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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
The word "Batmobile" is trademarkable, whereas the actual physical/ornamental design of the car is copyrightable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
.. that they don't know more about trademark & copyright law than the lawyers and judges involved in the case.
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.
- speaking only for myself, as always
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.
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.
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.
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."