DC wants gallery to remove homoerotic Batman art
turk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4167032.stm
Gallery told to drop 'gay' Batman
DC Comics has ordered a New York gallery to remove pictures which show
Batman and Robin kissing and embracing.
The Kathleen Cullen Fine Arts gallery was told it would face legal action
unless it removed watercolours of the superhero by artist Mark Chamberlain.
"DC Comics wants me to hand over all unsold work," said Ms Cullen.
Arts website Artnet was also told to remove the series of semi-naked images
of Batman and Robin from its website. DC Comics was unavailable to comment.
Homoerotic poses
The colour pictures, which depict the superheroes in a number of homoerotic
poses, were put on display in the gallery in February.
Seven images from the collection were subsequently displayed on the Artnet
site.
Artist Chamberlain's works have been exhibited in numerous Manhattan
galleries since 1991, with collections entitled Neo-Erotic and Gender Tennis
among others.
Two years ago an artwork featuring Kylie Minogue's bottom was pulled from
the Royal Academy's summer show after the singer's lawyers complained.
Ken from Chicago
"turk" <tur...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SMGdnfQd_pi...@comcast.com...
DC Comics owns the copyright. They have the legal right to chose how their
characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
-- Ken from Chicago
John Duncan Yoyo
Plus it isn't very good. It looks like he was bored one afternoon and
just dashed it off.
<http://www.artnet.com/artist/424157172/mark-chamberlain.html>
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
David Meadows
> characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
Yeah, I can't really see how any professional artist -- not to mention a
professional art gallery -- would not think of that. Makes me wonder if they
did it on purpose for the publicity.
--
David Meadows
"More than elite, they were unique. The first of a new
generation of superheroes." -- General Hammerstein's Memoirs,
Heroes #26 ( http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts )
Stephen Bayer
Wow. Batman & Robin as a gay couple? No one's ever thought of that before.
*Yawn*
"turk" <tur...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SMGdnfQd_pi...@comcast.com...
Meat
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> DC Comics owns the copyright. They have the legal right to chose how their
> characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
More likely it falls under trademark law (subtle, but important
distinction). I have no problem with DC demanding that the pieces to
be taken down, if the artist used the likenesses without permission.
In fact, DC's hands are tied -- trademark law requires the holder to
vigourously defend the trademark or fear losing it entirely (that's why
occasionally a company will go after a fan site or what not).
David L. Burkhead
Its both, actually. The bat symbol and the like can be protected under
trademark law. Copyright law also protects against "derivative works" made
without permission.
--
David L. Burkhead "May I be just half the person
mailto:dbur...@comcast.net my dog thinks I am."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://coldservings.keenspace.com
Updates Wednesdays
Paul O'Brien
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> writes
>
>DC Comics owns the copyright. They have the legal right to chose how
>their characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
True, but (as Rich Johnston pointed out last week) DC usually turns a
blind eye to this sort of thing. Andy Warhol did some Superman
pictures, and they've never complained about those. It's difficult to
avoid concluding that DC only have a problem with these ones because
they're in Gay Panic Mode again.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
IF DESTROYED - http://ifdestroyed.blogspot.com
Brian Doyle
"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mmXzRTCo...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In message <PoKdnZ2dnZ2mBrqqnZ2dn...@comcast.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> writes
> >
> >DC Comics owns the copyright. They have the legal right to chose how
> >their characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
>
> True, but (as Rich Johnston pointed out last week) DC usually turns a
> blind eye to this sort of thing. Andy Warhol did some Superman
> pictures, and they've never complained about those.
Had they shown Superman snogging a scantily clad Jimmy Olsen, I can well
imagine they would have done.
Shawn H
: Plus it isn't very good. It looks like he was bored one afternoon and
: just dashed it off.
: <http://www.artnet.com/artist/424157172/mark-chamberlain.html>
They're watercolors that obviously mix pornographic models with the
iconic costumes; DC isn't objecting to the quality of the works, they're
objecting to the nudity.
I think they're very well done.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Wow. Batman & Robin as a gay couple? No one's ever thought of that before.
: *Yawn*
The very fact that DC objects shows that not everyone is so blase' as you
about the concept.
