car is copyrightable.

Bat-like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this? http://www.dan-dare.org/Dan%20FRD/MeanMachineAni.gif

AC Clearly Doesn't Understand

[mangobrain]

.. that they don't know more about trademark & copyright law than the lawyers and judges involved in the case.

I got to see the '89 Batmobile being built...

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years before the '89 movie came out. Very hush hush secret stuff. It looked cool even before the body was on a frame.

Circus Court

[aitikin]

Really? I'm the only one who noticed the summery's reference to the "9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals"?

Re:Circus Court

[Anonymous Coward]

"Circus" Court of Appeals may be the proper name, given the "protection of private property is essential" quote. U.S. copyright is not based on the idea that there are any natural property rights to works. It is a limited artificial monopoly; a utilitarian incentive. One might hope for a court to understand this.

Re:Circus Court

[ebvwfbw]

AC? Why post as an AC? Get a name dude.
It's a circus because the 9th circuit is so full of crap. They don't care about the law and everyone knows it. The joke of the legal system, and I think they know that too. Whacked out liberals. Probably still high from the night before.

No, that's crap. How can something totally unrelated like a car have anything to do with something that is copyrightable such as a comic book. This could cause a lot of trouble as just about everything in our life has some other analog.

The SCOTUS will have to clean up after their playtime again. The 9th would do us a lot of good, as would a certain Texas court district that deals with patents if they would simply resign.

Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

So who's protecting the rights of Bats? Their body design is being exploited by DC,,,whos's stealing from whom?

Cars can now be copyrighted?

[Munchr]

How is this reconciled with automakers not being allowed to pursue copyright claims against makers/sellers/distributors of replicas and kit-cars? I thought previous court cases determined that vehicles could not be copyrighted, and automakers only enjoyed trademark protection against the specific logos and trademarks placed on the vehicles?

Re:Cars can now be copyrighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge seems to not see that there is a difference between THE Batmobile and A Batmobile.

THE Batmobile, build by George Barris for the 1960's TV show (from the Ford Futura concept car) sold at the 2013 Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale auction for $4.3 million.

A Batmobile replica seems to go for anything up to $150K, depending on how good it is.

People know what the real things are and the difference in what they are worth to them are, as one can see, is remarkably different. Also, trying to pass off a replica as the real thing is fraud, a real crime.

Re:Cars can now be copyrighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't copy that jalopy!

Re:Cars can now be copyrighted?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I dunno, boats have been copyrighted for a long time.

Re:Cars can now be copyrighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... I would have expected something like "design copyright" to apply to cars too. Just like it applies to computerphones with round corners.

Re:Cars can now be copyrighted?

[SuricouRaven]

Since 1998. It's in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, oddly enough.

There are five titles in the act. Everyone who reads slashdot knows of the 'safe harbor' provisions and the anti-circumvention provisions - titles II and I respectively. The less-well-known title V extends copyright protection to cover the design of boat hulls.

fair use considers 4 points. Is it commercial?

[raymorris]

In the US, at least, courts must consider at least four points when considering fair use. One of those is whether or not the use is commercial in nature - whether it's being sold.

That's not the sole deciding factor, but it is one of four factors which the court is required to consider.

Only if no BS harmonization by 2024

[tepples]

Society GRANTS artists and inventors the rights to hold a monopoly over something they create for a LIMITED TIME with the purposes of encouraging them and others to create more

Then Congress has about nine more years to prove that it will uphold its end of the bargain. If 2024 arrives and Congress hasn't passed another bullshit "harmonization" bill, we'll know that the copyright term is limited enough to let the Mickey trilogy, the Pooh books, and "Rhapsody in Blue" enter the public domain.

Re:Only if no BS harmonization by 2024

[FlyHelicopters]

Keep in mind that the early Mickey works may well enter the public domain, but that doesn't mean anyone can make a Mickey Cartoon.

It only means that someone can copy the old Mickey Cartoons.

Mickey is trademarked, the image and brand of the mouse is clearly property of the Walt Disney Company and will remain so as long as they exist.

Re:Only if no BS harmonization by 2024

[fustakrakich]

Copyright sets distribution rights. Trademark is more about plagiarism and attribution.

Re:Only if no BS harmonization by 2024

[FlyHelicopters]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"It is sometimes erroneously stated that the Mickey Mouse character is only copyrighted. In fact, the character, like all major Disney characters, is also trademarked, which lasts in perpetuity as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. So, whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves may not be used as trademarks without authorization."

Once again copyright law

[Anonymous Coward]

shows us how out-moded & useless it is.

Pick up your onion belt & GTFO copyright... your time is over old man!

