Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DC Entertainment Won't Allow Superman Logo On Murdered Child's Memorial Statue

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the that's-some-good-PR-work-there-lou dept.

Businesses 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."

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Superman (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 months ago | (#47402505)

Superman, standing for truth, justice and IP rights!

Re:Superman (5, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 3 months ago | (#47402529)

It's the American way!

Re:Superman (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47402665)

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...

Re:Superman (5, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 3 months ago | (#47402705)

More importantly, without this trademark protection, Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel would not be encouraged to produce more works!

Re:Superman (1)

TWX (665546) | about 3 months ago | (#47402753)

What is this...I don't even!

Re:Superman (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403031)

What is this...

I think it's called "sarcasm".

Re:Superman (4, Informative)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47402761)

Or continue to collect that princely sum of $20,000/year that DC agreed to pay them after the lawsuit forced them to.

Re:Superman (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 months ago | (#47402893)

No, without trademark protection, anyone could write Superman comics and sell them as such. I think you're thinking of copyright protection.

Re:Superman (5, Informative)

Minwee (522556) | about 3 months ago | (#47402959)

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:Superman (2)

imatter (2749965) | about 3 months ago | (#47402777)

I am not sure how granting rights in this case would hurt their trademark, but... they allowed a guy to dress up as Batman for the Make a Wish Foundation. Maybe the Make a Wish Foundation didn't ask for permission only forgiveness. http://sf.wish.org/wishes/wish... [wish.org] that page doesn't even mention DC Comics.

Re:Superman (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402879)

or people could stop buying from tombstone vendors that are complete idiots. Some vendors are smart enough to buy a properly licensed object (of the gazillions out there) and embed it into the memorial. Problem solved.

Did you really think this is the first time someone wanted to do something like this? The parents just need to stop shopping at Billy Bob's Discount Tombstone & Tackle Shack if they want something atypical.

Re:Superman (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 months ago | (#47403025)

Insightful? - I think the mods missed your joke.

Re:Superman (5, Funny)

rk (6314) | about 3 months ago | (#47403133)

Some people mod humor as "insightful" because "funny" didn't/doesn't contribute positive karma to the recipient, whereas "insightful" does.

Re:Superman (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 3 months ago | (#47403037)

I'm pretty sure your parents need murdered at the opera to get a DC headstone.

Re:Superman (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402715)

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 not a super hero but a God.

Why not make him like 'Q' on Star Trek where he can just snap his fingers for Christ's sake!

Re:Superman (5, Funny)

daemonhunter (968210) | about 3 months ago | (#47402835)

where he can just snap his fingers for Christ's sake!

That's a different God. Don't mix genres. :)

Re:Superman (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402965)

Actually, he started out as a ruffian who physically beat criminals into submission and then dropped them off on the police commissioner's front lawn.

That take on Superman didn't last for long, and now we have our flying, bulletproof, locomotive racing amalgam of everything that's apparently necessary to stop crime.

Re:Superman (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 3 months ago | (#47402969)

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.

better than what we have now (-1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 months ago | (#47402889)

The child was starved to death. Clearly this entitles him to use anyone else's Intellectual Property.

The child is never going to know that he didn't get to be considered a Superman for starving to death, and I really don't feel too bad for those who let him starve and now want a monument.

While I feel no compassion for those who want to hijack Superman in this case, I do agree completely with the idea that our copyright laws have been hijacked by big business (lead by Disney). The Constitution makes it clear that copyright protections are given for a limited time in exchange for the Intellectual Property passing into public domain. To let corporations like Disney buy politicians who openly admit that they never intend for some IP to pass into public domain is another case of American's right being completely disregarded by Washington.

Re: better than what we have now (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402979)

That's awesome and all, but this is taking place in Canada.

Re: better than what we have now (2)

JazzLad (935151) | about 3 months ago | (#47403073)

The 51st state, right?

Re:better than what we have now (4, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | about 3 months ago | (#47403079)

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] .

DC's public relations powers aren't very super (5, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47402507)

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 (5, Funny)

Adriax (746043) | about 3 months ago | (#47402605)

With his boss looking, Jim in PR denied 40 requests. He denied 40 requests. That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible.

Re:DC's public relations powers aren't very super (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402623)

"DC" stands for Douchebag Comics?

