Judge Trims Batman Parody Porno Copyright Case to Single Defendant

[Logan Westbrook]

Judge Trims Batman Parody Porno Copyright Case to Single Defendant

Alleged pirates didn't act in concert, rules judge, so lumping them together makes no sense.

A West Virginian judge has pruned all but one defendant from a batch of more than 7,000 subpoenas for John Does who had allegedly downloaded Axel Braun's Batman XXX: A Porn Parody.

West Virginia United States District Court Judge John Preston Bailey said that the case had been improperly joined - an error known as "misjoinder [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misjoinder]" - or in other words, there was no reason to lump all of the defendants together. Preston Bailey said that there was nothing to suggest that the defendants had acted together, and would undeniably have different defenses.

The Adult Copyright Company filed the suit against the 7,098 John Does at the end of October. At the time, Braun remarked [http://www.xbiz.com/news/128899] that he had no problems taking legal action against anyone who pirated his movies, and that pirates didn't seem to realize just how many people they were hurting. He was especially interested in pursuing those who had pirated Batman XXX however, as it was a movie that he had financed himself.

If Braun wants to re-file against the remaining 7,097 John Does, he's able to do so, but it will cost $350 per case, or a cool $2.4 million for the lot. Braun can only sue those John Does who are actually located in West Virginia though, which should bring the number down a little.

This is a slightly different situation to the recent case in Washington DC where a judge dismissed [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105947-Judge-Dismisses-86-Percent-of-U-S-Copyright-Group-Lawsuits] over 5,000 defendants who had been accused of downloading the Far Cry movie, as that was based on jurisdictional issues. It does seem however, that there is growing hostility from judges over scattershot copyright suits. You can't blame media creators for wanting to defend their copyrights, but they might have to change tactics in the future if they want to have any success.

Source: Ars Technica [http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/12/only-one-of-over-7000-batman-xxx-p2p-defendants-remains.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss]


Permalink

 

[RvLeshrac]

My question: Since they've blatantly ripped every single aspect of the original Batman television series, from sound effects to costumes, and since they're using likenesses of the Batman characters which appear to be far too close for parody...

And given that they've obviously created it with a profit motive in mind...

How can they, with straight faces, sue anyone for "copyright infringement"?

 

[Therumancer]

My question: Since they've blatantly ripped every single aspect of the original Batman television series, from sound effects to costumes, and since they're using likenesses of the Batman characters which appear to be far too close for parody...

And given that they've obviously created it with a profit motive in mind...

How can they, with straight faces, sue anyone for "copyright infringement"?

I believe The Escapist covered this movie before when it was being made, and they actually have permission to use the liscence, and also actually had the assistance of some of the costume creators from the original Batman series they were spoofing. As a result they aren't infringing copyrights.

That said, parody is a protected form of expression that has it's own set of rules. Even if I'm remembering the above incorrectly, someone can't sue you for using their IP in a paorody or satire based on it. Various artists tried to sue Wierd Al Yankovic over the years and have consistantly failed for that reason. Defamation of character, duplicating the music itself, using the same or similar costumes and choreography, he survived every case brought against him if I recall.

I am not an expert on this kind of law, but I do believe you could make a porno of just about anything and if you defined it as a parody, there isn't much the liscence holders can actually do about it. You don't see it very often, but I very much doubt that guys doing movies like "Sailor and the seven ballz" or "Star Ballz" back in the day paid for, or had creator permission to use all the characters present that they used, especially in that context. I also very much doubt that George Lucas had gotten a cut from a lot of the low budget mockeries of Star Wars over the years, though at the same time I'd imagine a few of them did buy the liscences first to be on the safe side.

 

[RvLeshrac]

My question: Since they've blatantly ripped every single aspect of the original Batman television series, from sound effects to costumes, and since they're using likenesses of the Batman characters which appear to be far too close for parody...

And given that they've obviously created it with a profit motive in mind...

How can they, with straight faces, sue anyone for "copyright infringement"?

I believe The Escapist covered this movie before when it was being made, and they actually have permission to use the liscence, and also actually had the assistance of some of the costume creators from the original Batman series they were spoofing. As a result they aren't infringing copyrights.

That said, parody is a protected form of expression that has it's own set of rules. Even if I'm remembering the above incorrectly, someone can't sue you for using their IP in a paorody or satire based on it. Various artists tried to sue Wierd Al Yankovic over the years and have consistantly failed for that reason. Defamation of character, duplicating the music itself, using the same or similar costumes and choreography, he survived every case brought against him if I recall.

I am not an expert on this kind of law, but I do believe you could make a porno of just about anything and if you defined it as a parody, there isn't much the liscence holders can actually do about it. You don't see it very often, but I very much doubt that guys doing movies like "Sailor and the seven ballz" or "Star Ballz" back in the day paid for, or had creator permission to use all the characters present that they used, especially in that context. I also very much doubt that George Lucas had gotten a cut from a lot of the low budget mockeries of Star Wars over the years, though at the same time I'd imagine a few of them did buy the liscences first to be on the safe side.

No, they don't have any of the related licensing. The best I can find is that they may be banking on the original series rights being legally cloudy.

And no, you can't produce porn of a series using the characters' names and still call it "parody." Star Whores altered names, etc.

The ecchi to which you refer is a complete violation of copyright, which the makers didn't really care about, being located in a country that neither extradited nor prosecuted for copyright violations.

George Lucas has also sued most of the "low-budget mockeries," and come out ahead. There's a reason the Family Guy Trilogy repeatedly makes "don't sue us" jokes.

*edit*

And no, you cannot produce a parody which dilutes the value of the original copyright. While no one is going to confuse "White & Nerdy" with "Ridin," it isn't out of the question that someone might see a clip of "Batman XXX" and confuse it with the original.

 

[Therumancer]

On this case itself I see this as a good thing. I see the potential for corperate tyranny through mass lawsuits to be a far greater evil than the piracy itself (not that it's right). Especially seeing as I have a lot of issues with the way how the laws governing intellecual properties currently work, even within the US.

Don't get me wrong, the case with THIS movie seems pretty straightforward in how it's presented. However given that a lot of media holders are trying to force the issue of basically renting liscences, as opposed to consumers actually owning anything, I have an increasingly serious problem here. I am one of those people who believes you own what you
pay for. It's beyond the context of this paticular situation, but it does seem that the industry is doing a lot of angling towards getting people to pay for things multiple times. Corruption and greed within the media industry making me lose a lot of respect for what should be a straightforward situation, media producers in general not so much looking to protect their own work, but find ways to use those rulings to actively make more money.

Mass sueing allows for copyright trolling, and campaigns of intimidation to be waged against people who might not have actually done anything wrong (or shouldn't have been considered to have done so IMO).

An example of this is if you buy a movie legitimatly, but then say want to copy your VHS copy onto a DVD. Or perhaps you own a movie, but want to watch it on your computer, so you download it off of a "pirate" site, there is no way to tell if the person owns that movie or not. A lot of companies ARE giving digital copies of movies with new copies purchused today, but at the same time a lot of movies were purchused a long time ago before that existed, and might not even have included prohibations against this kind of thing.

Now, the media industry makes the arguement today that the consumer should have to re-purchuse every IP they own, for every new tech format. An upgrade in format being a money bonanza for them to re-sell the same IPs to the same basic market. On the other hand being able to upgrade your media on your own has been an issue that has been thrown around in courts for a long time, with various machines designed to transfer music or movies to new formats being a product for a long time. There has however been more legal pressure on this kind of thing than ever before though, and truthfully I do not think the industry should have the legal right to prevent this. I believe once they sell a movie, music, book, or whatever the person who paid for it should have the right to it, period. The same defenses of it as an "idea" or intellecual property should apply to them owning that material irregardless of format.

In the end I do think the producers should get paid for their work, there is no doubt about that. However big business ruins even the most straightforward principles, by extending everything in the most ridiculous directions. I might have more sympathy for mass suits of this sort if they wouldn't be abused so heavily, or used to propell what should be a common sense set of laws into some ridiculous places.

 

[JDKJ]

My question: Since they've blatantly ripped every single aspect of the original Batman television series, from sound effects to costumes, and since they're using likenesses of the Batman characters which appear to be far too close for parody...

And given that they've obviously created it with a profit motive in mind...

How can they, with straight faces, sue anyone for "copyright infringement"?

I believe The Escapist covered this movie before when it was being made, and they actually have permission to use the liscence, and also actually had the assistance of some of the costume creators from the original Batman series they were spoofing. As a result they aren't infringing copyrights.

