Supreme Court Declines To Hear Batmobile Copyright Case

from the holy-copyright,-batman dept

We wrote last year about a copyright dispute between DC Comics and guy by the name of Mark Towle, who had been custom producing Batmobiles for Batman fans. Mike's analysis in that post is wonderfully detailed and you should read it if you want a deep dive into the specifics of how the court ruled, but I will summarize it here for you as well. The 9th Circuit ruled that the Batmobile was deserving of the same copyright protections as other fictional characters, despite it being a depiction of an inanimate object, and it completely ignored the entire expression/idea dichotomy that is supposed to govern copyright law. That dichotomy can be explained as giving copyright protection to specific expressions of an idea without protecting the idea itself. For instance, the depiction of HAL the homicidal computer in 2001 A Space Odyssey may be covered under copyright, but the idea of a homicidal artificial intelligence is not.

Yet, despite the Batmobile's ever-changing appearance and functionality, and despite its expression in comic and film form not being identical to custom real-life productions by a car enthusiast, the court ruled against Towle and essentially claimed the very idea of the Batmobile was deserving of copyright protection. The last remaining opportunity to have the courts specifically weigh the idea/expression dichotomy in this case would have been the Supreme Court, but SCOTUS has apparently declined to take the case up.

The Supreme Court is staying out of a copyright dispute involving a California man who produced replicas of the Batmobile for car-collecting fans of the caped crusader. The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the Batmobile's bat-like appearance and high-tech gadgets make it a character that can't be duplicated without permission from DC Comics, the copyright holder.
It's cases like this in which the Supreme Court refuses to weigh in that allows courts like the 9th Circuit to seemingly specialize in wacky copyright and intellectual property rulings. One hopes that other cases in other circuits will raise similar issues enough that SCOTUS decides to step in at a later date, rather than let this be the last word on this issue. I would have thought that a court ruling that fails to even mention the idea/expression dichotomy would have been one that SCOTUS would have found ripe for comment, but apparently not. All hail the Batmobile, a character on par with Batman himself, apparently.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 9th circuit, batmobile, copyright, idea/expression dichotomy, supreme court


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 3:57pm

    Just stomping out competition

    Can't have an unlicensed builder when their is already a licensed builder - can't allow that kind of competition!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 3:58pm

    Yeah, "copyright" is a bit of a misnomer. It's actually intended to keep people from being allowed to build stuff resembling comic book drawings.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 9 Mar 2016 @ 4:51pm

    Unfortunately it may be for the best

    Remember this is the court which compared Aero to a non quaking duck. Maybe them not hearing it will help instead of hurt worse

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 5:12pm

    For instance, the depiction of the Batmobile in Batman may be covered under copyright, but the idea of a modified super car is not.

    FTFY

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    amoshias (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 5:18pm

    Wait, what?


    "Yet, despite the Batmobile's ever-changing appearance and functionality, and despite its expression in comic and film form not being identical to custom real-life productions by a car enthusiast, the court ruled against Towle and essentially claimed the very idea of the Batmobile was deserving of copyright protection."

    You understand how comic books WORK, right? How they have artists and writers constantly interpreting and re-interpreting the different elements within them? How is anything you said in that paragraph any different between the Batmobile and Batman himself? This page (http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/batman-infographic.jpg) has at least 35 different and distinct costumes that Batman has worn throughout the years. If I draw a character that is recognizably Batman, but uses a color combination that DC has never used, am I somehow NOT violating copyright there? By the same token, if I create something that EVERYONE RECOGNIZES AS THE BATMOBILE, and the only reason it has VALUE is because people recognize it as such... well, honestly, that doesn't sound like stretching copyright law to me. That sounds like the fundamental protection that copyright is supposed to extend to creators.

    I honestly don't even understand how you can write this article - which fundamentally recognizes that "Batmobile" is something that everyone reading this will understand without explanation. The *idea* here is that a billionaire playboy who fights crime as a superhero has a cool car. If you want to make your Techdirt car - which a souped-up crimefighting car in the style of the Batmobile but with Techdirt regalia in place of the bats - THAT is the idea/expression dichotomy. Making a Batmobile, that everyone recognizes as a Batmobile (and seriously, spend 30 seconds googling Mark Towle, the first image that comes up is him standing in front of an AWESOME replica of the Adam West Batmobile) is copying the expression. Just because there might be some differences in detailing cannot make a difference.