Dastar v. Fox bars that cause

[tepples]

Mickey is trademarked

A trademark cannot be used to extend the term of the exclusive rights under an expired U.S. copyright. Dastar v. Fox . Under current law, as of 2024, this will include the right to prepare, reproduce, and distribute derivative works of the books When We Were Very Young, Winnie-the-Pooh, Now We Are Six, and The House at Pooh Corner, as well as the short films Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie. And in 2025, it will include the revised version of Plane Crazy. So expect a shot for shot remake of the Mickey films in whatever Blender has become by then.

Re:Dastar v. Fox bars that cause

[FlyHelicopters]

I don't doubt that you will be able to do remakes... of those old films...

But you won't be able to make brand new works... For example, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is a "new work". You couldn't make new episodes of that just because Steamboat Willie goes into the public domain.

The "Mouse" is so clearly Disney that it is as bullet proof as it gets.

And if by any slim chance someone comes up with a way around it, it won't last 10 seconds before Congress fixes that.

Re:Dastar v. Fox bars that cause

[SuricouRaven]

"as well as the short films Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie"

They are too valuable to be allowed to expire. Expect very intense lobbying for another extension, probably pushed as essential to 'protect America's creative industries.'

Fair Use

[gurps_npc]

He should have gone for a Fair Use argument.

By law, the fair use exception applies when:

1. Acceptable purpose.

2. Nature of work (idea are not copyrightable)

3. Amount copied.

4. Affect on market for copyright holder.

In reverse, order.

4. The car's sale will INCREASE the market for comics, movies, books, TV etc. Qualifies as Fair Use.

3. Amount copied: Minimal. The car is a minimal portion of the Batman mythos. Qualifies as Fair Use.

2. Nature of work. It is based on design, so it can not escape the fair use by claiming it is an idea - but this does not disqualify it as Fair Use.

1. Finally the Acceptable Purpose. Here he has to get a bit creative. If he was Smart he could sell the unmodified car, then for a fee perform modifications to as per the customer's requests. If the customer's requests happen to be do x, y, and z so it looks like the BatMobile, and then have the customer sign a statement saying they intend to use the car to give rides from Ronald McDonald House to the hospital for children, he has crafted an "Acceptable Use", and his actions become legal.

Also, sick kids get to ride in the BatMobile. Definitely an upside.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

1. This is the part of fair use that often has the most wiggle room, but this is definitely a huge stretch. The seller here is making Batmobile replicas for commercial sale, period. It's definitely not parody, educational, or transformative.

3. Amount Copied - The original work here is the Batmobile, NOT the entirety of the Batman mythos. Thus, 100% of the original work was copied! Your claim is like saying that selling bootleg CDs of The White Album is fair use, since it is a minimal portion of the Beatles catalog.

4. Comics, movies, books, are a separate market from cars. The effect on the market for "Real-life Batmobiles" will be a serious negative impact to the copyright holder, as this market is presumably so small that one seller can dominate it. It's very well established that a replica of the original work is more or less a Full Stop as far as fair use is concerned.

Fair use was absolutely not an acceptable defense in this case.

Re:Fair Use

[gurps_npc]

1. is a stretch, but doable if he was careful. He himself would not be violating copyright at all - he sold the unmodified car. Modifying your car to look like the bat mobile is a) not for resale and b) for a legal use if done as part of a charity event, which I suggested.

3. I was not aware that DC ever actively sold Batrmobiles. If that is correct, then they would have a copyright on the Batmobile. But if I am correct and they NEVER SOLD BATMOBILES, then their copyright is on the Batman mythos, not the car itself, and the car is a tiny portion of it. Note, unlike DC/Batmobile, the Beatles did in fact sell the White Album, so your example is worthless.

4. Again, if DC was in the business of selling Batmobiles, your argument would make sense. But again they DO NOT SELL BATMOBILES. As such, the item they do have a valid copyright on - works of fiction, not cars, is NOT negatively affected by the sale of Batmobiles

Your argument requires DC to sell working, full size Batmobiles. If they did that, then my argument MIGHT fall apart (they would have to prove in court that their business was or could be profitable, rather than a mere attempt to stop a fair use) But they do not do so. As such Fair Use was a totally viable defense.

Contradiction here

[Anonymous Coward]

Towle infringed upon DC’s property rights when he produced unauthorized derivative works of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture."

Ok, forget the Batmobile, Gotham, Bruce Wayne, Robin, Commissioner Gordon etc.. would have been a copyright violation for both the original tv series and the Michael Keaton movie, as well as the others if they did not have DC's blessing.

By this logic, The TV show Gotham, and the upcoming Batman Vs Superman : Dawn of Justice is an act of copyright violation.

