Man Sues BBC Claiming Copyright On Doctor Who's Dalek Leader

Hungry Donner

Henchman
Mar 19, 2009
1,369
0
0
Ghengis John said:
I never said it could tell us the difference between 1972 and 1975, I said we could use it to tell the difference between something made in 1973 and 2011.
I could be wrong but if you used paper from the 70s I believe the carbon dating will tell you it's from the 70s even if it was drawn yesterday. I'm less certain about pencil.

Even then I'm not sure if you could get a really accurate result. You could test the paper composition but all this can do is debunk the claim if it's new paper, if the paper is from the 70s it just tells you when the paper was made, not when the picture was drawn.

I've read a little about dating inks but nothing about pencil so I don't know if there are solid options here or not.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
So not a combination of The Mekon and Hitler then? Like the original one was. One completely original idea that was not born of other copyright ideas around at the time.

A completely original unsubstantiated idea that was the only possible way that a creation based around two copyrighted ideas, including the copyrighted idea that you are now sueing the estate that created. (Yeah, half your image is a Dalek, which is copyright of the Nation estate - so you're also breaking copyright law)

Give it was Phillip Hinchcliffe and Terry Nation that created the original Davros, along with Peter Day, John Friedlander and Michael Wisher - all of the success of Davros is purely due to your sketch?

And it's from the Daily Mail, which we know is the most reliable of papers.

And, as has been said above, if you did create Davros, you'd be fecking overjoyed, not litigious.

Edit: Absorbaloff. Created by a kid to appear as a Dr Who Villain. Totally different to how the kid imagined it. (It was meant to be as big as a house).

Davros's sketches...uncannily similar...



Inspired?
 

Void(null)

New member
Dec 10, 2008
1,070
0
0
I was intrigued by this story until I saw: "Daily Mail" as the source.

The Daily Mail is our equivalent of your Weekly World News and has about as much legitimacy as:

 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
So, let's see if we can't suss out what's really happened here...a boy enters a contest in 1972, and doesn't win. He's bitter and holds a grudge for 20 years, when he decides to sketch Davros and pretend he did it as a child. 20 years after that, he realises there's no copyright on Davros yet, gets one, makes up some bullshit about a stolen idea, and sells the story to the Daily Mail.

Sound about right?
 

liveslowdiefast

New member
Jan 17, 2010
626
0
0
Hungry Donner said:
After looking at it some more I think the design may be too accurate for this to be real. If he had won the contest I could see them trying to stay close to the original design but if they wanted to use a runner-up too why make it so precise? It's one thing to have a human with a dalek base but to also take the cripple left hand, forehead gizmo, wire headdress, and microphone? Even the levels on the console are surprisingly similar.

If this guy had a drawing of a person with a dalek base and a dalek eyestalk jutting out of his forehead I'd be far more inclined to believe the Doctor Who people saw it and ran with it. But to suggest that the Doctor Who people didn't choose this as the winner and then copied it down to minute details is very far fetched.


I don't really know how these situations work out in US law let alone UK law. :)

MurderousToaster said:
Sorry dude, but if I were a teenager in the seventies and I found out that my character was in Doctor Who, I wouldn't sue. I'd be fucking overjoyed.
Same here, although given that I was born in 1982 if I was a teenager in the seventies I'd probably be a character in Doctor Who . . . which would make it even more awesome (if a little recursive).


this guy pretty much wrote what i was thinking, but yeah i think its juat far to similar to real thing, espaclly with the sometimes hilariously low production budgets sometimes. but yeah i'm calling bullshit.
 

wammnebu

New member
Sep 25, 2010
628
0
0
Exterminas said:
Oh well.
It depends on whether or not he can prove that he submitted this idea to the contest.

And guess what: The only ones that could possible have records on an old BBC-Contest is the BBC. And if they are smart they will have "lost" the records. Which noone can blame them for, because you are not requirred to keep contest data for half a century.
yep the contest results are in lost, right next to all the troughton episodes
 

Iscin

Schism Navigator
Sep 8, 2009
49
0
0
Outlaw Torn said:
It's a story in the Daily Mail, the bullshit factor is therefore immeasurable. I'm suprised that they didn't add in a part about how he got cancer because the BBC stole his idea, but it was cured by a Princess Diana plate.
This.
 

Ensiferum

New member
Apr 24, 2010
587
0
0
I'm sorry, there's no way that drawing is over 40 years old.

On top of that...The Daily Mail? Really? You could probably get a more truthful account from a drunk hobo.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Scorched_Cascade said:
So he got his sketches back in 1990 but didn't pursue a claim.....why?
"he thought too much time had passed to gain recognition."
So why 11 years after the time he thought it was too late did he put the claim in?

What are the odds that the contest he entered was to create a super-villain for Dr Who and his memory has just omitted that fact? Why else would it be judged by the script writer and actor of Dr Who?
Maybe it's the fact that in 1990 Dr Who was uncool again, and hadn't been making money for years. If I were him, I wouldn't have bothered. Would anyone nowadays sue over a stolen idea for "The Good Life" or for "Open All Hours"?

