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.

Comments

The caped crusader

[Chrisq]

Fighting for truth, justice, and extension of copyright law.

Re:The caped crusader

[drinkypoo]

Just because a copyright holder does not exercise his right to license every possible item imaginable does not mean he loses that right.

This is precisely what is wrong with ever-extending copyrights. The Batmobile is now a part of American culture, and producing replicas of it should not require an appeal to On High, especially if they are not producing their own.

Re:The caped crusader

[tnk1]

It's the politician way. Please don't tell me that you think only the Republicans have been bought and sold. We're about to elect one of those to be our first female president.

Re:Weird decision

[Kjella]

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.

True but I think there's a legal principle here

[NotSoHeavyD3]

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.)

China will win

[monkeyxpress]

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.

Re:Weird decision

[jimbolauski]

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.

Re:Weird decision

[GLMDesigns]

Knowledge /= Power
Knowledge = PE (Potential Energy)

How silly do you have to be to comment on a sig? :-)