would have thought more of DC if they said yeh that cool. But no......boils down to money and the risk of loosing some. FFS
DC Agrees To Allow Use Of Superman Logo For Memorial Statue
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
this is FALSE. This is not how laws work. there is no precedent here. Companies are not forced to police their trademarks to sustain them. there isnt a single time this has ever been the case.Lono Shrugged said:
no, it boils down to whatever idea DC has as this has nothing to do with money at all.AstaresPanda said:
This IS coming from the company that refuses to acknowledge the contributions of Bill Finger in creating their biggest cash-cow, Batman.
DC just has been having lots of rough PR blowups lately. From horrible statements and decisions in their comics about women, homosexuals, and minorities, I guess we can add "child abuse victims" to the list of things they handle with the grace of a drunken hippo.
Superman was created to inspire, to be the ideal for even other heroes to aspire to. I look at that memorial and I see Superman inspiring a boy in a terrible environment to find joy and hope in a dark world. DC's actions, however "by the book", create cynicism, disappointment, and apathy towards Superman if that is their approach.
Then again, they did have Superman outright kill people in no less than three different mediums last year. So maybe my idealized version of the ultimate hero has been dead for awhile and I just haven't caught on yet.
DC just has been having lots of rough PR blowups lately. From horrible statements and decisions in their comics about women, homosexuals, and minorities, I guess we can add "child abuse victims" to the list of things they handle with the grace of a drunken hippo.
Superman was created to inspire, to be the ideal for even other heroes to aspire to. I look at that memorial and I see Superman inspiring a boy in a terrible environment to find joy and hope in a dark world. DC's actions, however "by the book", create cynicism, disappointment, and apathy towards Superman if that is their approach.
Then again, they did have Superman outright kill people in no less than three different mediums last year. So maybe my idealized version of the ultimate hero has been dead for awhile and I just haven't caught on yet.
I'm talking about this quote:Fanghawk said:
"While the story paints DC in a severely unflattering light on the surface, intellectual property holders do face the risk that unlicensed use of products can undermine copyright ownership."
Which is a mismatched version of the more common urban myth about trademarks getting lost due to minimal enforcement.
All I hear are pethetic excuses from a cold heart of a company. Go f#%k yourselves DC comics, there's no excuse at all for denying the request. All they have to do is work out an agreement that he may use the logo for this one statue and bask in the good PR. Typical American corporations, too busy being greedy pigs to see what's right in front of them.
I don't understand companies doing things like this.
What kind of person would honestly believe that the initial refusal on DC's part would attract anything other than an outraged (or at least very negative) reaction.
If they'd just said yes straight away then they could have got some good PR out of this. Nobody is going to give them any positive press now, it'll just be seen as "immoral company bullied into doing the right thing".
What kind of person would honestly believe that the initial refusal on DC's part would attract anything other than an outraged (or at least very negative) reaction.
If they'd just said yes straight away then they could have got some good PR out of this. Nobody is going to give them any positive press now, it'll just be seen as "immoral company bullied into doing the right thing".
it's not that they won't, it's that they can't. Bob Kane forced them to sign a contract to make him legally recognized as the sole creator (he did this via a lawsuit where he basically spewed out a bunch of lies and they just caved in to make him shut up as it was causing bad PR)Trishbot said:
OT:
It's nice to see the story updated to see that they will allow it, especially considering the original unflattering tone of the story and sources painting as DC being unfeeling corporate drones, when it seems they were just making sure it was ok with all involved parties and not just the artist who made the sculpture.
Superman logo or not I think the fact remains, that statue makes that kids feet look huge. Was he into depression era footwear or was it just sculpted this way? I'd like to see an original reference photo.
So they agreed to it? Great! Nice to see this got a happy ending. Sure, I wasn't too peeved with them personally for not agreeing to do something they'd never said, or even hinted, that they'd do in the first place. Using the Superman logo for heartwarming stuff is nice, but not something everyone automatically has the right to do. But it's nice to see that DC decided to do the right thing.
Well, of course they don't, but they should have.Queen Michael said:
If Superman would be in the public domain, then anyone would have the right to build whatever statue they want about it and the world would be a bit more free place than it is.
This incident just reveals again, that as long as we hand over corporations rights to control over our lives, they ARE going to exercise as nmuch of it as they can get away with, just for the sake of staying in control. The logical conclusion is, that as much of these rights should be taken away from them as possible.
Er...corporations are controlling our lives by taking away our rights to make statues of their IP?Alterego-X said:
This is not normally really a problem.
It's a result of the "intellecual property" mentality, the culture of letting monopolists believe that the copyright that they are holding are comparable to possessions, and that any usage of those is taking away from them.K12 said:
They probably didn't even consider PR, or profit margins that such a statue could decrease in any meaningful way, or any other effect, just fell back to "Hey, Superman is muh property, you entitled moochers, I'm not letting it be taken away for free by anyone! Culture is a luxory not a necessity!"
What statues we make, and what songs we sing, what novels we write, what murals we paint, what porn we are beating off to, what video games we develop, what tools we manufacture.thaluikhain said:
The basic story is always the same, whichever specific case we are talking about. Copyright/patent law has completely lost it's way as a necessary financial incentivization of non-rivalous values' creation, and got turned into a way to control culture, censor artistic creativity, and the public's self-expression. Then it got merged with trademark (which also lost it's way as an anti-fraud law and turned into pretty much mini-copyright), and they combined into an even more through way of that.
well tecnically superman (with batman and captain america) is so old that it should aready be public ip however large companies have managed to avoid regular ip laws by investing more money than average person could. thats why disney for example still holds rights for mickey the mouse despite it being over 100 year old (and they even went for big lawsuit over it and won)thaluikhain said: