DC Comics Sues Unauthorized Batmobile Garage

[JDKJ]

DC is within its rights here, but this is also another instance of where the pirates aren't crooks so much as they are poorly served customers.

How is this guy Warner's "customer?" He ain't giving them a cent in business.

 

[LogicNProportion]

...And they simply didn't just buy him and his store, thus, keeping an awesome idea which would probably help line their pockets a bit more?

/sigh

DC...y u so dum?

 

[JDKJ]

...And they simply didn't just buy him and his store, thus, keeping an awesome idea which would probably help line their pockets a bit more?

/sigh

DC...y u so dum?

Do they have any experience making and selling automobiles and boats? Why would they want to own and operate a business that has nothing to do with their core business operations? It's Time Warner. Not General Motors.

 

[LogicNProportion]

...And they simply didn't just buy him and his store, thus, keeping an awesome idea which would probably help line their pockets a bit more?

/sigh

DC...y u so dum?

Do they have any experience making and selling automobiles and boats? Why would they want to own and operate a business that has nothing to do with their core business operations? It's Time Warner. Not General Motors.

Right, because it's not like they don't sell merchandise on the many, MANY franchises they own. True, this would be a specialized kind of thing, and they would probably have to strike a promotional deal with a company that actually works on cars, but I still think it would be a good idea to keep around.

This is just the thing rich people (often nerds/closet-nerds with a disgusting amount of disposable income) would (and have for many things like it) pay out the nose for.

 

[Sean951]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

 

[JDKJ]

...And they simply didn't just buy him and his store, thus, keeping an awesome idea which would probably help line their pockets a bit more?

/sigh

DC...y u so dum?

Do they have any experience making and selling automobiles and boats? Why would they want to own and operate a business that has nothing to do with their core business operations? It's Time Warner. Not General Motors.

Right, because it's not like they don't sell merchandise on the many, MANY franchises they own. True, this would be a specialized kind of thing, and they would probably have to strike a promotional deal with a company that actually works on cars, but I still think it would be a good idea to keep around.

This is just the thing rich people (often nerds/closet-nerds with a disgusting amount of disposable income) would (and have for many things like it) pay out the nose for.

They don't actually make and sell that merchandise themselves. They license others to do so and take a cut in the form of licensing fees. And that's what this guy is fucking with: their ability to license their products.

 

[Amondren]

MUST SHOW TO EVERYONE NEED TO SAVE GARAGE.

 

[JDKJ]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

It doesn't have to be "exact." As long as Warner has a trademark on the distinctive shape of the Batmobile and the Batboat (which I assume they have), any product that's sufficiently similar in appearance to cause confusion in the minds of consumers that the product is in fact an official Batmobile or Batboat is enough to constitute trademark infringement.

 

[JDKJ]

Some peeps want Batmobiles. If whatever measures DC made to make the product available were adequate, they'd have gotten them there rather than from this guy.

So? If I'm a record label and I decide that I'm no longer going to print and sell copies of a song in my catalog despite there still being strong demand for the song among the record-buying public, does that give someone the right to bootleg my record? It's my record. I can do with it whatever I like.

 

[Sean951]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

It doesn't have to be "exact." As long as Warner has a trademark on the distinctive shape of the Batmobile and the Batboat (which I assume they have), any product that's sufficiently similar in appearance to cause confusion in the minds of consumers that the product is in fact an official Batmobile or Batboat is enough to constitute trademark infringement.

Wouldn't that make a lot of cosplay costumes illegal?

 

[JDKJ]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

It doesn't have to be "exact." As long as Warner has a trademark on the distinctive shape of the Batmobile and the Batboat (which I assume they have), any product that's sufficiently similar in appearance to cause confusion in the minds of consumers that the product is in fact an official Batmobile or Batboat is enough to constitute trademark infringement.

Wouldn't that make a lot of cosplay costumes illegal?

Nope. Trademark infringement isn't trademark infringement unless the product is placed in commerce (i.e., offered for sale). If you make your own Batman costume to wear to Comic-Con, then fine (you may be "weird" but you aren't an infringer). But if you make a Batman costume and offer it for sale to someone else who wants to wear it to Comic-Con and you don't have a license to do so, then you're infringing Warner's trademark.

You can go to Party City and I'll bet you can find a Batman costume to buy. But I'll also bet its properly licensed. In fact, every Batman costume they sell on their website states that it is an "officially licensed Batman? costume."

 

[Sean951]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

It doesn't have to be "exact." As long as Warner has a trademark on the distinctive shape of the Batmobile and the Batboat (which I assume they have), any product that's sufficiently similar in appearance to cause confusion in the minds of consumers that the product is in fact an official Batmobile or Batboat is enough to constitute trademark infringement.

Wouldn't that make a lot of cosplay costumes illegal?

Nope. Trademark infringement isn't trademark infringement unless the product is placed in commerce (i.e., offered for sale). If you make your own Batman costume to wear to Comic-Con, then fine (you may be "weird" but you aren't an infringer). But if you make a Batman costume and offer it for sale to someone else who wants to wear it to Comic-Con and you don't have a license to do so, then you're infringing Warner's trademark.

