DC Entertainment Won't Allow Superman Logo On Murdered Child's Memorial Statue 249
An anonymous reader writes Jeffrey Baldwin was essentially starved to death by his grandparents. Funds had been raised to build a monument for Jeffrey in Toronto. The monument was designed to feature Jeffrey in a Superman costume, and even though Superman should be public domain, DC Comics has denied the request. "The request to DC had been made by Todd Boyce, an Ottawa father who did not know the Baldwin family. Boyce was so moved by the testimony at the coroner’s inquest into Jeffrey’s death last year that he started an online fundraising campaign for the monument. DC’s senior vice-president of business and legal affairs, Amy Genkins, told Boyce in an email that 'for a variety of legal reasons, we are not able to accede to the request, nor many other incredibly worthy projects that come to our attention.'... For Boyce, it was a huge blow, as he felt the Superman aspect was a crucial part of the bronze monument, which will include a bench. The coroner’s inquest heard from Jeffrey’s father that his son loved to dress up as Superman."
Superman (Score:5, Funny)
Superman, standing for truth, justice and IP rights!
Re:Superman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Superman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Superman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is this...
I think it's called "sarcasm".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Superman (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Superman (Score:5, Informative)
Or continue to collect that princely sum of $20,000/year that DC agreed to pay them after the lawsuit forced them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Superman (Score:5, Informative)
No, without trademark protection, anyone could write Superman comics and sell them as such. I think you're thinking of copyright protection.
I'm pretty sure he was thinking of the sixty four year long legal battle between S-Cape Artists Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel and DC Comics [comicbookbrain.com] over just who owned Superman, without which DC comics could write Superman comics and sell them as such without paying a dime to the original creators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Superman (Score:4, Interesting)
Media companies struggle with this. There have been fanclubs that have received glowing endorsements from marketing departments while simultaneously receiving cease-and-desist letters from those same companies' legal departments. On the one hand letting the fans run wild with sanctioned merchandise and games and other enthusiasm brings value, but they have to be careful with derivative works and other uses, but if they step too hard then they'll be seen as douchebags and will alienate the very people that make them all their money. The best thing that they can do is to offer enough things with their IP on them for legal sale (look at Thinkgeek as an example of what's available) and the fans will probably be sated without resorting to IP violations en-masse.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the Make-a-Wish Foundation felt that what they were doing was fair-use. Remember, while they dressed the kid in an off-the-shelf costume, they called him "Batkid", not "Batman"
Scroll down to the list of pictures and see if you can detect any DC-owned intellectual property.
http://sf.wish.org/wishes/wish... [wish.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Superman (Score:5, Funny)
Some people mod humor as "insightful" because "funny" didn't/doesn't contribute positive karma to the recipient, whereas "insightful" does.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I really like that the parent here is moderated "funny".
Re: (Score:2)
instead how I wrote it. Dropping two short words and swapping two others takes the black humor completely out of it...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure your parents need murdered at the opera to get a DC headstone.
Re: (Score:2)
In their defense, if they don't work to protect their trademark, then everyone will be getting their children murdered to put DC's logos on their headstones...
Yeah, and that is going to be soooo terrible for their businesses </seriously?>
Re: (Score:2)
or people could stop buying DC Comic's shit for being the dicks they are since they
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Superman is the stupidest super hero character.
He started out as a super man: faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, and stronger than a locomotive.
Which would be (sort of) conceivable within the bounds of a biological creature - even from another planet - and a comic book character.
Then he started getting powers.
Powers that make no sense. Flying? X-Ray vision? Heat vision then later laser eyes? Stopping bullets that hit his eye? Lifting continents into space?
That is
Re:Superman (Score:5, Funny)
where he can just snap his fingers for Christ's sake!
That's a different God. Don't mix genres. :)
Re:Superman (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was in the story telling. Every writer would put Superman in a perilous situation and then invent a new power to get him out of it. Eventually, they found it hard to write for Superman. After all, when you have a guy who can juggle planets around for fun, what can threaten him enough that readers would think "this could conceivably kill Superman?" (We all know that Threat Of The Week won't kill Superman, but the villain needs to have a reasonable chance of winning or there's no suspense in the story.)
