Holy copyright infringement BATMAN!

[Thestral]

I fully agree with Lapis Exilis, immortal and unscrupulous institutions like multinationals having exclusive control over the creative arts is damaging and unsustainable, they have completely deformed IP laws way beyound their original parameters and intent. And Disney has sued children's day care centers for displaying Disney characters in wall art, which is both scary and ridiculous.

Aye, I also agree with Lapis. This is simply a minor symptom of a larger systemic problem; I don't blame the corporation for this case, and the dude's "excuse" is laughable, but the system needs to be changed before Public Domain ends. Where would we be without King Arthur, Maid Marion, and Gilgamesh, among thousands of others?

As regards this amount, and it's use as a "scare tactic": Why? Why are we celebrating soulless corporations using terror in their business practices, why are we celebrating corporations having the right to "punish" people? And if everybody knows its just a scare tactic and they'll settle for less, what's the point of it anyway?

 

[Broccoli]

^ If the situation was reversed, we all be on the side of the little guy. As others have mentioned the law cuts both ways. If that guy came up with a character called, I dunno, CookieMan and DC came along and started to produce CookieMan stuff w/o his consent, we would all be cheering him along if he sued.

The system might not be the greatest, but that is not what the point of this issue is. Fact remains that he was creating these models. That alone isn't a problem. The problem is that he was selling them. Regardless if he was making a profit or not, he was selling something that didn't belong to him.

 

[Thestral]

No, you're missing Lapis' point. It's not that copyright shouldn't apply, or people should be able to steal from one another ("gifting" our creations is something very few can do comfortably), but there should be a statute of limitations, so to speak. I think the company's doing the right thing, insofar as where the laws are at right now. But copyright used to run out, and characters (and stories) entered public domain, free to use for anybody. Not anymore, and this isn't even just the author's estate, but a corporation. What if Geoffrey of Monmouth or Homer had copyrighted their characters and set up a way for said copyright to continue to the present day, long after their very languages are dead?

 

[Trekker4747]

As regards this amount, and it's use as a "scare tactic": Why? Why are we celebrating soulless corporations using terror in their business practices, why are we celebrating corporations having the right to "punish" people? And if everybody knows its just a scare tactic and they'll settle for less, what's the point of it anyway?

Dude. The guy fucking sold models of someone elses intelelctual property!

 

[Lapis Exilis]

^ If the situation was reversed, we all be on the side of the little guy. As others have mentioned the law cuts both ways. If that guy came up with a character called, I dunno, CookieMan and DC came along and started to produce CookieMan stuff w/o his consent, we would all be cheering him along if he sued.

The difference is, if this guy created CookieMan, 75 years after he died, anyone and everyone could do whatever they wanted with CookieMan because it would enter the public domain. When is Batman going to enter the public domain?

Never.

Corporations have warped a law meant to protect individual creativity and have used it to screw individual creators, like Shuster and Siegel the creators of Superman, one of the most profitable characters in history, out of what was rightfully theirs. They both died nearly penniless and it took a lawsuit for DC to even agree to putting their name on all the various iterations of Superman. I think the company paid their families a pittance as well, but the two guys who actually created Superman and wrote and drew him for the first decades, got paid per page they produced, despite the massive profits DC has made off their creation.

What's worse is that the precedent of corporations has allowed the estates of artists to extend their copyrights. The Burroughs estate and the Margaret Mitchell estate both carefully commission new works using the characters of Tarzan and Jane, and Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler, etc, on a timeline that extends their copyrights, allowing those characters to remain in the hands of the heirs of the original artist (who never have anything to do with actually creating artistic works), and again, to never enter the public domain.

Just think about the Disney thing. Selling themselves as the wholesome creators of beloved characters for children - beloved characters they by god better get paid for or they'll sue your day care.

As other posters have said - and we should celebrate their "rights" in this matter?

Sorry, can't do it. If they respected the public domain and quit trying to warp the law to extend their rights indefinitely, I would be all for championing their rights to the end of their appointed time of ownership.

 

[bigdaddy]

I still can't believe the people here are against this... oh wait I do believe it as most here steal shit.

He was trying to make money off something he didn't own. Just because he was terrible at it and might not have made money doesn't mean anything. He was asked to stop and didn't. It's not like DC is just going around targeting the little guy.

 

[Thestral]

As regards this amount, and it's use as a "scare tactic": Why? Why are we celebrating soulless corporations using terror in their business practices, why are we celebrating corporations having the right to "punish" people? And if everybody knows its just a scare tactic and they'll settle for less, what's the point of it anyway?

Dude. The guy fucking sold models of someone elses intelelctual property!

Right... I don't see what that has to do with my questions? It's not like I'm defending the guy for being a thieving (technically) idiot.

I'll try asking a different way. The guy did wrong, got caught, and needs to pay the piper. But what's the tangible benefit in demanding so much money, much more than will actually be settled for? If you say as a scare tactic, then I've got two follow-ups. First, on a practical level, what's the point if everybody knows it's just a scare tactic? Second, on a moral level, why are we in favor of corporations using scare tactics? How can increasing fear be a good thing?

 

[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.

 

[sidious618]

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.

Oh, I have a feeling there are a few other reasons, as well.

 

[TGTheodore]

The public domain matters, but corporations have been so successful at slinging their propaganda that people have forgotten that it even exists.

If they respected the public domain and quit trying to warp the law to extend their rights indefinitely, I would be all for championing their rights to the end of their appointed time of ownership.

So .. seeing Fred Astaire dancing with a CGI'ed Red Devil vacuum cleaner is okay with you?

--Ted

 

[Ryan]

This is a fairly common syndrome. There was a case several years back when some fans asked a well-known writer if they could write a novel set in her universe. Said author asked them not to do so. The fans went ahead and self-published the book anyway, proudly sent a finished copy to the author, then were shocked when she sued them!

Anne Rice?

Just wait until Stephenie Meyer does the same thing.

From what I understand, it sorta has already happened with Meyer.

That's hilarious. "Russet Noon" sounds like a book about potatoes.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

As regards this amount, and it's use as a "scare tactic": Why? Why are we celebrating soulless corporations using terror in their business practices, why are we celebrating corporations having the right to "punish" people? And if everybody knows its just a scare tactic and they'll settle for less, what's the point of it anyway?

Dude. The guy fucking sold models of someone elses intelelctual property!

What I find funny is Disney 'lifted' stories (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, the Lion King, multiple others) from other detailed works (Hans Christian Andersen for one wrote the Little Mermaid. Disney decided to change it but it was definitely based off the original).

They could do this because Andersen had been dead for years and that his works entered public domain.

I see Lapis' point on this very clearly and I see what DC is doing very clearly.

 

[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.

Oh, I have a feeling there are a few other reasons, as well.

Usually it is music fees.

But that is one more glaring reason why the current IP laws have been fucked up and in dire need of an overhaul. People dislike the hypocrisy.

 

[Broccoli]

No, you're missing Lapis' point. It's not that copyright shouldn't apply, or people should be able to steal from one another ("gifting" our creations is something very few can do comfortably), but there should be a statute of limitations, so to speak. I think the company's doing the right thing, insofar as where the laws are at right now. But copyright used to run out, and characters (and stories) entered public domain, free to use for anybody. Not anymore, and this isn't even just the author's estate, but a corporation. What if Geoffrey of Monmouth or Homer had copyrighted their characters and set up a way for said copyright to continue to the present day, long after their very languages are dead?

I get Lapis' point completely. However, it is somewhat useless to bring up as the way the law is is the way the law is. Regardless of how long Batman will be owned by Warner Bros., Warner Bros. owns it. Case closed.

By this logic, corporations/businesses should never create anything ever as it will never enter into public domain.

I still can't believe the people here are against this... oh wait I do believe it as most here steal shit.

He was trying to make money off something he didn't own. Just because he was terrible at it and might not have made money doesn't mean anything. He was asked to stop and didn't. It's not like DC is just going around targeting the little guy.

bigdaddy, I have recently come to the conclusion that we agree on most everything at the TrekBBS, except for items related to Stargate.

 

[sidious618]

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.

Oh, I have a feeling there are a few other reasons, as well.

Usually it is music fees.

But that is one more glaring reason why the current IP laws have been fucked up and in dire need of an overhaul. People dislike the hypocrisy.

Embarassment was one of the reasons I was thinking of.

 

[Shatmandu]

He's also not actually making any money from it. Hey, I didn't make any money from the sketch of Batman that I drew that one time. Maybe I'll get sued.

John Stacks made plenty of money from it. Might be a shocker to you, but he's not telling the truth in the article.

I had dealings with Mr. Stacks and his wife several years ago, via ebay. Not with any bootleg resin models, but with other legit Batman tv show-related merchandise I bought as a gift.

After problems developed (my shit never arrived, tracking numbers were fraudulent), I did some research on him: he's a scumbag. He was a much-derided member of a 1960's Batman TV show message board. When I went there just now, I found this:

http://www.66batman.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1247676795

I did ebay searches on him back then, once I found out what his main account was (I was dealing with one of his duals), and he was selling 10-15 of these $75 resin kits a month on ebay. Which makes me laugh when he claims in the article to have sold only 50 in ten years; that may even be what he was telling these "actors" he had contracts with, so he was ripping them off, too.

On ebay alone, he sold at least 50 in six months. He also had his web site and his comic book conventions he would have booths at.

I eventually got my items, after having the local postal inspector buddy file a mail fraud case against him. It pays to play in a softball league, sometimes.

The guy is trash, and DC is right to enforce their copyright. They own Batman, period, and this twat was stealing from them.

From what I gathered, his kits were often substandard. This is where the "damages" part of the lawsuit comes in: making crappy products hurts the brand.

Joe, from whence

 

[Galactus]

Just speaking about copyright for a moment and not this guy. I am not really sure how I feel about it. As an artist and a writer keeping control of my works is very important to me, and I want those rights to pass on to my children. But it seems wrong to have public domain out there but then not letting anything else enter into it. If that is the case then we should let all rights revert back to the the creators and their heirs or whoever holds the right currently. So this should make everyone happy because Disney would have to start writing some big checks to some folks.

I am sick of this Superman ownership thing. Shouldn't be any of this reverting back to the creators if they sold the rights they sold them. All artists make the same choice. If they got a bad deal then they got a bad deal. Some judge just needs to make them go to arbitration, work out a settlement and let that be the end of it. That is what will happen in the end anyway.

 

[Trekker4747]

Some companies, though, need to maybe be a little more grateful, too.

Like in the Superman deal. DC should've realized that, "Hey, these guys created the single most popular, marketable, and the FIRST superhero. Maybe we should give them some more money for this fantastic product they sold us since when they did so they couldn't possibly realize what thery gave up."

In THIS case the guy is clearly violating copyright.

The PD thing is hard for me to comment on. To me it doesn't "sit right" that someone's creative work can just become open to anyone who wants to mess with it just because a couple decades have passed. If DV is using these characters they should retaint he copyright until they stop using them.

 

[Professor Zoom]

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.

Oh, I have a feeling there are a few other reasons, as well.

Usually it is music fees.

But that is one more glaring reason why the current IP laws have been fucked up and in dire need of an overhaul. People dislike the hypocrisy.

From what I've read it's not the music, but the cameos...and the actors/estates of the actors also need to be negotiated with.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Some companies, though, need to maybe be a little more grateful, too.

Like in the Superman deal. DC should've realized that, "Hey, these guys created the single most popular, marketable, and the FIRST superhero. Maybe we should give them some more money for this fantastic product they sold us since when they did so they couldn't possibly realize what thery gave up."

My understanding, from people close to DC Comics, is that DC had a proposal on the table that would have resolved the Superman situation amicably with the two estates. Warners, their corporate overlords, vetoed the proposal because it meant giving up too much.

The problem we're about to run into is that trademarks are so much more powerful than copyrights. Trademarks, as long as they're used, are perpetual. Even if Superman's first appearances fall into the public domain, no one can functionally use Superman, because of DC Comics' trademark on Superman. Disney doesn't need to keep bribing Congress to pass Mickey Mouse Protection Acts; they can use their trademark on the Mouse to sue anyone into oblivion who tries to do anything with Mickey Mouse after the expiration of the copyright.

As much as I think we need copyright reform, we need trademark reform a whole lot more. Trademarks will keep creations from effectively entering the public domain.