You can go to Party City and I'll bet you can find a Batman costume to buy. But I'll also bet its properly licensed.

Ok, thanks. I never really understood how all that stuff worked since it really hasn't ever effected me.

 

[JDKJ]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

It doesn't have to be "exact." As long as Warner has a trademark on the distinctive shape of the Batmobile and the Batboat (which I assume they have), any product that's sufficiently similar in appearance to cause confusion in the minds of consumers that the product is in fact an official Batmobile or Batboat is enough to constitute trademark infringement.

Wouldn't that make a lot of cosplay costumes illegal?

Nope. Trademark infringement isn't trademark infringement unless the product is placed in commerce (i.e., offered for sale). If you make your own Batman costume to wear to Comic-Con, then fine (you may be "weird" but you aren't an infringer). But if you make a Batman costume and offer it for sale to someone else who wants to wear it to Comic-Con and you don't have a license to do so, then you're infringing Warner's trademark.

You can go to Party City and I'll bet you can find a Batman costume to buy. But I'll also bet its properly licensed.

Ok, thanks. I never really understood how all that stuff worked since it really hasn't ever effected me.

You've never had a girlfriend that wanted you to do the nasty with her while wearing a Superman costume? You have no idea what you're missing.

"Up, up, and awaaaaaay!!"

 

[Sean951]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

It doesn't have to be "exact." As long as Warner has a trademark on the distinctive shape of the Batmobile and the Batboat (which I assume they have), any product that's sufficiently similar in appearance to cause confusion in the minds of consumers that the product is in fact an official Batmobile or Batboat is enough to constitute trademark infringement.

Wouldn't that make a lot of cosplay costumes illegal?

Nope. Trademark infringement isn't trademark infringement unless the product is placed in commerce (i.e., offered for sale). If you make your own Batman costume to wear to Comic-Con, then fine (you may be "weird" but you aren't an infringer). But if you make a Batman costume and offer it for sale to someone else who wants to wear it to Comic-Con and you don't have a license to do so, then you're infringing Warner's trademark.

You can go to Party City and I'll bet you can find a Batman costume to buy. But I'll also bet its properly licensed.

Ok, thanks. I never really understood how all that stuff worked since it really hasn't ever effected me.

You've never had a girlfriend that wanted you to do the nasty with her while wearing a Superman costume? You have no idea what you're missing.

"Up, up, and awaaaaaay!!"

No, can't say that I have, lol. I do have an ex who enjoyed cosplaying at the big Con event they have here.

 

[JDKJ]

Unless he made exact copies, I would think the cars, other than the obviously trademarked logo, should be fine. They are of his design and based around another, but without the plans there is almost no way he could do it exact. That said, I am not a lawyer so I don't actually know.

It doesn't have to be "exact." As long as Warner has a trademark on the distinctive shape of the Batmobile and the Batboat (which I assume they have), any product that's sufficiently similar in appearance to cause confusion in the minds of consumers that the product is in fact an official Batmobile or Batboat is enough to constitute trademark infringement.

Wouldn't that make a lot of cosplay costumes illegal?

Nope. Trademark infringement isn't trademark infringement unless the product is placed in commerce (i.e., offered for sale). If you make your own Batman costume to wear to Comic-Con, then fine (you may be "weird" but you aren't an infringer). But if you make a Batman costume and offer it for sale to someone else who wants to wear it to Comic-Con and you don't have a license to do so, then you're infringing Warner's trademark.

You can go to Party City and I'll bet you can find a Batman costume to buy. But I'll also bet its properly licensed.

Ok, thanks. I never really understood how all that stuff worked since it really hasn't ever effected me.

You've never had a girlfriend that wanted you to do the nasty with her while wearing a Superman costume? You have no idea what you're missing.

"Up, up, and awaaaaaay!!"

No, can't say that I have, lol. I do have an ex who enjoyed cosplaying at the big Con event they have here.

Did she wanna do the nasty in cosplay? If she was in Wonder Woman cosplay, that'd be so cool. Wonder Woman's a hottie.

 

[lead sharp]

Aside from the fact that he's a tool for not getting the licence to do this, "Irreparable harm to DC"?!?!? Sod off, what they need to do is assess whether this guy is any good and employ him, charge a higher percentage till a court decided debt is paid off then go to a normal licencing agreement. Everyone is happy, every one has a job, he's been punished, DC don't look like dicks and folks get their Batmobiles.

Simples.

 

[Firehound]

Hmm, well considering the Fiberglass people aren't making anything other than the 66' batmobile he's technically filling a void DC hadn't already. I assume they already approached him about getting an official license and he said no? The one from fiberglass look nice, but I think I want the burton batmobile; I say DC just settle with the guy for a licensing agreement so when I win the lottery I can pimp it down the highway in the burton batmobile.

That's what I figure happened.

 

[Therumancer]

And he didn't think that DC might take exception to him making a fortune off their designs and logo's why, exactly? Seriously, how out of it do you have to be to think that you can get away with this, a full-size counterfeit bat-car selling business with website and all isn't exactly subtle.

