Doctor Who Faces Legal Threat From Son of Tardis Creator

MarsProbe

Circuitboard Seahorse
Dec 13, 2008
2,372
0
0
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that he's timed this to line up with the 50th anniversary of this little known tv show. Nothing funny about that all.
 

Innegativeion

Positively Neutral!
Feb 18, 2011
1,636
0
0
The Lunatic said:
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?
Well, the man apparently couldn't care less for 14 years, and his wife didn't make any fuss about it for another 30-something years.

Even so, as people have said, I find it highly probably that he didn't actually own the intellectual property of the TARDIS in the first place. I mean, how often do you hear of scriptwriters getting royalties? The dude was in all likelihood paid for making the story arc and that would be the end of it.

Lastly, and this is just a personal thing, I would be fucking ASHAMED if my child tried to cash in on my success without doing a lick of work himself, especially if he happened to be holding my creative work hostage to do it!

Thankfully, this guy seems to be holding the TARDIS hostage with a banana instead of a gun, without realizing it... so there's that.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Limos said:
"I would have sued you for infringing on my copyright earlier but I didn't have the copyright."

So what legal grounds do you have for this then? You don't actually have the copyright seeing as they got that thirty years ago. You just sort of assumed you would have it by virtue of your family, even though they probably waved goodbye to any claim they had on it the aforementioned 30 years ago.
If you read the whole thing, he probably wasn't particularly worried about it until the BBC seriously snubbed his father, and by proxy his family, by not even giving him lip service for inventing the most iconic (and consistent) part of the Doctor Who lore.

My guess is it's less about the money and more about pride.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
LazyAza said:
This guys claim is completely stupid. It's a police box, he has no more right to claim copyright on its design than I do if I drew a picture of a type of bus that exists in reality and that particular type of bus became a thing people gave a crap about.

Another greedy idiot abusing copyright and not understanding what it exists for. Certainly not for something like this god.
Can I ask you a question? Did YOU know, as an obvious Doctor Who fanboy, who created the TARDIS? I certainly didn't. Now I do.

I think that's the whole point of this. It says right in the article (which I assume half the people spewing pure hatred towards this guy didn't read top-to-bottom) that he's miffed mostly because his father didn't even get a by-your-leave in the 50th anniversary celebrations, despite creating THE most important aspect of the universe. This is about getting everyone to recognise what the BBC won't. The money, if any, would be a happy side-effect.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Innegativeion said:
Well, the man apparently couldn't care less for 14 years, and his wife didn't make any fuss about it for another 30-something years.

Even so, as people have said, I find it highly probably that he didn't actually own the intellectual property of the TARDIS in the first place. I mean, how often do you hear of scriptwriters getting royalties? The dude was in all likelihood paid for making the story arc and that would be the end of it.

Lastly, and this is just a personal thing, I would be fucking ASHAMED if my child tried to cash in on my success without doing a lick of work himself, especially if he happened to be holding my creative work hostage to do it!

Thankfully, this guy seems to be holding the TARDIS hostage with a banana instead of a gun, without realizing it... so there's that.
Well, you're not him.

Also, if you read the news article, it tells you exactly what happened to the copyright.

Merchandising for the TARDIS wasn't as massive as it is now, however many years ago.

It's a completely different situation.

When the TARDIS was first made, it wasn't being sold across the globe making potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds.

But, yeah, I'm sure the guy's dad didn't want any of that for his son.

While your ideals are very "heartwarming", it's completely unrealistic and nobody would actually think like that.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Wow, what a whiny little ***** this kid is.

Unless the original creator had it written in his contract that he retains all copyright over his work, he has no leg to stand on.
 

theNater

New member
Feb 11, 2011
227
0
0
TheRealCJ said:
I think that's the whole point of this. It says right in the article (which I assume half the people spewing pure hatred towards this guy didn't read top-to-bottom) that he's miffed mostly because his father didn't even get a by-your-leave in the 50th anniversary celebrations, despite creating THE most important aspect of the universe. This is about getting everyone to recognise what the BBC won't. The money, if any, would be a happy side-effect.
It also says in the article that neither parent made major moves to achieve that recognition, which suggests they didn't think it was worth pursuing. We really can't tell what's going on from the article; it could be that the son only wants the recognition and is only asking for money in hopes of using that request as a bargaining chip, or it could be that the son is looking for a quick payday and is using the issue of recognition as a PR tool.
 

theNater

New member
Feb 11, 2011
227
0
0
The Lunatic said:
Merchandising for the TARDIS wasn't as massive as it is now, however many years ago.

It's a completely different situation.

When the TARDIS was first made, it wasn't being sold across the globe making potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I'm pretty sure that when the BBC copyrighted it in the 80's, it was making some noticeable bank. And it didn't just now start raking in worldwide revenue; that's been going on for at least 5 years. The change in situation seems to me to be more related to the change in control of the Coburn family affairs, rather than anything to do with the TARDIS.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
008Zulu said:
Wow, what a whiny little ***** this kid is.