They tried correcting this when they reset the DC Universe and lowered his power levels, but the writers keep doing the same power ramp-up.
Then again, some depictions of Superman work nicely with an uber-powerful Supes. The final episode of Justice League, for example. Superman is beating up on Darkseid and notes that he feels like he lives in a world made of cardboard. He needs to be careful of his every action lest he hurt someone or break something. For the first time in a long time, he feels comfortable in just letting go instead of worrying that hitting the villain would result in needless death and destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
Moses had fricken laser beams in his head?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course he did. He used them to part the red sea! Just, zzzap!, and now there's a huge hole big enough for everyone to run to the other side through!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:better than what we have now (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to get in the way of a good rant, but the players in this little drama are all Canadian.
As you may know, Canadians are notorious for ignoring the US Constitution [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, so that must be where our politicians come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is from Texas?
No, but Ted Cruz [wikipedia.org] is.
Re: (Score:2)
And he's Canadian for those that missed the joke. Or was, he surrendered his Canadian citizenship so he can pretend he's a real American. Otherwise when he talks about making gay people illegal, forcing women to be barefoot and pregnant, abolishing access to birth control and abortion people might question why this Canadian is pretending to be a Texan with values completely the opposite of the nation he held a passport in.
Re:better than what we have now (Score:5, Insightful)
"I really don't feel too bad for those who let him starve and now want a monument."
What the F*** are you talking about. The ones who starved him are in jail.
The man sponsoring the monument simply does so because he feels the poor boy deserves to be remembered as a stark reminder that we have to try harder to prevent such abuse.
Anybody could have been this boy's Superman if only the neglect would have been detected earlier.
Re:better than what we have now (Score:4, Interesting)
Random Stranger who's organizing this didn't know the kid at all... which is itself also rather odd. Monuments like this aren't for the dead, after all, they're for the living, those who still remember and care about the people who have passed, and Random Stranger never knew this kid. Random Stranger doesn't know the first thing about his personality. Why is it so important to Random Stranger whether or not the statue is dressed like Superman?
Re:better than what we have now (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not sure what planet you're yabbering from. They made a request. This is the opposite of hijacking.
From DC's point of view, it's called being nice. They need only send a letter agreeing to it, and they get good will. If they are tied up in exclusivity contracts, you have a quick conference call with those other businesses and explain the following: At this point, I would be in favor of an organized boycot of the upcoming Superman/Batman movie
Re: (Score:2)
I would be in favor of an organized boycot of the upcoming Superman/Batman movie
I would be in favor of a disorganized ignoring of the upcoming Superman/Batman movie just because I expect the movie to stink. DC's movie series start strong but fail fast. It's like the only stories they can do well are origins, and those are pretty boring.
Re: (Score:3)
DC's public relations powers aren't very super (Score:5, Funny)
They must have the same guy in charge of their PR that they have in charge of their movie division.
Re:DC's public relations powers aren't very super (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why is this so important? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, you're right, a child's death by starvation and abuse is such a downer and should be forgotten as quickly as possible. That money would do much more good for the world if used to create more cute cat videos and pictures for the internet.
Not like any good ever comes of reminding people child abuse happens and kills. And even if it did, there's no way an interesting statue could possibly generate attention and remind people of the incident for decades to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right, a child's death by starvation and abuse is such a downer and should be forgotten as quickly as possible.
And absolutely nobody would take any notice of any monument unless it has a Superman logo on it, because nobody cares about anything but Superman.
Build a monument without Superman on it. Don't drag irrelevant things into the case. Remember the kid and why he died, not that he liked to wear Superman costumes.
What did anyone expect DC to say when they were asked? They don't want a logo that makes them money connected to a dead child. They may have approved a Batman costume for Make A Wish, but the differen
Why is this so important? (Score:2)
And to the person below, I don't think anyone is suggesting we forget all about this. It's just that the kid being in a Superman costume has little to do with his memorial.