Shawn H.
: "turk" <tur...@comcast.net> wrote in message
: >
: >
: >
Shawn H
: "turk" <tur...@comcast.net> wrote in message
: >
: > Two years ago an artwork featuring Kylie Minogue's bottom was pulled from
: > the Royal Academy's summer show after the singer's lawyers complained.
: DC Comics owns the copyright. They have the legal right to chose how their
: characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
Are they protected from satire? Where does Chamberlain's free speech come
into this?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
: >
: > DC Comics owns the copyright. They have the legal right to chose how their
: > characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
: Yeah, I can't really see how any professional artist -- not to mention a
: professional art gallery -- would not think of that. Makes me wonder if they
: did it on purpose for the publicity.
Appropriation is central to postmodern art. Here's one small group's
response to the current state of things:
http://www.negativland.com/fairuse.html
Shawn H.
John Desmarais
Chamberlain's free speech came in with the first painting. Using
someone elses IP once is fair use for satire - using it over and over
again is trademark abuse.
JD
John Duncan Yoyo
I may be spoiled but doesn't Alex Roth generally use water colors in a
different technique. There isn't much of a comparison. These are
sketches at best.
Shawn H
: >They're watercolors that obviously mix pornographic models with the
: >iconic costumes; DC isn't objecting to the quality of the works, they're
: >objecting to the nudity.
: >
: >I think they're very well done.
: >
: I may be spoiled but doesn't Alex Roth generally use water colors in a
: different technique. There isn't much of a comparison. These are
: sketches at best.
Sketches remain a valid and marketable artistic commodity. How can we
fault the artist his realism when DC has already validated how closely
his images cut to the source?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
That's a bunch of different issues. Batman's image (not, you'll note, in
directly lifted or traced images) isn't quite the same thing as a
trademark. The Logo of one of his comics might be.
And is there a "one-time" or "repitition" limit on copyright abuse? The
artist has used a likeness of Batman, but he hasn't made multiples of the
same pose or made anything like verifiable lifts from the actual comics.
I think they're quite clearly satires; the copyright question then is are
they using Batman to make fun of something else, or are they making fun
of Batman himself.
Shawn H.
Brian Doyle
"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:devlcj$n4t$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
We can fault the artist the style he chooses to use based on our subjective
assessment of his art. The fact he uses one of the most iconic images in
popular culture as his subject matter is really niether here nor there.
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
But in this case, he portrayed it so well we can actually assess which
particular period of Batman lore he's drawing from.
Shawn H.
Brian Doyle
As noted, I'd say that was more down to the iconic nature of the characters,
than any artistic skill.
>can actually assess which particular period of Batman lore he's drawing
from.
Can we? Judging by the Robin, we could be looknig at anything from the mid
1960's to the mid 1980's. I've seen MUCH better depicted and much more
obviously era-specific Bat-erotica over the years.
ron saarna
> That's a bunch of different issues. Batman's image (not, you'll note, in
> directly lifted or traced images) isn't quite the same thing as a
> trademark. The Logo of one of his comics might be.
The yellow bat-oval is trademarked. That was why it was invented in the
60's, for merchandising. (DC found out they couldn't (Tm) a black bat). It
is as good as a logo.
charles...@gmail.com
What's more frightening for a bad guy?
Batman dropping from the rooftops or Just wearing mask and boots with a
hard-on batman?
I know which one I'd be more scare of!
Mike Ward
@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu:
No, DC is objecting to the trademark infringement. "But they're naked," is
not a valid defense of trademark infringement.
Mike
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in news:dev7ff$lfe$2
: @us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu:
However, "but they're not gay" is the reason DC is bothering.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: > : We can fault the artist the style he chooses to use based on our
: subjective
: > : assessment of his art. The fact he uses one of the most iconic images in
: > : popular culture as his subject matter is really niether here nor there.
: >
: > But in this case, he portrayed it so well we
: As noted, I'd say that was more down to the iconic nature of the characters,
: than any artistic skill.
So anyone can draw Batman at this point?
: >can actually assess which particular period of Batman lore he's drawing
: from.