Fast forward 11 years. Suddenly Dr Who is the BBC's number one property, actually featuring Davros at one point. He's down the pub, drowning his sorrows because, lets face it, times are hard, jobs are shit, and there's a Tory government in, and he bangs onto his mate about how he "could have been something", or whatnot, and his mate encourages him to start legal proceedings. Simple.

I'm going with this being true. The BBC in the 70's weren't renowned for great business practice, and you'd have to be really stupid to bother trying to sue the BBC nowadays for jokes. Stupid and rich. If this happened to me, I'd definitely sue, and what's more, he's had the decency to do so when the show isn't actually being broadcast, so as not to detract from it. Good on him.
 

V TheSystem V

New member
Sep 11, 2009
996
0
0
They had a competition for creating a Dr Who character on Blue Peter about 5 years ago. Blue Peter is BBC. The Abzorbaloff (played by Peter Kay) won, and was used in an episode of Dr Who. The kid didn't ask for money for his design! He was chuffed his creation went on-screen!

Notice how it was also a competition. They could have easily used any monsters submitted by other competitors and used them, or been inspired by them, for other monsters, such as the Krillitane or something. Sure they weren't exactly memorable enemies, but there must have been inspiration from somewhere! The guy doesn't own the rights to Davros, and people send pictures into competitions all the time. I think he didn't make Davros, but if he did he shouldn't be liable for damages.
 

Scorched_Cascade

Innocence proves nothing
Sep 26, 2008
1,399
0
0
Verlander said:
Scorched_Cascade said:
So he got his sketches back in 1990 but didn't pursue a claim.....why?
"he thought too much time had passed to gain recognition."
So why 11 years after the time he thought it was too late did he put the claim in?

What are the odds that the contest he entered was to create a super-villain for Dr Who and his memory has just omitted that fact? Why else would it be judged by the script writer and actor of Dr Who?
Maybe it's the fact that in 1990 Dr Who was uncool again, and hadn't been making money for years. If I were him, I wouldn't have bothered. Would anyone nowadays sue over a stolen idea for "The Good Life" or for "Open All Hours"?

Fast forward 11 years. Suddenly Dr Who is the BBC's number one property, actually featuring Davros at one point. He's down the pub, drowning his sorrows because, lets face it, times are hard, jobs are shit, and there's a Tory government in, and he bangs onto his mate about how he "could have been something", or whatnot, and his mate encourages him to start legal proceedings. Simple.

I'm going with this being true. The BBC in the 70's weren't renowned for great business practice, and you'd have to be really stupid to bother trying to sue the BBC nowadays for jokes. Stupid and rich. If this happened to me, I'd definitely sue, and what's more, he's had the decency to do so when the show isn't actually being broadcast, so as not to detract from it. Good on him.
"Clark also just wants to be recognized for the character he says he created as a young lad." If it was about the recognition at all it would not have mattered that the show had been reduced to a cult show.

Also Dr Who has been on the revive since 2005 when Christopher Eccleston took over as the Dr so he has had 6 years to stake a claim. A new series is due out on the 23rd April, he has had since last June to submit a claim if he wanted to do it while the show wasn't being broadcast.

The last dr who series also was on the decline of its popularity again thanks to David Tennant leaving and the new doctor being a relatively unknown actor. I'm fairly sure it has had a budget cut too looking at some of the "monsters" in the latest series.

I'm not disputing that it might be true that he is the creator what I am suggesting is that the competition he entered might well have been to design a dr who supervillain seeing as how it was "judged by the actor that played the Doctor in 1972, Jon Pertwee, along with Doctor Who script editor Terrance Dicks and producer Barry Letts".
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Celtic_Kerr said:
Eri said:
At first I was readying my copyright troll bat, but then, This might be an upset.
Here is my question: why did he wait 35 years to sue them? The moment that shit came out, he should have stepped on it. However, he waited till the show go huge, till the villain made a lot of profit, and now he can collect more. However, Copyrights last what? 20 years - 30 years unless renewed? He might have shot himself on this

EDIT: Just noticed that he lost the sketches
Nah, copyrights these days vary from something like 80 years to even as far as 80 years after the creator dies.

It's getting a little out of hand, especially since corporations that own copyrights seem to manage to twist things such that their copyrights never expire at all... (Or get the laws changed if something is at risk;
Technically Mickey Mouse should now be public domain, yet they managed to change the law...)
 

William Ossiss

New member
Apr 8, 2010
551
0
0
why couldnt he just prove he made davros, and let it go? why does he need money for this? why cant he just leave the franchise alone and let bygones by bygones.

OT: dude's lying.
 