Re:DC's public relations powers aren't very super (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402671)

"Dumbass Cunts" would be my guess, based on long experience.

Why is this so important? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402875)

The guy who wants this doesn't even know the family. The kids parents were abusive, and his grandparents turned out to be just as bad.

It's not like this monument has some special significance to his family. Its not like the kid himself did any thing heroic or self-sacrificing. This story is a horrible one from beginning to end, but I don't see how this monument with the kid in a superman outfit is so important in ending it.

So the kid liked his superman outfit. Lots of kids do. People need to move beyond this specific point, because its just not that important in this case.

Re:Why is this so important? (4, Insightful)

Adriax (746043) | about 3 months ago | (#47403173)

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.

Put it up anyway (3, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47402509)

Then, while they're tearing it down, get it on film...

LOOK! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402553)

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... cease and desist order. :(

Re:LOOK! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47402765)

Make 'em call in the marines... It'll be a great show.

Re:LOOK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402913)

It's Canada. I'm pretty sure the Cub Scouts could take their Marines.

Re:LOOK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403171)

Canada doesn't have a "Marines", but it's been proposed. Secondly, the US military aren't generally considered highly skilled when compared with other countries. But they are well equiped.

Re:LOOK! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402807)

More powerful than the Constitution

Able to move cash overseas in a single bound

LOOK! Up in the sky!

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... cease and desist order. :(

Re:Put it up anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402557)

That would probably be the best DC film made since Superman II.

Re:Put it up anyway (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47402751)

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.

Re: Put it up anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402843)

if I knew a granite man

Really? That's what you're letting stop you?

They failed to realize... (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 3 months ago | (#47402515)

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... (3, Interesting)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 3 months ago | (#47402523)

...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... (4, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47402707)

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:I should add... (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47402823)

It's corporate bullshit all the way down...

Re:I should add... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403147)

If by "corporate bullshit" you mean "exactly what any properly-run company is supposed to do" then sure.

If there's not already a licensed vendor, don't make the mistake of asking for just one of something. It's way too expensive- not only do you have to draft up the license, but you also have to inspect the product to control the quality. Otherwise it's as bad for you as if you hadn't spent the money for the lawyers to put the right license together in the first place. Meanwhile you're pulling that corporate staff off of things that actually, you know, generate millions in revenue.

Even if that doesn't seem that onerous, you're now ensuring that the entire file has to be reproduced every time you're involved in any more "legitimate" trademark litigation since it speaks to the underlying rights at issue. What if someone screws it up? Now the VP of marketing is dealing with a million questions about some dead Canadian kid in a deposition, instead of, say, beating back counterfeit Chinese goods.

Also, I love how even after all this time editors and submitters still don't understand the difference between a copyright and a trademark. Here's a hint: a trademark has no natural expiration.

Re:They failed to realize... (2)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 3 months ago | (#47402559)

I agree. The media frenzy from attempting to tear it down would have been insane. DC, while upset over the unauthorized use, would never have pushed to have the memorial removed.

Re:They failed to realize... (2)

Threni (635302) | about 3 months ago | (#47402595)

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:They failed to realize... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 3 months ago | (#47402661)

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:They failed to realize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402785)

The little boy is dead. It makes no difference to him now.

Re:They failed to realize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402827)

What does this have to do with a little boy? Tombstones don't benefit the deceased one whit.

This is about letting the parents get what they want. Yes, their kid is dead. That really sucks. It still doesn't give them rights to other people's property.

Re:They failed to realize... (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 months ago | (#47402701)

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... (1)

naff89 (716141) | about 3 months ago | (#47402787)

According to TFA, it was the City of Toronto who insisted that the issue of possible copyright infringement be settled before putting up the statue.

Which isn't quite as bad as DC's "no you can't", but is a far cry away from "We've got your back, father of murdered five-year-old."

Re:They failed to realize... (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 3 months ago | (#47402897)

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 denying the use of the logo via copyright protection or trademark protection. I'm not sure it makes sense for them to claim trademark protection here, but if so, there are some legal requirements for them to protect their trademark, so they might need to at least send a cease and desist letter. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding.

What grieving family? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402905)

There is no grieving family. His family murdered him. His parent abused him and lost custody to his grandparents. Then, those grandparents starved him to death 10 years ago!

Superman logo is a Trademark (1, Informative)

HaeMaker (221642) | about 3 months ago | (#47402517)

This has nothing to do with copyright. The Superman logo is a trademark, which has different protections and rules about maintaining those protections. They can't loan it out without risking dilution.

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (5, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | about 3 months ago | (#47402573)

Sure they can. They can license it out for this particular statue. Once it's licensed, there's no dilution.

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (1, Insightful)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | about 3 months ago | (#47402601)

You are retarded, they could easily issue a no-cost perpetual licence for this. They just don't want to. There are ZERO legal issues stopping them. Licensing your trademark does not make you lose it. It is not going after unlicensed uses. I don't know how the fuck you have such a low UID and haven't read this here 100000 times.

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 3 months ago | (#47402685)

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:Superman logo is a Trademark (1)

Tiger Smile (78220) | about 3 months ago | (#47402613)

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 (5, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 months ago | (#47402749)

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:Superman logo is a Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402791)

So what does happen to the people that get a superman tattoo, clearly unlicensed. Is DC going to start suing them too? And if DC wins and the tattoo needs to be removed how does that happen? and if there are scars from the removal?

Will more tattoos to break corporate control of trademarks?

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402633)

The Superman logo is a trademark, [...]. They can't loan it out without risking dilution.

Oh nonsense. Of course they can license use of their trademark without risking dilution. Dilution is when they tolerate unlicensed use of their trademark after being made aware of it. But not when they grant a request for its use.

Superman logo is a Trademark (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402635)

This has nothing to do with copyright. The Superman logo is a trademark, which has different protections and rules about maintaining those protections. They can't loan it out without risking dilution.

Well, that explains why you never see any licensed Superman merchandise!

They can license it for $1 and maintain their rights. If they sell this single artist, a single license for this project, then they keep all rights and there is no issue.
If they give it away, then they risk diluting the copyright / trademark status.

They certainly made their money selling licenses to whomever created the Superman costume that the kid had been wearing in life.

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (2)

aaron4801 (3007881) | about 3 months ago | (#47402741)

Trademark is a consumer protection law, not a corporate ownership right. Trademarks are protected to prevent consumers from buying things that they believe are produced by a particular company instead of a fraudulently produced knockoff. Since there is no commerce here, there is no chance of consumer confusion.

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 months ago | (#47402909)

Thank goodness, too, otherwise I'd confuse Superman with Supperman [fubiz.net] .

I feel totally protected.

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (-1)

freeze128 (544774) | about 3 months ago | (#47402779)

Honestly, and a lot of people are not going to like this, I don't believe that this child's marker deserves the Superman logo. Why not put the logo on the marker of Christopher Reeve or George Reeves. They are the only people who would have actually earned it. The death of this child is tragic, but other than being a superman fan, what was his connection?

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47402871)

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 on a grenade, for example. Or firemen in general. Or yea, maybe a little boy who endured some shit that no child should ever go through. Not some B-list actor who sucked at riding horses.

a lot of people are not going to like this

Well good, it gives me hope for humanity that a lot of people instantly recognize ignorant shit-speak when they see it.

Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (1)

SirSlud (67381) | about 3 months ago | (#47402891)

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:Superman logo is a Trademark (1)

loonycyborg (1262242) | about 3 months ago | (#47403179)

Trademarks definitely aren't involved in this case because no product is being marketed.

Trademark issues (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402521)

Even if the works were public domain, there are still trademarks in play here. I don't see why they *can't* do this, though, I think they just don't want to get dragged into anything or set a precedent. I say this because they were deliberately vague about which legal reasons were preventing this, lest anyone offer them solutions.

Re:Trademark issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402631)

They just need to chisel in a little 'tm' next to it.

Re:Trademark issues (1)

dosius (230542) | about 3 months ago | (#47402725)

Why not the pentagon without the S?

-uso.

"If we're nice to you, we have to be to everyone" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402527)

"and, we're assholes!"

Come and take it (1)

rkhalloran (136467) | about 3 months ago | (#47402543)

a) don't know how different the copyright rules are in Canada vs. US, but hopefully Warner would have a bit more trouble b) VERY publically call them out in the press should they try to have it taken down; the PR flack should give them second thoughts

They should engrave slightly altered slogans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402563)

Faster than a speedy bullet
More powerful than a large train
Able to leap tall structures easily

It's a bird, it's an airplane, it's Jeffrey Baldwin

News for Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402567)

Stuff that Matters?

