I don't think it's just a DC/Warner thing either. Note that the GREEN HORNET tv series, which was produced by the same people, is also in limbo. And that has nothing to do with DC (except for that one crossover episode).
Holy copyright infringement BATMAN!
- Thread starter miraclefan
- Start date
I don't think it's just a DC/Warner thing either. Note that the GREEN HORNET tv series, which was produced by the same people, is also in limbo. And that has nothing to do with DC (except for that one crossover episode).
^I can understand companies stamping down indivduals making a profit at their expense, like the guy who has been sued for making Batman models, however excessively and bullying, but I do not understand the copyright "deadlock" that has kept many good TV shows in unnecessary limbo. The US corporates have really shot themselves in the foot there and it is really an unfortunate case of IP mission creep, with the different companies not anticipating DVD and torrent when many of these "lost" TV shows were made.
And actor's fees and cameos? What the devil?! That still strikes me as overly complicated and overweaning bullshit, plus many of the Adam West Batman cast and guest stars are either dead or not so long for this world. I heard the convoluted patent system is fucking up vital medical treatment as well.
And actor's fees and cameos? What the devil?! That still strikes me as overly complicated and overweaning bullshit, plus many of the Adam West Batman cast and guest stars are either dead or not so long for this world. I heard the convoluted patent system is fucking up vital medical treatment as well.
And also consider: maybe there isn't money in bringing out DVDs of some TV shows. While I think the Batman show would bring in money--there are some that won't. Why should companies put out DVDs that won't make them a profit.
And how on earth could anyone in 1966 predict home video/DVD? And put it in contracts?
And actors fees are complicated...it's just in the case of Batman, there are a LOT of estates, of very well known people, that one might have to negotiate with.
And, thinking of Lurch, who did a window thing, is also owned by a different company.
And would you have to compensate the Charles Addams estate for use of Lurch?
Exactly right. Two separate issues/concepts are being conflated in this thread.
As the law is written - and as is pointed out every single time a copyright thread appears on this board - intellectual property owners are obligated to show a vigorous defense of their property or risk losing it. This is simple to understand.
The parallel issue being discussed here is should corporations be able to hold onto copyrights as long as they have because the law has been rewritten to favor them? A debatable point. Many say no, but still it is a separate point.
The law as written and enforced protects the big and little guy equally. The public policy behind the law very well may not.
.
Doesn't the non-release of Batman also have something to do with the fact that the series was made by 20th Century Fox rather than Warner Bros. The rival studios can't come up with a deal that allows each to feel like they've sufficiently screwed the other.
I believe there's more to it than that. That wouldn't explain the GREEN HORNET non-release as well.
Sorry, this man is an idiot. When the CHARACTER copyright holder contacts you and files a C&D (Ceasr & Desist) order; you should get the hint that, "Hey, I guess it's time to stop." He ISN'T selling A'dam West and Burt Ward kits', he's selling 'Batman & Robin' kits; and DC owns the rights to those characters.
That's a good analysis, but there's actually a third, much larger issue in play here: namely, should we obey unjust laws?
Some would say, no: the law exists for the sake of people, not people for the sake of the law; we have a right to rebel against legislators who have broken the social contract, and rebelled against us.
Others would say, yes: in a democracy like ours, those who feel the law is unjust have plenty of avenues and opportunities to change it, legally; until then, respect for the rule of law is more important than any individual's claims.
I have a feeling that, if Lapis was sitting on a jury in this case, she would be strongly arguing for the first position, while you would be strongly arguing for the second.
What makes this such a tricky question, of course, is that everybody has their own ideas about exactly which laws are just or unjust.
Though, when you sit on a jury, you don't actually make an argument. You are asked whether or not one side or the other has made their case. You are asked to look at the evidence and, according to how the law is written, render a decision. You don't render a decision on whether or not the law is valid.
Technically you can, it's called Jury Nullification; BUT usually, if the Judge of the case disagrees strongly enough with the verdict; he can declare a mistrial using the reason that he feels the enpaneled Jury faild to properly adjudicate the matter; but BOTH of these instances are VERY RARE.
^That's how the jury system works in theory: but jurors have been known to let the considerations I mentioned sway their judgment. In my own research, I've encountered not only numerous cases where juries rendered blatantly political verdicts, but others in which they simply failed to appear, as a political statement.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on the situation, and your perspective on that situation. We can only hope that our governments never fall into such disrepute that the jury-trial system becomes that politicized. It's a symptom of a very dysfunctional society.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on the situation, and your perspective on that situation. We can only hope that our governments never fall into such disrepute that the jury-trial system becomes that politicized. It's a symptom of a very dysfunctional society.
If DC felt that Adam West's Batman defiled their "brand," then I would wonder why Adam West's version of Batman appears so prominently in Planetary/Batman: Night in Gotham.
Shatmandu... I suggest you give Warner Bros. the goods. And this media outlet.
Lets boil this down:
Batman is nothing more than a tube of toothpaste, in the big picture.
If I buy a tube of toothpaste that says "Crest" on it, I reasonably expect that it is manufactured or distributed by Proctor & Gamble, with all their manufacturing control standards. Someone from the company has allowed it to be produced.
If I buy a resin statue of Batman, I reasonably expect that it is manufactured or distributed by Warner Bros. and DC Comics, with all their manufacturing control standards. Someone from the company has allowed it to be produced.
Even if the twat claims that it's a statue of Adam West who just happens to be wearing a Batman suit. Laughable.
The guy's a liar and a thief.
Joe, anemic royalty
Batman is nothing more than a tube of toothpaste, in the big picture.
If I buy a tube of toothpaste that says "Crest" on it, I reasonably expect that it is manufactured or distributed by Proctor & Gamble, with all their manufacturing control standards. Someone from the company has allowed it to be produced.
If I buy a resin statue of Batman, I reasonably expect that it is manufactured or distributed by Warner Bros. and DC Comics, with all their manufacturing control standards. Someone from the company has allowed it to be produced.
Even if the twat claims that it's a statue of Adam West who just happens to be wearing a Batman suit. Laughable.
The guy's a liar and a thief.
Joe, anemic royalty
That's a much larger philosophical issue. And to be frank - passionate opinion on this issue respectfully put aside - "just" is a pretty arbitrary concept when you're discussing whether artists should have access by means of public domain to use works/creations/characters in 75 or 100 or 200 years or whether ownership should continue through estates.
But for the narrow confines of this discussion, anyone who uses a character owned by a major corporation after that corporation has asked him to stop, can't be surprised when he gets smacked hard. And to use a primary school understanding of copyright law for a defense (... ["I didn't use the characters, but actors that] happened to be dressed as characters from the show that made them famous" ...), that's the equivalent of the Legal Darwin Awards, and doesn't elicit my sympathy, instead just makes me laugh and laugh.
.
One benefit of the current evolution of copyright laws is that it may indeed maintain the quality of any given IP. For example, if Batman suddenly reverted to public domain, within a few months we'd see a barrage of very low budget, low quality movies, games, DVDs, and other products with the name "Batman" slapped on them in order to cash in on the IP. The studio would could very well lose its incentive to continue the current big budget, high-quality Batman Begins/The Dark Knight movie series because it would be lost in a sea of inferior Batman products flooding the market.
Actually, I doubt that. 1. It would be much harder to prove copyright infringement 2. Doesn't Adam West own his image?
The guy was making Batman materials without permission and SELLING THEM...the guy thought he was to small to be important enough to sue. He was wrong.
It's a very clear violation.
