Slashdot Mirror
Pow! With Supreme Court Rebuff, DC Comics Wins Batmobile Copyright Case (newsoxy.com)
New submitter Mr. Competence writes: The U.S. Supreme court has declined to review a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court declaring that 'the Batmobile is a character that qualifies for copyright protection.' The case involved Mark Towle, a California man who produced replicas of the Batmobile for car-collecting fans of the caped crusader; selling them for about $90,000US each. The original would cost a bit more.
DC? Beg to ask? Nah
Fighting for truth, justice, and extension of copyright law.
Truer words were never spoken crusader
A car only becomes a character if it has the qualities of an intelligent entity.
So Glenn Beck can't be copyrighted?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
They should have written a comic book about the iPhone. Then they would have won all the lawsuits with people making rectangles with rounded corners.
How is copyright even relevant here? Something like design patent or trademark would make more sense, since the replicas are not copied like literary works or computer data.
When did copyright become only applicable to characters?
The imaginary world of Gotham, including iconic vehicles within it, is a creative expression, and these replicas are derivatives. The decision's wording may be weird, but the outcome isn't wrong.
Correct, they have already ruled in that favour.
CAP === 'signally'
You need to work on your reading comprehension. He didn't say a car can't be copyrighted. He said that it isn't a character qualifying for copyright protection. Note the phrase "in this context"; the context being that the car is considered to be a character. He did not preclude a car from being copyrighted in another context.
The decision might be legally correct, but the outcome is absolutely wrong.
It is not that he was somehow hindering the sales of their cars.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
In context of his post, it's pretty clear he has no idea what he's talking about and neither do you, probably.
Copyright doesn't make a distinction between a human, a character, a setting, or a car within fiction. It doesn't care about context. What matters is whether there is significant artistic or creative expression. The judge decided there is. Calling the car a character is wrong, but he's not an English major. He's interpreting law, and it's the collection of unique creative elements of the car that warrants copyright protection in his view.
It's not necessarily that DC Comics lost anything. It's that someone else illegally used their intellectual property. One need not demonstrate actual loss in order to make a successful claim of copyright infringement.
It's pretty unique, hard to say that it wasn't copied unintentionally lol
Because it's a design of a vehicle, not a character in a comic or movie.
See, if you don't describe WHY your version is true and instead just pick the law you think applies, a different version is just as easily constructed from equally valid law.
Doesn't matter. Whether the infringement directly hurts the copyright holder doesn't really come into play until deciding damages. It's still infringement even if it made money for DC. This kind of infringement case is always civil, and copyright holders are given the opportunity to use best judgement in how to exercise and defend their rights. The outcome isn't wrong, but please feel free to call DC/Warner dumb all you like.
He was. He was hindering them having none of there cars on sale.
Sometimes, it's the decision not to market a certain product, that is important. Maybe they wanted the Bat Car to be a phantasy only, for which only toy cars exist, which then will carry the phantasy even further by playing with them? And maybe they did not want the phantasy being diluted with a real car which has none of the features of the comic book car except a similarity in design, but all the weaknesses and service problems and ongoing maintenance a real car has?
There are a lot of unlicensed replica makers out there. Just look up Captain America Shield replica or Iron Man helmet replica and you will see. I think this will eventually hit them as well. Marvel has already come out with detailed versions of both for half the cost.
Copyright protects all the creative elements by default, not just Batman but Gotham and pretty much the whole fictional universe they're in including everything that by itself would give rise to copyright. For example it seems pretty clear to me that this elven leaf brooch from LotR is copyrighted, it's one tiny irrelevant accessory in the movie but it's also clearly a work of original art. So if you make a car and it's instantly recognizable as the Batmobile, I actually agree with this verdict. Either it's fair use or you need to make it a licensed product.
Yes, there's some degree of function here but that has never prevented the copyright of the creative elements, like if I make a painting and hang it on the wall or I paint it on the hood of my car it's equally copyrighted. Take for example dresses, everybody can make a princess dress. But if you make one that looks totally like a Disney princess for commercial sale, I'm not surprised that lawyers come knocking. Unless you want to argue that there's a functional reason it must look exactly like the Batmobile from the movies, I don't think that's a valid defense.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No he did't. He didn't use their intellectual property, he used his own. The car was drawn and all you need to do is look at the likes of Bayonetta or Jessica Rabbit to see that a physical design is vastly different from one that has no need to bend to the rules of physical reality.
He used his own intellectual property to create a car that worked. He was inspired by theirs.
In addition, you fail to demonstrate the answer, merely claim it's been and ignored the fact you didn't.
It's spelled FANTASY.
I'm no lawyer but I was under the impression that if you let one party get away with infringing your copyright you've tacitly agreed to let others do as well. (Which pretty much means you have to be an asshole about copyright all the time if you want it to be valid.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
This is exactly why the Infinite Copyright Extension policy is bad for society.
It allows "holders" of copyright to deny the public the fruit of their work for the betterment of
society. I'm really disgusted by the assertion by the Copyright Lobbying Industry that our
founding fathers were idiots and couldn't foresee this future.
Whether the vehicle was in violation of some law is without merit, the real issue is this
corporate concept of owning social ideas any trying to regulate society from that "ownership."
CAP === 'anorexia'
However, it isn't a right to stop anyone else doing it. Copyright claims are to stop people copying their work. This doesn't.
When will it be released to the public domain?
If you don't know or don't care who created and what company licenses out Batman and all its regalia by now (hint: It's always listed at the beginning of Batman cartoons and games and has a prominent position in the top corner of the comics); then you obviously aren't nerd enough for this forum and need to STFU and GTFO.
Since it's rather hard to prove he was ultimately damaging the image for the organization who owns the rights to Batman and associated representation, I find this ruling senseless. Regardless of copyright fine print, he was making these for diehard fans, and actually perpetuating the brand. If he was a salesman working for DC Comics making these things right now he would likely be earning a decent salary plus bonuses for the car sales.
So, instead of hiring the guy to work for DC Comics and further perpetuate the image, they choose to legally rape him along with their most hardcore fan base. America once again proves there's nothing like using the law to shoot yourself in the foot.
Welcome to our future. Where Capitalism will be raped by senseless laws instead of working together to benefit all.
And since the physical working design has to concede to the laws of physics, even to the idea of conservation of mass (therefore you can't fit it in a space there wasn't a priori space for it to fit, never a problem in a cartoon: just draw it there), the work was INSIPRED by the DC comic. The design is the designer's own.
Hence design is at work here.
This is why China will beat us:
- Cost of designing something - rapidly falling due to better CAD technology, improved manufacturing techniques.
- Cost of making something - rapidly falling due to improved manufacturing and robotics.
- Cost of determining whether your rounded rectangle is sufficiently different from someone else's - the sky is the limit.
We created an industrial base that reduced real scarcity to amazingly low levels, and now we are taking the things with no natural resource limit (ideas) and are busy creating as much scarcity out of them as possible. My only hope is that when we tell our grandchildren's generation how this works, they will not believe anyone could be that stupid.
If DC decided they wanted to partner with a another car builder who would agree to make the cars to DC's standards and pay royalties to them they would have a hard time finding a company because someone else is building them and not paying royalties. That's why the outcome is correct Mark Towle was profiting off their property and limiting their ability to license that property.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Dang! Now what am I going to do with all these invisible jets?
Burn the land and boil the sea........
They created the demand.
If he'd been selling completely-original Ratmobiles, he would not have sold as many, nor commanded so high a price.
I've got plenty of gripes with copyright law. This is not one of them.
Last post!
And we can ABSOLUTELY prove no damages here. They don't make them themselves. At all. Ever.
It's spelled FANTASY and it's FINAL.
Hang on a second, I'm getting a phone call from someone called "Square Enix"...
It's spelled "Mask of the Fantasm", you insensitive clod!
You misunderstand the term "work", which in copyright can be understood here to mean the image of the Batmobile.
No, I'm afraid you need to read up. There is no such thing as context *within* a creative work, only a level of semblance to the work. If what you're saying were true, no one could copyright software.
