WB Sues Maker of replica Batmobiles for Infringement

[Bandit959]

Hey Folks...
I searched the forum and may have missed this post. So let me apologize in advance if thsi is a duplicate.

As I stated in my title, it looks like WB is going after one particular maker of Batmobile replicas.

DC Comics Sues Man Who Builds Custom 'Batmobiles' - Hollywood Reporter

The article also states that WB will have a lot of work to do....finding everyone.

My question is...how do you think the judgement will impact what goes on in teh replica prop community as a whole? Do you think it will drive it underground?

What will it do to fan made movies that use these replicas, not to mention characters and such? Will it kill these type of projects?

I suspect that it won't impact those who are building fan projects for themselves. maybe selling might go a bit underground.

What do you think?

 

[Grey]

My question is...how do you think the judgement will impact what goes on in teh replica prop community as a whole? Do you think it will drive it underground?

Isn't that the way things already are? 80% of the stuff being made and sold here infringe upon some copyright or another.

 

[1batt4u]

I remember reading a long time ago that WB had some sort of contract that no is allowed to build a Batmobile replica or they will be sued. But I believe their contract should be over though. Something like that??

 

[MattMunson]

to clarify, the gent mentioned in that article makes completed cars for sale, and has a website offering them.

That is a far cry from a personal collector building one in his garage.

Though both are infringement, the former is just asking for trouble.

 

[Wes R]

Yeah this isn't like one of us making a tiny run and selling them fairly cheap. He's doing big ticket items and pretty much waving it in WB's face.

 

[OldKen]

It's odd... they say they are looking for the kingpin...

Someone named Munson...

Wait...

:angel

to clarify, the gent mentioned in that article makes completed cars for sale, and has a website offering them.

That is a far cry from a personal collector building one in his garage.

Though both are infringement, the former is just asking for trouble.

 

[MattMunson]

The article also states that WB will have a lot of work to do....finding everyone.

I dunno man, I think that's a pretty liberal interpretation of what the article was saying. I read that passage as "Should WB try to crush anyone who owns a batmobile, they will have a few people to track down, as we know of three"

The article does not say what WB's strategy is, nor what their policy is.

For example, there is a member of this board who has built an AMAZING tumbler, and has been featured on television programs across the world. He has had no encounters with WB, to my knowledge.

Again, that's a far cry from manufacturing the cars and having a website the promotes them and offers them for sale.

Still, some interesting lessons to be learned here. Turns out that calling your car a "Gotham GoKart" or something like that does not mean you are free from infringement limitations. :lol

 

[Droidboy]

The big issue here is the wording "is likely to confuse the public into believing that the cars are authorized products".

Now that the 66 Batmobile is licensed to Mark Racop, Warner Brothers needs to protect that license.

 

[MattMunson]

Excellent point, Greg, and I think that makes a lot of sense. USUALLY, I consider the "confusion clause" a bunch of BS. Like when someone on the RPF gets a C&D for making something for themselves. I don't see how anyone is going to be confused.

But when someone has paid money for a license to produce cars, and someone else is producing cars without a license, I can totally see how that would be confusing.

But then, I also don't think someone who wants a car cares about being confused. They just want a car So it's still kind of a BS clause, but they are totally right to enforce it, IMHO.

 

[Droidboy]

Either way, after looking at Towles site, I hope they sue him to kingdom come and back. What a jerk. It's one thing to think you're good, heck...it's something to have other people think you're good, but to bash people in the way he does.....WOW. What a tool.

 

[Art Andrews]

The big issue here is the wording "is likely to confuse the public into believing that the cars are authorized products".

This seems to always be the issue. It seems to more often than not have something to do with wording or the implication that it is an approved item more so than the actual making of the item itself.

 

[Bandit959]

This seems to always be the issue. It seems to more often than not have something to do with wording or the implication that it is an approved item more so than the actual making of the item itself.