: Can we? Judging by the Robin, we could be looknig at anything from the mid
: 1960's to the mid 1980's. I've seen MUCH better depicted and much more
: obviously era-specific Bat-erotica over the years.
Mid-60s to Mid-80s is all the same Robin. Twenty years is an era. It's not
Nightwing, and it's not the 40's or Robin Earth 2.
And I wouldn't call it erotica at all. It's not for sale on E-bay or
adorning pornographic mags; it's for sale in a art gallery and exhibited
alongside internationally successful artists.
It's a critique of the subject matter, not merely a poor copy of it.
Shawn H.
Brian Doyle
> Brian Doyle <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> : "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> : > : We can fault the artist the style he chooses to use based on our
> : subjective
> : > : assessment of his art. The fact he uses one of the most iconic
images in
> : > : popular culture as his subject matter is really niether here nor
there.
> : >
> : > But in this case, he portrayed it so well we
>
> : As noted, I'd say that was more down to the iconic nature of the
characters,
> : than any artistic skill.
>
> So anyone can draw Batman at this point?
No, but the pointy ears on Batman's cowl and the yellow cape and the domino
mask on Robin pretty much identify anything with that overall appearance as
being related to Batman.
> : >can actually assess which particular period of Batman lore he's drawing
> : from.
>
> : Can we? Judging by the Robin, we could be looknig at anything from the
mid
> : 1960's to the mid 1980's. I've seen MUCH better depicted and much more
> : obviously era-specific Bat-erotica over the years.
>
> Mid-60s to Mid-80s is all the same Robin. Twenty years is an era.
No it's really not, particularly not for Robin of that era, there are at
least two or three eras within that time; Dick working with Batman as junior
partner and akin to the TV series, Dick at college on his own, and then
later the Wolfman Titans.
> And I wouldn't call it erotica at all. It's not for sale on E-bay or
> adorning pornographic mags; it's for sale in a art gallery and exhibited
> alongside internationally successful artists.
So something is only erotica if it's commercially available?
Mike Ward
You think this is the first time DC ever sent someone a cease and desist
order following a flagrant infringement on one of their copyrights?
Mike
Mike Ward
> In message <PoKdnZ2dnZ2mBrqqnZ2dn...@comcast.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> writes
>>
>>DC Comics owns the copyright. They have the legal right to chose how
>>their characters are depicted and to order cease-and-desist.
>
> True, but (as Rich Johnston pointed out last week) DC usually turns a
> blind eye to this sort of thing. Andy Warhol did some Superman
> pictures, and they've never complained about those. It's difficult to
> avoid concluding that DC only have a problem with these ones because
> they're in Gay Panic Mode again.
>
Actually, it's very easy to avoid that conclusion unless you really just
have your heart set on it.
Mathew Krull
lapse. Just ask the folks who first made linoleum.
Mike Ward
Mike Ward
news:BCOQe.289894$x96.182146@attbi_s72:
Usually when DC defends a trademark it doesn't make the news. It's only the
"gay angle" that got this story published in the first place. Some people
seem to think this is the first time DC ever defended its intellectual
property.
Stephen Bayer
"Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:dev7i4$lfe$3...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> Stephen Bayer <sba...@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>
> : Wow. Batman & Robin as a gay couple? No one's ever thought of that
> before.
> : *Yawn*
>
> The very fact that DC objects shows that not everyone is so blase' as you
> about the concept.
>
> Shawn H.
>
>
DC's objection is to the use of two copyrighted characters without their
permission, not the content of the artwork itself which is indisuptably
tiresome and unoriginal.
-S.
Paul O'Brien
<shill#@fas.harvard.edu> writes
>
>Are they protected from satire?
Broadly speaking, no, but it boils down to the rather vague question of
whether you're using DC's characters in order to make a comment on them.
With stuff like this, where the message is oblique at best, that can be
a very difficult line to call.
Paul O'Brien
<sba...@bigplanet.com> writes
>
>DC's objection is to the use of two copyrighted characters without
>their permission, not the content of the artwork itself which is
>indisuptably tiresome and unoriginal.
That's the legal grounds for their objection, but it's not the reason
WHY they're objecting. They let this sort of thing slide all the time.
