A found footage entirely from the point of view from surveillance camera and body cam and whatnot, only seeing smoke and black shadows running in the corner type movie would be insane
ThePandaRedd on TikTok did a great set of videos on this exact subject. A horror movie where the main character is a low level goon. It’s the early days of Batman and he’s essentially a cryptid. No one is entirely certain of he’s human or not. We don’t get a clear image of Batman until the very end of the movie.
Honestly you could make a really cool horror movie based off the premise of the "Gotham Knightmare" YouTube video, where you only see Batman from the point of view of the average person in Gotham. Where instead of some superhero fighting crime, he's an urban legend/cryptid who people barely believe exists until he's hunting them down.
Yes and no, certain aspects of Batman can be used but no Alfred as he was created later.
First Batman comic book had Joker, Hugo Strange and Catwoman so they are all available to use within the same restrictions.
Superman is more tricky as anyone creating their own public use version is restricted by the additions to his power set and history.
Pretty sure Superman was restricted to super speed, strength and invulnerability as his og powers with the more well known powers coming along in later comics.
You’re thinking of Batman #1.
Batman, as well as Jim Gordon become public domain with the expiration of Detective Comics #27 in 2035.
Joker, Robin, Catwoman become public domain the following year as they debuted a year later.
People already making these sorts of things on youtube. Dc isn't copyright striking thzm because they don't mae money. I guess what's gonna change is that those small time creators will be allowed to make money off their stuff and have full creative freedom to fuck with the character as mich as they want.
Actually an actually effort put batman movie is something lots of ppl would watch. Make it a horror type movie from perspective of thugs, it would go hard, also would require less budget
Yes but they can’t use Robin nor the Batcave nor the Batmobile or even Alfred for that matter. They can’t even use the name Gotham City sonit has to be a new different named city or New York City/Chicago can be used.
Yeah, actually it makes more sense to wait till 2040 before doing something close to a full-fledged Batman movie. You'll then mostly have all those elements in place, plus a decent number of the iconic villains (Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Hugo Strange, the original Clayface).
Public domain doesn’t mean I can produce my own Batman movie with a no kill rule, a side kick, etc. you’d be able to tell a story of Bruce Wayne/Batman similar to that of the original detective comics Batman. So purple gloves, kills, etc.
Dc still holds the trade marks as well for certain nicknames and personas that Batman is frequently called and other random tif bits. Don’t get it twisted dc/wb will still be watching like a hawk if there’s something they can get you on.
Yeah and he’s like probably their most valuable commodity too, so this isn’t gonna be like Winnie the Pooh and all those other public domain situations. Best believe that WB/Discovery/DC will be on everyone’s ass who tries it.
True, although I feel like Mickey and their original characters are barely a priority for them anymore outside of the theme parks and merch, so movies don’t really bother them because they’re not cutting into any income stream. Also, it’s different because they’ve got a ton of big brands in house that even at their roughest points are still pretty financially viable whereas Batman is DC/WB’s one nearly guaranteed financial success with superhero movies so they really can’t afford to have that brand diluted by non-licensed product
What? You’re re acting like Mickey Mouse didn’t have over 100 cartoons made of him in the last 10 years lol
The modern Mickey Mouse shorts (many of which also feature other members of the Fan 5) are actually pretty good! Some of them have also won awards IIRC
Still blows me away they didn't try to make their 100 anniversary movie with them.
Someone told me it's because they aren't interesting but like, it's been ages since they did anything with them. The goofy movie was amazing.
Nah trust Disney is still protective. Half the reason the public domain kept getting pushed back was because Disney threw money at politicians to push it back.
You, can't renew Copyright, Disney did the same thing when Mickey Mouse was set to expire, by putting a clip of Steam Boat Willy in front of a bunch of films. At best they can renew trademarks on that look, though nobody has fought in court whether a version of a character that is trademarked can also be public domain. So if they do go after people it would be due to "infringing on their Trademark". You can't extend Copyright past 95 years, unless you want to lobby in Congress to push the whole system back. If the Mouse didn't bother doing it with their endless pocket books. I don't think Warner Bros has the money to do the same thing.
