That's the Corporate Mentality at work, of course...
The article is now three years old, so I don't know how the case went.
(I must say--the prices for the pieces (starting at $200) were extremely affordable. Wonder what they might go for now--if DC Comics actually did take them. Pretty extreme, if so--)
http://www.nyblade.com/2005/9-2/viewpoint/actionalert/dc.cfm Holy copyright, Batman!
DC Comics wants to halt homoerotic depictions of caped crusaders 
By Bo Shell
Friday, September 02, 2005
DC Comics, the publishing giant behind many superhero titles, has put legal pressure on a New York City art dealer and Web site for exhibiting watercolors depicting Batman and Robin in semi-nude, nude and homoerotic poses.
The publishing company sent cease-and-desist letters earlier this month to Kathleen Cullen Fine Art in Chelsea and the owners of
Artnet.com for displaying the watercolors by artist
Mark Chamberlain. The images include a shirtless Batman and Robin, the dynamic duo embracing and kissing, and the two characters wearing only their capes, masks and gloves.
“I’ve spent the last two weeks of my life consulting lawyers,”
Katheen Cullen, owner of Kathleen Cullen Fine Art, told
Artnet Magazine in a recent interview.
Cullen said New York-based DC Comics asked her to “hand over all unsold work and invoices for the sold work,” which had been purchased at prices starting at $200.DC Comics did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Cullen and Chamberlain also could not be reached for comment.
Walter Robinson, the editor of
Artnet, said the company also received a letter from DC Comics.
“You know how these copyright things work,” Robinson said. “They rattle their sabers at you, then if you don’t comply they have to decide whether to make a civil action, and a civil action is expensive and complicated with an uncertain outcome and frequently it’s just the saber-rattling move.”
Artnet, a 15-year-old company that recorded $7 million in revenue last year, publishes a magazine and hosts Web sites for several art galleries and an illustrated auction database of fine art values.
“It’s not really my department, but we’re inclined not to give in,” Robinson said. “I think it’s pretty safe under the parody exception of the copyright law.”
U.S. copyright law gives holders exclusive rights to reproduce the copyrighted work, but includes exceptions for fair use. Factors in determining fair use include whether the use is commercial, nonprofit or educational; the nature of the copyrighted work; how much the work at issue compares to the copyrighted work; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
“Not all parody is going to be privilege under the copyright law,” said
Jamie Silverberg, a copyright attorney. “I think the idea behind parody is that in certain cases of parody, … where the work is transformed, the underlying copyright is transformed within a new piece. I think it entails the notion that there is not an infringement on the copyright because you are not relying on the qualities of the original piece.”
Silverberg, the litigation director at the Intellectual Property Group in Washington, D.C., added that he could not rule out a trademark violation in this case.
Many copyright cases end in settlement before litigation and a small percentage make it to federal courts, which have exclusive jurisdiction over such cases, he said.
Patrick Fillion, the British Columbia-based creator of several erotic gay comics, said reproduction of his work by fans is often the highest form of flattery, but selling it for profit is cause for concern.
“The way I see it is that the artist should be entitled to depict fan art,” Fillion said. “I don’t think he should be selling them to make a profit. There are trademark laws and copyright laws that are in place for a reason.”