Shawn H
: "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: >
: > So anyone can draw Batman at this point?
: No, but the pointy ears on Batman's cowl and the yellow cape and the domino
: mask on Robin pretty much identify anything with that overall appearance as
: being related to Batman.
But some attempts at depicting same look better than others. Chamberlin's
exactly capture his subjects as intended, enough so that people are
offended by how he uses them. IE, superhero masks + porn bodies.
: > Mid-60s to Mid-80s is all the same Robin. Twenty years is an era.
: No it's really not, particularly not for Robin of that era, there are at
: least two or three eras within that time; Dick working with Batman as junior
: partner and akin to the TV series, Dick at college on his own, and then
: later the Wolfman Titans.
This one seems to be emphasizing the "boy" wonder, not the college man.
And the feminizing poses and gestures capture the artist's own fantasies
of the characters, I'd say. That's why it's more than just illegal
copying.
: > And I wouldn't call it erotica at all. It's not for sale on E-bay or
: > adorning pornographic mags; it's for sale in a art gallery and exhibited
: > alongside internationally successful artists.
: So something is only erotica if it's commercially available?
No, something is erotica if the reason it's sold and bought is
titillation. I think Chamberlin and his dealer have other goals in mind.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
No, but I don't think they bother every time, either.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in
: news:mmXzRTCo...@esoterica.demon.co.uk:
: > True, but (as Rich Johnston pointed out last week) DC usually turns a
: > blind eye to this sort of thing. Andy Warhol did some Superman
: > pictures, and they've never complained about those. It's difficult to
: > avoid concluding that DC only have a problem with these ones because
: > they're in Gay Panic Mode again.
: Actually, it's very easy to avoid that conclusion unless you really just
: have your heart set on it.
You seem to be expending a lot of effort to avoid it, actually.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: In message <dev7cn$lfe$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn H
: Broadly speaking, no, but it boils down to the rather vague question of
: whether you're using DC's characters in order to make a comment on them.
: With stuff like this, where the message is oblique at best, that can be
: a very difficult line to call.
I don't think it's oblique at all. One reading of the works could be "you
know, the relationship between Batman and his ward has always seemed
kinda gay, hasn't it?" The "problem" here is that Chamberlin is taking a
widely acknowledged subtext and making it text.
Sounds like a commentary on the characters to me.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > The very fact that DC objects shows that not everyone is so blase' as you
: > about the concept.
: DC's objection is to the use of two copyrighted characters without their
: permission, not the content of the artwork itself which is indisuptably
: tiresome and unoriginal.
I'll dispute you right now. I think Chamberlin's vision of the characters
is whimsical, delicate and tender. By avoiding the macho stereotypes that
were always ill-fitting to Robin anyway, he foregrounds a subversive and
alternative reading of the pop culture icons (ones at this point we ALL
"own," to some extent) that is at the least amusing, and at most a
telling revelation of our own preconceptions and fannish needs concerning
our fantasy heroes. The very delicacy and tentative, amateurish use of
watercolor puts a personal stamp on heroes that have for years
(especially Batman) been presented in a relentlessly dark, melodramatic
and grim manner.
They're funny. I think Batman and Robin will survive.
Shawn H.
mwo...@umich.edu
> Brian Doyle <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> : "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> : >
> : > So anyone can draw Batman at this point?
>
> : No, but the pointy ears on Batman's cowl and the yellow cape and the domino
> : mask on Robin pretty much identify anything with that overall appearance as
> : being related to Batman.
>
> But some attempts at depicting same look better than others. Chamberlin's
> exactly capture his subjects as intended, enough so that people are
> offended by how he uses them. IE, superhero masks + porn bodies.
>
> : > Mid-60s to Mid-80s is all the same Robin. Twenty years is an era.
>
> : No it's really not, particularly not for Robin of that era, there are at
> : least two or three eras within that time; Dick working with Batman as junior
> : partner and akin to the TV series, Dick at college on his own, and then
> : later the Wolfman Titans.
>
> This one seems to be emphasizing the "boy" wonder, not the college man.
> And the feminizing poses and gestures capture the artist's own fantasies
> of the characters, I'd say. That's why it's more than just illegal
> copying.
So, if in your view, the portrayal of Robin is as a boy, and not as an
adult, you don't think DC is right to have issue with a pedophila
portrayal of their characters? How about if it was Green Arrow and the
new Speedy?
(Actually, DC may promote that themselves...)
> : > And I wouldn't call it erotica at all. It's not for sale on E-bay or
> : > adorning pornographic mags; it's for sale in a art gallery and exhibited
> : > alongside internationally successful artists.
>
> : So something is only erotica if it's commercially available?
>
> No, something is erotica if the reason it's sold and bought is
> titillation. I think Chamberlin and his dealer have other goals in mind.
It really is the chicken and the egg....did DC object to it because it
was homoerotic imagery, or do we know from the paper that DC objected
to it because of it's gay content?
Can DC only object to uses of their character that don't advance an
agenda, or does DC only object to certain usages?
I don't think we'll know from this article, DC's lawyers, or the
artist's publicist.
Chris C.
Mike Ward
> In message <1125375298.476807@boromir>, Stephen Bayer
> <sba...@bigplanet.com> writes
>>
>>DC's objection is to the use of two copyrighted characters without
>>their permission, not the content of the artwork itself which is
>>indisuptably tiresome and unoriginal.
>
> That's the legal grounds for their objection, but it's not the reason
> WHY they're objecting. They let this sort of thing slide all the time.
>
I don't know where you people get the idea that DC just started enforcing
its tradmarks with this particular case. Didn't you ever hear about Captain
Marvel?
Mike Ward
news:1125375298.476807@boromir:
Agreed. What probably got DC's attention in this case was that the
illegal artwork was in a gallery. It may not always be worth the effort
on DC's part to try to stamp out every infringment posted to usenet, but
when an art gallery is brazen enough to disply paintings that are
trademark infringments, I don't see what choice DC has but to take legal
action. You cannot lose a copyright for failure to defend it, but you
sure can see a trademark fall into the public domain if you don't. If
Shawn had an intellectual property worth $millions, I'm sure she'd fight
to keep from losing it too.
Mike
Paul O'Brien
>
>I don't know where you people get the idea that DC just started
>enforcing its tradmarks with this particular case.
I cited some examples earlier in the thread, and Rich Johnston picked up
a few more in last week's column. Andy Warhol did some Superman
pictures, for god's sake, and DC can hardly have failed to notice THOSE.
There are more obscure examples which are more recent, but no more
obscure than this one was before DC took action.
It is simply not true that DC has a blanket policy of taking action in
these cases, which means that at least some additional factor must have
led to action being taken in this case when it isn't taken in others.
Mike Ward
> In message <Xns96C2B5...@204.127.36.1>, Mike Ward <m@d.w> writes
>>
>>I don't know where you people get the idea that DC just started
>>enforcing its tradmarks with this particular case.
>
> I cited some examples earlier in the thread, and Rich Johnston picked up
> a few more in last week's column. Andy Warhol did some Superman
> pictures, for god's sake, and DC can hardly have failed to notice THOSE.
> There are more obscure examples which are more recent, but no more
> obscure than this one was before DC took action.
>
> It is simply not true that DC has a blanket policy of taking action in
> these cases, which means that at least some additional factor must have
> led to action being taken in this case when it isn't taken in others.
>
No one's claiming that DC enforces every infringement upons it's trademark.
However this is hardly the first case of DC sending someone a cease and
desist for trademark violation so the assumption that this case was target
for the sexual content is so far unfounded.
Warhol ripped Superman off the 1960's. One hardly has to use homosexuality
to explain a shift in policy over a peroid of 4 decades.
Isaac
> Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:p4jQWCD9...@esoterica.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message <Xns96C2B5...@204.127.36.1>, Mike Ward <m@d.w> writes
>>>
>>>I don't know where you people get the idea that DC just started
>>>enforcing its tradmarks with this particular case.
>>
>> I cited some examples earlier in the thread, and Rich Johnston picked up
>> a few more in last week's column. Andy Warhol did some Superman
>> pictures, for god's sake, and DC can hardly have failed to notice THOSE.