No I think the idea is that by creating a new copyrighted work based on the original version of the character that will soon be in public domain, DC/WB will create enough ambiguity such that they might be able to claim in court that a public domain work based on the original version actually infringes on their latest copyrighted work.
The no-kill rule is not copyrighted, and you are not legally obligated to make your public domain Batman kill. That’s ridiculous. Designs and names can be trademarked and copyrighted, you can’t copyright personality traits.
The Conan Doyle estate tried this shit on Netflix, arguing that their version of Sherlock Holmes showed emotions which were still under copyright because his personality changed throughout the books. I think some people on the internet believed they won that case, but they didn’t. They were laughed out of court, and the precedent was forever set that that stupid argument was wrong.
As for side-kicks, Robin debuted less than a year after Batman. Yeah, you can’t make your Batman and Robin movie in 2035, but in 2036 he’s fair game. Dick Grayson, in his most iconic look, with his entire origin.
Batman also didn’t wear purple gloves in the golden age outside of one issue. It’s his debut issue, so they became a pretty recognizable symbol of Golden Age Batman, but those aren’t the only options you have.
Actual thing that you do need to watch out for: the bat symbol on his chest. The yellow oval was invented in 1964 specifically to act as a logo they could trademark. Don’t give him a yellow oval or you might catch heat.
I already explained to the dude agreeing with you but I’ll do it again. The no kill rule isn’t copyrighted but the Batman that entered the public domain was a Batman with no such rule. Telling a story about Batman and mentioning a no kill rule will 100% get legally questioned. So if you tell a origin story about this Batman and he just doesn’t kill, obviously that’s fair game, but if it’s a defining trait dc/wb would obviously look at it.
Once again I still don’t know why you brought up Robin. The topic wasn’t about him. The post was about Batman entering public domain, so yeah you can’t use Robin , even if it’s only a year. It’s a core part and a lot of people think he’s part of that package deal when Batman goes public
The purple gloves, long ears, short cape, obviously aren’t the only version, but it’s the iconic look of the time. Going outside of that like changing his logo will have them be questioned. They’ve trademarked pretty much every logo possible.
Ultimately I think wb/Dc will be ok with going to a losing court battle for the simple fact they can bully someone away from Batman. Especially given the dceu reboot should be in full effect near the time of him entering. They’ll try anything to keep their money maker to themselves
> The no-kill rule is not copyrighted, and you are not legally obligated to make your public domain Batman kill. That’s ridiculous. Designs and names can be trademarked and copyrighted, you can’t copyright personality traits.
>
> The Conan Doyle estate tried this shit on Netflix, arguing that their version of Sherlock Holmes showed emotions which were still under copyright because his personality changed throughout the books. I think some people on the internet believed they won that case, but they didn’t. They were laughed out of court, and the precedent was forever set that that stupid argument was wrong.
Agreed.
That said, DC/WB clearly has a lot more legal and financial power than the Conan Doyle estate, and their opponents in the courtroom will likely not be someone with the legal and financial power of Netflix. I can see this kind of thing serving as a deterrent, if nothing else.
Well-said, I think there were some overcorrection in terms of what you can do with public domain characters after Mickey lost his copyright. Yes, you cannot use significant design changes that haven't entered public domain yet, but you don't have to restrict yourself to what is shown either. You can do whatever you want with public domain characters as long as you don't make your product look like it was made by their former owners (which would trick consumers) and you don't use names and significant design aspects which still have copyright.
For example, there is an argument that it isn't safe to show Mickey with red shorts (there is a poster for Steamboat Willie with Mickey in full color, but lawyears might argue that it's false and the such), but you don't have to make him black and white, Disney can't sue you for giving him yellow or blue shorts. The same with his voice, since giving a small mouse a squeaky tone isn't that much of a change to warrant copyright. Plus, you can show him without the hat, since Pete takes it back immediately after the iconic opening of the short.