I wonder if it also has more to do with that. Could the have registered the Batmobile/likeness as a trademark or something like that? But if they did, I suppose that they could go after him for trademark infringement. They're not so I wonder what WB's motivation is.

 

[Lam]

It is trademark infringement (regardless of whether or not is was registered). The main problem here is not that the guy makes a replica of it. The problem is that he's selling them.

 

[terryr]

Anyone can make a copy of anything. As long as they don't make money, and don't say it is their design, and don't say it's a real one.

 

[Jedifyfe]

Just let'em try to stop anyone from buiding a MATTmobile.

 

[exoray]

Anyone can make a copy of anything. As long as they don't make money, and don't say it is their design, and don't say it's a real one.

That is a fully incorrect false statement...

You can't legally make copies of any copyrighted piece without permission of the owner, unless you can defend it by one of the written exclusions under Copyright law... Copying is an exclusive right granted to the owner under section 1 bellow...

Making money or not is irrelevant, as you made 'gains' when copying it and thus can be sued for remedies... Section 3 bellow forbids transfer, rental or lending irregardless of any money transferring hands... This should be blatantly clear in all the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits totaling millions of dollars surrounding freely offered shared files, that no one charged for, claimed as their own work or the 'original'...

Saying it's not your design, or not the real one is totally irrelevant...

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Violation of Copyright revolves around 'gains' not profits or money...

Back on subject, wasn't the WB horribly defensive of the Batman mark several years back? I'm surprised it's taken them this long to push the issue on companies manufacturing these cars as it posses a likely liability issue...

 

[Apollo]

One off are one thing selling them for a living without a license?

Just asking for trouble. :unsure

 

[Nicksdad]

One off are one thing selling them for a living without a license?

Just asking for trouble. :unsure

Agreed, he should have kept it a little more low profile. I hope this doesn't affect the people that make those great kits for builders.

 

[terryr]

That is a fully incorrect false statement...

You can't legally make copies of any copyrighted piece without permission of the owner, unless you can defend it by one of the written exclusions under Copyright law... Copying is an exclusive right granted to the owner under section 1 bellow...

Making money or not is irrelevant, as you made 'gains' when copying it and thus can be sued for remedies... Section 3 bellow forbids transfer, rental or lending irregardless of any money transferring hands... This should be blatantly clear in all the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits totaling millions of dollars surrounding freely offered shared files, that no one charged for, claimed as their own work or the 'original'...

Saying it's not your design, or not the real one is totally irrelevant...

...

That talks about COPYING a work. Making copies of a movie, recording, painting etc.

Many people go to the Louvre and make their version of the Mona Lisa. People have made total fan versions of movies. Most people here make their copy of something they saw. No problem.

What that refers to is 'corporate level recasting'.

 

[exoray]

That talks about COPYING a work. Making copies of a movie, recording, painting etc.

No that is about copyright, and everything it covers... In the US that even includes 'likenesses'...

Many people go to the Louvre and make their version of the Mona Lisa.

Yes they do, but copyright did not exist when that piece of art was painted, and if it did it would almost certainly have expired by now since it's 500ish years old and that duration far exceeds any copyright duration I'm aware of...

People have made total fan versions of movies.

Yep, they have doesn't make it legal... If they don't get a C&D or sued it's simply because the copyright owner choose to ignore them, not that it was legal...

Most people here make their copy of something they saw. No problem.

Yep, still doesn't make it legal, see previous answer...

What that refers to is 'corporate level recasting'.

Nope, it most certainly does not refer to 'corporate level recasting' the law does not make any such distinction... There have been plenty of fans in this community that have received C&D letters, for single items or even the suggestion of offering an item... Right holders are notorious for enforcing their rights, even for single fan made items on Ebay... It's simply a matter of you annoying the owner to the point he want's to enforce his/her rights... Some owners don't care at all, some are aggressive pitbulls with a ton in the middle...