WB Sues Maker of replica Batmobiles for Infringement
- Thread starter Bandit959
- Start date
Mara Jade's Father
Master Member
Well that's the thing. That particular movie got a lot of advertisement because they did a trailer that was for all audiences. From the trailer, all the production values seemed to be top notch. I know about it because they posted the trailer on movie news sites like Ain't it Cool and Dark Horizons, so I know a lot of people know about it too. I just cannot believe WB would like this especially when they tend to be so jerky to us.
exoray
Master Member
Parodies are protected under Fair Use, thus if WB pushed the issue the porn company would likely strike back and they would have a very solid defense behind them since parody is clearly defined as a valid Fair Use exception to liability... Only a fool would believe a batman porn was anything less than a parody... And in a case like that the courts could likely conclude that WB knew full well it was a parody and fell under Fair Use thus they hand no valid claim to damages, this could result in reciprocal damages...
One must remember that a porn company likely has insurance and the money to defend themselves, unlike the average Joe... Porn parodies are common, they churn them out a fast as the weekly comics, it's big bucks for them and I doubt they would just concede defeat vs fighting and slapping back...
Mara Jade's Father
Master Member
Okay, I am trying to put all this together. So WB could legally stop me from having a replica batmobile, but as long as I am using it in Batman porn movies, it is okay?
I hope no one legally comes after my prop replicas because my wife is not going to like what I am going to have to do to keep them.
I hope no one legally comes after my prop replicas because my wife is not going to like what I am going to have to do to keep them.
exoray
Master Member
Well if you boil it down to the simplest form yeah sorta...
What you have to understand is that in both cases there was an infringement committed, but in the case of parody the law allows for exclusion from liability under Fair Use if the defense is invoked and proven, there is no such exclusion defined for "personal use" or a "one off in your garage"...
As an extreme example, killing someone is murder and illegal, unless you are insane, can prove it was in self defense or was justifiable under another legal exemption (like war, police force, accidental) those are written exclusions to being convicted of murder under law, even though the action was one in the same, that being killing someone...
Kind of ironic that we are splitting LEGAL HAIRS on this subject of intellectual property (which is nothing more then an idea or thought and not something physical or tangible) while at the same time our own Federal Government, the big offshore banks and big corporations have and are continuing to rob the public blind to the tune of trillions of dollars of our tax money -(anybody see the hipocracy) - through the current economic ponzi scheme. Thats tangible, so I say to heck with them. Not shedding any tears for them or their losses. They can't get us all..... Just sayin.
Last edited:
clonesix
Master Member
I haven't read this whole thread to see if this was covered, but didn't the copyright on the 89 car design expire? Isn't the issue of infringement on the name "Batmobile" and the bat symbol?
I think that Mark is going to run into trouble for calling his car a Batmobile, rather than "Movie Car Replica"
can anyone comment on this?
I think that Mark is going to run into trouble for calling his car a Batmobile, rather than "Movie Car Replica"
can anyone comment on this?
Even a modification or renaming it can not be a defense. The issue is artistic infringement. You are using their design and image for your own use.
Knock off replicas are just as illegal as well made replicas if they can show the derivative of the design and has key elements of such.
Splitting hairs is not an issue, intangible assets are still assets counted on the ledger books and have a real monetary value.
Some people try renaming replicas to try to side step attention or in the false thought that by doing so they are legally protected.
In fairness to the studio, it seems they are only going after those that make a profit from that infringement. Some may not see it as fair, but they are at this point being nice in how they are targeting those few.
Knock off replicas are just as illegal as well made replicas if they can show the derivative of the design and has key elements of such.
Splitting hairs is not an issue, intangible assets are still assets counted on the ledger books and have a real monetary value.
Some people try renaming replicas to try to side step attention or in the false thought that by doing so they are legally protected.
In fairness to the studio, it seems they are only going after those that make a profit from that infringement. Some may not see it as fair, but they are at this point being nice in how they are targeting those few.
dexter1138
Well-Known Member
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. This guy makes not only 89, but 66 as well.
Better hurry Matt, the guy I know is trying to dump his molds based on this latest lawsuit.
Even the guys that are making them under the table are getting scared.
Well I guess if everyone quits making them you could always mine for twice the price.
Dex
Better hurry Matt, the guy I know is trying to dump his molds based on this latest lawsuit.
Even the guys that are making them under the table are getting scared.
Well I guess if everyone quits making them you could always mine for twice the price.
Dex
mrsmartypants
Well-Known Member
Things that fall under satire are an entirely different beast. As an example, Mad Magazine was sued many times over the years. Mad won most of the suits because what they were doing fell under 'satire statutes.' The porno may be protected under those laws.
thedarkotaku
Member
what a shame...
vaderdarth
Master Member
Like others have said, I don't think it's so much a case of a guy selling cars that are clear infringements.................but more of a case of the infringement violator TAUNTING the studio. That's kind of insane!!!! That is where "poke a tiger with a stick" came from......LOL.
What about that Batman porno that came out about a year ago? I heard it was protected from legal action because it considered a spoof. However, the thing is filled with replicas. Not only that, but the movie (I am guessing) made some money.
So what laws apply here?"
The spoof itself is protected under law for the parody.
The props are another thing. If the props were custom made for the movie, they would still fall under the intellectual infringement of they were sold as the originating franchise studio prop, OR if they were sold for profit using the originating studio franchise as the basis for the sale. If modified and sold as the "parody" franchise prop, they could be stepping on the infringement issue depending on if they used an illegal prop or if they modified the design to the point it still infringes upon the original intellectual rights. This is were you getting some grey areas of law that the studio could pursue if they felt there was some issue to damaging the franchise rights and property.
Generally, studios do not pursue such, as it is an expensive battle that is more intellectual in nature of debate than an issue of expenses and monies.
You could look at a movie like SpaceBalls where the originating designs were based loosely on Star Wars but a non issue. You could also look at spoofs from shows like Saturday Night Live or others were props and sources could be questionable but again not worth pursuing. BUT, if some studio lawyer wanted to (and had the resources to do such) , they could create a possible case to do such if the right procedure for such was cited.
So what laws apply here?"
The spoof itself is protected under law for the parody.
The props are another thing. If the props were custom made for the movie, they would still fall under the intellectual infringement of they were sold as the originating franchise studio prop, OR if they were sold for profit using the originating studio franchise as the basis for the sale. If modified and sold as the "parody" franchise prop, they could be stepping on the infringement issue depending on if they used an illegal prop or if they modified the design to the point it still infringes upon the original intellectual rights. This is were you getting some grey areas of law that the studio could pursue if they felt there was some issue to damaging the franchise rights and property.
Generally, studios do not pursue such, as it is an expensive battle that is more intellectual in nature of debate than an issue of expenses and monies.
You could look at a movie like SpaceBalls where the originating designs were based loosely on Star Wars but a non issue. You could also look at spoofs from shows like Saturday Night Live or others were props and sources could be questionable but again not worth pursuing. BUT, if some studio lawyer wanted to (and had the resources to do such) , they could create a possible case to do such if the right procedure for such was cited.
Last edited:
Similar threads
