Guest c4evap Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 DC Comics has ordered a New York gallery to remove pictures which show Batman and Robin kissing and embracing. Link to story. Link to works in question. You just can't make this stuff up! c4 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Was it a question of copyright, somehow, or was it removed just because batman was depicted in homoerotic poses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Legally' date=' it's copyright, realistically, it's homophobia, since there's no way these images will financially impact the Batman property.[/quote'] If it was copyright infringement, the request to have the art removed was legitimate. There's not much more to say on the matter. The fact that this legitimate legal action was taken might be viewed as homophobic doesn't give the artist or his works exemption from the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhug666 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 bloody political correctness at work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 True' date=' if it's copyright infringement. But if it's done as a polemical statement about society, or as a criticism of society through satire of established public characterisations... it's protected speech.[/quote'] Of course. But you said it was a copyright issue, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atgxtg Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Well considering the historyof the comics industry, the reponse was to be expected. It was probably less "homophobia" than fear of repating the whole Seduction of the Innocent circus. After all, it was claims that Batman and Robin were homosexuals that lead to the creation of the Comics Code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juhan Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Wow... very provocative drawings there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Mark Chamberlain just looks like some sad ass who has to do something which will cause offence (either through the image itself, or the fact of copyright theft), in order to try to draw some notice to his rather badly drawn scriblings. I mean look at them, if it hadn't been for the subject matter you could see a ten year old doing better. Gallery, lmao... they should have been chucked straight in to the nearest bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Those were lame pictures. *I* could have done a better job than that, and I can't draw for falgarcarb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 snip... then the comic company HAS NO RIGHT to shut it down....snip I think maybe it's you that misses the point... DC can do whatever the hell they want, for what ever reason they what to do it. They own it.. even if the images were shown for the reasons you mention, they don't have to let them be shown even if people bitch about 'freedom of speech' Anyway this 'artist' (lol) just strikes me as have no originality (the same thing was done for Sherlock Holmes not so long ago) and too much time on his hands... I mean lets face it this type of thing is hardly shocking any more and it's a bit sad that he can't think of anything to use his 'talent' for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exterus Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 OK, you're deliberatley missing the point. The comic company can't come out and say, "We don't like the pictures, they're homosexuals!" The issue can only be fought by them as a copyright issue. So, they make their demands based on copyright. They have to hope the artist and/or the gallery remove the images based on the threat of legal action. However, if the artist and the gallery are setting up this show based on speech, polemic, satire and expression, and not simply as a means to cash in on Batman and Robin, then the comic company HAS NO RIGHT to shut it down. See amendment number one. I don't know if it's a copyright issue, but legally, that's the only recourse the comics company can have, since they can't say they don't like what's being said, and they can't say they don't like the sexual stance of the art. Actually, I didn't deliberately miss your point. I just missed it. I'm no lawyer, but not making money off a copyrighted image/concept/item doesn't really make it alright to make use of it in a public setting, does it? As for the reasons for this legal action, I don't know what they are for certain, and neither do you. And it really doesn't matter if the artist infringed on the comic companys copyrighted material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 snip... then the comic company HAS NO RIGHT to shut it down....snip I think maybe it's you that misses the point... DC can do whatever the hell they want, for what ever reason they what to do it. They own it.. even if the images were shown for the reasons you mention, they don't have to let them be shown even if people bitch about 'freedom of speech' No, I don't. Perhaps you know too little about US Law in general, or Case Law in Fair Use instances. See these cases referred to at Wikipedia: Producers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been sued for infringement by the targets of their ridicule, even though such use may be protected as fair use. The fair use cases addressing parodies distinguish between parodies — using a work in order to poke fun or comment on the work itself — and satires — using a work to poke fun or comment on something else. Courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires, but the ultimate outcome in either circumstance will turn on the application of the four fair use factors. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994), the Supreme Court recognized parody as a fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's publisher, Acuff-Rose Music Inc., had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than used for mere advertising, commercial sale did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work, and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work. In a more recent parody case, Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, a suit was brought unsuccessfully against the publication of The Wind Done Gone, which reused many of the characters and situations from Gone with the Wind, but told the events from the point of view of the slaves rather than the slaveholders. The Eleventh Circuit, applying Campbell, recognized that The Wind Done Gone was a protected parody, and vacated the district court's injunction against its publication. Although the ultimate outcome is based on court decisions, use of copyrighted material may be protected under both Fair Use and First Amendment rights. Hell, one of the main defenses for P2P users is Fair Use law as pertains to license owners of copyrighted media. Even if DC owns the copyrights, they may get nothing out of this case other than bad publicity if the courts decide with the artist, who, in the above reference image, backs his image with the word Parody. 2 Live Crew parodied a Roy Orbison song, for profit, and were backed by the court. We won't decide, but saying it's an infringement of DC's copyright doesn't make it such, nor, if it is, does it make the artist liable. If a court ruled, Carnifex, as in the Suntrust case, that the images are protected parody, they can remain exactly where they are, and DC comics can fume all they want. Note the caveat: in the Acuff case, that Parody could stand EVEN IF DONE FOR PROFIT!!!! Well you know what they say 'Every day is a school day.'. No, I didn't know that, I stand corrected. :) But at least I understand now, that there's no definate answer...'it may or it may not'. My god, American copyright law sucks worse than I thought it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Shoot, nowadays all that is needed for someone to capitulate to these huge conglomerates is the threat of a lawsuit. Then, even if you are in the right and the Corporation is wrong, to fight it takes so much time and money that the corporations win by default. Yes, the US copyright laws here SUCK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 http://www.artnet.com/artwork/424448366/mark-chamberlain-how-bout-it-penguin-no-7308.html that is so not right........ I grew up with Adam West as Batman too :( there goes that childhood memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrimmer Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 But I dont understand, why didnt they force movie theaters to remove the film batman and Robin? (Sorry, I just had to do it!) That said, Batman is so well known, his likeness should almost be public domain for non commercial social commentary. But what do i know. DC Comics has ordered a New York gallery to remove pictures which show Batman and Robin kissing and embracing. Link to story. Link to works in question. You just can't make this stuff up! c4 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Is that true? MOD NOTE: If you'd bother to read through the thread carefully and visit some of the links instead of posting to up your rank you'd know... c4 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Two things. 1. My daughter is a better artist. 2. I'm not sure there really was a premeditated message in these artworks it seems to be more private fantasy, in which case fair use goes right out the window. They are for sale which is copyright infringement. 2 1/2. Judging by the the third and fourth Batman movies someone at DC or it's parent company, WB, is as deeply homosexual as Joel Schumacher or they would never have let him make those movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I agree, that art isnt particularly high quality. and I think DC comics has a right to prevent people from profiting from their ideas. I am sure there are plenty of unauthorised depictions of well known characters (including sexual) strewn across the web, but unless people are profiting from it I dont think DC should be bothered to do anything about it. Nothing stopping the artist from depicting gay supercharacters of his own creation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 good that stuff is sick. It seems a littel immoral to make stuff like that. Doesnt that artist have any sence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now