Knowledge /= Power
:-)
Knowledge = PE (Potential Energy)
How silly do you have to be to comment on a sig?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
It wasn't the wrong decision. He should have called them FlyingMouseMobiles and painted them pink. Then he would have been off the hook and the people buying them could repaint them black and buy "Bat Mobile" badging from China to replace the FlyingMouse badging.
Indeed, you can't copyright small planets.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Apparently the judge is an idiot according ot you as well then - since it was the JUDGE who declared the car is copyright protected and JUSTIFIED that conclusion on the basis that it's a character in the comics.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It's America so er... 30 seconds before the heat death of the universe I believe.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually I think they have extended it to the half life of protons.
love is just extroverted narcissism
This is terrible news for anyone who makes unofficial replica film props.... I imagine that next year's comic-con costumes are going to be a bit plainer than they have been in a while.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A character is a well defined literary concept. A car only becomes a character if it has the qualities of an intelligent entity. For example, KITT in Knight rider. In this context, the Batmobile may qualify for trademark protection but not copyright. I think we have an issue with legal fiction being too disconnected from reality to the point of legal delusion.
Batman has no character either yet he's fine?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
There have been different Batmobiles throughout the history of the comic and movies
My favorite is the Adam West one from the late 60's
I saw one of those in real life at a Con a few years back.
Anyway who are they going to sue next - tool companies that make utility belts?
Phantastic!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That is just silly. your payola must be large first. Exactly why no one works it is really not worth it.
Low pay high deductible insurance no pension keep it find another sucker.
No kids no pets I can get along just fine.
When they quit braking into your home to take your worthless things and instead brake in when you are home to take your life you cant really wonder why.
I would say the outcome conforms to the law, but it's nowhere near "correct". Not many things are correct when it comes to copyright law.
Yeah! Without a government-granted monopoly on the production of Batmobiles, the comic company had no incentive to R&D the appearance of a cool-looking car, since they were doing it at a loss.
That's why you couldn't buy a 'legit' Batmobile previously, and why the Batmobile was never seen in the TV show or movies (except the pirate ones).
Now that their monopoly is going to be upheld, the progress of arts and useful sciences will be successfully promoted by the government policy as planned. The comic company will start selling the cars and you might even some day see the vehicle appear in an audiovisual work of entertainment.
This is why we have copyright!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A car only becomes a character if it has the qualities of an intelligent entity. For example, KITT in Knight rider. In this context, the Batmobile may qualify for trademark protection but not copyright. I think we have an issue with legal fiction being too disconnected from reality to the point of legal delusion.
You should have tagged your comment as "I am not a lawyer", because you are factually wrong. There is nowhere in copyright law that defines a character as having the qualities of an intelligent entity. Rather the character must have sufficient originality as to have taken on a secondary meaning, or gone above and beyond the mere concept of the generic to a significantly different meaning in the eyes of the audience. The Batmobile is most certainly this; it's not a standard sedan, it has a distinctive look and distinctive attributes and is only associated with Batman, a copyrightable character.
Your opinion is not the law.
Frankly, there's a stronger trademark case here, than there is copyright. 1 he's making the replicas for profit, 2 they are part of the batman franchise which is trademarked to hell and back again.
Now, if he changes a few things and calls them individual artworks "inspired by the movie series" they can start the whole thing again.
Knowing = Half the battle.
Please note that this is just a brief summary by comparison to actual rulings in case law, and that this is limited to just photographs, only one subject of Copyright Law. But yes, there is very much a distinction on context.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/...
Yeah but copyright law is not concerned with literary theory. So far as I know the notion that characters are copyrightable isn't written into any statutes. It certainly isn't written into the US Constitutional grant of copyright establishment powers to Congress. It's a matter of case law distinguishing between things like characters that are unique enough to copyright and things like themes which are universal enough to be impossible to copyright.
So if a judge decides that the same reasoning that says characters like Bruce Wayne are copyrightable applies to the car he drives, from the point of view of the law the car functions as a character even though from a literary standpoint it's just set-dressing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Last time I checked this wasn't a forum for comic fanboys and nerds. There are likely to be quite a few people reading this that are more interested in the legal or automotive sides of the story than the 'man with tights on under his underpants' side.
2 * Battle = Knowing.
