Holy copyright infringement BATMAN!

[davejames]

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.

Agreed. There are a lot of people out there selling kits, and usually the companies don't pay any attention because they're so far under the radar, or so little money is being made it's not worth pursuing. Frankly I find it all pretty harmless myself (as an artist, all I'm interested in is seeing good work; I don't care where it comes from).

But shit, once that C&D goes out and they ask you to stop, you SURE as hell better pay attention. The fact this guy didn't proves what a freakin idiot he is.

 

[Goliath]

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.

It only seems arbitrary if you set those passionate opinions aside. This is what one of Patrick O'Brian's characters once described as "the easy philosophy of the uninvolved."

I think, if your livelihood was at stake, you'd quickly come around to the view that some very large philosophical issues were involved, and that any court that ruled against you was committing a monstrous injustice.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

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.

No, we wouldn't see that happen. Time Warner would continue to hold the trademark on Batman, and they could sue anyone who slapped the word "Batman" on their product into financial oblivion.

Trademarks, unlike copyrights, are perpetual as long as they're used.

 

[Broccoli]

I bet if it was a statue of Adam West in a suit they'd claim he was wearing a Bruce Wayne outfit.

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.

You are right. Unless they specifically say "Bruce Wayne" on the box or something, WB/DC can't claim anything. Shazam just seems to refuse to accept that WB/DC is actually in the right with this one.

 

[Shazam!]

Shazam just seems to refuse to accept that WB/DC is actually in the right with this one.

No I don't : /

My stance has been that no matter how right/wrong WB/DC are/aren't they're still a bunch of cockends for dreaming a 1million per model figure.

 

[barnaclelapse]

In fairness, if he had been repeatedly asked to stop then perhaps he should've, but where do they pull figures like 1 million from? Are they actually mental? If I was in charge of the case I'd charge DC with being morons.

Now, there's a hole with no bottom.

As for the guy, I sympathize, but if he was warned then he should have stopped. End of story.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Shazam just seems to refuse to accept that WB/DC is actually in the right with this one.

No I don't : /

My stance has been that no matter how right/wrong WB/DC are/aren't they're still a bunch of cockends for dreaming a 1million per model figure.

If it was the guy suing WB/DC for a million per model, would he be a "cockend"?

And they AREN'T going to get that much money. The court will decide damages. Of COURSE they are asking for a lot of money--it's SUPPOSED to be intimidating...and not just to the guy they are suing (who they gave plenty of opportunity to STOP violating) it's all those out there selling shit they aren't supposed to on Ebay.

 

[Triskelion]

I feel like a real sucker following the copyright rules. A real sucker.

China, Russia, and many other parts of the world, it's anything goes. Pirated movies sold in shops, pirated tees and other merch, likenesses used in other brands, on shop signs, whatever you want. Laughing all the way to the bank. These guys are paying $.50 for the latest releases before they're even released, meanwhile law-abiding citizens back home are fleeced and moralized to. The rest of the world, it's a great big happy melting pot of stolen IP. Yeah, screw this guy with the fan passion and the net worth of $70 and the blessing of the actors; but let's ignore the fact that the world is full of giant pirating operations that we can only harrumph about.

Nice priorities! I'm sure we all feel a bit safer with this nefarious villain obliterated. Whose net effect probably increases marketable interest in the franchise in question.
:ROLL:

$20 for a DVD? That's extremely amusing to the rest of the world. America, the land of opportunism.

 

[Broccoli]

^ As has been mentioned in the thread already, how would you feel if you invented something, but some big corporation in China stole your idea and started to sell it, potentially making a profit along the way?

 

[Triskelion]

I'm not arguing for theft.

 

[Shazam!]

If it was the guy suing WB/DC for a million per model, would he be a "cockend"?

Yes

 

[Shazam!]

double post

 

[TedShatner10]

Warner Brothers/DC's arrogance, jealousy, and paranoia over "its" Batman "brand" is the sole reason why Adam West's series has not seen the light of day on DVD.

Sir.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Please clarify. But I know the squabbling over convoluted ownership rights has gummed up the works.

If somebody gets sued for copying something from another company and tries to profit from it, he got what he deserved, and copyright has done its job in quality control, the IP law is protecting a brand and the jobs it supports.

On the other hand if old TV shows such as Batman and The Green Hornet cannot be sold at all, essentially rendered unsuable despite being usuable, then the copyright red tape and enforcement has worked too well, backfired, and is stopping those shows and many other things from getting done. It is economic gridlock and the IP laws in America are in dire need of being rethought and overhauled to prevent many TV shows and music from getting flushed down the toilet like this.

And here is what Sony Corporation CEO Sir Howard Stringer has recently said about the powerful and Earth shattering medium known as the Internet:

“I’m a guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet…(The Internet) created this notion that anyone can have whatever they want at any given time. It’s as if the stores on Madison Avenue were open 24 hours a day. They feel entitled. They say, ‘Give it to me now,’ and if you don’t give it to them for free, they’ll steal it.”

Link

No wonder Sony has lost its edge and is going down the crapper now. Of course you get dishonest, lazy consumers who would pirate their stuff, no matter what (and piracy has gone on for many years before the Internet properly took hold), but to aggressively work against or actively ignore millions of other law abiding consumers as well?

 

[Trekker4747]

The biggest thing to consider here is that DC has to prosecute this otherwise they set a precedent that could cause them to loose their copyrights/trademarks.

And, further, and again the guy STOLE their IP and sold it for profit. That is wrong on many, fundamental, levels.

The $1m/figure also is less true damages in the sale of the figures and more "punitive" damages. That is, "don't let this happen again" damages. To deter others from doing it. And, as noted, it's unlikely they'll get that much but the end result will still be significant.

The guy is in the wrong. 100% He made money off of someone else's property. That is WRONG.

 

[TedShatner10]

The biggest thing to consider here is that DC has to prosecute this otherwise they set a precedent that could cause them to loose their copyrights/trademarks.

Sounds like a house of cards to me, although it is not wise to use something that belongs to a giant organization like Warner Brothers without their permission.