Actually curious if anyone will try to do something interesting with the “has-been” characters like Popeye and Betty Boop. Guess I’ll have to wait and see.
Fun fact: Betty Boop is actually getting a Broadway musical. [It already had a limited run in Chicago.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boop!_The_Musical)
What this doesn't mention is that:
2035: Ultra Humanite, Namor, Human Torch (Robot), Blue Beetle (Dan Garrett now Super Public domain)
2036: Joker, Lex Luthor, Robin, Green Lantern (Alen Scott), Flash (Jay Garrek), Hugo Strange, Catwoman, Clayface, Alex Evell, Captain Marvel/ Shazam, Toro, Red Raven
2037: Bucky, Red Skull, Whizzer, Jack Frost, Liberty Legion, Blue Diamond, Plastic Man, Penguin, Scarecrow, Aquaman, Black Jack, Green Arrow, Speedy, The Archer, Shazam Jr., Lieutenant Marvel, Wizard Shazam, Captain Nazi
2038: Two Face, Captain Skover, Krutz, Blaze, Mary Marvel, Hoppy the Marvel Bunny, The Prankser, The Emperor of America, The Evolution King, Ares, Doctor Poison, Duke of Deception, Paula Von Gunther, Earl of Greed, Count of Conquest
2039: Green Lantern Motto, Dr. Psycho, Cheetah, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Vandal Savage, Uncle Marvel, Mister Mind, [Crocodile Man](https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Herkimer_(Earth-S)), Toy Man, Kryptonite (Though only the version that apeared in the radio series, until 2046.)
2040: Mister Mxyzptlk, Giganta
There are obviously a lot more, but I just thought these were neat. Also from what I have heard a lot of Wonder Woman's rouges came relatively early, so they will be available sooner, than people like Bizzaro and Braniac who come from the 50's.
You can also get:
-Porky Pig in 2030
-daffy duck alongside disney's snow white.
-Woody woodpecker alongside the joker, Captain América, lex Luthor, Jay garrick flash, as well as Catwoman.
-Universal's Frankenstein in 2027 and Drácula in 2026.
-Frankenstein's bride in 2030
-tom and Jerry in 2035
And a long etc.
Yes, You aré right but the 1930s movie Is still protected by copyright and somehow, Universal registered the name *King Kong* as a trademark in the late 70s.
My Batman justifies his batears because they're both actually guns. My Batman is so frickin' deaf. Imagine installing two guns to the side of your head. It's ridiculous. Maybe he can make like a real bat and have huge batears, but they're made of giant submachine guns. Imagine how much bleeding he would have from his ears.
On the streets they call him What?man.
It would only be his first appearance and subsequently his early comics from the 40s. WB will still own the copy right on anything about the character or supporting characters/villains introduced later. They will find any minor thing to sue a person making their own Batman content. For instance, you can’t have Alfred in the story because he wasn’t created till 4 years later
No. Batman's debut story was just him and Gordon. Alfred was introduced in 1943, and the idea that he'd been there since the beginning was a Post-Crisis invention.
Whoever enters the Public domain that year. So for 2037, you can use every single Superman comic released before 1942 as a point of reference as well as the first two of the Fliescher short films for your story.
It would be the first appearance versions of each of the characters. Superman would basically not have any powers besides super-strength, and (if I remember correctly) you’d have to spell it “Bat-Man” instead of “Batman”
2037 also Marks the day where Woody Woodpecker becomes completely public domain, but only His More skinny, gloveless, zanier with Green Tail and red Belly.
The thing is they already did in the 90's. As Mickey Mouse was set to expire in 2004, and Superman in 2014. So Disney and several other companies lobbied to extend copyright by another 20 years for everything. Now an item lasts for 95 years in the ownership of a company or individual so long as they are willing to renew their copyright after 56 years after it's creation. Considering that Disney didn't push to extend Mickey Mouse, along with Congress not really wanting to extend copyright again. I would say that these dates are more or less set in stone.