    I also think it's fundamentally weird that you seem to take umbrage with the idea that the batmobile is an inanimate "character". Does copyright protection somehow not cover characters unless they are animate? So the Mach 5 from Speed Racer (btw, another car which Mark Towle has copied, with a license this time, which is why it's on my mind) isn't protected? Cinderella's castle? The Enterprise, the Millennium Falcon, an X-Wing fighter? All of these things, because they're not animate, can't be copyrighted? I'm not sure what the legal basis for this is, but I would love to read the case law you're basing your statements on.

    Do I think DC is WISE in shutting this guy down? No, they should probably offer him a license - the stuff he does is AWESOME. But if he's making money selling people batmobiles, I'm not sure there's any reasonable argument that they're not within their rights to shut him down.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 9 Mar 2016 @ 8:50pm

      Re: am I somehow NOT violating copyright there?

      Copyright is not supposed to be about “protecting” ideas, only an expression of the idea.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Walid Damouny (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 12:14am

        Re: Re: am I somehow NOT violating copyright there?

        Your statement doesn't quite negate the OP's point. The batmobile is an expression. The car maker isn't making cars based on an idea of transportation for a caped vigilante but is rather copying that particular expression of it. Searching for "Mark Towle" brings up batmobiles from very specific movies and games. These are not merely ideas these are specific expressions of them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 1:07am

          Re: Re: Re: am I somehow NOT violating copyright there?

          You're on a blog whose only notoriety comes from its legion hatred of copyright.

          So yeah, this isn't exactly a surprise here, y'know?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 10 Mar 2016 @ 12:26pm

          Re: that particular expression of it.

          Which particular expression of it? There are already so many. The case here is about blocking entirely new ones, that don’t come from the copyright holders.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 8:53am

      Re:

      the definition of character doesn't cover characters unless they are animate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, 10 Mar 2016 @ 2:14am

    Satire Bat-mobile

    My memory is a big shaky on this point-- it's been a matter of fifty years or so-- but I believe that, circa 1970, there was a character on a Saturday morning cartoon show who was either a chicken or a rabbit, and had a Volkswagen Beetle, fitted with bat wings. It was of course a satire of Batman.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 8:46am

      Re: Satire Bat-mobile

      You're thinking of the syndicated series "BatFink", who was, in fact, a bat, albeit one with bulletproof "wings of steel".
      He had an Asian sidekick named "Karate', who was expert in, what else, karate, and was a tribute to The Green Hornet's sidekick, Kato.
      The car was actually a variation of the original 1940s Batmobile.
      Check out the Internet Movie DataBase for more info.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 2:50am

    Now even though I've read up some on copyright law IANAL, so I don't really know.

    This seems to go beyond copyright. Doesn't trademark law technically apply here ?

    Can a judge rule something that is not a matter of copyright to be so? Does that set legal precedent.

    At this point I fear that come 2018 not only will we get another copyright extension, but an expansion as well, allowing, for the first time, for concepts and ideas (at least in a limited scope) to fall under copyright.

    This is going to be a mess...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 3:56am

    Batman: Oh, hello Batmobile!

    *scratches side mirrors gently*

    Batmobile: beep beep!

    Disney: please refer to our lawyers if you want to use sentient vehicles.


    Hilarity ensues.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 6:26am

    a non-news story really

    the problem could lie in who actually owns the trademark/copyright on it

    DC - it's the Batmobile

    Fox/Fleetway - the 55 Lincoln, one of 3 notable "Batmobiles" the other 2 is the 89 film (Chevy Impala base), and TAS Batmobile.



    Essentially the OTHER article has a rather well write-up on the whole thing. If you are like me and skipped it: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150923/15591132350/appeals-court-says-batmobile-is-character-cov ered-copyright.shtml


    Also by that legal definition, K.I.T.T. (all versions) Airwolf, and Ecto-1. Simply because they are "unique", Ie. you don't associate those cars outside of their respective universes. If that made sense.
    Lincoln/GM - it IS a Lincoln 55 Futura Concept, developed for Fleetway for the West Series.


    either way, it seems that this kit maker didn't have the license to make said kits.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Irving, 10 Mar 2016 @ 7:57am

    So, once again, we see the depth of the copyright lobby's pockets.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:19am

    This is a classic example of product confusion

    I don't see what the problem is.
    The guy is clearly making replica Batmobiles. It doesn't matter what he calls them if people are recognizing them as being Batmobile replicas.
    DC Comics owns the likeness to the Batmobile and associated names. He's selling these without a license, implying an endorsement from DC Comics, and possibly in violation of another car-maker's license.

    Isn't this what copyright was meant for?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.