That said, parody is a protected form of expression that has it's own set of rules. Even if I'm remembering the above incorrectly, someone can't sue you for using their IP in a paorody or satire based on it. Various artists tried to sue Wierd Al Yankovic over the years and have consistantly failed for that reason. Defamation of character, duplicating the music itself, using the same or similar costumes and choreography, he survived every case brought against him if I recall.

I am not an expert on this kind of law, but I do believe you could make a porno of just about anything and if you defined it as a parody, there isn't much the liscence holders can actually do about it. You don't see it very often, but I very much doubt that guys doing movies like "Sailor and the seven ballz" or "Star Ballz" back in the day paid for, or had creator permission to use all the characters present that they used, especially in that context. I also very much doubt that George Lucas had gotten a cut from a lot of the low budget mockeries of Star Wars over the years, though at the same time I'd imagine a few of them did buy the liscences first to be on the safe side.

You've got to do just a little bit more than self-define your work as a parody or a satire to fall within the fair use doctrine's exception to copyright infringement. Each case must be examined on its own merits to determine if it is indeed a fair use. And not all cases pass the test. A fair use defense doesn't justify those who are too lazy or lacking in creative imagination to add anything significantly transformative to the original work and, instead, merely mimic its content and substance. That's not a fair use. That's just a rip-off. There's a very thin line between the two.

 

[Littaly]

There is no way in hell this wasn't planned all along.

Think about it. If there was one type of porn that ever made you go "woah, I have to see that", that would be a '60s Batman themed porno. At the same time, if there is one movie you would never ever want to pay money for, it's a '60s Batman themed porno. And why is that? Because you really, really, really don't want to get caught watching it.

So someone made a Batman porno and is now trying to expose everyone who ever watched it. It's like The Candid Camera on crack.

 

[Saltyk]

My question: Since they've blatantly ripped every single aspect of the original Batman television series, from sound effects to costumes, and since they're using likenesses of the Batman characters which appear to be far too close for parody...

And given that they've obviously created it with a profit motive in mind...

How can they, with straight faces, sue anyone for "copyright infringement"?

I believe The Escapist covered this movie before when it was being made, and they actually have permission to use the liscence, and also actually had the assistance of some of the costume creators from the original Batman series they were spoofing. As a result they aren't infringing copyrights.

That said, parody is a protected form of expression that has it's own set of rules. Even if I'm remembering the above incorrectly, someone can't sue you for using their IP in a paorody or satire based on it. Various artists tried to sue Wierd Al Yankovic over the years and have consistantly failed for that reason. Defamation of character, duplicating the music itself, using the same or similar costumes and choreography, he survived every case brought against him if I recall.

I am not an expert on this kind of law, but I do believe you could make a porno of just about anything and if you defined it as a parody, there isn't much the liscence holders can actually do about it. You don't see it very often, but I very much doubt that guys doing movies like "Sailor and the seven ballz" or "Star Ballz" back in the day paid for, or had creator permission to use all the characters present that they used, especially in that context. I also very much doubt that George Lucas had gotten a cut from a lot of the low budget mockeries of Star Wars over the years, though at the same time I'd imagine a few of them did buy the liscences first to be on the safe side.

No, they don't have any of the related licensing. The best I can find is that they may be banking on the original series rights being legally cloudy.

And no, you can't produce porn of a series using the characters' names and still call it "parody." Star Whores altered names, etc.

The ecchi to which you refer is a complete violation of copyright, which the makers didn't really care about, being located in a country that neither extradited nor prosecuted for copyright violations.

George Lucas has also sued most of the "low-budget mockeries," and come out ahead. There's a reason the Family Guy Trilogy repeatedly makes "don't sue us" jokes.

*edit*

And no, you cannot produce a parody which dilutes the value of the original copyright. While no one is going to confuse "White & Nerdy" with "Ridin," it isn't out of the question that someone might see a clip of "Batman XXX" and confuse it with the original.

Well, as someone pointed out Weird Al has been sued and won multiple times because his songs were parodies. In fact, I believe his cases basically created that exception in copyright laws. These days, I think Weird Al usually asks the artist's permission which is more or less a formality. And most artists see a Weird Al parody as an honor these days. I heard that Kurt Cobain liked Weird Al's parody of Smells Like Teen Spirit, or at least thought it was funny.