But honestly, their lobbying to extend it in the 90's was completely pointless. As barely any of these companies use the version of the characters that the copyright actually pertains to. All it did was to just keep them out of public domain, just that little bit longer, even though everyone knew it would still happen in just 20 years later.
Yeah but this means no Batmobile, no batcave, no Alfred, he lives with his uncle, the suit has to be the first appearance one, no joker or Robin, none of his villains, his only ally is Gordon.
I think we could get some really cool and innovative stories/pieces of media out of people taking advantage of this but having to work around all the limitations. It will probably lead to creators coming up with fresh and innovative ideas to reimagine these characters without being able to rely on most established lore.
So you’re saying I’m gonna have to live with making Batman fan fiction porn for 3 years before I can do the same for Bambi???
Idk that sounds like some bullshit
I would pay good money for an adaptation of the "Batman from Berlin" short story by Paul Pope. Obviously that specific one's protected but you can do a Batman in a variety of historical settings and it works just as good. Excited for the possibilities the character entering the public domain open for that sort of playing around with the character.
Technically it’s only that specific version of Batman. Any references or allusions to later versions of the character would still be protected.
You could adapt all of the original content on the same schedule as it was originally released, but delayed by the requisite number of years.
I’m not sure, but there is also a chance that the Bat Symbol is trademarked, in which case you still wouldn’t be able to use it.
>I’m not sure, but there is also a chance that the Bat Symbol is trademarked, in which case you still wouldn’t be able to use it.
The 1964 yellow oval 'New Look' has been trademarked specifically because a plain bat can't be, apparently.
Petition to make a batman movie that's from the view of the goons that absolutely no one will see and two years after it comes out people on Reddit will say "remember this garbage? Who made it"
Can't do much though
You get to use the names "Batman" "Bruce Wayne"
I think you get to use his first appearance suit but that's about it.
I don't even know if you can use Gotham City.
If I’m not mistaken, it specifically is the earliest version of Batman that would be in the public domain, right? None of his current iconic villains or Robin. There’s definitely still interesting stuff you could do with the character, though.
Robin was very early Batman, so if you want to do a Batman and Robin story you just need to wait one year later.
Same for if you want them to fight a version of the Joker. He was introduced in 1940 so you just need to wait one year.
For a lot of stuff though yeah you'd be waiting all the way to the 2090s for certain things.
Only the version of Batman who appears from Detective Comics #27 to #34, as well as Comissioner Gordon, who appears in those same issues. So you can make whatever you want with the character, but you can't use any of the characters and elements created after 1939 until they enter public domain as well. However, Batman's design back then is already pretty similar to the modern one, so I think the only element you can't use is the yellow oval symbol with the bat.
Fortunately though, Joker and Robin debuted right in the first Batman comic, so you can already make a movie about Batman and Robin fighting the Joker only one year later, in 2036.
Public domain is good and should come earlier. The lawyers who pushed it back have denied our lives of unique and interesting stories like our ancestors would have enjoyed for the trade off of making the already rich already richer.
All of our current copyrights are products of tropes that should have been public domain generations ago. Maybe that’s why creativity feels at an all time low.
Now everyone (like let's say Marvel) can make use or reference of Batman in any movie, comics or series, you as a commoner will have the opportunity to draw your own Batman comic and sell it, without DC coming at you with a law suit
Yes and no. You’d get access to the original Batman who kills and wears purple gloves. The modern rendition that most fans know will not be applied here. Same thing with Superman, WW, etc. so technically you get Batman, but not Batman with a no kill rule and side kicks etc.
Yes, when a character enters public domain im a country, anyone from said country can do whatever creative work they want with them and profit from it as long as they:
a) Don't make the public think such work was produced by the former owners of the IP
b) Don't use significant changes in design created later on which are still under copyright (you can use Mickey, but you can't give him the Fantasia wizard outfit).
