Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
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?...
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I'd like to know where "derivative works" meets "cold replica"?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The Bat Mobile and likeness thereof would be a Trademark issue, not a Copyright issue.
.. that they don't know more about trademark & copyright law than the lawyers and judges involved in the case.
Really? I'm the only one who noticed the summery's reference to the "9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals"?
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
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?
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.
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.
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.
Like this one
EDIT: This is just a list of people who have built batmobiles.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
So, you're saying those *people* need to close?
We have a problem
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yes. Close all the people.
I glued a back and forth cascading red LED strip lighting on front of my Pinto.
I hope Knight Rider don't sue me!
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
fuck off
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel