Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Judge rules that it's illegal to sell custom Batmobiles because the Batmobile is itself a fictional character. Not sure if serious   (io9.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, Judges' Rules, Batmobile, Ninth Circuit, Batman franchise, literary characters, DC Comics, custom cars  
•       •       •

3439 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 11 Feb 2013 at 12:41 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-11 11:09:06 PM  

Theaetetus: omeganuepsilon: They are not pre-fabricating things and selling them as if they were licensed manufacturers of said merchandising .

And when I see you driving down the street in  The Batmobile, how do I know that? Shiat, maybe you're some sort of wealthy and famous individual with incredible connections and got to drive the real thing.

... but wait, there's another one.

... and another one.

... and another on- hey! Apparently, this "exclusive" car is available for anyone with two dimes to rub together? What a pedestrian piece of shiat. Stupid Warner Brothers, licensing out their IP like a bunch of whores.

/and that, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of secondary confusion.


You haven't read the Batman Inc. story arc I see

;)
 
2013-02-11 11:13:53 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I get pissed off whenever I see nerds selling t-shirts with someone else's intellectual property on it.


That I can follow, if it's just another T with the batman logo...  There are places to obtain such things.  A very typical merchandising path that is lucrative, and people getting a cut of that without permission is not kosher.

Thud's Boob signal T that sells here on fark is a different entitiy in my mind.  It's actually a fark community thing.  That is more along the lines of a parody of a cultural icon than anything else.
(couldn't find the boob one, so here's the ass one)
static.neatoshop.com

It started as a joke for babe/boob threads, and an email notification system, the signal parellel was obvious.  Not original, but inevitable.  No different than any stand up comic, or Family Guy / South Park making any other pop culture reference.

An etsy like crochet pan liner(so you can stack pans without scratching them) with the bat symbol?  Not so much either.  That's something you simply cannot readily obtain through existing channels, so no infringment on possible profits is done, and quite obviously not an official product, so it doesn't sully WB's(or whoever own's Batman's rights) image at all.

I do, however, advocate, reparations and/or a simple % from that point on, going to legitimate owners of the IP should they decide to pursue the matter, for things that only sell because they're straight up Batman and produced as such before hand and then sold.

The car thing from the article though is a different matter.  Sure, the mechanics are making BANK on it, but that's labor / manhours and technical skill, not the given IP.  They make the same amount if they do the same amount of work on a different build of any original design.  They're not making money because of the Batman IP, but because of the work they put into the custom project.
(well, ideally... maybe they are charging extra for the IP, and not just the sweeping curves that are a technical challenge)

I think that is the distinction that should be made in this case.
On the fly custom work(selling service) is very different from creation of an item with intent to cash in on that specific IP(selling physical property), in my book.
 
2013-02-12 12:02:51 AM  

Theaetetus: /and that, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of secondary confusion.


You're a useless twat.
 
2013-02-12 01:48:02 AM  
How about Warner Brothers spend less time worrying about selling replicas of 60s Batmobiles and more time trying to work out the legal mumbo jumbo to finally get us a proper DVD/ Blu Ray release of the show it came from.  It's criminal all that's available is taped off of the HUB.
 
2013-02-12 02:15:58 AM  

Blathering Idjut: How about Warner Brothers spend less time worrying about selling replicas of 60s Batmobiles and more time trying to work out the legal mumbo jumbo to finally get us a proper DVD/ Blu Ray release of the show it came from.  It's criminal all that's available is taped off of the HUB.


Apparently, it's such a complete farking mess that not only are the rights controls by a much of different companies, but each of the guest starts maintained control of the use of the episode(s) they appeared in.  So, to do a complete series run, they'd have to track down each star (or their estate), settle on terms, and pay them.

/it's shocking that such a shiatty show has such complex rights issues.
 
2013-02-12 02:33:52 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Blathering Idjut: How about Warner Brothers spend less time worrying about selling replicas of 60s Batmobiles and more time trying to work out the legal mumbo jumbo to finally get us a proper DVD/ Blu Ray release of the show it came from.  It's criminal all that's available is taped off of the HUB.

Apparently, it's such a complete farking mess that not only are the rights controls by a much of different companies, but each of the guest starts maintained control of the use of the episode(s) they appeared in.  So, to do a complete series run, they'd have to track down each star (or their estate), settle on terms, and pay them.

/it's shocking that such a shiatty show has such complex rights issues.


It's a shame that such things force everyone to pirate. Another example would be Kidd Video. Did Beavis and Butthead have this problem?
 
2013-02-12 05:36:39 AM  
How long has it been since the "Adam West Batmobile" has been seen in any DC comic, cartoon, tv show, or movie?

After a certain time, doesn't a copyrighted design sort of lapse if it hasn't been used within a certain amount of time?
 
2013-02-12 05:40:52 AM  
PS:

Here's another question: Doesn't Ford own the design patents on the Lincoln Futura design? I think they've been pretty lax in enforcing anything when their car got slightly remade.

theinvisibleagent.files.wordpress.com

And THERE'S an idea. Why not just say that you're offering Lincoln Futura replicas? If the buyer wants his particular LF painted black with some red pinstripe trim, well, what's the big deal?
 
2013-02-12 05:44:20 AM  

Tsar_Bomba1: Too bad they can't license this...

[blogs.riverfronttimes.com image 400x268]


I think I saw a show where they had the '66 Batmobile drag race the Tumbler. Tumbler won the distance runs but '66 BM got superior marks for faster 0-60 acceleration.
 
2013-02-12 05:48:17 AM  

Tsar_Bomba1: Too bad they can't license this...

[blogs.riverfronttimes.com image 400x268]


Too bad they can't license THIS:

1x57.com
 
2013-02-12 12:37:15 PM  
TV's Vinnie:
And THERE'S an idea. Why not just say that you're offering Lincoln Futura replicas? If the buyer wants his particular LF painted black with some red pinstripe trim, well, what's the big deal?

I still say the Futura was the best example of jet age car design. I'd much rather have a Futura replica in white or red than a Batmobile. The Cadillac Cyclone was another sweet jet age design.  The Ford FX-Atmos was almost decadent in its Jet Age styling. I just love that whole design concept of a future that never happened.
 
2013-02-12 12:58:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: How long has it been since the "Adam West Batmobile" has been seen in any DC comic, cartoon, tv show, or movie?

After a certain time, doesn't a copyrighted design sort of lapse if it hasn't been used within a certain amount of time?


No. Copyright is effectively forever. It was originally 28 years, then it became 28 years with an option to extend it for another 28 years, then it became 64 years, then it became life of the artist or 75 years for corporate held copyrights, then it became life of the artist plus 10 years, then life plus 20, then life plus 30 and now we're at life plus 70 years. For corporate held copyrights it is either 120 years from creation or 95 years from first publication whichever expires first.

Basically copyright laws have become a joke and no longer serve their intended purpose which was to actually ensure more works end up in the public domain by granting a limited monopoly on created works. The supreme court ruled that as long as each extension on copyright is a limited extension (i.e. copyright is extended for only another 20 years and not an indefinite extension) then corporations are allowed to extend copyright in perpetuity. So every time the works of L.Ron Hubbard and Walt Disney are about to have their copyrights expire the Church of Scientology and Disney lobby government to grant a 20 year extension on copyrights.

As an artist who enjoys cashing his royalty cheques just as much as the next guy I think this is stupid. The original copyright coverage of 28 years was more than sufficient. You want more money, create more works.
 
2013-02-12 01:42:37 PM  

Ghastly: The original copyright coverage of 28 years was more than sufficient. You want more money, create more works.


Bears repeating.


I would make some exception.  Say you're in a science field and come up with something revolutionary that has immediate uses that benefit humanity.  I think just maybe we should reward excellence in that regard.
 
