Warner Brothers Shuts Down Auction For Children's Cancer Charity
from the nice-of-them dept
Reader Jonathan points us to a story that's also made the rounds on Boing Boing. Basically a blogger who apparently is somewhat well connected in the comic book/superhero world decided to get a bunch of artists he knew together to create comic character-based artwork to auction on eBay with the proceeds being sent to a children's charity who had helped out his own family at one point. The charity auction was announced, a bunch of artists signed up and created superhero-related artwork, and the auctions began on eBay. At some point, Warner Brothers, who owns the rights to many superhero characters contacted eBay to shut down a few of the auctions. This made the guy pull the rest of the auctions and get a bit nervous about whether or not he broke the law. Oddly, after all of this started getting attention Warner Brothers let one of the auctions proceed, but didn't respond to a question from the guy about letting the others move forward. In fact, in an email, Warner Brothers didn't explain its position at all.On the whole, the legal issue is a bit murky (and it doesn't sound like anyone's making any legal threats here, so this probably won't go any further). The artwork may very well have infringed (though there are reasonable arguments for why it was not infringing as well). However, once again, this does seem like a situation where lawyers jumped ahead of what actually made sense from a business or PR standpoint. A smart company would have seen this going on and would have figured out a way to embrace it and come out of it looking like a good guy -- perhaps sponsoring the charity auction in some manner or another. But in shutting down the auctions, Warner Brothers comes off as a big legal bully who doesn't want to help kids with cancer. One more reason why legal solutions should always be looked at as a last line of defense, rather than an automatic solution.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: artwork, auctions, charity, super heroes
Companies: ebay, warner brothers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not cultural works, but commercial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not cultural works, but commercial
Gets a bit more interesting however when you consider cases like Disney, who copyrighted material that originally was in the public domain, eh? :P
Still, from cases like this you've got to wonder if these companies actually have PR departments. It seems like protectionism is the only game in town these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not cultural works, but commercial
Tell me what bunch of cartoonists, who've spent their life entertaining children, would stand up and call for the prosecution of this other bunch of cartoonists who'd like to help extend the life of less fortunate children?
Fundamentally, if you don't want the public to have your art as part of their culture for them to freely exchange and build upon, then don't publish it in the first place.
As you observe, Disney had no compunction building upon public culture for their own benefit. They should similarly tolerate the public building upon the public culture Disney publishes.
Copyright was a monopoly intended to constrain a few commercial printers 300 years ago, not the public. It's an unethical anachronism and should have been abolished a century ago. Today, it's just revealing corporate sociopathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not cultural works, but commercial
I can envision a "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" argument here. I mean, yeah, they spend their lives entertaining kids, but they need to eat. And yeah, this is a worthy cause, but what about the next guy that points to this as precedent. Maybe they have a point, maybe they don't. All I'm saying is that even if they're wrong they aren't utterly unreasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not cultural works, but commercial
This is the public's culture and their cultural freedom at stake.
We're only talking about one bunch of cartoonists reproducing the characters that many children have become familiar with over their short lifetimes thanks to another bunch of cartoonists.
Copyright advocates say "Either pay the first bunch whatever they demand or create new characters - you thieving bastards - and tough luck if the kids prefer our work to yours".
Something's gone terribly wrong if this is what copyright is about - don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not cultural works, but commercial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unforntunate convergence of trademark law and the internet
The "crime" here is in the lack of followup. The original auctions should have been taken down, but then the company should have issued a limited license for the use of the characters and the auctions immediately re-listed - probably with some wording "The characters appear here under license from ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unforntunate convergence of trademark law and the internet
If anything, they could have, as you said, issued a one-time license, but that's not how the corporate attorney-drones think. They want to own the ideas; they want a court to tell you you can't experience or think about their character without paying them a license fee each time. Since they have not been able to get to that point (yet), they settle for bullying whomever they can. 1984's crimethink will not come about due to government suppression, it will come about due to this maddening extension of licenses, "IP" rights and corporate scare-mongereing which we have allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unforntunate convergence of trademark law and the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unforntunate convergence of trademark law and the internet
Why is it so difficult for people today to be reasonable and logical about things? This could have been a huge win-win situation. The artists get to support a great cause, a worthy charity is supported, and WB comes out looking like heros while still protecting their TMs. This could have been on the 6 o'clock news as one of those "feel good" stories. Instead the charity isn't getting supported and WB is getting trashed on techdirt. Sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
— Crosbie Fitch"
Gee where on the auctions did it say "Genuwine DC SUpeerHero Comexs"
If these art works somehow defray the profits of someone in the market for buying a comic book, I would love to have that pointed out to me. I'm sure the RIAA can educate me on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Such a pity Warner so selfishly tries to prohibit anyone else using the characters they gave to the world.
But then they'll argue "Oh no, we just said you can look, but not touch. We didn't say you could share them or build them into your own works. These are sacred icons that remain our commercial property - not part of your culture. Whatever gave you that idea?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too many copyright / Patent stories!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name & Shame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can only be a nice guy so often because of those rulings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never
These works are owned by the public as well as the artist since without the public they would not be recognized, nor succesful and nobody would have heard of them.
There is no successful art without the public that you despise.
So,the real question is when will artists and their lawyers and business managers realize that we live in a free world and captive audiences rarely exist anymore and that they, the artists, are completely dependent upon the goodwill of the consumer public?
And that as a consequence they should appreciate the fact that we are willing to watch or listen to the artist instead of complaining that we like them enough to incorporate the artist's work in our culture?
P.S. suing your customers is not, strictly speaking, an art form...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Never
I'm not in support of this recognition at all. In fact I'm horrified that so many people seem so willing and compliant in this respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gray area here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WB's Stance = Phail
Things like helping people like that used to exist. Slowly dying off however, even on a local scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations Asssuming Police Powers
For example, Mike wrote "This made the guy pull the rest of the auctions and get a bit nervous about whether or not he broke the law. Oddly, after all of this started getting attention Warner Brothers let one of the auctions proceed, but didn't respond to a question from the guy about letting the others move forward. In fact, in an email, Warner Brothers didn't explain its position at all." (emphais added) This forum has also contained articles regarding content producers demands that ISPs "filter" internet traffic to protect their so-called intellectual property and HP was caught in a pretexting imbroglio.
These incidents clearly point to a trend where corporations believe that they can unilaterally "define" what is legal and that they posses police powers to take action against the malcontents. A scary thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay/copyright policy
It is an automatic knee-jerk reaction that ebay has in place to pull any auction that the {VERO} committee decides may be a potential infringement of a copyright...
Look up VERO on ebay and read about it.... ebay has scouts online (although they cannot police them all) to find and remove possible infringing auctions and their decision is pretty much final with any repost by the seller making them liable for expulsion from ebay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]