Poppycock! Occasionally you get a brain dead judge who makes a decision in a court and does not think 5 minutes ahead of the decision and it shows like does here. So everyone that has done anything with the batman character is needing to be sued? I call shenanigans!

Re:Contradiction here

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be, if DC wasn't a party to each action.

There are some businesses that might need to close

[xenotransplant]

Like this one

Re:There are some businesses that might need to cl

[xenotransplant]

EDIT: This is just a list of people who have built batmobiles.

In the Company of Sherlock Holmes

[tepples]

You won't be able to make your own Mickey Mouse Clubhouse episodes because Toodles and other post-1929 elements are still copyrighted. But you'll still be able to make your own Mickey works that use only the elements set forth in the trilogy and original elements. See, for example, the copyright case allowing commercial publication of Sherlock Holmes fan fiction despite that Arthur Conan Doyle's last ten stories were still copyrighted.

Re:In the Company of Sherlock Holmes

[FlyHelicopters]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's estate is not one of the largest corporations in the US.

I didn't say it was right or wrong, I said that you will never be allowed to make a Mickey cartoon as long as the Walt Disney Company is around.

Otherwise Dreamworks could come out with a feature length Mickey Mouse movie in 2025, and there is zero chance that will happen.

Again, I'm not telling you my feelings, I'm telling you what is. :)

Re:In the Company of Sherlock Holmes

[tepples]

I said that you will never be allowed to make a Mickey cartoon as long as the Walt Disney Company is around.

Are you claiming that Disney would have a valid case or only that Disney would bring vexatious litigation? If the former, what cause of action would Disney have against DreamWorks Animation that, say, the Collodi and Kipling estates didn't have against Disney when it released Pinocchio and The Jungle Book within a year after the respective authors' copyrights expired?

Re:In the Company of Sherlock Holmes

[FlyHelicopters]

Are you claiming that Disney would have a valid case or only that Disney would bring vexatious litigation? If the former, what cause of action would Disney have against DreamWorks Animation that, say, the Collodi and Kipling estates didn't have against Disney when it released Pinocchio and The Jungle Book within a year after the respective authors' copyrights expired?

I'm claiming that Disney has enough money to buy enough votes in Congress to get their way and that this issue isn't so important to the average member of the public to stop them.

This isn't guns or religion or schools, this is copyright/trademarks/etc. The Collodi and Kipling estates weren't big, weren't using their stuff (not enough anyway), and didn't own a handful of Congress critters.

Disney is actively making billions and billions of dollars today, right now, using Mickey. The chances of it being used by someone else is as close to zero as it gets.

I'm not telling you my feelings, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing...

Possibly affects lightsabers too

[Jim Hall]

From my reading of this article, I think the ruling could be problematic for other makers of props that are meant to be similar to film props. Park Sabers leaps to mind.

They explain in their FAQ "Q. Are you associated with Lucasfilm Ltd.? A. No. We are not associated with any Lucasfilm Ltd. Film or frachise. All of our designs are the property of Parks Sabers, Inc." However, I think it's pretty obvious that the designs for many of these sabers are lifted from the movies: Luke's first lightsaber and Luke's second lightsaber?

I have the Graflex ESB (bought it the month before Episode I came out, but it was called something else then) and it's a dead ringer for Luke's first lightsaber in Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. The "ESB" name is a big hint.

This ruling should concern makers like these. As others have pointed out, the key factor is these are made to be sold. Looks like the ruling doesn't affect people who make their own props for their own use.

Re:Possibly affects lightsabers too

[Anonymous Coward]

So how come Apple can come along and patent 2001 A Space Odyssey's tablet designs, but the Bat mobile is protected?

Bats existed prior to 1910

[tepples]

Bats existed prior to 1910. Under the copyright law then in effect, anything published prior to 1910 was fair game for a television series first published in 1966. It's the same reason you can make a film adaptation of "Little Red Riding Hood", a centuries-old short story by Charles Perrault, and have your own copyright on elements created for the film.

Re:Bats existed prior to 1910

[SuricouRaven]

You'd better be careful not to copy any characters from another film adaptation though.

For a good example, look at Frankenstein. The book is public domain now, but the monster design that everyone knows - bolts in the neck, green-tinted* skin, squareish head with flat top - is not from the book. It's from the Universal movie, which is still under copyright, and they are very touchy about their copyright on that character design. So any other studio that makes a Frankenstein adaptation has to take care not to inadvertently base part of their monster upon the version that every character designer, makeup artist, costumer, actor and writer knows. If any person on the team should do that without realizing, Universal unleashes the lawyers.

*The movie was black and white, but the poster showed green.

Re:Bats existed prior to 1910

[Oligonicella]

anything published prior to 1910

Batman was first published in 1939.