It is not that he was somehow hindering the sales of their cars.
Which would certainly be an argument for little or no damages, but he can still be forced to cease infringing the copyright.
Since it's a sig I couldn't properly cite my assertions.
Knowledge itself is power - "ipsa scientia potestas est" Meditationes Sacrae Francis Bacon 1597.
It's hard to contradict a a person so great that the best food known to man was named after him.
Secondly how would Knowledge=PE follow the 1st law of thermodnamics, what energy is converted when you learn?
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
LOL
...
...
That was good!
I have to work on that. Here's a start:
Let see now. We have a change in internal energy which is equal to heat added to the system minus work done by the system.
Therefore:
Knowledge requires the input of (axioms | theorems | facts) as well as work done to understand these (axioms | theorems | facts)
Therefore the change (read increase) in knowledge = input of facts - minus the work needed to understand these facts.
Let s=friction caused by ignorance
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
That is true. I have a huge, all in special plastic wraps, collection of comic books. As in thousands of them - multiple boxes. Someone needed some money, I loaned them the money, and they gave me the comics in exchange for paying me back. This was years ago.
They had them appraised at something like $6000 retail price. They only owed me $600. I want to say it was 1996. I have no idea what they're worth today and I've not read a damned one of 'em. I figured it was a good investment but it turns out that I didn't need 'em so I still own them. Maybe I'll get really bored some time and look through them. There are a lot of first edition stuff in there - one that I know is first edition is Wolverine and I want to say that the first comic he appeared in is also in the collection.
I guess I could sell 'em but then I'd have to have them reappraised, inventoried, etc. There are boxes and boxes. They're special boxes made for the comic books and they're all wrapped in special plastic bags. Some of them (I presume they're worth more) are actually in stiff plastic cases. They'd had them appraised at retail value from two different shops and, as I recall, both of those shops - after appraising them, still only offered him $500 for the lot. There's an unopened leather-bound Batman in there. I don't know anything about comics, really, but the guy that I got them from actually said that one wasn't one of the more valued ones. I have no idea, I assume prices will have fluctuated.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Damn you. I'd thought I'd missed something and we'd actually learned if protons decay and what their half-life is. I fired up a new tab and meandered over to Wikipedia (good enough for this) and... Yeah, no. I was all sorts of ready to be excited, like a dog when he hears his family on the other side of the door and thinks they might have brought him something with a flavor.
For those playing the home game, it's a well known unsolved problem in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'll give you 800 for the lot, no questions asked. :-)
Well, traditionally you absolutely could make a disney princess dress. The rule wrt clothing was, more or less, that only prints that you could figuratively lift from the textile were copyrightable. All the other elements--cuts of the cloth, pleats, gathers, ribbons, etc, no matter how extravagant, were neither individually or collectively copyrightable.
Likewise, for cars the law was that as a general matter the functionality so overshadowed the creative styling of the item that you simply couldn't copyright it at all.
These were bright lines rule, introduced to prevent plaintiffs and defendants alike, not to mention courts, from having to descend down the rabbit hole of teasing all of these elements apart, unleashing a flood of litigation and inefficient rent seeking in the market.
And you know what? The rules were wildly successful. Despite the lack of copyright protection, both clothing and car styling is both intensely productive *and* intensely competitive. Both industries are pretty much the epitome of well-functioning markets--profitable but without many windfalls. The problem with the bat mobile case is that it throws into question the rules in both of these markets. And that's bad for everybody.
I don't blame you for the offer. I won't be back in Maine until April - maybe the start of May. I just took a peek online and it looks like first editions and appearances of Wolverine (he was quite a fan) are worth a bit of money. I'm a bit lazy in my retirement so it's hard telling how much effort I'll put into finding out a more realistic value but, assuming they'd go to a good home, I might be willing to consider an offer. You might want to wait for me to get home and go through a few boxes and then give a more realistic price - I'd probably still be more than fair. I am not really in a position where I'm in need of an income.
