Judge Trims Batman Parody Porno Copyright Case to Single Defendant

[RoBi3.0]

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.

Making love and having a child together has nothing to do with what is going on in this porno I am sure.

Besides I was referring to the TV series this porn is obviously spoofing, not the comic themselves. The only thing Adam West's Batman was interested in doing with Catwoman was lecturing in the joys of civic responsibility and the error of her ways.

 

[faefrost]

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"?

It doesn't matter if they are ripping off someone else's IP in making the thing. All that means is that the actual license holder can come down on them to stop them from distributing or profiting from the work. BUT it does not strip away their own copyright protections for their art or the work they did. So yeah, the fact that they are ripping off Batman does not make it legal or legitimate to in turn rip them off. You can't simply steal someones porno, even if it is unlicensed Batman porn.

Am I making any sense?

This sort of thing comes up a lot in the "Garage Kit" area of model and replica making. Where someone will make a "wink wink nudge nudge" small run resin kit of a subject that they really don't hold a license to. Say an unusual Star Wars spaceship for example. If they start selling these unlicensed things then Lucasarts can (and will) shut them down with a C&D. But even if Lucas does, the person making the model still holds rights to their specific work, and someone cannot simply recast or redistribute that work using the excuse "But it wasn't licensed".

 

[faefrost]

PS... Is it just me, or are some of these porn parodies that have been hitting the news recently showing some disturbingly high production values??? I mean I saw a cut of the Star Trek Porno on Youtube where somebody had stripped out all of the sex and porn... and it was still the best Star Trek episode that had been made in 15 years!?!?! I am an old schooler. I am really not sure quite what to make of plots, production values, semi decent acting and tolerable music suddenly showing up in my porn. IT CONFUSES ME DAMIT!!!

 

[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"?

It doesn't matter if they are ripping off someone else's IP in making the thing. All that means is that the actual license holder can come down on them to stop them from distributing or profiting from the work. BUT it does not strip away their own copyright protections for their art or the work they did. So yeah, the fact that they are ripping off Batman does not make it legal or legitimate to in turn rip them off. You can't simply steal someones porno, even if it is unlicensed Batman porn.

Am I making any sense?

This sort of thing comes up a lot in the "Garage Kit" area of model and replica making. Where someone will make a "wink wink nudge nudge" small run resin kit of a subject that they really don't hold a license to. Say an unusual Star Wars spaceship for example. If they start selling these unlicensed things then Lucasarts can (and will) shut them down with a C&D. But even if Lucas does, the person making the model still holds rights to their specific work, and someone cannot simply recast or redistribute that work using the excuse "But it wasn't licensed".

Works which are themselves illegal do not qualify for the protections afforded by copyright law.

 

[faefrost]

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"?

It doesn't matter if they are ripping off someone else's IP in making the thing. All that means is that the actual license holder can come down on them to stop them from distributing or profiting from the work. BUT it does not strip away their own copyright protections for their art or the work they did. So yeah, the fact that they are ripping off Batman does not make it legal or legitimate to in turn rip them off. You can't simply steal someones porno, even if it is unlicensed Batman porn.

Am I making any sense?

This sort of thing comes up a lot in the "Garage Kit" area of model and replica making. Where someone will make a "wink wink nudge nudge" small run resin kit of a subject that they really don't hold a license to. Say an unusual Star Wars spaceship for example. If they start selling these unlicensed things then Lucasarts can (and will) shut them down with a C&D. But even if Lucas does, the person making the model still holds rights to their specific work, and someone cannot simply recast or redistribute that work using the excuse "But it wasn't licensed".

Works which are themselves illegal do not qualify for the protections afforded by copyright law.

Not completely true. Works that are themselves illegal, such as a straight copy of someone elses work are not protected. But that in this case "illegal" is not the same as "unlicensed". Irregardless of whether or not the core subject matter is unlicensed, the unique aspects of the individual producers art involved may still be protected. This is why in the case of unlicensed properties more often than not they are destroyed and pulled from distribution. To do otherwise opens up all sorts of counter claims.

Unlicensed product is not always the same as piracy. If a Chinese manufacturer decides to make Mass Effect 2 toys without a license. Bioware can shut them down for IP infringement. But they cannot then simply take the companies molds and use them to their own purposes. Regardless of the IP rights the molds are themselves considered someones art and are somewhat protected. Unless they are themselves a direct copy or recast of someone elses art (say an actual license holders). As long as there is a unique element to the unlicensed work (that exists for a purpose other than simply defeating copyright laws) than some protections preventing wholesale distribution will be in place. In the case of the porno, well yeah Paramount can shut them down on the basis of property infringement. But the scripts and individual performances are still unique art.

 

[Brynar]

I have this at home. It is pretty funny, but it's not wanking material.