>> There are more obscure examples which are more recent, but no more
>> obscure than this one was before DC took action.
>>
>> It is simply not true that DC has a blanket policy of taking action in
>> these cases, which means that at least some additional factor must have
>> led to action being taken in this case when it isn't taken in others.
>>
>
> No one's claiming that DC enforces every infringement upons it's trademark.
> However this is hardly the first case of DC sending someone a cease and
> desist for trademark violation so the assumption that this case was target
> for the sexual content is so far unfounded.
If the problem was the sexual content, that hardly makes it inappropriate
for DC to take action. The more spectacular or controversial the
usage, the more likely it would be that DCs lack of action would result
in a weakened mark.
Isaac
Gustav...@yahoo.com
> In message <Xns96C2B5...@204.127.36.1>, Mike Ward <m@d.w> writes
> >
> >I don't know where you people get the idea that DC just started
> >enforcing its tradmarks with this particular case.
>
> I cited some examples earlier in the thread, and Rich Johnston picked up
> a few more in last week's column. Andy Warhol did some Superman
> pictures, for god's sake, and DC can hardly have failed to notice THOSE.
> There are more obscure examples which are more recent, but no more
> obscure than this one was before DC took action.
Well, Andy Warhol IS Andy Warhol. He was a respected, important artist,
who was making a statement on the nature of what is and is not art by
carefully skirting that line himself. His work always treated corporate
logos as icons, and held them with the greatest respect.
Having Andy Warhol use your icons in his work was basically a good
thing. Inoffensive, yet at the same time associating the icon with the
artsy community (which is kind of funny with an icon as stiff as
Superman).
This guy is just some no one painting nudie pics. Really lame and
uninspired nudie pics.
Plus, DC has never demonstrated an objection to homoerotic overtones in
the portrayal of Batman and Robin (see the Adam West TV Series, and the
Schumacker films).
I'm betting it was the lameness.
--Gustavo
Isaac
wrote:
I never detected any homoerotic overtones in the Adam West TV Series. I
suspect that to see them you have to use the same kind of vision that
allows you to see them in any other depiction of Batman.
Isaac
Mike Ward
news:slrndhcv4j...@latveria.castledoom.org:
I see nothing imappropriate about DC specifically choosing to take
action in this case because of the sexual content. If that's why they
did it, fine. However, there's yet to be any indication that that's why
it was done. It is merely a possibility for which there is no evidence.
Mike
Shawn H
: > This one seems to be emphasizing the "boy" wonder, not the college man.
: > And the feminizing poses and gestures capture the artist's own fantasies
: > of the characters, I'd say. That's why it's more than just illegal
: > copying.
: So, if in your view, the portrayal of Robin is as a boy, and not as an
: adult, you don't think DC is right to have issue with a pedophila
: portrayal of their characters? How about if it was Green Arrow and the
: new Speedy?
I don't think anyone anywhere has mentioned pedophilia.
: (Actually, DC may promote that themselves...)
Showing such a situation doesn't endorse it. I read the work as a
critique of the established subtext, not a reinforcement or celebration
of it.
: > No, something is erotica if the reason it's sold and bought is
: > titillation. I think Chamberlin and his dealer have other goals in mind.
: It really is the chicken and the egg....did DC object to it because it
: was homoerotic imagery, or do we know from the paper that DC objected
: to it because of it's gay content?
DC is only claiming copyright infringement, without specifying content
issues beyond "that's our character." But we don't have to believe them.
: Can DC only object to uses of their character that don't advance an
: agenda, or does DC only object to certain usages?
Exactly.
: I don't think we'll know from this article, DC's lawyers, or the
: artist's publicist.
Which is why it's going to end up in court, unless DC drops it.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: >
: >I don't know where you people get the idea that DC just started
: >enforcing its tradmarks with this particular case.
: I cited some examples earlier in the thread, and Rich Johnston picked up
: a few more in last week's column. Andy Warhol did some Superman
: pictures, for god's sake, and DC can hardly have failed to notice THOSE.
: There are more obscure examples which are more recent, but no more
: obscure than this one was before DC took action.