Well, we're making a big assumption that he didn't ask to be honest. In a lot of cases where something this flagrent is going on, you have someone who DOES ask to do something like this, gets permission verbally, goes ahead and does it, but then becomes profitable enough to sue and winds up in a position without any paperwork or witnesses to a "verbal contract".

This is a big deal in Hollywood in paticular where there is a long history of business being done literally on a handshake. Contract law can be a mess, and I tend to think back to one case a while back where Kim Basinger wound up in court over her alleged agreement to appear in the movie "Boxing Helena", which she denied. She wound up losing the case and suffering millions in losses (well potentially) but then overturned it in an appeal. It's not all that famous a case right now, but it gets down to how messed up contract law is, and how dubious things like this can be.

Speaking entirely for myself, unless I missed something in the article where the guy said he didn't have permission, I'd tend to believe this is going to get complicated. Especially seeing as if the guy has a brain, even if it's a lie, he can probably give DC enough of a headache to give up on financial compensation (and just get him to agree to stop) by claiming he had a verbal contract gained by asking if it was okay to do.

See, verbal contract is a mess with a good lawyer, because while it can be argued that someone who says someone said something was okay didn't have the authority to make a deal like that, a lot also depends on whether the other party knew they didn't have that authority. I probably wouldn't win if I was trying to get something out of someone, but with a decent lawyer if I had three buddies agree to lie on my behalf about someone I "really believed was in a position of authority to make this desician" telling me something was okay, I could probably get a lawsuit to back off since when a jury is involved in a civil case it comes down to a preponderance of evidence, and clear and convincing testimony, the same standards to presenting evidence don't exist that are in a criminal trial.

Simply put, I doubt this guy is going to really have more happen to him than having to close down his business. If he has an intimidating enough lawyer, I doubt he'll even have to hand over the money he made so far... unless of course he already SAID he knew he didn't have permission... assuming of course that he DIDN'T ask DC to begin with, and that's always possible because he's operating so publically. It's not some kind of shady, backroom business run by a guy who was apparently afraid of prosecution. He also apparently operated long enough where it also raises some questions.

This is going off topic, but have you ever considered not writing a wall of text?
Most of it is meaningless and could be summed up in one paragraph but you insist on writing 3-4 all of which say nothing and is useless to anyone trying to read it.

Be to the point and concise, not make everyone read a huge wall of text just to find the points you might make, if any.

The response to the length of my posts is mixed. I am capable of writing shorter messages, and even learned and used Eprime in college, but usually in doing so a lot of information is missed. I have a tendency to head off a lot of counterpoints that I know could be made, before they are made, and give backround on what I'm saying to justify it. Without doing so, there might occasionally be concern over trolling. What's more, I've had people occasionally respond to commentary like your making by saying they don't want me to reduce the size of my posts as well, due to the amount of information.

In general I find the people who complain about length are in two basic camps. One are the people who don't like the fact that they disagree with me, but they are left with very little to say in response due to me countering pretty much every arguement one could conceive to make against me at the outset (which is part of the point, I only take a strong stance I know I can defend, and figure it cuts down on spam), sometimes leading to situations where people who jump into a discussion late don't realize I've already covered what they want to say, or where people get irritated because I just keep re-stating the same basic things which cover whatever they are trying to say especially if they read a few posts up where I included elaboration on why. The other major camp are people who for some reason are on message bases and yet don't actually want to read information on whatever the forum or topic is about. Pretty much the "twitter" generation who want everything condensed down to short bits, and really all that does is lead to trolling and vast misunderstandings when dealing with what start out as alternate points of view, because some subjects can't be dealt with in a quick blurb of text when they require explanation, especially if your taking a position that is radically differant than the person/group your talking to, explanation and backround are doubly important then.

What's more, with the new posting/disapline system, there is a whole differant animal at stake here now. I need to be able to defend everything I say since my posts are oftentimes not in keeping with what a lot of people want ot hear. Not by way of trolling, but just in that I think differantly. I say this because right now the system is borked and I've somehow gotten put on a yellow-level suspension block on the meter, despite only having been approached twice for infractions (something I can prove actually). I am hoping this gets wiped to the previous level, but since I invest a lot of time and effort in these forums, not to mention donating money, I now have some concerns well beyond what I should have. With a short post I lose the abillity to say "no, that wasn't an attemtp to get a reaction for the sake of getting a reaction, it's a valid position, and there are eight paragraphs explaining it". Of course I'm also wondering if this means I'm going to have to become the kind of user I despise. I usually ignore flames and people being rude, and generally take a "live and let live" attitude since people who disagree strongly on one issue, might have a meeting of minds on another. However it does make me wonder if for survival I'm going to have to take a crazy defensive posture, and not only make sure to explain myself, but start reporting every time someone gets snippy with me in hopes I can get them banned before they get me banned... but that goes into another entire discussion. Overall it's something that has to figure into my current thinking. The shorter the post, the greater the chance for a misunderstanding, and someone to start screaming "troll".