Re:News for Nerds (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 3 months ago | (#47402711)

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....

Fuck Copyright (1)

DMJC (682799) | about 3 months ago | (#47402583)

Clearly some rights just aren't worth protecting because they come at too much expense.

Re:Fuck Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402811)

Clearly some rights just aren't worth protecting because they come at too much expense.

Such as the right to be stupid in public?

This is about trademarks, not copyright.

Do it anyway. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402603)

Watch what happens to the donation fund if they try to sue.

Watch what happens to their reputation if they try to sue (remember what Superman stands for to the character's fans).

5 man to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402625)

Make the logo more diamond shaped and the S a five.

What (3, Insightful)

Jiro (131519) | about 3 months ago | (#47402681)

even though Superman should be public domain, DC Comics has denied the request.

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:What (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 3 months ago | (#47402975)

This isn't about truth and reality. This about Slashdot's daily Two Minutes Hate [wikipedia.org] .

Does anyone else think the monument is stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402689)

This here is a monument to a random child who was treated badly, he's not more or less special than millions of other children treated badly, just someone with nothign better to do found it moving

Re:Does anyone else think the monument is stupid? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402943)

This here is a monument to a random child who was treated badly, he's not more or less special than millions of other children treated badly, just someone with nothign better to do found it moving

Assholes like you are why we cannot have nice things and why people are not treated humanely.

this would make Santa Claus vomit with rage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403081)

No, OP is correct. Everybody involved in this story is horrible. And now I'm horrible for posting in this thread.

DC's decision is the right one (0)

PA23 (1708056) | about 3 months ago | (#47402757)

Copyright and Trademark arguments aside, I feel that DC made the only decision they could. 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? What criteria should DC use to allow or deny the use of the logo?

Its a slippery slope that DC is right to avoid with a flat out denial.

Re:DC's decision is the right one (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | about 3 months ago | (#47402839)

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:DC's decision is the right one (1)

dkman (863999) | about 3 months ago | (#47402901)

They should have seen the income opportunity here and said we will license it out for headstones/memorials at a cost of $X. Then he would have to go raise that much more for his monument. Done deal. They still look like dicks, but then everyone can have their way if they're willing to cough up the cash.

Re:DC's decision is the right one (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#47402955)

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:DC's decision is the right one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403059)

then people would just go to cemeteries instead of reading our comic books and watching generic superhero movie 53206

This is a non-issue. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402775)

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.

You got me DC, you motherfuckers. (2)

satan666 (398241) | about 3 months ago | (#47402795)

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:You got me DC, you motherfuckers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403185)

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.

Because ... why exactly? My first inclination would have been to deny the request too. Sure, it's tragic but that doesn't bring any special privileges; there are lots of tragedies every day on this wretched world.

Bosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402833)

There aren't a variety of legal reasons they couldn't "accede to the request." They could have licensed it for a penny. They're just jerks.

British law allows more exceptions to copyright than American. The Queen holds a perpetual copyright to the King James Version of the Bible and I believe Peter Pan has a perpetual copyright because royalties go to a children's hospital.

Perhaps Canada's parliament could do something similar and declare Superman in the public domain. Let DC Comics stew, whine and complain. Even the threat of doing that might lead them to change their mind about the little boy.

Do it anyways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402851)

...and dare DC to sue you and take the huge PR hit...

Appropriate symbolism (1)

Livius (318358) | about 3 months ago | (#47402877)

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.

Re:Appropriate symbolism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403027)

We allow crosses and stars of David on memorials. What's the difference?

Then . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47402971)

Then just bury him in the costume as a tribute and get on with your life.

Oh DC... Marketing is king (4, Insightful)

netsavior (627338) | about 3 months ago | (#47402987)

Imagine this headline:
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? (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 3 months ago | (#47403111)

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.

Disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47403123)

DC?

More like DiCks, AMIRITE?

Do they have any choice? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47403219)

Last i heard, if you dont protect your trademark you lose it. I dont think there are any 'humanitarian exceptions' to that rule.

However, they could 'lease' the rights to his family to use it, lets say for a dollar... Then they dont look like jerks, and dont risk the legal implications for inaction.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?