Re:Why is this so important? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who would have detected the neglect could have become this boy's superhero.
The monument is to remind us here in Ontario that we have to try harder.
Social services, the school records, neighbors ... there are countless ways this tragedy could, and should have been prevented.
Put it up anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, while they're tearing it down, get it on film...
LOOK! (Score:5, Funny)
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... cease and desist order. :(
Re:LOOK! (Score:4, Funny)
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... cease and desist order. :(
C&D Comics?
Re: (Score:2)
Then, while they're tearing it down, get it on film...
This is exactly what I was thinking. Show them for the heartless bastards they are.
Hell, if I knew a granite man, I'd have one made and deliver it myself.
They failed to realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
If they had not asked, DC probably would never have noticed that their logo was used there. On top of that, even if they had, I doubt they would have acted on it. Suing a grieving family over a harmless supposed trademark violation isn't too good for the company's reputation.
If they tried to use the logo now, after having been denied permission, DC would probably have no choice but to sue since this is in the public spotlight.
This would have been a total non-issue had they just done it and not asked anyone or publicized it.
I should add... (Score:4, Interesting)
...one good thing DID come out of this. We now know that DC are a bunch of heartless asses.
I guess finding this out is good for society. Makes me want to be their customer less, that's for sure.
Re:I should add... (Score:5, Informative)
But since this is a corporate bullshit decision, you should probably hold their bullshit corporate owners [wikipedia.org] responsible.
But if well-deserved hate had any effect on that particular company, I'm pretty sure we would've noticed by now.
Re: (Score:3)
It's corporate bullshit all the way down...
Re: (Score:2)
And a trademark can be lost if it's shown that you knew about the infringement but did nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a hint: a trademark has no natural expiration.
And a trademark can be lost if it's shown that you knew about the infringement but did nothing.
Which is not really a *natural expiration*.
Re: (Score:2)
Had DC chosen to grant permission, there would be no infringement. There would be no possible loss of DC's rights over the trademark.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They could still do it, and then the "spotlight" will be on a bunch of clowns in suits trampling over common sense and decency. They could always fire whichever clown was responsible and say "we apologize for our gross error of judgement; clearly you'd have to be on drugs or mentally ill to refuse such a simple request".
Re: (Score:2)
DC would probably have no choice but to sue since this is in the public spotlight.
That, or they could be normal decent non-fuckhead humans and let a little boy have a grave that looks like the hero he wanted to be. I prefer that option.
Re: (Score:2)
That, or they could be normal decent non-fuckhead humans and let a little boy have a grave that looks like the hero he wanted to be. I prefer that option.
Think of the children!
Let's be practical here, huh? The child is dead. It won't make one whit of difference to him whether there's a Superman logo on his monument or not. It won't make any difference to his parents, who should be the ones who care but probably don't. DC gains nothing from saying 'yes' to this, and they get a permanent attachment to a horribly negative event if they willingly agree. At best, it's commercialization of a tragedy.
If your argument for allowing something is "let a little boy h
Re: (Score:2)
This would have been a total non-issue had they just done it and not asked anyone or publicized it.
I'm not sure that's true. These big publishers hire companies such as RightsCorp to "monitor and search for unauthorized usage" of their "intellectual property".
If their rights protection contractor(s) found a Superman statue: there's no way these greedy b****rds could resist that potential revenue stream.
Re:They failed to realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but the media LOVES a sob story. Especially a David-and-Goliath one where it's a grieving family and a statue of their son vs. Big Bad Media corp.
Doesn't matter who's in the right, or wrong, Big Bad Media Corp will be vilified in every news, blog, and article from then on. Politicians will make or break their careers on it (not to mention there's going to be an election for Toronto mayor later this year - you can bet all the mayoral candidates will be all over themselves trying to be first to capitalize on it).
In other words, there's no way for DC (or Time Warner, owners) to win.
Even if it goes to court, too. They may win legally, but lose in the court of public opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they used it now, I'm not sure they'd sue. It would make them look pretty crappy. As it is, they got a request to use their logo on a statue of a murdered child, and they were like, "Eh... we'd rather not." It's really not that hard to understand why DC wouldn't want to be strongly linked to child abuse and murder in such a potentially long-lasting medium, given the choice. How much trouble they'd go through to stop it, though, is another issue.
Part of the question, I'd imagine, is whether they
Re: (Score:2)
It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
If they had not asked, DC probably would never have noticed that their logo was used there. On top of that, even if they had, I doubt they would have acted on it. Suing a grieving family over a harmless supposed trademark violation isn't too good for the company's reputation.
If they tried to use the logo now, after having been denied permission, DC would probably have no choice but to sue since this is in the public spotlight.
This would have been a total non-issue had they just done it and not asked anyone or publicized it.
I'd just do it anyway. Fuck them, let them sue me. If they took me to court and made me take it off, I'd ware a "Fuck DC Comics" Tshirt as I chiseled it off my dead sons gravestone by hand over a period of days and invite every media org in the country to tape me while I did it.
You're not helping. (Score:2)
It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Often but not always ---
The truth is that the cemetery association will have the final say here --- and it won't give an inch until DC and their lawyers sign off on this. Probably not even then.
Come and take it (Score:2)
Fuck Copyright (Score:2)
What (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that a logo is a trademark issue, not copyright, and trademarks don't expire as long as they are in use?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that trademark law concerns the exchange of goods and services [cornell.edu], not the appearance of symbols on sculptural works constructed as permanent momuments to the dead, don't you?
Copyright is one of the few things that DC Comics could plausibly assert if this is a one off produced by an artist -- i.e., the logo does not attempt to designate a good, service, or source of such goods and services.
You'll notice that the summary takes a shot in saying that the logo "should be public domain," not that it is, and that DC does not actually claim that trademark law is involved. Thanks for offering the trademark theory, if only because it provides an opportunity to show non-lawyers that trademarks are not equivalent to never-expiring copyrights.
This is a non-issue. (Score:3, Interesting)
Depict the kid in a skintight suit and a cape. Design a trianguar shield featuring the first letter of his own name. It would evoke Superman, but be non-actionable.
This is a non-issue. (Score:2)
Re:This is a non-issue. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, this is exactly what they are doing now.
You got me DC, you motherfuckers. (Score:2)
I am rarely at a loss for words. DC comics has me just shaking my head.
They say that boycotts rarely work but from now on I will never buy or see
anything that DC makes. Because it is the right thing.
Fuck these motherfuckers.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen, I get what you're saying. But this is DC comics for crying out loud.
They make comic books. Young boys/girls read these and they live as super heroes
for a few moments in their lives.
DC is selling dreams to the youngest and young at heart.
I guess there are no more dreams. Corporations have sucked all the money
and anything of value from our once great country. I guess it is only right that
they also destroy our dreams.
Let me take a moment to mourn for our nation.
Appropriate symbolism (Score:2)
Hasn't anyone considered that the Superman logo didn't belong on a memorial in the first place? It's supposed to be about a particular child, not a fictional character.
Oh DC... Marketing is king (Score:5, Insightful)
DC Comics donates statue for murdered boy's grave site.
That statue would cost less than the lawyer's fees for this fiasco and a hell of a lot less than a full page ad in the New York Times, but would get them 10x the goodwill.
Has DC Comics Done Something Stupid Today? (Score:2)
Someone tell the site maintainer that it's time to reset the counter to zero:
http://hasdcdonesomethingstupi... [hasdcdones...dtoday.com]
I say, they should do the monument exactly as they imagined it, just without the "S". I'm sure some volun^H^H^H^H^Hvandals will gladly paint a nice big "S" on it once it's installed.
BRB, off to the hardware store for some red enamel pa... um... screws.
Check canada laws... (Score:2)
Art in some countries can tell a copyright holder to STFU legally. IF Canada protects art then do it anyways.
Here's my workaround (Score:2)
.
Flashpoint (Score:2)
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kiggy007/12982942/28852/28852_300.jpg [livejournal.com]
It's a tragic story, but.. (Score:3)
Huh? (Score:2)
Wondering (Score:2)
I've got a Wonder Woman figure beside my deceased wife's ashes. Am I in trouble?