Re:Bats existed prior to 1910

[tepples]

When was the Batmobile introduced? And under the laws then in effect, bats existed before 1883.

Copyright or Trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

How can an object be copyrighted? Wouldn't this be more like a trademark?

Re:Copyright or Trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

For purposes of the law, it's considered a work of art in physical form.

"Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Specifics vary by jurisdiction, but these can include poems, theses, plays and other literary works, motion pictures, choreography, musical compositions, sound recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, computer software, radio and television broadcasts, and industrial designs."

comment subjects are dumb

[Falos]

> protection of imaginary property is essential

k.

Still pretty sure that it's just a constant stream of sue-happy groups and their skirmishes, poking and jabbing and gouging, occasionally making off with a settlement. Only an idiot would derive a sense of precedent or (LOL) a moral standard from the parasitic fray.

Longer than life of heirs who knew the author?

[tepples]

The opinion of the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft was that "perpetual copyright on the installment plan" was forbidden, but harmonization of the copyright term to that of another major developed economy (in this case the EU) was acceptable. So first, "America's creative industries" would have to convince another major developed economy to extend its own copyright term before 2025. The EU is unlikely, as its life plus 70 term is derived as an approximation of "lifetime of those heirs who knew the author personally", barring some medical breakthrough. So what other industrialized jurisdiction would be the most likely target of this lobbying?

Re:Longer than life of heirs who knew the author?

[FlyHelicopters]

That all sounds nice, and it is a wonderful legal argument on Slashdot...

But the house that the mouse built would spend a billion dollars if it had to in order to make sure that doesn't happen.

They could fully fund an entire election campaign out of petty cash.

It just will not happen, there is too much money at stake and this isn't an issue that the general public cares about.

Re:Longer than life of heirs who knew the author?

[SuricouRaven]

Easy workaround. Don't pass it as American law first - make it a condition of an international agreement, just like the last time.

Re:Longer than life of heirs who knew the author?

[tepples]

If that were the plan, a term exceeding life plus 70 would have been introduced in the TPP negotiations. Do any TPP leaks mention a longer term?

Re:Longer than life of heirs who knew the author?

[SuricouRaven]

Perhaps that is part of why the negotiations are being conducted in secret.

Re:There are some businesses that might need to cl

[Oligonicella]

So, you're saying those *people* need to close?

Oh damn!

[fustakrakich]

We have a problem

Re:There are some businesses that might need to cl

[xenotransplant]

Yes. Close all the people.

Uh on I might be in serious trouble.

[Cito]

I glued a back and forth cascading red LED strip lighting on front of my Pinto.

I hope Knight Rider don't sue me!

Re:Uh on I might be in serious trouble.

[captjc]

That depends, are you selling it as an unlicensed Knight Rider KITT conversion kit? No? Then you are probably OK.

I am very much on the side of Fair Use and dislike the abuse of copyright that has all but killed the public domain and reduced pop-culture into this sick rehash of regurgitating the same IP time and again, but selling unlicensed replicas of the Batmobile cannot really be defended.

This isn't some guy who did a home conversion and was showing it off, or even mashing up and or parodying the design elements into a new design, this is profiting off of the deliberate theft of an iconic design plain and simple.

Re:Uh on I might be in serious trouble.

[ebvwfbw]

No but the police might stop you for trying to imitate an emergency vehicle.
Drag you out by the hair, taze you... put you in jail for resisting arrest.

Shuanghuan Noble

[quintessencesluglord]

Not specific to the US, but how does the logic play out?

If Benz can't claim copyright on the Smart, how does "character" imbue the Batmobile with copyright protection? Couldn't Towle just wait for another to be built, and then copy that (not specific DC property) following the line "if a vehicle varies in its technical specification, then any external similarities are irrelevant".

It is a strange world where IP has more consideration than an actual creation.

LMAO @ U ihtoit: "Eat your words"

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO @ U ihtoit: "Eat your words" http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:LMAO @ U ihtoit: "Eat your words"

[ihtoit]

fuck off

R O T F L M A O, all I can say is... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

HohoHohohoHo!!! ihtoit "LiVe" (absolutely live)

* :)

* Picture that with HUGE smirk on my face... lol!

(*Chuckle* *Chortle*)

I can see the rage in that, lol, complete with "FoAmiNg @ Teh Mouth" spittle flecked effects on your face now... hahahahaha!

So EASY - it's seriously just "too, Too, TOO EASY - '2ez'" to elicit such responses from the weak minded troll species for me (proofs in the results in the primitive species' subject specimen ihtoit for me to perform these "StRaNgE" experiments on)... lol!

APK

P.S.=> Fool! You only did that to yourself due to trolling me, now who's laughing his ass off here? Me... LMAO!

... apk