LorChan

New member
Jul 15, 2009
251
0
0
He probably drew the sketch as a kid, but after Genesis of the Daleks came out. Maybe he has actually convinced himself he created Davros, but my thoughts are that he found the drawing, but nobody cared about Doctor Who's copyright anymore in 1990, so he's waited until it's not only the biggest BBC show but also gaining popularity world wide AND Davros has come back at some point. Now he'll get MORE money for it, if he wins, which he won't.
 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
HerbertTheHamster said:
Good, then we might be rid of the silliest villain known to man.

-I WILL DESTROY EVERYTHING!
-...Why?
-BECAUSE
It was good enough for Hitler.
 

madmatt

New member
Jan 12, 2010
135
0
0
Ghengis John said:
Azuaron said:
Ghengis John said:
Cheesebob said:
Wha...What stops me from drawing a dalek and doing the same thing?
Carbon dating?
You can't carbon date to tell if something came from 1972 or 1975. Three years is too close (carbon dating estimations have errors of 40 years or more), and it hasn't been enough time for carbon dating to be effective anyway (typically need several centuries, minimum).
I never said it could tell us the difference between 1972 and 1975, I said we could use it to tell the difference between something made in 1972 and 2011.
Not much use i'm afraid - the significant difference is those 3 years. All the BBC needs to say is, it can't be reasonably be proved to be 1975 or before. After that they can say that HE was copying THEM on something he saw on the show, rather than the other way around
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Scorched_Cascade said:
Verlander said:
Scorched_Cascade said:
So he got his sketches back in 1990 but didn't pursue a claim.....why?
"he thought too much time had passed to gain recognition."
So why 11 years after the time he thought it was too late did he put the claim in?

What are the odds that the contest he entered was to create a super-villain for Dr Who and his memory has just omitted that fact? Why else would it be judged by the script writer and actor of Dr Who?
Maybe it's the fact that in 1990 Dr Who was uncool again, and hadn't been making money for years. If I were him, I wouldn't have bothered. Would anyone nowadays sue over a stolen idea for "The Good Life" or for "Open All Hours"?

Fast forward 11 years. Suddenly Dr Who is the BBC's number one property, actually featuring Davros at one point. He's down the pub, drowning his sorrows because, lets face it, times are hard, jobs are shit, and there's a Tory government in, and he bangs onto his mate about how he "could have been something", or whatnot, and his mate encourages him to start legal proceedings. Simple.

I'm going with this being true. The BBC in the 70's weren't renowned for great business practice, and you'd have to be really stupid to bother trying to sue the BBC nowadays for jokes. Stupid and rich. If this happened to me, I'd definitely sue, and what's more, he's had the decency to do so when the show isn't actually being broadcast, so as not to detract from it. Good on him.
"Clark also just wants to be recognized for the character he says he created as a young lad." If it was about the recognition at all it would not have mattered that the show had been reduced to a cult show.
That sounds pure lawyer talk to me. Something to add a bit of publicity to an otherwise standard case.

Also Dr Who has been on the revive since 2005 when Christopher Eccleston took over as the Dr so he has had 6 years to stake a claim. A new series is due out on the 23rd April, he has had since last June to submit a claim if he wanted to do it while the show wasn't being broadcast.

The last dr who series also was on the decline of its popularity again thanks to David Tennant leaving and the new doctor being a relatively unknown actor. I'm fairly sure it has had a budget cut too looking at some of the "monsters" in the latest series.
So what he decides to do it now? He may have been busy, not really cared until now. Now he may have a financial problem, and is using this as a great way to sort himself out. If the BBC are at fault, then they have to deal with the consequences.

I'm not disputing that it might be true that he is the creator what I am suggesting is that the competition he entered might well have been to design a dr who supervillain seeing as how it was "judged by the actor that played the Doctor in 1972, Jon Pertwee, along with Doctor Who script editor Terrance Dicks and producer Barry Letts".
I don't disagree with that, but seeing as he got nothing from a popular character, he has every right to sue. Owners of intellectual property still have rights, even in competitions.


I'm not sure why I quoted you in particular by the way. Sorry, just grabbed someone, and then carried on with my own opinion without thinking
 

Kaymish

The Morally Bankrupt Weasel
Sep 10, 2008
1,256
0
0
na he has no leg to stand on and even if he did the BBC would just bleed him dry
because he has no proof of when the sketches were actually made as a 13 year old kid he could have sketched that after dr who aired and he is just trying it on
 

Harveypot

New member
Feb 20, 2011
268
0
0
I suppose if they were his drawings then he deserves something but wouldn't you have done something sooner. The show came back in 2005 and Davros was brought back into it in 2008. Why did it take him that long to say anything?
 

moretimethansense

New member
Apr 10, 2008
1,617
0
0
If his clim is true then he clearly deserves something, even if it's only being part credited.
I'm inclined to believe this is made up though, that paper looks brand new, did he keep it in a vacume?
And has been ssaid, why would he have a copy? unless it was a first attempt sketch I guess.