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

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't download a Batmobile.

Re:The caped crusader

[drinkypoo]

As for why DC might not want a bunch of Batmobiles on the road, they might not like the possibility of a mangled Batmobile showing up on TV after it ran into a train, or a bunch of cops chasing one used in a bank robbery, or maybe something even more silly. Who knows. But that's their decision.

Yes, child, I know how the law works, and it has been perverted. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that a work passes into the hands of the people after a reasonable period.

Re:The caped crusader

[arth1]

But this has nothing to do with extending copyright.

Well, yes, it does.
The unextended copyright terms as of the Copyright Act of 1790 is for 14 years, with a right to renew for a second 14 years if the original copyright holder was still alive.

You know, to grant exclusive access for a limited time in exchange for the copyrighted materials entering the public domain. This was designed to prevent creators from resting on their laurels, but to continue to create, while ensuring that the public would own the works within a generation.

Re:The caped crusader

[quintessencesluglord]

Um, no. There is already existing laws that pertain to automotive replicas (specifically car design does not qualify for copyright protection). The question is to whether the branding "Batman" should qualify for protection moreso than "A/C Cobra".

Taken to absurd lengths, any vehicle that appears in Batman could be considered a character in the Gotham universe. Anyone building a 1982 - 1992 Pontiac Trans-Am replica could be similarly sued since it was a character in Knight Rider.

There was already case law specific to automotive replicas that the justices completely ignored, torturing copyright law to fit an absurd notion of "character".

I hope Ford sues the living hell out of DC since the Batmobile was derivative of the Lincoln Futura, and somehow DC now owns rights to the design.

This is preposterous.

Re: The caped crusader

[bill_mcgonigle]

Probably from the courts, which ignore the Constitution 97% of the time. What you say is true, in theory, but not in practice.

Re:The caped crusader

[liquid_schwartz]

The original term of copyright. One of the *many* things that the founding fathers got right that has since been changed for the worse.

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: The caped crusader

[KGIII]

Like hell I wouldn't. I never understood that commercial. "You wouldn't download a car!" Oh, hell yes I would.

Re:Weird decision

[wonkey_monkey]

A car only becomes a character if it has the qualities of an intelligent entity.

So Glenn Beck can't be copyrighted?

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.

Well, don't HIRE the guy, morons.

[geekmux]

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.

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:True but I think there's a legal principle here

[JonnyCalcutta]

You're thinking of trademarks.

Re:Weird decision

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

It's spelled FANTASY and it's FINAL.

Hang on a second, I'm getting a phone call from someone called "Square Enix"...

Re:Weird decision

[GLMDesigns]

Knowledge /= Power
Knowledge = PE (Potential Energy)

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

Bad news for RFP fans

[mark-t]

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.

Re:Weird decision

[mythosaz]

2 * Battle = Knowing.

Re:Batman. Marvel?

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Weird decision

[KGIII]

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/...