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

[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

[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

[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

[GLMDesigns]

Knowledge /= Power
Knowledge = PE (Potential Energy)

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