I also think your mention of the Family Guy Trilogy is misplaced. I'm pretty sure they have permission to use the Star Wars name. Just like Robot Chicken. George Lucas has become much more relaxed in recent years. I think he realizes that these are done as works of love.

Though, you are correct that when they make parodies without permission, they always change the names and the story to a large extent. Look at Superhero Movie, it's heavily based on Spider Man, but changes large aspects of the characters and movie.

OT: Is that picture from the movie? I find it hard to believe that DC is okay with a porno parody of Batman. Even one based off a campy TV series.

 

[DTWolfwood]

good to know they arent letting them sue groups of ppl at a time! though at the same time i guess pirates can see this as a time to rejoice :S

 

[Dr. wonderful]

I actually saw that, It was funny as hell...except for that Joker scene....

 

[JDKJ]

My question: Since they've blatantly ripped every single aspect of the original Batman television series, from sound effects to costumes, and since they're using likenesses of the Batman characters which appear to be far too close for parody...

And given that they've obviously created it with a profit motive in mind...

How can they, with straight faces, sue anyone for "copyright infringement"?

I believe The Escapist covered this movie before when it was being made, and they actually have permission to use the liscence, and also actually had the assistance of some of the costume creators from the original Batman series they were spoofing. As a result they aren't infringing copyrights.

That said, parody is a protected form of expression that has it's own set of rules. Even if I'm remembering the above incorrectly, someone can't sue you for using their IP in a paorody or satire based on it. Various artists tried to sue Wierd Al Yankovic over the years and have consistantly failed for that reason. Defamation of character, duplicating the music itself, using the same or similar costumes and choreography, he survived every case brought against him if I recall.

I am not an expert on this kind of law, but I do believe you could make a porno of just about anything and if you defined it as a parody, there isn't much the liscence holders can actually do about it. You don't see it very often, but I very much doubt that guys doing movies like "Sailor and the seven ballz" or "Star Ballz" back in the day paid for, or had creator permission to use all the characters present that they used, especially in that context. I also very much doubt that George Lucas had gotten a cut from a lot of the low budget mockeries of Star Wars over the years, though at the same time I'd imagine a few of them did buy the liscences first to be on the safe side.

No, they don't have any of the related licensing. The best I can find is that they may be banking on the original series rights being legally cloudy.

And no, you can't produce porn of a series using the characters' names and still call it "parody." Star Whores altered names, etc.

The ecchi to which you refer is a complete violation of copyright, which the makers didn't really care about, being located in a country that neither extradited nor prosecuted for copyright violations.

George Lucas has also sued most of the "low-budget mockeries," and come out ahead. There's a reason the Family Guy Trilogy repeatedly makes "don't sue us" jokes.

*edit*

And no, you cannot produce a parody which dilutes the value of the original copyright. While no one is going to confuse "White & Nerdy" with "Ridin," it isn't out of the question that someone might see a clip of "Batman XXX" and confuse it with the original.

Well, as someone pointed out Weird Al has been sued and won multiple times because his songs were parodies. In fact, I believe his cases basically created that exception in copyright laws. These days, I think Weird Al usually asks the artist's permission which is more or less a formality. And most artists see a Weird Al parody as an honor these days. I heard that Kurt Cobain liked Weird Al's parody of Smells Like Teen Spirit, or at least thought it was funny.

I also think your mention of the Family Guy Trilogy is misplaced. I'm pretty sure they have permission to use the Star Wars name. Just like Robot Chicken. George Lucas has become much more relaxed in recent years. I think he realizes that these are done as works of love.

Though, you are correct that when they make parodies without permission, they always change the names and the story to a large extent. Look at Superhero Movie, it's heavily based on Spider Man, but changes large aspects of the characters and movie.

OT: Is that picture from the movie? I find it hard to believe that DC is okay with a porno parody of Batman. Even one based off a campy TV series.

Weird Al didn't establish any seminal legal precedents with his parodies. The first case in which the Supreme Court recognized parody/satire as protected speech and not defamatory or otherwise injurious was the 1980s case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell (an advertisement parody that portrayed Falwell as having had a drunken sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse). The first case in which the Supreme Court recognized parody/satire as a fair use and not an infringement of copyright was the 1994 case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (a 2 Live Crew's use of Roy Oribson's ?Oh Pretty Woman? as a parody).

 

[tehroc]

I've only seen one scene but it was easily the most epic porn ever made.

 

[Ghengis John]

Riddle me this Batman: Why so many cocks?

 

[RvLeshrac]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Well, as someone pointed out Weird Al has been sued and won multiple times because his songs were parodies. In fact, I believe his cases basically created that exception in copyright laws. These days, I think Weird Al usually asks the artist's permission which is more or less a formality. And most artists see a Weird Al parody as an honor these days. I heard that Kurt Cobain liked Weird Al's parody of Smells Like Teen Spirit, or at least thought it was funny.

I also think your mention of the Family Guy Trilogy is misplaced. I'm pretty sure they have permission to use the Star Wars name. Just like Robot Chicken. George Lucas has become much more relaxed in recent years. I think he realizes that these are done as works of love.

Though, you are correct that when they make parodies without permission, they always change the names and the story to a large extent. Look at Superhero Movie, it's heavily based on Spider Man, but changes large aspects of the characters and movie.

OT: Is that picture from the movie? I find it hard to believe that DC is okay with a porno parody of Batman. Even one based off a campy TV series.

Weird Al didn't establish any seminal legal precedents with his parodies. The first case in which the Supreme Court recognized parody/satire as protected speech and not defamatory or otherwise injurious was the 1980s case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell (an advertisement parody that portrayed Falwell as having had a drunken sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse). The first case in which the Supreme Court recognized parody/satire as a fair use and not an infringement of copyright was the 1994 case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (a 2 Live Crew's use of Roy Oribson's ?Oh Pretty Woman? as a parody).

Yes, the image is from the set.

It should be noted that Flynt's defence of the Falwell parody was based on it being obviously a parody. No one was going to mistake the "ad" as a legitimate endorsement of the product by Falwell, not were they going to recognise it as being anything other than Hustler taking the piss out of Falwell.

In the case of 2 Live Crew, again you have a situation where no one is going to mistake a 2 Live Crew track for Roy Orbison.

Same goes for every Weird Al case. No one is going to mistake a Weird Al recording for the original artist.

 

[JDKJ]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Well, as someone pointed out Weird Al has been sued and won multiple times because his songs were parodies. In fact, I believe his cases basically created that exception in copyright laws. These days, I think Weird Al usually asks the artist's permission which is more or less a formality. And most artists see a Weird Al parody as an honor these days. I heard that Kurt Cobain liked Weird Al's parody of Smells Like Teen Spirit, or at least thought it was funny.

I also think your mention of the Family Guy Trilogy is misplaced. I'm pretty sure they have permission to use the Star Wars name. Just like Robot Chicken. George Lucas has become much more relaxed in recent years. I think he realizes that these are done as works of love.

Though, you are correct that when they make parodies without permission, they always change the names and the story to a large extent. Look at Superhero Movie, it's heavily based on Spider Man, but changes large aspects of the characters and movie.

OT: Is that picture from the movie? I find it hard to believe that DC is okay with a porno parody of Batman. Even one based off a campy TV series.

Weird Al didn't establish any seminal legal precedents with his parodies. The first case in which the Supreme Court recognized parody/satire as protected speech and not defamatory or otherwise injurious was the 1980s case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell (an advertisement parody that portrayed Falwell as having had a drunken sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse). The first case in which the Supreme Court recognized parody/satire as a fair use and not an infringement of copyright was the 1994 case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (a 2 Live Crew's use of Roy Oribson's ?Oh Pretty Woman? as a parody).

Yes, the image is from the set.

It should be noted that Flynt's defence of the Falwell parody was based on it being obviously a parody. No one was going to mistake the "ad" as a legitimate endorsement of the product by Falwell, not were they going to recognise it as being anything other than Hustler taking the piss out of Falwell.

In the case of 2 Live Crew, again you have a situation where no one is going to mistake a 2 Live Crew track for Roy Orbison.

Same goes for every Weird Al case. No one is going to mistake a Weird Al recording for the original artist.

It's not so much a matter of "confusion" (that's a concept which more properly belongs to the analysis required by a case of trademark, not copyright, infringement). The touchstone of the fair use analysis required by a case of copyright infringement is whether or not the secondary use -- be it satire, parody, or whatever -- is sufficiently "transformative" of the original work (i.e., in some creative way adds a new value of some sort).

For example, if I create a video of myself signing Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" and publish that video, no one's gonna "confuse" my video with the original work (I don't look or sound anything like Rick Astley). But that doesn't mean it's a fair use. If I wanna claim fair use, I've gotta do something more than merely mimic Rick Astley's signing that song -- despite the fact that no one's gonna confuse my mimicry with what I'm mimicking. I would need to mimic Rick Astley and "Never Gonna Give You Up" in, for example, a manner which deliberately makes a mockery of both for the purpose of humorous entertainment, and then I can claim parody and a non-infringing fair use.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Is it wrong that I want to see this?

Also on the topic of parody/fair use of batman in the making of this movie. Isn't the fact that Batman never fucked Batgirl or Catwoman enough of a change of the concept to a parody?

Regardless it is obvious that DC either doesn't care (unlikely) or doesn't think it can win. This isn't the first time this particular porn parody has been in the news.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

My question: Since they've blatantly ripped every single aspect of the original Batman television series, from sound effects to costumes, and since they're using likenesses of the Batman characters which appear to be far too close for parody...

And given that they've obviously created it with a profit motive in mind...

How can they, with straight faces, sue anyone for "copyright infringement"?

I believe The Escapist covered this movie before when it was being made, and they actually have permission to use the liscence, and also actually had the assistance of some of the costume creators from the original Batman series they were spoofing. As a result they aren't infringing copyrights.

That said, parody is a protected form of expression that has it's own set of rules. Even if I'm remembering the above incorrectly, someone can't sue you for using their IP in a paorody or satire based on it. Various artists tried to sue Wierd Al Yankovic over the years and have consistantly failed for that reason. Defamation of character, duplicating the music itself, using the same or similar costumes and choreography, he survived every case brought against him if I recall.

I am not an expert on this kind of law, but I do believe you could make a porno of just about anything and if you defined it as a parody, there isn't much the liscence holders can actually do about it. You don't see it very often, but I very much doubt that guys doing movies like "Sailor and the seven ballz" or "Star Ballz" back in the day paid for, or had creator permission to use all the characters present that they used, especially in that context. I also very much doubt that George Lucas had gotten a cut from a lot of the low budget mockeries of Star Wars over the years, though at the same time I'd imagine a few of them did buy the liscences first to be on the safe side.

No, they don't have any of the related licensing. The best I can find is that they may be banking on the original series rights being legally cloudy.

And no, you can't produce porn of a series using the characters' names and still call it "parody." Star Whores altered names, etc.

The ecchi to which you refer is a complete violation of copyright, which the makers didn't really care about, being located in a country that neither extradited nor prosecuted for copyright violations.

George Lucas has also sued most of the "low-budget mockeries," and come out ahead. There's a reason the Family Guy Trilogy repeatedly makes "don't sue us" jokes.

*edit*

And no, you cannot produce a parody which dilutes the value of the original copyright. While no one is going to confuse "White & Nerdy" with "Ridin," it isn't out of the question that someone might see a clip of "Batman XXX" and confuse it with the original.

I think they'll be able to tell the difference when Batman pulls out his, *ahem* Batarang

 

[permacrete]

This appeals to my sense of irony. The fact that this case is in the news will bring the existence of this movie to thousands of people (myself included) who would never otherwise have known that there was a Batman porno parody. Of those people, I have to wonder how many will immediately go off looking for the pirated download. I'm certain some will ultimately purchase the product legitimately, too, but it is still pretty damn funny.

 

[permacrete]

Also on the topic of parody/fair use of batman in the making of this movie. Isn't the fact that Batman never fucked Batgirl or Catwoman enough of a change of the concept to a parody?

Bruce Wayne and Selena Kyle (Cat Woman) had a kid together, in at least one string of comic continuity. She was the main character of the ill-fated "Birds of Prey" television series.

 

[Greenansatsu]

Am I the only person who thought, wow must stink to be the one guy stuck with the lawsuit after the other 7097 were dismissed?

FML yesterday i was being sued along with 7097 other people for illegally downloading porn... today out of those 7098 people I'm the one still being sued for illegally downloading porn.