So, I don't know what I'll find but I've got Google and some boxes and can take a look when I get home. If you're legitimately interested in tendering an offer - AND - the offer is for a collection and not for a profit then I might be seriously inclined to investigate further. Feel free to hit me up via email. If I'm going to let them go to someone who's going to profit on them then I might as well get all that I can out of them. If they're going to a passionate collector then I'm not too worried about the value. Not sure if that makes much sense.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And they said algebra wasn't useful
If you're looking at selling them, you are pretty much looking at pennies per comic, or a certain price per standard comic box. 99% of them probably aren't even worth those pennies per comic but the people who buy collections are looking for the other 1% that are worth money. Collection from the mid-90's is sort of rough as it was when collecting was big and everybody was buying to speculate on the next big thing so there's lots out there. With the movies that have come out, prices have been upped for some things that were otherwise nearly forgotten, but still it's pretty much a buyers market for comics except for those issues everybody wants. That's before the CGC service and cases, so those special cases are probably not graded in a way that the current market will respect. So, you'd either need to sell them all at once, or have somebody come tell you which ones are worth money (or you could do that online would take a long time) to sell the few that were worth money and if you did it yourself it would be either Ebay or to a store for cheap.
Sounds like the kind of thing you'd get a lot more money for today because it's easier to find buyers using eBay. Looks like a first edition Wolverine is anywhere from $300-$4000 alone, depending on the particular magazine and grade. I guess a lot depends on the source of the collection, if they bagged mint editions it'll be worth much more than used magazines that then were collected for preservation. Pretty sure you did a good investment.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
He was profiting off their ideas, not their property.
I want to say that there's also his first appearance in there as well. I don't remember all the details but there's actually a list of what's in the collection and an itemized retail value for everything. I'll have to OCR it when I get home. Then I can probably just script something to get a price list/average for them at retail and have some idea of the retail value. There's a scanned list somewhere on my NAS but I'm not spotting it. It's in with insurance documents, I figure they can do the work if something happens to them.
I'll be home in a month or so. I'll see what happens then.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
What they're asking and what they're getting are not nearly the same thing. It's not unusual to set up several accounts, each selling the same comic (or other good) at different inflated prices, to make the lowest one look like a steal
Golden age comics, and some silver age comics, are worth money. The problem is that when comic book collecting became big, people started buying them and stuffing them in mylar sleeves with acid-free backing boards, hoping to make money off them. The fact that there are so many comics stored like this drives down the price of one even in mint condition. Plus the gimmicky press runs (I remember watching collectors going oooh and aaaah trying to collect one Detective comic book that had a press run for each of 6 different colored covers - same story inside. They were selling for $15 each a week after release. Today, you'd be lucky to get that. BTW, a month later they were selling for $40 a copy, and people still bought them to "complete the series" That period was a real tulip mania.
I went to high school with Gerry Ross, and a decade or so later I ended up building several stores for him in Montreal, one in LaSalle, and stores in Moncton, Kansas City, and New Jersey, as well as the move to the (then) new warehouse. Got a real good look at how the comic book business works, and trust me, it's all hype. And pretty cut-throat. One time Gerry paid a competitor $15k to drop out of bidding for a collection that he ended up paying $78k because there was no other bidder, then told US customs the guy was smuggling $15k back into the US from a drug deal. You'd have to ask the fool which hurt more - the forfeiture of the money or the cavity probes. It's a really ugly business, and let's face it - there isn't an overwhelming supply of Nicolas Cages wanting to buy Action #1.
And the grading of comics and assigning prices to them is a scam. Has been since the original guide was published, and always will be.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well, no.
Ever seen a Sidewinder boat?
Ever seen the exact same boat, made from a mold made from a Sidewinder but sold by Glastron?
Sidewinder sued and it turned out that judges can make decisions that follow their own reasoning rather than follow a series of decisions that we mere mortals can follow.
http://www.leagle.com/decision....
Maybe DC Comics and the movie studio are more 'influential' with a judge than some small time car customizer much like Sidewinder vs Glastron?
No brain, no pain.
DC Comics v. Towle at first appears to add to a slippery slope that would eventually see all car designs as copyrightable the moment they roll off an assembly line or a garage.
