I read an article today that included a reference to another law review article which argued that it's good that Superman is the intellectual property of a single corporation motivated to keep his image pristine, because otherwise there would be a lot of pornography featuring Superman.

...

I like my ivory tower better. Mine is much better stocked with porn.

I have deep theoretical thoughts about the broader issue -- what I call the J. Geils "My Angel Is a Centerfold" problem of people who suffer when their beloved icons are reworked without their consent, and how that should count when we're assessing how much freedom later authors should have to rework characters and situations -- which I will try to write up on my aca-blog. I think of such people as "utility monsters" in the Nozickian sense, because they gain utility by denying it to others (or, they are hurt by other people getting things those others want) -- but perhaps I am being unfair. (Short definition of utility monsters here.)

At least I was able to suggest some sources for the primary article's very casual discussion of Batman, which made the point that corporate ownership hardly ensures preservation of a single original vision of a character. Will Brooker's excellent Batman Unmasked, of course, and Geoff Klock's How to Read Superhero Comics and Why, which I'm enjoying reading, though so far its argument does not seem to justify the title.

Must write futurefic in which Lois Lane refers to Mercy Graves as "Mossad Barbie." Or perhaps "Special Forces Barbie"?

Blame Sarah T. for She-Hulk: Single Green Female -- bought at the comic store earlier this week; at checkout, guy said, "You've got some good stuff here," specifically mentioning Powers, Y: The Last Man, and Rising Stars -- to wit, everything I was buying except for She-Hulk. Well, She-Hulk is a lawyer; was worth a try.

Must find someone who can make me animated icons. I have the pictures for "Supreme Power" and "redheads" icons, but no ability to do it for myself.

Marvel sues computer game for allowing players to create Marvel-like characters. My immediate reaction, without much exposure to the game: direct copyright (and perhaps trademark) infringement -- possible, depending entirely on the marketing materials; contributory and vicarious trademark infringement (which essentially alleges that the game company encourages players to violate trademark law) -- ludicrous, since the players are not using the characters to sell anything; and contributory and vicarious copyright infringement (alleging that the company encourages players to violate copyright law) -- very interesting and potentially tricky. It's not quite the same as suing Crayola for providing the tools for kids to draw Wolverine, but it's definitely on the spectrum.

So maybe I should post my review of Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men, to continue with the theme. ( Read more... )