Batmobile Lawsuit: Batman Car Subject To Copyright, Judge Rules

To the batmobile! Or maybe not.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that it is a violation of DC Comics' copyright to make imitation batmobiles, according to the Hollywood Reporter. The company had sued Mark Towles, a California man who operated a business that made lookalikes of the iconic car.

Towles, who runs Gotham Garage, tried to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that copyright doesn't protect "useful articles."

However, U.S. District Judge Ronald Lew ruled that while the car itself is useful, it's unique design makes it special enough for copyright protection.

As Wired points out, the ruling doesn't mean that DC Comics has won the lawsuit, just that it can go forward. And things don't look great for Towles, who could face a $150,000 penalty for copyright infringement.

This isn't the first time a replica of the Caped Crusader has been challenged by the law. In 2009, DC Comics sued a Florida man who sold figurines that resembled Batman characters. The company ended up dropping the lawsuit.

To read the full ruling, click here (courtesy of Wired).

Comments

[critterzdad2]

04:10 AM on 04/22/2012

Doesn't surprise me that the court held for D.C. comics. I remember for a while you could buy a kit for Volkswagen that added a replica Rolls Royce hood and grill on the front. The British company went after the guy and won. Then they went after all his customers to return or destroy the replica add on. Very funny! Just not to Rolls Royce. And did you ever see the porno Disney poster? Same action and same result. I used to know someone who had one and he kept it hid. Its was hysterically funny and graphically porn. Oh well. I guess some things really are sacred.

[cb2112]

09:10 AM on 02/06/2012

There is an officially licensed Batmobile builer. Look up fiberglassfreaks dot com

[pitciarn]

12:36 PM on 02/03/2012

Copy Right Laws PROTECT creativity. Why would anyone create when it could be stolen ?? The quote from "Jurrasic Park" from Dr Malcolm (Jeff GoldBlum) comes to mind :

"You did not create, you just stood on the shoulder's of Giant's"

Thank you..

[Elroy Jetson]

07:31 AM on 02/03/2012

There's a very easy solution, and companies do it all the time. Build it as a "Kit'. If the initial product is different enough to avoid copyright infringement, and the final parts are sold separately for easy home assembly... the violators would be the customers - who are not in violation as long as they do not try to profit from their item, and intend it for their own personal use.

[qsfoxx]

04:46 AM on 02/03/2012

'Holy cow, Batman! Something looks mighty queer to me!' ~ Burt Ward (as Robin) from the old Batman TV series.

[miles silverberg]

02:50 AM on 02/03/2012

There's a reason that knock-off Fendi bags are sold on streetcorners and from the trunks of cars: because someone is unlawfully profiting from Fendi's design. Purses are useful items, so it makes sense to me that DC can go after someone using their 'designs' for profit without their permission. It would be different if he had just made one Batmobile for himself as a fanboy's hobby, but he does it as a business.

[kevinryanvt]

07:56 PM on 02/02/2012

I hope the Batmobile manufacturer takes this up on appeal. Copyrights DO NOT extend to useful items, even as to their aesthetic qualities. This is why Congress added architechural design to copyright law in 1995, and why clothing manufacturers are trying to get it extended to fashion, which it now is NOT.

Selling a car as "the Batmobile" may very well be a trademark issue, which is NOT to protect DC Comics, but to protect the public from buying an inferior Batmobile, as funny as that sounds.
If design is the question, then patent law applies, which would have run out on even the Burton design as of 2009.

The Judge's decision is bunk.

[Huntergp02]

10:17 AM on 02/02/2012

Is he selling these "batmobiles" or charging for rides or something? If not, I don't see what DC see's is the big deal here.

[Elroy Jetson]

07:33 AM on 02/03/2012

They want to be PAID a licensing fee for any replicas of their products - "officially licensed". If he adds and pays them a few thou each, DC will have no problems with it.

[Jared Jentzsch]

10:10 AM on 02/02/2012

Copy write laws stomp creativity! Ok so it was a batmobile, imagine the ingenuity of the builder. Could have lead to other things.

[Rich914]

10:01 AM on 02/02/2012

Ok I read the decision and conclude that the federal judge sitting in Central California exhibits a pro entertainment industry bias. Is anyone shocked?

[KIVPossum]

10:06 AM on 02/02/2012

Looks to me like he has a pro-copyright bias. Making knock-off replicas is not protected under 'useful articles'.

[Rich914]

07:36 PM on 02/13/2012

Nobody was making knock off replicas of any copyrighted property. The DC plaintiffs only asserted that they had the exclusive right to license the batmoble, not that the defendant made a replica of a batmobile that some one else made under license from DC comics. Very likely DC will losse this case on the merits - but its a shame the defendant has to go to that expense and trouble. Pro-Entertainment judge realizesd the defendant will probably just give up. Not justice really, the big pockets win.

[El Justiciero]

08:53 AM on 02/02/2012

Copyright law is B.S. . . . and a big FU to DC Comics.

[Craig 212]

08:52 AM on 02/02/2012

Chill out, DC Comics.

[rh654]

08:49 AM on 02/02/2012

Why do we allow these companies to have a Patent, Trademark or Copyright?

Aren't we always hearing that we need the "Free Market" and we need to get the "Government out of the business community?".

Well folks, Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights are nothing but a Government Imposed Barrier to the Free Market and Free Competition.

If these companies and the Far Right wants a real "Free Market" perhaps we should start a movement to overturn these Government Protections that truly inhibits a real Free Market and we'll see how "Free" they really want it to be.

[Craig 212]

08:56 AM on 02/02/2012

Indeed. It's also worth pointing out that a truly "free market", devoid of all those pesky regulations that the GOP is always complaining about, would involve selling alcohol, cigarettes, and pornography to minors as long as they have the cash to pay for it.

[wesnwendy]

09:08 AM on 02/02/2012

The point of patent, trademark and copyright was to protect the inventor/artist who thought it up and allowed him to recoup costs and make a profit before everyone else jumped on the wagon and saturated the market. That is what it was supposed to do, like everything else, its just a lie. It has allowed corporations and governments to buy or repossess an idea leading to corporate holdings of millions, if not billions of patents and copy writes. The company that stakes a claim on a copywrite or patent because the person doing the thinking was an employee is ABSOLUTELY repossessing the employee's idea. Stealing it is more apt a word.

Now, if the people would stand together when something like this happens, maybe it could be changed. But monkeys are incredibly selfish and stupid bunch and they only care about themselves, so that won't happen. If it did, what we could do is stop buying their crap, mail to them, in mass, shredded batman comics and put such a financial hurt on theses thieves that they will stop trying to rob us. But that's not gonna happen. YOU try getting a selfish, greedy monkey to shred a valuable comic book, even if it's not valuable yet. You will be shredded yourself. Monkeys would MUCH rather destroy life than things.

[DudleysPa]

08:12 AM on 02/02/2012

Quick! To the BlindNocturnalFlyingRodentMobile!

[Captain Steve Rogers]

05:35 PM on 02/02/2012

Bats aren't rodents, Dr. Meridian.

[Marcin A Mazurek]

07:53 AM on 02/02/2012

Not...A.....Service.....Marvel......Comics.....Provides!