But, a closer reading of the decision seem to show that what's at issue isn't the shape of the car so much as the names it is marketed under. The 9th Circuit built their opinion atop Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg. , to wit "an automotive character [Eleanor] may be copyrightable even if it appears as a yellow Fastback Ford Mustang in one film, and a silver 1967 Shelby GT-500 in another."
The Carroll Hall Shelby Trust arranged for a custom car shop to create and market Shelby GT-500 "Eleanor" replicas. If you compare a "stock" GT-500 to the relatively minor mods that make "Eleanor" in the Gone In 60 Seconds 2000 remake, Shelby probably would have been in the clear just selling cars "resembling Eleanor". But, by marketing it as Eleanor, not so fast.
I think this is even more clear with the Towle ruling. Making a Batmobile, probably fine. Marketing it as a Batmobile, with the likely-to-be trademarked Batman logo on the doors, rims, and steering wheel turns out to have been a risky move.
Beating the example to death: if I want to revive a style by assembling and selling Studebaker Avanti lookalikes, and market them as Indietro, I'm probably safe under both the US Copyright Office's definition of "useful articles" and parody case law. But, if I try to slap Avanti on the nose, I'd probably soon end up in hot water with whoever current holds the copyrights and trademarks of the former Avanti Motor Corporation.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I've emailed you. Let me know if you haven't received it. :-)
Makes reasonable sense to me.
s/ comics/ "fossils or minerals"
I've given people specimens worth hundreds of pounds on field trips which I'd spotted, then "guided" the novice towards. Let them have the joy of discovery - I've got the pleasure of another interested and enthusiastic student/ pupil/ friend/ relative. A new mind in "this game" is almost incalculable in value, particularly if attached to educated eyes.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I do not have it. Curiouser and curiouser. The email is valid, properly spelled, and is not obfuscated. (I'm not scared!) Another /.er used it just yesterday.
I am not entirely sure why it's not there. It is not in junk nor is it in my inbox. I just checked all the other folders - not there.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
That's akin to what I figure. I'm not a collector but I know some people take it seriously. Some of the comics go back to the 60s so I'm guessing that they're of value to someone for reasons other than monetary. I've absolutely no need for money and I am able to appreciate that some people are interested in things that I am not. So, I'd much rather that they end up in good hands than to be locked away or just turned around and sold. Meh, call me weird, I guess.
I don't really "collect" anything but I do end up with collections. I have a huge collection of automobiles, for example. I did not expect to, or intend to, collect them and they're not what other people would necessarily want but I like them. I've invested absurd amounts of money in them. (Like a 1982 Volvo 245 that's fully restored and marginally modified, a '73 Wagoneer, an '88 Honda Accord LX that I sent back to Japan for restoration - strange things like that.) I didn't really start out to collect them. I just somehow did. You could, almost, say I collect old computers but not really - I've just found some neat ones over the years and kept them. However, I can understand the mentality.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Sent you another email from a different address... hopefully that one will get through. :-)
Cool beans. I'll check it later - there's no huge rush, I hope? I won't be back in Maine until later this year (spring) and I'm actually trying to go to Cuba today or tomorrow. Today is no longer looking likely. I'm trying to get it expedited as I've never gone to Cuba directly from the US before (it was illegal) and I've never had my passport stamped with a Cuban stamp. I want to go there before they're more heavily influenced by the influx of Americans and, maybe, I'll look into some business opportunities there that do something other than leech from the people. I'm actually allowed to spend money there now. So, I'm kind of hoping to go soon but I'm not sure how long I'll get to stay.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No rush at all! And I'm envious... I've not been to Cuba yet, either. I think I'll have to add that to my list for holiday travel for this year. Well, if you need a security architect in your business ventures, let me know. :-)
We shall see. I've been on the phone with a guy that I met the last time I was there. I'm working on ways to bilk the tourists. ;-) (I'm not kidding. I'd give more details but let's just say that's the goal.)
No, i didn't say defraud the tourists. Just a minor bilking is all. It looks like approval did not go through today.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Isn't bilking the keystone of tourism? That's precisely why I despise 'tourist-y' things.
Good luck getting your approval tomorrow. Sounds like great craic!
LOL Still no approval. *sighs* It could take a while and, if it does, then I will not have time to go. But, I'm hopeful.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."