2013-02-12 01:47:50 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Ghastly: The original copyright coverage of 28 years was more than sufficient. You want more money, create more works.

Bears repeating.


I would make some exception.  Say you're in a science field and come up with something revolutionary that has immediate uses that benefit humanity.  I think just maybe we should reward excellence in that regard.


That would be a patent. Patents, copyrights and trademarks are different methods to grant ownership rights to different types of intellectual property. You can't copyright an idea or useful item (such as a tool or procedure or device).
 
2013-02-12 01:55:05 PM  

Ghastly: omeganuepsilon: Ghastly: The original copyright coverage of 28 years was more than sufficient. You want more money, create more works.

Bears repeating.


I would make some exception.  Say you're in a science field and come up with something revolutionary that has immediate uses that benefit humanity.  I think just maybe we should reward excellence in that regard.

That would be a patent. Patents, copyrights and trademarks are different methods to grant ownership rights to different types of intellectual property. You can't copyright an idea or useful item (such as a tool or procedure or device).


Meh, it's all the same school of thought, how much money should be able to be made off of a given set of work.  That's the frame of mind I was in anyhow.

That is my problem with movies and musicians in general, or rather, the RIAA.  Musicians pretty much own up to the fact that they need to perform for a living, but the RIAA wants to profit indefinitely off of a single recording every time it's played, until the end of time.  Funny how a mob-like mentality can turn into a "legitimate business" practice.  Infinite profit, minimal actual work.
 
2013-02-12 02:15:57 PM  
omeganuepsilon:  Infinite profit, minimal actual work.

Sloth is the most effective model be it for humans or corporation. For the first 150,000 years of Homo sapien's existence we barely had any technological advancement. Sticks and stones got it done well enough for us to flourish and life was comfortable for humans living as bands of hunter gatherers. Ten thousand years ago something changed that and civilization was born. This more complex form of social structure required more work and necessitated more advancement, but even so we only advanced as much as was needed to solve the problem at hand at the time.

Corporations are even worse at innovation than individual humans. The entire purpose of a corporation is to get as much profit as possible out of as little work as possible. Innovation only comes out of necessity due to competition which is why successful corporations do everything in their power to stifle competition by setting up monopolies, collusion with competitors, and lobbying politicians to pass laws that put barriers in the way of new players but let the established players have carte blanch with the market.
 
2013-02-14 09:22:36 AM  

Ghastly: I'd much rather have a replica of the actual Lincoln Futura than a replica batmobile. It is a crime against humanity that that car never went into production. C'mon Ford, bring us the Lincoln Futura!! NOW!!!


I work for the guy that makes the licensed Batmobile replias.

We've got the molds and forms to build a Futura if you're serious. The grill would be custom, but we've got a guy that can do it.

So?

//www.fiberglassfreaks.com
 
2013-02-14 09:26:42 AM  

Kid Mojo: I agree with the judge, but the law is what's wrong. Warner Bros. doesn't have an official custom Batmobile product line. So this isn't doing anything to take away a dime of their business. It should be considered fan art.


That's not true. The stuff we build is officially licensed. They /do/ have an official product line. And we pay a hefty fee for that license.

Fan builds aren't at stake here. Nobody who isn't manufacturing them for sale is at risk.
 
2013-02-14 04:59:20 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Tsar_Bomba1: Too bad they can't license this...

[blogs.riverfronttimes.com image 400x268]

I think I saw a show where they had the '66 Batmobile drag race the Tumbler. Tumbler won the distance runs but '66 BM got superior marks for faster 0-60 acceleration.


That show was Super Power Beat Down hosted by my pal Andy.
For the record, Andy is a fan of the Tumbler.
I'm a Batmobile '66 guy.
Speaking as Sean Connery in Hunt For Red October, I let Andy know that his conclusions were all wrong and he acted stupidly.
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report