Doctor Who Faces Legal Threat From Son of Tardis Creator

Vareoth

New member
Mar 14, 2012
254
0
0
His dad must be so proud of his money-grubbing son...

Mick Beard said:
i hope he wins and gets the money. its not like the BBC cant afford it anyway. they should just buy him out... or get rid of the silly kids show.. I am sick of the scarf wearing pansy being on my tv
I disagree with you, you silly man, and I will kindly ask you to remove yourself from the premises.
 

dantoddd

New member
Sep 18, 2009
272
0
0
Copyright are property which belonged to the creator and passed one to his/her successors. If this was about a piece of real estate or a business, i bet none of you would be up in arms against this. IMO, there is nothing douchy about this. Its not like BBC can't afford to pay the kid.
 

Frankster

Space Ace
Mar 13, 2009
2,507
0
0
The cheek of that fella :/

At least he isn't giving any bs about being a doctor who fan and admits it's purely for the money.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
dantoddd said:
Copyright are property which belonged to the creator and passed one to his/her successors.
No, copyrights are a government-granted monopoly over the market of a piece of information, given to specific artists with the intent of incentivizing creative industries to a certain extent.

That the copyright lobby likes to refer to said monopolistic regulations as an "intellectual property", is just an informal, unprofessional figure of speech, an analogy, and has no more legal relevance to property ownership laws, than the phrase "job hunting" has to hunting regulations or "character assassination" has to laws against assassinations.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
So wait, let me get this straight...

The writer for the first doctor who story's son wants money for... what?

I'm assuming that this writer fellow got paid back in his days for his services. This looks like silly lawsuit with no foundation in reality
 

Flunk

New member
Feb 17, 2008
915
0
0
This is one of the reasons I disagree with the idea of inherited copyright. His father (supposedly) created the idea, why does this guy have any right to anything? Copyright should enter the public domain after the creator's death.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
If there was a dick of the year award, he would be going for it. I don't like Doctor Who at all, but I understand the dickness of someone coming in and literally trying to ruin everyone else's fun. I hope he fails in this endeavor, and fails hard.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Yeah, pretty sure this guy is going to lose this suit hard. I'm pretty sure when you write something into a tv show, you're giving the show permission to use it.
 

DocMcCray

New member
Oct 14, 2010
179
0
0
The Lunatic said:
Pretty reasonable to pay a guy for being part of the creation of such a memorable and profitable icon.


Dunno if he's in the right legally, but, morally, he's due something.
He had no part in its creation. He was a family member of the guy who created it. That's all.

He is not due anything. Morally, ethically, financially.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Apparently a lot of people couldn't figure out who I was talking about.


Anyway.

I'm pretty sure, if the guy who made the Tardis could see how much money it's making now, he would want a slice of that.

So what if it goes to his kid? Are you telling me a father wouldn't want financial security for his child?
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Flunk said:
Copyright should enter the public domain after the creator's death.
Preferably a lot sooner than that.

Copyright is inherently a limit on the freedom of expression.

It's a useful one, that modern society needs to function, just as our property rights are limited by taxes, but just like taxes, it should be applied as little as it is absolutely necessary, instead of just coddling artists all the way, the priority should be on a practical, balanced economical benefit.

When movies are bringing in most of their rvenues in the first weeks, and the rest of in the first year, it's ridculous to let publishers hold IP for several decades, especially given that the kind of IPs that still stay relevant after decades are the biggest ones that already made their creators rich long ago anyways, and that have the most urgent need to be liberalized for public usage.
 

Alpha Maeko

Uh oh, better get Maeko!
Apr 14, 2010
573
0
0
I'm extremely biased towards Dr. Who, so I hope he loses this legal battle.

But even if he -did- deserve the money for some reason...

Isn't it funny how he only wants to claim his rights to it once Dr. Who is really, really close to being done and over with? When all the money it's worth is starting to finalize?
 

Draconalis

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
Everyone else seems to think he wants money, what I read is that he wants to hurt bbc for writing his father out of Dr. who history.
 

Alorxico

New member
Jan 5, 2011
193
0
0
So ... let me see if I got this straight. Mr. Colburn is hired by the BBC to help create a new TV show that will eventually become the BBC. He is one of several men who come up with the now iconic elements of the show, claiming sole creation of the Tardis. He helps write TWO scripts for the show, one of which is never filmed and eventually rejected and upon its rejection he quits.

I don't know how television contracts worked in the 70s, but I know in EVERY other field of employment part of your contract reads "Any idea, method or practice you develop while working for us becomes ours IF it was developed on company time and you have no rights to it after leaving."

You know ... I just had a great idea! The writers of Dr. Who should create an episode where the SON of the creator of the Tardis tries to steal the Tardis from the Doctor to use it for his own desires and the Doctor destroys it so neither of them can have it. Then, when the companion of the day asks how they are going to get back to her time, the Doctor snaps his fingers and a new Tardis, maybe shaped like one of those red telephone boxes you see all over London, appears and he says "Oh, we'll just use the spare. Not as pretty as the original, but damn good gas mileage."
 