: It is simply not true that DC has a blanket policy of taking action in
: these cases, which means that at least some additional factor must have
: led to action being taken in this case when it isn't taken in others.
And I ask again, I wonder if this guy ever got in trouble. He was an Andy
Warhol contemporary.
http://www.mooivoorthuis.nl/ramos1_nl.html
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: This guy is just some no one painting nudie pics. Really lame and
: uninspired nudie pics.
They are well-painted and provocative.
: Plus, DC has never demonstrated an objection to homoerotic overtones in
: the portrayal of Batman and Robin (see the Adam West TV Series, and the
: Schumacker films).
Has DC ever acknowledged those overtones you perceive in either work? The
whole problem here is the literalizing of subtext.
And the new Batman Returns film is evidence of what the company thinks of
the Schumacher approach these days.
: I'm betting it was the lameness.
I'm betting it wasn't.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > Plus, DC has never demonstrated an objection to homoerotic overtones in
: > the portrayal of Batman and Robin (see the Adam West TV Series, and the
: > Schumacker films).
: I never detected any homoerotic overtones in the Adam West TV Series. I
: suspect that to see them you have to use the same kind of vision that
: allows you to see them in any other depiction of Batman.
See what I mean? Deniability is key.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: action. You cannot lose a copyright for failure to defend it, but you
: sure can see a trademark fall into the public domain if you don't. If
: Shawn had an intellectual property worth $millions, I'm sure she'd fight
: to keep from losing it too.
I hardly think the amount of success Chamberlin's high-status (fine art)
but obscure (minor London Gallery) work might achieve is any threat to DC
at all.
Shawn H.
mwo...@umich.edu
> mwo...@umich.edu wrote:
> : So, if in your view, the portrayal of Robin is as a boy, and not as an
> : adult, you don't think DC is right to have issue with a pedophila
> : portrayal of their characters? How about if it was Green Arrow and the
> : new Speedy?
>
> I don't think anyone anywhere has mentioned pedophilia.
But, if you're insisting that it's the sexual content, and not just the
copyright infringement, that they're considering, it has to be taken as
a consideration. It's not Batman and Superman kissing, Authority
style. It's one of their icon characters, with someone underage, which
is illegal. Not just something that some consider "morally
wrong"....but activity, no matter how much it made be inferred
subtextually, that places one of their cash cows in an immoral light.
So, if the sexuality of it has to be considered, that has to be a
component of it.
> Showing such a situation doesn't endorse it. I read the work as a
> critique of the established subtext, not a reinforcement or celebration
> of it.
It doesn't have to be an endorsement to be found an image they don't
want portrayed. If showing Green Lantern as a mass murderer is shown
to be bad, it doesn't mean they want their character portrayed that
way....(oh, wait a second...bad example again...)
> : It really is the chicken and the egg....did DC object to it because it
> : was homoerotic imagery, or do we know from the paper that DC objected
> : to it because of it's gay content?
>
> DC is only claiming copyright infringement, without specifying content
> issues beyond "that's our character." But we don't have to believe them.
But you don't have to disbelieve them either.
> : I don't think we'll know from this article, DC's lawyers, or the
> : artist's publicist.
>
> Which is why it's going to end up in court, unless DC drops it.
It'll end up in court, but I'm guessing DC will win too. If it's
supposed to be satire, it's too crude a work (in the artistic, not
moral sense) to be easily interpreted that way.
Chris C.
Shawn H
: It'll end up in court, but I'm guessing DC will win too. If it's
: supposed to be satire, it's too crude a work (in the artistic, not
: moral sense) to be easily interpreted that way.
I don't agree. I think it's quite sophisticated. How much more pointed
can you be than to cast a "manly duo" in the light of an intimate love
scene between man and woman, with Robin taking the feminine role? Each
shot is a seductive pose that shocks because it's not what they've ever
done or would do. Or, rather, not how they'd be presented.
Shawn H.
Mike Ward
When the Emperor has no clothes, it's the people who claim to see them who
are in denial.
Mike Ward
Which is why DC isn't paying you for legal advice.
BHM...@aol.com
Then how come I'm not shocked?
