Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Holy copyright law, Batman!
Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (6)
Hat tip, Hemmings: Patent, trademark, copyright, Batman and you
David Conwill Oct 5th, 2015 at 4pm
The original 1966 Batmobile. Photo courtesy Barrett-Jackson.
Intellectual Property can be a legal minefield, especially to a layperson who doesn’t readily know the difference between patent, copyright and trademark. A recent decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (a Federal court that serves as an interim step between West Coast trial courts and the United States Supreme Court) has brought copyright law into the car-enthusiast realm where previously only trademark and occasionally patent issues were real concerns.
....
... It happens Mark Towle and his Gotham Garage enterprise were producing driveable cars that looked like the 1966 and 1989 versions of the Batmobile, selling for around $90,000 apiece.
The result is the same as though Gotham Garage was making model versions of the Hannibal Twin-8. The 9th Circuit makes no distinction, in fact, between building full-size, functional replicas and toys—repeatedly citing cases where toymakers were sued. Worse yet, said the court, Gotham Garage was advertising replica business by using DC Comics’ trademarks without permission—another reason for the lawsuit.
We don’t know of any instance where a hobbyist has been sued or even threatened for construction or ownership of a tribute car. Probably because copyright holders aren’t interested in the bad PR that comes from attacking fan art, even when it is bought and sold. By all appearances, this was normal litigation between businesses that is newsworthy only because it involves a beloved comic-book and movie franchise, not because it is an earthshaking change to copyright law.
The original 1966 Batmobile. Photo courtesy Barrett-Jackson.
Intellectual Property can be a legal minefield, especially to a layperson who doesn’t readily know the difference between patent, copyright and trademark. A recent decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (a Federal court that serves as an interim step between West Coast trial courts and the United States Supreme Court) has brought copyright law into the car-enthusiast realm where previously only trademark and occasionally patent issues were real concerns.
....
... It happens Mark Towle and his Gotham Garage enterprise were producing driveable cars that looked like the 1966 and 1989 versions of the Batmobile, selling for around $90,000 apiece.
The result is the same as though Gotham Garage was making model versions of the Hannibal Twin-8. The 9th Circuit makes no distinction, in fact, between building full-size, functional replicas and toys—repeatedly citing cases where toymakers were sued. Worse yet, said the court, Gotham Garage was advertising replica business by using DC Comics’ trademarks without permission—another reason for the lawsuit.
We don’t know of any instance where a hobbyist has been sued or even threatened for construction or ownership of a tribute car. Probably because copyright holders aren’t interested in the bad PR that comes from attacking fan art, even when it is bought and sold. By all appearances, this was normal litigation between businesses that is newsworthy only because it involves a beloved comic-book and movie franchise, not because it is an earthshaking change to copyright law.
[link: https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/09/23/batmobileopinion.pdf|DC COMICS v. TOWLE]
DC COMICS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK TOWLE, an individual, DBA Garage Gotham, Defendant
....
OPINION
IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
We are asked to decide whether defendant Mark Towle infringed DC Comics’ exclusive rights under a copyright when he built and sold replicas of the Batmobile, as it appeared in the 1966 television show Batman and the 1989 film BATMAN. Holy copyright law, Batman!
I
DC Comics (DC) is the publisher and copyright owner of comic books featuring the story of the world-famous character, Batman. Since his first comic book appearance in 1939, the Caped Crusader has protected Gotham City from villains with the help of his sidekick Robin the Boy Wonder, his utility belt, and of course, the Batmobile.
....
II
In order to prevail on its claim for copyright infringement, DC must prove that it owns a copyright in the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television series and 1989 movie, and that Towle infringed that copyright by creating unauthorized replicas. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997).
To the Batmobile!
....
A
....
The Batmobile also has consistent character traits and attributes. No matter its specific physical appearance, the Batmobile is a “crime-fighting” car with sleek and powerful characteristics that allow Batman to maneuver quickly while he fights villains. In the comic books, the Batmobile is described as waiting “[l]ike an impatient steed straining at the reins . . . shiver[ing] as its super-charged motor throbs with energy” before it “tears after the fleeing hoodlums” an instant later. Elsewhere, the Batmobile “leaps away and tears up the street like a cyclone,” and at one point “twin jets of flame flash out with thunderclap force, and the miracle car of the dynamic duo literally flies through the air!”6
....
6 This episode causes Robin to exclaim “Whee! The Batplane couldn’t do better!”
....
IV
As Batman so sagely told Robin, “In our well-ordered society, protection of private property is essential.” Batman: The Penguin Goes Straight, (Greenway Productions television broadcast March 23, 1966). Here, we conclude that the Batmobile character is the property of DC, and Towle infringed upon DC’s property rights when he produced unauthorized derivative works of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
....
OPINION
IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
We are asked to decide whether defendant Mark Towle infringed DC Comics’ exclusive rights under a copyright when he built and sold replicas of the Batmobile, as it appeared in the 1966 television show Batman and the 1989 film BATMAN. Holy copyright law, Batman!
I
DC Comics (DC) is the publisher and copyright owner of comic books featuring the story of the world-famous character, Batman. Since his first comic book appearance in 1939, the Caped Crusader has protected Gotham City from villains with the help of his sidekick Robin the Boy Wonder, his utility belt, and of course, the Batmobile.
....
II
In order to prevail on its claim for copyright infringement, DC must prove that it owns a copyright in the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television series and 1989 movie, and that Towle infringed that copyright by creating unauthorized replicas. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997).
To the Batmobile!
....
A
....
The Batmobile also has consistent character traits and attributes. No matter its specific physical appearance, the Batmobile is a “crime-fighting” car with sleek and powerful characteristics that allow Batman to maneuver quickly while he fights villains. In the comic books, the Batmobile is described as waiting “[l]ike an impatient steed straining at the reins . . . shiver[ing] as its super-charged motor throbs with energy” before it “tears after the fleeing hoodlums” an instant later. Elsewhere, the Batmobile “leaps away and tears up the street like a cyclone,” and at one point “twin jets of flame flash out with thunderclap force, and the miracle car of the dynamic duo literally flies through the air!”6
....
6 This episode causes Robin to exclaim “Whee! The Batplane couldn’t do better!”
....
IV
As Batman so sagely told Robin, “In our well-ordered society, protection of private property is essential.” Batman: The Penguin Goes Straight, (Greenway Productions television broadcast March 23, 1966). Here, we conclude that the Batmobile character is the property of DC, and Towle infringed upon DC’s property rights when he produced unauthorized derivative works of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television show and the 1989 motion picture. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.