Canadian government should take charge (Score:2)
They could make a law called the Jeffrey's Act, and make Superman public domain (as it should be). Would DC lawyers risk the hatred involved with fighting that? Nor that it would matter, governments being sovereign and all
Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they can. They can license it out for this particular statue. Once it's licensed, there's no dilution.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, it has nothing to do with copyright:
Superman will therefore go back to being associated with wholesome, cheerful things, like planets exploding, orphaned kids being abandoned in a Kansas field, and slow d
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it's on ~1 out of 9 t-shirts, ~4 out of 10 underwear, and 3 out of 100 tatoos. They could license it for 1$.
DISCLAIMER: Statistics in this particular post are completely wrong, but are used to make a point.
Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why it's on ~1 out of 9 t-shirts, ~4 out of 10 underwear, and 3 out of 100 tatoos. They could license it for 1$.
Perhaps they can get around the "license requirement" for this memorial by purchasing a $10 T-shirt off the shelf. And simply don the product they purchased to the statue after folding.
The product then is already licensed; and the statue is not an article being used in trade.... it makes no difference if you wear it in public or attach it to a statue: you purchased a product that included the right to contain that logo licensed to the apparel distributor ---- the trademark holder's consent simply isn't required (they already consented to the mark's usage).
They could also "treat" the shirt by covering it with some chemicals, plastics, and protective coatings to help preserve and protect it. and possibly take some other steps to "emboss" or emphasize the mark, as long as the logo itself remains unaltered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness, too, otherwise I'd confuse Superman with Supperman [fubiz.net].
I feel totally protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
A little harsh but dead accurate. They're not legally obligated to sue the grieving parents. They could even draw up a contract and sell them limited rights to have this one statue in perpetuity for a dollar, or some such. For PR reasons, the DC rep could even donate the dollar to the rights purchaser.
There are many ways DC could do this, legally and protected, without being asswipes. They chose "fuck 'em; none of the above".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm having a hard time accepting that you think people deserve/don't deserve to have a fictional fucking comic book character's logo on their damn tombstone.
I mean, OK, you want to be that way? What, then, did Reeve or Reeves ever do that was super? Save a baby from a burning building? Or did they just act in a couple of crappy films? What's so damn super about that?
If anyone "deserves" a Superman logo on their grave, it's the soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save their buddies, by throwing themselves o
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read on /. I don't even know where to begin, except to say that it sounds like your thinking seems to be, "Let me pick a position which I know will be unpopular, which must mean it is more correct than the popular position, and then go through some inane line of reasoning to support said position."
"They are the only people who would have actually earned it."
Everyone here is dumber for having read that.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Kirk Alyn [wikipedia.org], you insensitive clod?
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome, visitor from Krypton. One of the first pieces of knowledge that you will need to be introduced to on this planet is this tidbit: Nerds like comic books. And now that we've covered that, we move on to the fascinating world of nerds and their love of Star Trek....
Re: (Score:2)
Its a slippery slope that DC is right to avoid with a flat out denial.
I see the potential for a slope, but that would be with the type of request IMO - and on that level you still have the power to say yes or no. So they would need to come up with some criteria, if they did, that would end the potential slope right there.
Re: (Score:3)
If DC allows the monument for this child, what's to prevent some other family asking for the same use of the superman logo (likeness?)? Where do the requests stop?
Why would this be a problem?
As in what, precisely, would be wrong with allowing parents to use your trademark of a beloved children's character on their dead kids' tombstones?
Re: (Score:2)
Kids starves to death -> build a monument where you feature him as superman.
There must be some crazy logic going on to come to that course of action.
I'm sure it would appear crazy to someone who didn't actually read the article. Third link in the summary above:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gt... [thestar.com]
Which begins with the words: Before he died of starvation at the hands of his grandparents, Jeffrey Baldwin dreamed of being just like Superman.
Right under this photo of the kid in a Superman costume: http://www.thestar.com/content... [thestar.com]