Broken Blade

New member
Nov 29, 2007
348
0
0
Psychobabble said:
Peter Cushing Dr. Who movies!!?? *sticks fingers in ears* THEY DO NOT EXIST!!! Lalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!
The night was dark and clear. Above, the new moon left the sky almost black, and the radiant stars shown down on the forest below. The nighttime air makes every noise seem so much worse, ever crack of a twig or shifting of leaves some new creature on the prowl. Deep in the woods, a group of Whovians are on a camping trip. Their large tent is TARDIS blue, and for some strange reason they're all dressed similarly to Companions. They sit around the fire, toasting fish fingers to dip into their custard, and they're engaging in the tradition of campers everywhere: ghost stories. Being Whovians, they do it a bit differently: taking turns, they try to remind their companions of the scariest Doctor Who monsters who could be out in the woods tonight. Weeping Angels, Macra, Silurians, the Vashta Narada? all are gone through. Until finally, the last one looks at them over the light of the dwindling fire, and grins.
"It's the human Dr. Who, chasing around rainbow-colored Daleks?"
And suddenly, out in the darkness, they hear a sound that could almost be Peter Cushing shouting?

FalloutJack said:
Also, I love how apparently either Coburn or this article's writer don't know how it's spelled. TARDIS, not Tardis. Tardis is from the Cushing Dr. Who movies. Yes, I'm a dork.
Sir, I'd offer you a jellybaby, but I have not perfected the E-Fist program just yet. That was hilarious.[/quote]
Well, what if I reversed the polarity of the neutron flow, and then used my Timey-Wimey Detector to locate the best moment to perfect the E-Fist program?

Rawbeard said:
I am the ancestor of the guy who invented the wheel. Money, please.
That is quite an impressive achievement, sir. You're either the oldest man alive, or you have a time machine. Possibly both, if you're Rory Williams.
 

Crimsonmonkeywar

New member
Oct 27, 2013
120
0
0
I have a lot of problems with copyright scummers, but not this one. If it holds weight, give his family their due. You can afford the time a money. If it falls flat, deny it. Either way in this particular case, I have no bias
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Not a fan of Doctor Who myself, but at the same time this fucker is going about setting a horrible precedent... and I don't think he'll get dick. Isn't he essentially after retroactive compensation for something that was agreed upon being fine to use at the time?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but you can't "change" a contract that existed just because the person who was in charge of that contract that you just inherited passed away. I don't get a refund on all my grandfather's purchases because I didn't approve of him spending that money.
 

Baldr

The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
1,739
0
0
The UK needs better contract law and statute of limitations on Copyright Infringement claims, this wouldn't be the case if it was in the United States.
 

snekadid

Lord of the Salt
Mar 29, 2012
711
0
0
Drizzitdude said:
To be honest, I would be pissed if my dad invented something someone else used and they never mentioned him too. Considering the TARDIS is such a huge part of the universe you would think they could at least mention the guy who invented it.
Except he isn't suing them to make them give proper credit. He is using that as a poor smokescreen for greed. I would fully support a lawsuit to make the BBC actively acknowledge the TARDIS's creator, being the pro-littleguy type person I am.

However, he is a selfish prick. His father liked/loved the show, designed the TARDIS for it and now his kid wants to piss on his fathers legacy for a quick buck. I can't think of a worse insult to a parents legacy outside of the Dune series.
 

theNater

New member
Feb 11, 2011
227
1
0
dantoddd said:
Copyright are property which belonged to the creator and passed one to his/her successors. If this was about a piece of real estate or a business, i bet none of you would be up in arms against this. IMO, there is nothing douchy about this. Its not like BBC can't afford to pay the kid.
Let's consider a business: specifically, a lemonade stand.

A dozen neighborhood kids put together a lemonade stand. Unlike most lemonade stands, this one endures; it stays open for several years. As time passes, some of the kids move away, some quit, and others join in. At all times, profits are shared in a manner the kids agree is equitable. After the lemonade stand has been in continuous operation for 20 years, one of the original kids(now 30 years old) goes through the formal process of turning the lemonade stand into a legally-recognized business, which then franchises and goes international. This new business goes on through another 30 years of operation, including a massive world-wide popularity spike about 25 years in.

At this point, a young man comes forth. His father was one of the original kids who built the lemonade stand, but had to move away after its first year. This young man sues for 1/12 of the money the lemonade stand has brought in over the past 50 years, because his father was 1/12 owner of the original lemonade stand. When asked why he's only bringing this up now, he explains that his father, who would have been responsible for making this claim while alive, passed away 10 years ago, and that his mother, who would have inherited that responsibility, passed away just recently, leaving the responsibility to him.

How would you feel about that claim, now that it's about a business?