Unless the original creator had it written in his contract that he retains all copyright over his work, he has no leg to stand on.
He did, which is how it went to his wife, and then his son.

theNater said:
I'm pretty sure that when the BBC copyrighted it in the 80's, it was making some noticeable bank. And it didn't just now start raking in worldwide revenue; that's been going on for at least 5 years. The change in situation seems to me to be more related to the change in control of the Coburn family affairs, rather than anything to do with the TARDIS.
Definitely not as much as it is now.

Also, the BBC doesn't own the copyright.

This guy owns the copyright, his father allowed the BBC to use it, apparently.

However, that doesn't change he owns the copyright. He's within his rights to change things, it's his property now.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
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.
It varies by the nation but the fundamental problem is that, in general, a copyright only holds so long as it is defended. Basically, if someone else copyrights something and you fail to contest it, you lose it. This is the fundamental reason why you see companies zealously protect their copyrights even when it seems shortsighted - see, for example, the Zenimax/Mojang kerfuffle over "Scrolls".
 

Charli

New member
Nov 23, 2008
3,445
0
0
He's about 40 years too late to claim this copyright now. This 'legal battle' will be over before it starts.

Not to mention he comes off like a smarmy git.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
theNater said:
TheRealCJ said:
I think that's the whole point of this. It says right in the article (which I assume half the people spewing pure hatred towards this guy didn't read top-to-bottom) that he's miffed mostly because his father didn't even get a by-your-leave in the 50th anniversary celebrations, despite creating THE most important aspect of the universe. This is about getting everyone to recognise what the BBC won't. The money, if any, would be a happy side-effect.
It also says in the article that neither parent made major moves to achieve that recognition, which suggests they didn't think it was worth pursuing. We really can't tell what's going on from the article; it could be that the son only wants the recognition and is only asking for money in hopes of using that request as a bargaining chip, or it could be that the son is looking for a quick payday and is using the issue of recognition as a PR tool.
Doctor Who wasn't nearly as big as it was when Mr. Coburn gained what he thinks is his copyright. And I'm aware it's been big now for the better part of a decade, but I find it rather enlightening that he chooses this time to try to sue the BBC. On the cusp of the 50th anniversary, AND after his father was so painfully snubbed. He's not a young man, after all. He was 6 when his father wrote the first Doctor Who script, which means he's well into his fifties himself. I doubt he's hurting for money.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
008Zulu said:
The Lunatic said:
Also, the BBC doesn't own the copyright.
Except they do, they filed in the 80's as the article states. Besides, his relative was paid for his work.
Registered is not the same as owning.

Also, doesn't state if its the trademark or copyright in the article.
 

snekadid

Lord of the Salt
Mar 29, 2012
711
0
0
The Lunatic said:
008Zulu said:
The Lunatic said:
Also, the BBC doesn't own the copyright.
Except they do, they filed in the 80's as the article states. Besides, his relative was paid for his work.
Registered is not the same as owning.

Also, doesn't state if its the trademark or copyright in the article.
It is the same thing if it goes undisputed, that's why Nintendo does cease and desist on EVERYTHING anyone does involving their IPs because they understand how dangerous not disputing copyrights can be.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
The Lunatic said:
Registered is not the same as owning.

Also, doesn't state if its the trademark or copyright in the article.
Even back then the BBC had lawyers, they wouldn't have made a grievous oversight such as this.
 

putowtin

I'd like to purchase an alcohol!
Jul 7, 2010
3,452
0
0
Psychobabble said:
Not to take the piss, well actually yeah I am, but since the Tardis looks exactly like a blue Police box, shouldn't whomever designed the actual real life blue Police boxes be suing the BBC and this twonks father's estate for ripping off HIS ideas? After all Tony Coburn didn't invent the police box, he just stole the visual design and made it into this "magical" time traveling whatsit.
Just what I was going to say, for those interested the Blue Police Box was invented by Gilbert MacKenzie Trench in 1929, but the BBC hold the trademark for the TARDIS
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,953
6
13
And the best part is not even half of that money will be used on powerful BBC lawyers that are all buzzed up from the high profile sexual abuse allegations from well over 4 decades, to just crush this claim like pitiful one-winged fly that somehow managed to crawl in through the window of opportunity to whiff a sniff of that money pie dream.

Anyhow, i'd like to sue the BBC for taking my money to pay for all the shit i don't ever actually watch (or listen to), just because i need to own a tv to play my consoles on...AND paying for it a year in advance! Twatting twatfaces!
 

Eggsnham

New member
Apr 29, 2009
4,054
0
0
Wow, what a dick...

Rule number one of blatantly trying to profit off of your parents' work: At least try to look like you give a shit about the legacy behind it.
 

dantoddd

New member
Sep 18, 2009
272
0
0
theNater said:
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?
if his father was 1/12th the owner of the original stand, then he owns 1/12th the business. that's a fairly clear cut matter. there is nothing controversial about it. if i start a business as with a friend as a partner and he slacks off while the company thrives, he still gets paid.