Lexplug logoLexplug

DC Comics v. Mark Towle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
802 F.3d 1012 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A fictional character that has distinctive physical and conceptual qualities is protectable by copyright, even if the character is an inanimate object, like a car, and does not maintain a consistent physical appearance across different works.


Facts:

  • DC Comics is the copyright owner of the Batman comic books, which first featured the Batmobile in 1941.
  • The Batmobile has consistently been depicted as Batman's personal, high-tech, bat-themed, crime-fighting vehicle, though its specific design has varied over time in different media.
  • In 1965, DC licensed its rights to ABC, which produced the 1966 'Batman' television series featuring a specific and now-iconic version of the Batmobile.
  • In 1979, DC licensed its rights to Batman Productions, Inc., which led to the 1989 'BATMAN' motion picture featuring a new, distinct design for the Batmobile.
  • Mark Towle, through his business Gotham Garage, manufactured and sold replicas of the Batmobile as it appeared in the 1966 television series and the 1989 film.
  • Towle advertised his products as the 'Batmobile,' used the domain name batmobilereplicas.com, and marketed features like 'custom bat insignias' to attract fans.
  • Towle was not authorized by DC Comics to manufacture or sell any products related to the Batmobile.

Procedural Posture:

  • DC Comics filed a lawsuit against Mark Towle in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition.
  • The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on DC's claims.
  • The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of DC Comics, holding that the Batmobile was a character entitled to copyright protection and that Towle had infringed on that copyright.
  • The district court also granted summary judgment to DC on Towle's laches defense to the trademark claim.
  • Following the summary judgment ruling, the parties entered a joint stipulation for a final judgment to be entered against Towle, which preserved his right to appeal the court's prior rulings.
  • Towle (appellant) filed a timely appeal of the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with DC Comics as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an automotive character, like the Batmobile, that displays consistent, identifiable traits and attributes across different media but does not have a static physical appearance, qualify for copyright protection as a character?


Opinions:

Majority - Ikuta, Circuit Judge

Yes, an automotive character like the Batmobile qualifies for copyright protection. A character can be protected by copyright if it is sufficiently delineated with consistent traits and attributes, even if its physical appearance changes. The court established a three-part test for character copyrightability: 1) the character must have physical and conceptual qualities; 2) it must be 'sufficiently delineated' to be recognizable as the same character across appearances, displaying consistent, identifiable traits; and 3) it must be 'especially distinctive' and not a stock character. The Batmobile satisfies this test because it is always depicted as Batman's high-tech, bat-themed, crime-fighting partner with a unique name and a consistent set of traits and abilities, making it more than just a car. Because DC owns the copyright to the underlying Batmobile character, Towle's unauthorized replicas of its depictions in derivative works (the TV show and film) constitute copyright infringement.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies and clarifies the legal framework for extending copyright protection to inanimate objects as characters, building upon the precedent set in cases like Halicki (concerning the car 'Eleanor'). By establishing a clear three-part test, the court provides a roadmap for determining the copyrightability of non-humanoid characters, emphasizing consistent traits and conceptual identity over a static physical appearance. The ruling significantly strengthens the intellectual property rights of creators over iconic fictional objects, potentially affecting everything from famous spaceships to magical artifacts, and confirms that copying a character from an authorized derivative work is an infringement of the copyright in the original underlying work.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query DC Comics v. Mark Towle (2015) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for DC Comics v. Mark Towle