DSF2 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Oh, will the copyright madness ever end? D.C. Comics is going after a Chelsea art dealer, demanding that it cease and desist from exhibiting Mark Chamberlain?s series of "gay Batman" watercolors. As Kathleen Cullen of Kathleen Cullen Fine Art explained to Artnet, "D.C. Comics wants me to hand over all unsold work and invoices for the sold work!" I hope she told them to make their own gay Batman watercolors. Artnet has also received a cease-and-desist for hosting several images from the series on its website. Let's hope they have some spine and keep them put. As I've said a million times, corporations routinely churn out ceast-and-desists, when they have no real intention of following up with a suit. (Though, naturally, no one wants to be the outlier.) Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaidiir Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 rofl :laugh: :p :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 lol.. this reminds me of the faked LOTR photos I saw about a Frodo and Sam having sex with each other... Legolas was involved too somewhere IIRC. The scary part was that the fakes were *very* well photoshopped. :x Forgot where they were though, or my brain just didn't want to remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazgul Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Not only are they making money off of a trademarked and copyrighted character, but they're also representing him in a light that I'm sure DC does not appreciate. For once, I'm on DC's side for this... Go DC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mrbester MVC Posted August 19, 2005 MVC Share Posted August 19, 2005 Tracey Emin made a packet out of an unmade bed that probably breached international laws on bacteriological warfare. Did Rumbelows think that it was representing their products in a light that wasn't appreciated? Art is art. Personally, I thought the bed was crap, but the idea of someone exploring a (fictional) character's sexuality shouldn't be suppressed. What's next? The Rainbow producers going after a furry site that stars Bungle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted August 19, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted August 19, 2005 Rumbelows solf hi-fi and TV gear, not beds! She also wasn't making any brand or copyright the centre of her work. It was a reflection of a stage in her life. The painter of these pictures is not Batman so the comparison is flawed. Personally I'm with DC on this. They have invested millions in the Batman character and to show him in a negative* light isn't gonna be accepted. Also, they legally have a duty to protect their characters - if you actually copyright something you have a duty to protect that - it can set dangerous precedents if you don't. Also, Batmans sexuality may or may not be explored, but it will be done on the copyright holders terms. In fairness, Bruce has had a string of attractive women throught the last 5 films - these may me "beards" as they never last ;) But it's up to DC to say. *Note: I am not refering to a gay lifestyle as negative - but rather that any kind of image-change to the Batman character can negatively affect the franchise. Showing Batman as DC intend is positive for the franchise, anything else will be negative to DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mrbester MVC Posted August 19, 2005 MVC Share Posted August 19, 2005 Rumbelows solf hi-fi and TV gear, not beds! True, had a brainlock there... DC didn't complain about the camp series did they? Given the ignorant times, that was a dig at a) the characters and b) the gay community as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted August 19, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted August 19, 2005 "Camp Series" do you mean the old TV series? I honestly think it was only "camp" in hindsight. I think at the time, that was how studio execs perceived comic book characters - colourful and larger than life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamit2900 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 She is profiting out of copyright of a character that is owned by a Comic Book Company that has brought happiness and entertainment to many people. This technically counts as plagarism. Get the money back DC. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted August 19, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 19, 2005 She is profiting out of copyright of a character that is owned by a Comic Book Company that has brought happiness and entertainment to many people. This technically counts as plagarism. Get the money back DC. :) 586400760[/snapback] It is more than that, Batman is a part of the culture he is representive of more than DC's comic books at this point he is a slice of Americana if you will and thus the use of the character in parody and artistic statement should be covered in public domain. DC does not own the cultural impact that Batman has had, the hoop-la is all because a "gay" Batman and DC is worried that their may be a backlash from people who are against homosexuality in general, and it would hurt their bottomline. If DC wins this little spat, it would mean a lot more than just Batman is straight period. They would have to pull Mad magizine off the shelves everytime they said something unflattering about any cultural icon, or perhaps political cartoons which use the image of political figures would be sued for copyright infringement, because those figures have a right to their own image, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 :laugh: Batman wore tight fitting underwear outside and had a hot young boy, Robin. That makes him gay ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 She is profiting out of copyright of a character that is owned by a Comic Book Company that has brought happiness and entertainment to many people. This technically counts as plagarism. Get the money back DC. :)586400760[/snapback] Technically i'm pretty sure you're confused about the law. US Code, Title 17, Section 107. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. In other words, this is a work of parody, which is protected under fair-use laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts