Gallery told to drop 'gay' Batman

[casey1870]

The Batman character was revived in recent hit movie Batman Begins

DC Comics has ordered a New York gallery to remove pictures which show Batman and Robin kissing and embracing.

The Kathleen Cullen Fine Arts gallery was told it would face legal action unless it removed watercolours of the superhero by artist Mark Chamberlain.

 

"DC Comics wants me to hand over all unsold work," said Ms Cullen.

 

Arts website Artnet was also told to remove the series of semi-naked images of Batman and Robin from its website. DC Comics was unavailable to comment.

 

Homoerotic poses

 

The colour pictures, which depict the superheroes in a number of homoerotic poses, were put on display in the gallery in February.

 

Seven images from the collection were subsequently displayed on the Artnet site.

 

Artist Chamberlain's works have been exhibited in numerous Manhattan galleries since 1991, with collections entitled Neo-Erotic and Gender Tennis among others.

 

Two years ago an artwork featuring Kylie Minogue's bottom was pulled from the Royal Academy's summer show after the singer's lawyers complained

[jediknight]

I'm so glad they did. It seems today they want everyone to be gay. Next you'll see art showing Kerry and Bush slipping the big one. This whole thing is getting ridiculous and quite weird. What is wrong with being straight?

[Ijiwaru Sensei]

I'm so glad they did. It seems today they want everyone to be gay. Next you'll see art showing Kerry and Bush slipping the big one. This whole thing is getting ridiculous and quite weird. What is wrong with being straight?

 

This most likely had less to do with homosexuality than it did copyright infringement.

[Norrin_Radd]

Just the pendulum swinging back the other way for a while.

 

 

[Aman619]

DC is very litigious. This will be interesting to see if the artists and gallery back down. I dont see why they'd care what TimeWarner thinks so they wouldnt necessarily care to appease them. Course. the prospect of legal fees may deter them, unless the publicity increases the value of the pieces.

[johny myman-migration]

This a little but this thread reminded me of this very funny stuff

 

 

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/80saction/80saction.html

 

[SignatureSelect]

DC can tell them to stop displaying the art but they can't ask them to hand it over. They are not the government. I think a court would refuse to turn the artwork over aswell. I'm sure if Jim Lee did it D.C. wouldn't care

[Silver Surfer]

I'm so glad they did. It seems today they want everyone to be gay. Next you'll see art showing Kerry and Bush slipping the big one. This whole thing is getting ridiculous and quite weird. What is wrong with being straight?

 

Its because most of Hollywood is a bunch of limp wristers and they push their agenda via tv shows etc. Every second show on tv today has to have some kind of fruit element to it. Give me a frickin break.

[Black Hawk]

DC can tell them to stop displaying the art but they can't ask them to hand it over. They are not the government. I think a court would refuse to turn the artwork over aswell. I'm sure if Jim Lee did it D.C. wouldn't care

This looks to me to be a clear case of Trademark infringement. Marvel was forced to airbrush out the Transamercia Pyramid from the FF movie because of Trans America's trademark on the Pyramid. Corporate enforcement of trademark and copyrights have become very aggressive. Earlier this year I had an encounter with the NFL in a trademark dispute over the name of my store. IMHO and recent experiance I'm pretty sure that a court would uphold the trademark and the gallery would have to turn over the artwork

[october]

DC can tell them to stop displaying the art but they can't ask them to hand it over. They are not the government. I think a court would refuse to turn the artwork over aswell. I'm sure if Jim Lee did it D.C. wouldn't care

This looks to me to be a clear case of Trademark infringement. Marvel was forced to airbrush out the Transamercia Pyramid from the FF movie because of Trans America's trademark on the Pyramid. Corporate enforcement of trademark and copyrights have become very aggressive. Earlier this year I had an encounter with the NFL in a trademark dispute over the name of my store. IMHO and recent experiance I'm pretty sure that a court would uphold the trademark and the gallery would have to turn over the artwork

 

1. Unless the art concerned the Batman symbol/name itself, it's copyright infringement we are talking about here, not trademark.

 

2. There is a broad fair use exception for satire and parody, which this could well fall under.

 

Not an open and shut case AT ALL....

[Black Hawk]

1. Unless the art concerned the Batman symbol/name itself, it's copyright infringement we are talking about here, not trademark.

 

2. There is a broad fair use exception for satire and parody, which this could well fall under.

 

Not an open and shut case AT ALL....

 

Anything that would imply that item in question is somehow affiliated with a trademark can be considered trademark infringement. It doesn't have to be an exact copy of the trademark. I don't think anyone would look at these characters and not affilate them with Batman & Robin. The fair use exception is normally allowed for items that do not include monetary gains. I think these items are for sale?

But that's why we have courts and lawyers drive big fancy cars. In today's legal system nothing is an "open and shut case". Just look at OJ.

[goldust40]

I'm so glad they did. It seems today they want everyone to be gay. Next you'll see art showing Kerry and Bush slipping the big one. This whole thing is getting ridiculous and quite weird. What is wrong with being straight?

 

Its because most of Hollywood is a bunch of limp wristers and they push their agenda via tv shows etc. Every second show on tv today has to have some kind of fruit element to it. Give me a frickin break.

 

Surfer, nice reactionary imbalanced comment there. What agenda?? What the hell are you talking about?? "Fruit element"??? What a load of homophobic, paranoid toss.

[supapimp]

nice avatar Black Hawk!

[october]

1. Unless the art concerned the Batman symbol/name itself, it's copyright infringement we are talking about here, not trademark.

 

2. There is a broad fair use exception for satire and parody, which this could well fall under.

 

Not an open and shut case AT ALL....

 

Anything that would imply that item in question is somehow affiliated with a trademark can be considered trademark infringement. It doesn't have to be an exact copy of the trademark. I don't think anyone would look at these characters and not affilate them with Batman & Robin. The fair use exception is normally allowed for items that do not include monetary gains. I think these items are for sale?

But that's why we have courts and lawyers drive big fancy cars. In today's legal system nothing is an "open and shut case". Just look at OJ.

 

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but that's not correct. This case is not just about the Batman symbol or name itself (as trademark law applies only to actual marks, symbols and names ), but rather everything that makes up the characters of Batman and Robin, which would be covered by copyright law. Also, the fair use exception is not limited to uses that aren't for financial gain. If you want to get techical, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. It sets out the basic elements for fair use by parody. Intellectual property is one of the areas of law I am seriously considering finding a job in, so I do know what I am talking about.

[october]

I'm so glad they did. It seems today they want everyone to be gay. Next you'll see art showing Kerry and Bush slipping the big one. This whole thing is getting ridiculous and quite weird. What is wrong with being straight?

 

Its because most of Hollywood is a bunch of limp wristers and they push their agenda via tv shows etc. Every second show on tv today has to have some kind of fruit element to it. Give me a frickin break.

 

Surfer, nice reactionary imbalanced comment there. What agenda?? What the hell are you talking about?? "Fruit element"??? What a load of homophobic, paranoid toss.

 

[Black Hawk]

 

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but that's not correct. This case is not just about the Batman symbol or name itself (as trademark law applies only to actual marks, symbols and names ), but rather everything that makes up the characters of Batman and Robin, which would be covered by copyright law. Also, the fair use exception is not limited to uses that aren't for financial gain. If you want to get techical, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. It sets out the basic elements for fair use by parody. Intellectual property is one of the areas of law I am seriously considering finding a job in, so I do know what I am talking about.

I'm getting my information from the NFLP in the case they had against me for unauthorized use of their trademarks. In which I lost btw.

[october]

 

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but that's not correct. This case is not just about the Batman symbol or name itself (as trademark law applies only to actual marks, symbols and names ), but rather everything that makes up the characters of Batman and Robin, which would be covered by copyright law. Also, the fair use exception is not limited to uses that aren't for financial gain. If you want to get techical, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. It sets out the basic elements for fair use by parody. Intellectual property is one of the areas of law I am seriously considering finding a job in, so I do know what I am talking about.

I'm getting my information from the NFLP in the case they had against me for unauthorized use of their trademarks. In which I lost btw.

 

You just said your case was about the NAME of your store. That is a trademark infringement, like I just said. The entire Batman character is more than just a symbol or a name, it is the entire design, attitude and look. That falls under copyright protection. Here, read this, it is a simple overview of the differences between copyright, trademark and patent law. They can be confusing sometimes. I had a class in law school dedicated to this stuff and I know it can be hard to keep them straight...

 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm

 

...and here is an outline of the fair use exception.

 

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

[uclapeterg]

I'm so glad they did. It seems today they want everyone to be gay. Next you'll see art showing Kerry and Bush slipping the big one. This whole thing is getting ridiculous and quite weird. What is wrong with being straight?

 

Its because most of Hollywood is a bunch of limp wristers and they push their agenda via tv shows etc. Every second show on tv today has to have some kind of fruit element to it. Give me a frickin break.

 

Surfer, nice reactionary imbalanced comment there. What agenda?? What the hell are you talking about?? "Fruit element"??? What a load of homophobic, paranoid toss.

 

[Black Hawk]

You just said your case was about the NAME of your store. That is a trademark infringement, like I just said. The entire Batman character is more than just a symbol or a name, it is the entire design, attitude and look. That falls under copyright protection. Here, read this, it is a simple overview of the differences between copyright, trademark and patent law. They can be confusing sometimes. I had a class in law school dedicated to this stuff and I know it can be hard to keep them straight...

Thanks for the info. Maybe I should have had you represent me. They're main issue with me was the name of my store but it went further then this. Another issue was definately parady artwork. They did not take kindly to the use of NFL liknesses in parody, especially for profit.

[rjpb]

I'm so glad they did. It seems today they want everyone to be gay. Next you'll see art showing Kerry and Bush slipping the big one. This whole thing is getting ridiculous and quite weird. What is wrong with being straight?

 

Its because most of Hollywood is a bunch of limp wristers and they push their agenda via tv shows etc. Every second show on tv today has to have some kind of fruit element to it. Give me a frickin break.

 

Surfer, nice reactionary imbalanced comment there. What agenda?? What the hell are you talking about?? "Fruit element"??? What a load of homophobic, paranoid toss.

 

 

I suppose this is the same Hollywood constantly being accused of exploiting female sexuality - I'm not sure how that fits into the "agenda".