I'd almost think you're being satirical. Whether these particular
paintings have ever been done before, descriptions of, jokes about, and
images of (and I do indeed mean images; I've seen pictures like this
often enough before) Robin as Batman's young lover aren't new. I can
remember this kind of thing from the earliest gay fanzines, twenty
years ago.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool blue-state liberal - and gay - and I'm not
impressed. I don't know how the law will treat this, but I perfectly
understand DC's decsion to say, "This is not how we want our key
characters to be represented in public." And, although I'll admit that
some of their concern is related to the gay content - and that, if
true, is unfortunate - I am willing to bet that if someone painted
Superman and Lois Lane in such sexually graphic displays, and hung it
in a gallery, DC wouldn't like *that* either.
Aaron F. Bourque
> Shawn H wrote:
> > mwo...@umich.edu wrote:
> >
> > : It'll end up in court, but I'm guessing DC will win too. If it's
> > : supposed to be satire, it's too crude a work (in the artistic, not
> > : moral sense) to be easily interpreted that way.
> >
> > I don't agree. I think it's quite sophisticated. How much more pointed
> > can you be than to cast a "manly duo" in the light of an intimate love
> > scene between man and woman, with Robin taking the feminine role? Each
> > shot is a seductive pose that shocks because it's not what they've ever
> > done or would do. Or, rather, not how they'd be presented.
>
> Then how come I'm not shocked?
>
> I'd almost think you're being satirical. Whether these particular
> paintings have ever been done before, descriptions of, jokes about, and
> images of (and I do indeed mean images; I've seen pictures like this
> often enough before) Robin as Batman's young lover aren't new. I can
> remember this kind of thing from the earliest gay fanzines, twenty
> years ago.
Exactly. Batman and Robin R GHEY is not shocking. It's been teh pheer
since Wertham lost his mind. It's almost sad, now.
Superman and Jimmy Olsen R GHEY would be shocking, but only because
it's rarely been done.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; this "artist" is, like most, too
stupid to understand subtlety, and too loud to be ignored easily.
Shawn H
: Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque; this "artist" is, like most, too
: stupid to understand subtlety, and too loud to be ignored easily.
Which, too many artists I know, is a high compliment. Why would any creator
want to be "easily ignored."
And you're wrong. He was ignored. Until DC noticed, and showed him to us.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > done or would do. Or, rather, not how they'd be presented.
: Then how come I'm not shocked?
Because you're not the target audience.
: I'd almost think you're being satirical. Whether these particular
: paintings have ever been done before, descriptions of, jokes about, and
: images of (and I do indeed mean images; I've seen pictures like this
: often enough before) Robin as Batman's young lover aren't new. I can
: remember this kind of thing from the earliest gay fanzines, twenty
: years ago.
And what does "new" matter at all? This is one person's personal
expression, and response to the characters. He was inspired to do intimate
sexy watercolors of two macho icons. Originality hasn't mattered in art
since Jackson Pollock died.
: I am a dyed-in-the-wool blue-state liberal - and gay - and I'm not
: impressed. I don't know how the law will treat this, but I perfectly
: understand DC's decsion to say, "This is not how we want our key
: characters to be represented in public." And, although I'll admit that
And I think they have every right not to present them that way in their own
productions (though I object to the censorship they've practiced on their
own staff at times). But this isn't an official DC project; it's a satire
on their output by an outsider.
: some of their concern is related to the gay content - and that, if
: true, is unfortunate - I am willing to bet that if someone painted
: Superman and Lois Lane in such sexually graphic displays, and hung it
: in a gallery, DC wouldn't like *that* either.
Which still wouldn't stop it from being a worthwhile project, or art.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in
: news:df77qt$itl$5...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu:
: > Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
: >
: >: action. You cannot lose a copyright for failure to defend it, but you
: >: sure can see a trademark fall into the public domain if you don't. If
: >: Shawn had an intellectual property worth $millions, I'm sure she'd
: >: fight to keep from losing it too.
: >
: > I hardly think the amount of success Chamberlin's high-status (fine
: > art) but obscure (minor London Gallery) work might achieve is any
: > threat to DC at all.
: Which is why DC isn't paying you for legal advice.
And why I'm free to give advice of my own choosing.
Shawn H.