I don't buy it. The picture is just too perfect. How often does concept art make it into production completely unscathed?
Man Sues BBC Claiming Copyright On Doctor Who's Dalek Leader
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
He actually had a legitimate, although twisted, reason to want to destroy everything. He believe he had created a master race and believed that all other species were inferior to his creations and therefore did not deserve to live and the only way for his creations to assume their natural place of supreme rulers of everything is to destroy everything that isn't a dalek. He is a Hitler-esque villain blinded by a flawed logic.HerbertTheHamster said:
While I see the point you're trying to make, I don't think Link counts, given that he was already an established character by the time that art was rendered. Snake, too, for that matter.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:I dunno, you tell me:Susan Arendt said:
I think you'd be surprised. Concept artists don't just create vague pictures for the rest of the design department to use. Usually, they are the ones who actually come up with the concrete designs, which the rest of the team then actualise.
As far as this guy's argument goes, I can see things from his side. If he lost the sketches, then there goes his case. By the time he found them, Doctor Who was practically dead, so there'd be no reason for action against the BBC. As for why he didn't try and litigate as soon as the show was rebooted: it takes a lot of chutzpah, even in this litigation-happy day and age, to try and bring a legal case against a large corporation against the BBC.
Ultimately, this guy may well have a case, and I'm going to try and refrain from casting judgement one way or the other. After all, that's what court cases themselves are for.
But there's also a big difference between going from image to image and from image to real life. They didn't just have to draw Davros, they had to make him. I'm not saying the dude's claim is impossible, I just don't buy it.
Even if it is true, the character he made up was submitted to a contest. Often with contests the terms are they gain the rights use the piece of work, your essentially handing over part of the copyright. You need to so they can at least show it on TV if you win. The character is partly the IP of the BBC to begin with, it?s a derivative work. The amount of time that has passed since he first realised what was happening, something like that can work against you.
I'm going with what the others say about the paper looking a little too perfect. I have a drawing i did 16 years ago and it's gone yellow and fraile with age. I had that drawing pressed aginst two think pages of an art book to keep it dry and to stop it from degrading. I'm not calling bullshit but i'm not saying he didn't do it ether. I'm just saying it looks quite fishy...
Seems.....so random it must be true.
That could be why its so smart.
Or that its absolutely true. Or a ***** to prove. Unless one one of the writers says "yup, its true. I didnt know they didnt acknowledge the kid, they just gave me this fucking piece of paper, idunno"
That could be why its so smart.
Or that its absolutely true. Or a ***** to prove. Unless one one of the writers says "yup, its true. I didnt know they didnt acknowledge the kid, they just gave me this fucking piece of paper, idunno"
I was told once that cases like this are practically always thrown out unless the person claiming to be the original creator can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he thought of it first. That is, it needs to be certified and dated, otherwise no case can be made.
I was always told that, if I was to submit something I created to another person or organization, to mail myself a copy of the work or proof of ownership/creation, and to not open that envelope. The postmark becomes a certified date, and the contents can be used as proof of intellectual ownership.
At least, that's what I've been led to believe over the years...
I was always told that, if I was to submit something I created to another person or organization, to mail myself a copy of the work or proof of ownership/creation, and to not open that envelope. The postmark becomes a certified date, and the contents can be used as proof of intellectual ownership.
At least, that's what I've been led to believe over the years...
You mean that we now know who possibly created Davros, not the Daleks.Popido said:
The guy as a kid "drew his drawing" in 1972. Doctor Who's pilot story arch episodes "The Unearthly Child" aired on November 23, 1963. The second story arch to come after that was The Daleks, so the Daleks were in Doctor Who from pretty much the start.
Yes Davros the creator came long long after. Though, now that I see he used a Dalek body design for the contest, especially with the Doctor Who people judging the contest, I can see why they would take his idea and not tell him or care. He just cut their design in half and stuck a man on top of it. Because of that, I think the guy should receive no money.
Fun Doctor Who Fact: Dalek is just the name of Davros's race backwards, the Kelad.
If?TimeLord said:
Like the Master, Davros does not die.
OT: I'm not buying it. If he found the sketches in 1990, why not sue when Davros was brought back in 2009? Why wait until now?
Also, as has been said, the paper is far too white to look like it was used in the '70s. Hell, newspapers from last month would be yellow by now.
(different pulping method, I know, but still)
Is it just me, or does anyone else not see the BBC copying the kids drawing exactly including the headgear and the microphone arm? I mean does that not look more like a childs drawing of the Davros character he just saw on TV< than something that the big TV producers are going to run away with and recreate down to the slightest prepubescent detail? It's a 12 year olds Doctor Who fan art. Unless he has one that has a date/time stamped entry from it being recieved as a contest entry by the BBC, that's all it will ever be. Well that and yet another bitter and nroken story of the man doing the little guy wrong told down at the pub on a saturday night.
I didn't mean in the case, I meant in response to why not just draw one now and say the same thing.madmatt said:
Well, he couldn't just let an opportunity like this slip by. Suing immediately after noticing? That wouldn't get him much. No, let it run for thirty years and let them collect some dough, *then* sue.Celtic_Kerr said:
That's assuming that it actually happened at all.
There's an added complexity too: he had built upon the Daleks. It wasn't his sole property anyway, even if he came up with it. I'm not sure what the laws would say about that.ZombieGenesis said:
Isn't that most villains in most mediums? If only I could undo the last twenty years of ingrained pop culture cynicism. Which brings me neatly to the topic. Carbon date the drawings and get it over with, if it's genuine then the link is more than tenuous and he deserves a pay day or at least some recognition. If it's a fake, please tell me he can be counter suited as I hate money-grubbing time-wasters like this. The current legal system is enough of a joke without such terrible attempts to grab a slice of the pie.HerbertTheHamster said:
For U.S. readers, the Daily Mail is currently the most purchased newspaper in the U.K. and coincidentally is one of the most factless, bigoted, racist and hate filled tabloid rags you could even encounter. I would use it as toilet paper but for fear that it would insidiously cause me to complain about immigrants afterwards.
Probably nonsense...
