the copyright question

[Darthphere]

Its not the fact that the word Gotham is mentioned, apparently there is a company that is fully licenced to sell 60's bat mobile replicas and they are not happy, their replicas cost twice as much as Gotham garage, or so I believe.

So, WB wants people to go to that company instead.

Obviously. That company paid for the licensing. Gotham Garage didn't.

What exactly is the issue here though? This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Lencho01]

Obviously. That company paid for the licensing. Gotham Garage didn't.

What exactly is the issue here though? This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Nothing for me. Just trying to answer BA's question of why WB's going after this garage and not dealing with others.

As Anita pointed out with her Disney example, they'll go after you if they're making their own "official" versions and you're making a good amount of profit. So, now we know it's come to WB's knowledge due to some other garage that paid licensing fees and sells their replicas at a higher price.

 

[Anita18]

Nothing for me. Just trying to answer BA's question of why WB's going after this garage and not dealing with others.

As Anita pointed out with her Disney example, they'll go after you if they're making their own "official" versions and you're making a good amount of profit. So, now we know it's come to WB's knowledge due to some other garage that paid licensing fees and sells their replicas at a higher price.

Right. It's never that by-the-book, although it's still pretty easy to figure out whether WB (or most companies) would be cool with something or not. If they are losing money because of you, it is not cool.

That's why I haven't heard a peep about WB about my TDK viral website. I ain't making any money from it, and even if I did make money by selling something viral-oriented, I would providing something that WB is not anyway. I wouldn't be cutting into their market.

 

[Mike_D202]

The guys selling these batmobile kits make boku bucks. Just a "raw kit" is almost the price of a new car.

 

[B.A. Baracus]

Right. It's never that by-the-book, although it's still pretty easy to figure out whether WB (or most companies) would be cool with something or not. If they are losing money because of you, it is not cool.

That's why I haven't heard a peep about WB about my TDK viral website. I ain't making any money from it, and even if I did make money by selling something viral-oriented, I would providing something that WB is not anyway. I wouldn't be cutting into their market.

I would imagine that's why they are leaving the mask sellers alone in eBay a there is no high end movie replica masks available aside from the mass produced rubies stuff, I wonder if Warners see a fan made replica close to screen used as a rubies $20 mask.

Though there are a lot if people on eBay selling custom batman Lego figures when there us already official Lego figures, I wonder how Warners see that.

 

[Darthphere]

Relevant.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.co...te/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[B.A. Baracus]

Its a shame they decided to go after some guy who just has a small business, while I understand DC own the brand its not like he's cutting (no pun intended) into their market.

 

[Lencho01]

Just read this...

http://io9.com/5983237/judge-rules-...the-batmobile-is-itself-a-fictional-character

Feb 10, 2013 4:00 PM
Judge rules that it’s illegal to sell custom Batmobiles because the Batmobile is itself a fictional character

Lauren Davis

California resident Mark Towle runs car customizing shop Gotham Garage, which makes replicas of cars from TVs and movies. Naturally, Batmobiles were on the menu, at least until Warner Bros. smacked Towle with a lawsuit for violating its intellectual property. Now a U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lew judge has ruled that the Batmobile is subject to copyright because the Batmobile is itself a fictional character in the Batman franchise.

The Hollywood Reporter, which broke the story, has posted U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lew's opinion on the case of DC Comics v. Mark Towle. Under normal circumstances, vehicles are subject to patents, with utility patents (on inventions that improve the functioning of a car, for example) lasting 20 years from the date of application and design patents (on the design of individual parts) lasting 14 years. But DC's suit alleged that Towle was in violation of its trademarks and copyrights.

Lew ruled that, in making and selling Batmobiles, Towle violated DC's copyright on the character of the Batmobile. Content owners are granted a copyright not just in text and artwork, but also in literary characters if the character constitutes "the story being told." For example, a character who is a generic superspy doesn't infringe upon the character of James Bond, but if your superspy is British, wears a tux, and drinks his vodka martinis shaken, chances are that you're in violation. The generic superspy is not a copyrightable character, but James Bond is.

But is a non-sentient car a character? Lew cited an earlier case, Halicki Films LLC, v. Sanderson Sales and Mktg. et al., which investigated whether or not the "Eleanor" car in the 1974 film Gone in 60 Seconds was a copyrightable character. Although the Ninth Circuit did not resolve whether Eleanor was herself copyrightable, the discussion of the case indicates that a plain old non-sentient vehicle is not necessarily excluded from character copyright protection as long as it fulfills the other requirements of a character copyright. And, in Lew's analysis, the Batmobile fulfills those requirements.

Lew also finds that, even if it fails the character copyright test, the Batmobile would be copyrightable as a "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work." But it's the discussion of the Batmobile as character that's the most interesting. It makes sense that, especially in graphic media, objects that we don't traditionally consider characters would be integral to the storytelling. You could have a perfectly engaging story that centers on the Batmobile, after all. If other courts uphold this case or cite it as persuasive law, it creates some questions about what constitutes a character in storytelling, and what constitutes a mere storytelling accessory.

Warner Bros. Wins Lawsuit Against Maker of Batmobile [THR via The Mary Sue]