io9.com: 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.
9 comments:
This makes me kind of sad. First of all, I think it is totally awesome and creative of that man to open up a automobile shop based on cars in movies. People are inspired by films, and want what the movie stars have in them. Selling batmobiles is brilliant, and I know I would want one! I can see why the creators of Batman sued this man, as they are the ones who created the batmobile phenomenon in the first place. However, I would not go as far as to say that the batmobile is a character. Yes, the car is important and legendary, however I definitely do not think it is a character in the movie. Just because an object plays a significant part in a film does not mean that it is a character. I think that the judge's verdict was stretching it a little too far.
Okay, seriously? I agree with Jess, this is a fantastic Idea and your going to shut it down on the grounds that the bat mobile is a charter? Thats blasphemy if I ever heard it. The only cars that qualify as characters are Herbie and ones in the move Cars. Cars that talk and have feelings. All others should be free rein. This honestly sounds like a judge that just doenst want to get on Warner Bros' bad side. The whole copyright thing in general is a little overkill in my opinion, but at least say its copyright of an image or an idea or something relatively plausible.
But what a fun job! Customizing cars to look like ones in movies! not to mention how fun would it be to ride in one? & as long as you change up things here I dont think copyright should even be an issue here.
I agree with what Jess said about how it is really awesome idea open car customizing shop Gotham Garage. No one would have thought of replicas of cars from TVs and movies. In movies and TVs, there are a lot of cool-looking cars like in Bat Man in which everyone desires to ride in once in their life. What made me very sad was that the owner of the shop, Mark Towle did not ask for copyright. If he had done this earlier, I think the company would have been very interested to hear his idea. I think the jury went too much on the judgement and company is just too picky about this case because I think selling Batmobile can be another way to advertise their movies. I hope that the shop is granted soon, so that Batman-fans can purchase those cars.
This article alludes to specific requirements for characters in order to be copyrightable. They don't specify what those are, however, and I am very curious what those are and where they came from. It seems to me that any object important to telling the story could then be a character, which opens up the question of what is then essential to telling the story. Some could argue that every object in a film or play is then a required element to make the story work, so therefore everything is copyrightable. Outside of that argument, there is still the idea of copyright as a pictorial or graphic work, which clearly applies in this situation, which leads me to believe that Warner Bros. was fair in suing this car company- they have the right to license the car design and idea of the bat mobile.
I feel like the judge made the right decision. It seems to me that the creators of batman have the rights to the Batmobile, although it looks like they were fishing for a reason, and their reason wasn't the greatest it is legitimate. Although not that important in the more modern adaptation of batman, in the comics and the old animations the Batmobile is much more featured and even has a little personality. But really I just think that if for some reason the creators of Batman don't want this guy selling Batmobiles that seems okay with me.
Feel like the car is a character argument is bogus, not to say the gentlemen who was recreating this car was not responsible for compensation to DC/WB for profits off of the car. As far as I know the Batmobile never actually really interacted with the characters, such as Kit from Knight Rider, Herbie, or some other show where the car is actually alive. I just feel like that was a wrong judgement call. Like I stated yes re creator should give more to where money is due. I say that but what about the Eleanor example. I know there not a ruling according the article, but is recreating that car wrong. Because you can buy Eleanor appearance packages for your Mustang. Do those people owe money to the original creator of Eleanor. I guess under the blanket of being a character you do not. Because recreating something that is not a "character" you would not have to pay money. So maybe this is how the judge got around a bigger issue by saying the Batmobile is a character.
This is very interesting to read. I've been an avid car lover my whole life and have seen and owned movie copycat cars. I never thought about them being copyrighted. It's so easy to build custom cars that look like the movie cars. i think they are luck to be able to consider the batmobile a character, because that wouldn't fly for a lot of the other cars. For example you can't trademark the Starsky and Hutch 76' Torino because before it was on the show, it was a car you could buy (with rare options, like the stripe.)
I wonder now if the new Eleanor in the recent Gone in 60 seconds movie (a customized 67' shelby mustang) could be copyrighted the same way. They way they talk about and depict it in the movie is like an actual character. There are all kinds of companies that sell the kits to convert normal 67' mustangs into them. I also wonder about the shelby cobra. There are tons of companies that make kit cars that look exactly like the cobra. Why isn't that a copyright issue?
The car was not a character. It did not have a back story, it was not consistent in design nor functionality throughout the course of the comics. It was even powered differently in each incarnation(it has been powered by combustible engine, jet engine, and i wouldn't be surprised if the newest version had a nuclear reactor). But most of all, there was no emotional connection between the car and any other character, i mean it ain't no KITT. I don't believe it should be considered a character, more like an accessory to the person.
Still, deserving of copyright status, though not for being a character.
This plays into a conversation we've been having in colloquium about "agency." It's a term used in Sociology to describe the capacity an "agent" has to act upon the world. It is commonly held in this field that anything can have agency: a person, a state, a fictional character, a building, a movement, a song, just about anything. It's the same line of argument that give corporations the same rights as individual citizens in the U.S. If corporations are going to be subject to the same laws as individuals, then they should enjoy the same rights too. So, as much as I want a Batmobile (or actually I think I would prefer Ecto-1) I'm going to have to side with the judge on this one. I do wonder why this isn't simply a copyright infringement of the artistic design of the car though, and why they had to prove the "character" aspect. Patents that protect Mustangs are different than copyright it would seem to me.
Post a Comment