Scumbag DC Comics, or Defending Copyright?

I wanted the Vine's opinion on this.

Superman Logo nixed on statue of dead boy

In Toronto, a boy was killed in 2002 by his grandparents after they starved him to death. The family, in tribute to him, put up a statue of him this year in his Superman outfit, which was his favorite Super Hero.

DC comics however is blocking the use of his logo on copyright grounds, and thus the statue will only feature the boy in the cape, belt and boots. Thus far, they have refused to comment on the issue beyond this brief statement made to the family:

"Unfortunately, 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," the e-mail stated. "We know this decision is not what you were hoping for, but it is not at all a reflection of your incredible endeavor and the little boy you seek to honor."

What do you think? DC in the right? or are they being dicks to a grieving family paying tribute to a 5 year old?

It kinds depends.

They're just dicks, but then again they have a foundation that helps sickly kids, I wish DC changes their minds, it's not like the family is getting money for that sort of thing, heck wasn't there a kid's funeral where some people attended as his favorite superheroes?

It's their right to withhold permission. I can appreciate that. But recently the Prime Minister, of Australia, pushed to remove some of our anti-discrimination laws.

The point is, just because I can now throw racial slurs around in a public setting under the guise of journalism, doesn't mean I'm not a morally bankrupt douchebag for doing it.

It seems like a complicated situation

This. On the one hand, I really feel for the family and town for DC to be unable to use the S shield logo of Timmy's favourite superhero. I'd be lying if I didn't want the S shield on my tombstone. But on the other hand, this comment on the Superman Homepage opened my eyes to the other side of the situation:

The issue is with international trademark law, not with DC. DC is a corporation, beholden to shareholders and the law... as such, they have an obligation to their investors and according to law to prevent the dilution of their mark.

Trademarks, unlike copyright, is meant to protect the theoretical consumer by providing them with an indication of source and endorsement. If a company fails to protect its mark, the mark becomes "generic" (belonging to the people) and the company loses the right to exclude others from using the mark (and likewise the exclusive merchandise and advertising tied to the mark). For example, Thermos, Xerox, and Kleenex have all, to some degree, lost the right to defend their marks against competitors because they've fallen into the public lexicon as generic terms for all products in their class.

Applied here, DC does not have the luxury of excusing this use. The best they can do is come to a licensing agreement, but that would be essentially endorsing a grave marker and signifying themselves as the source of the product. It is not at all unreasonable for DC to not want that association and why they can't come to compromise here like they did in the case of the Superman Barbershop (where they did license the Shield to the owner by way of settlement).

The fault lies with outdated Trademark Law which does not consider the people (or corporations) sophisticated enough to understand exceptions like these as neither endorsements nor waivers. Unless and until such law is made to address situations like these, DC is obligated to protect its mark and not make any endorsements its shareholders won't accept.

---

To elaborate further, recall that this was a commissioned piece for profit. Here, the motive was arguably good, but imagine DC excuses it here and doesn't defend their mark. Shortly thereafter an unsavory person starts to create, unsolicited, Superman caskets for infants. DC sues for the infringing use of their mark. What is going to be the infringer's defense? "Obviously they didn't care about their mark... see, they didn't stop or sue the gravestone maker from using their mark without permission." If that territory is ceded, then the precedent is set for the market is free to be flooded with morbid Superman Shields.

If Trademark Law was more sophisticated, DC wouldn't have to worry about making such exceptions, but here... when something was crafted for-profit using their mark without permission, the law makes them fight or give up the mark altogether in similar situations.

^ What he said.