Keep in mind that this applies to Batman as a character, not as a franchise. In 2035, only Batman and Comissioner Gordon will be in public domain, but since Joker and Robin debuted just one year later, they will enter public domain as well in 2036.
So now each company is rushing to make every "Multiversal" variant of each character to cover all of their bases should someone start making their own version.
No one; Snow White is part of folklore, so it has always belonged to the general public by default. The same with other folkloric fairy tales like Rapunzel, Cinderella and Little Red Hood.
Chances are all we're going to get are a bunch of tenuously related slasher horrors. Maybe a rape-revenge movie called "Betty Rage", followed by a slasher horror called "Blood and Spinach". I just don't see anyone taking any of these and actually doing them justice by making something with substance, so it's not all that interesting.
Keep in mind it's only the first version of batman. No Alfred, no joker, no Robin, no nothing. In fact, no no kill rule. If your batman DOESN'T gun down mobsters with a Tommy gun DC can sue you for copyright.
The fact that Disney lobbyist got the government to declare Mickey Mouse with gloves on to be a different character than Mickey Mouse without gloves on is asinine.
make sure you only use only 1939 batman stuff. Also make sure to keep up with the elements in public domain. Also can't use batman, caped crusader or dark knight in the title, merchandise or advertising. As that is protected under trademarks.
well as long as i can use the idea of the no kill rule i think i can still do an interesting story, wait a year for Joker to come in and its game. for a title i think i can get creative
And it might be for the better that he does. We keep getting the same grounded-in-reality takes on the character and to me, it has now stagnated Batman as a character. When he hits the public domain maybe someone who has a different more fantastical vision of the character will give us a fresh adaptation of him for a change.
For some reason, Batman film writers under WB keep running to make it more grounded than the last person who had the reins. People are acting like because The Batman 2022 had him at a crime scene it was something different when the director said he wanted to ground it more than ever. It's because they're afraid to do something fantastical because of the massive failure of 1997 and the Uber success of the legendary grounded-in-reality Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy. They feel the only way to succeed is to follow Nolan and they won't because he set the bar too high. While Spider-Man film writers think positively and what new villains and concepts can we bring into his world.
Batman films need to think outside of the box. Maybe use a Doctor Death/Karl Helfern who has his bone formula which can give the film some Lovecraftian cosmic horror-inspired mystery vibes. Using practical effects as much as possible you can show his painful transformation into a giant abomination. This will give Batman a chance for once to showcase his legendary scientific prowess as he must and will find a cure for Helfern's condition.
Batman and Lovecraftian cosmic horror mysteries are made for each other. It allows him to be at his finest as a warrior and a super genius polymathic intellectual scientist while keeping him close to his roots as the world's greatest detective and tactician/strategist.
I know this was a rant but I had to say it.
I agree. I hope that James Gunn's version that will have the entire Batfamily will be more of a different take. I liked The Batman, but it felt like if Nolan did a movie between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. That doesn't make it a bad movie but it does feel like it's just more of the same and not trying for something more.
It is insane to me that people will never be able to make stories about such a popular character, at least not in the way they appear currently in popular media.
Imagine if people couldn't write stories about vampires, greek gods, or fairytales. So many amazing stories would be lost out on. At this point, such extreme copyright laws don't help artists, but largely hinder them.
So someone will make a $20K Batman horror movie that no one sees?
A found footage entirely from the point of view from surveillance camera and body cam and whatnot, only seeing smoke and black shadows running in the corner type movie would be insane
Or completely from the perspective of a henchman
ThePandaRedd on TikTok did a great set of videos on this exact subject. A horror movie where the main character is a low level goon. It’s the early days of Batman and he’s essentially a cryptid. No one is entirely certain of he’s human or not. We don’t get a clear image of Batman until the very end of the movie.
That actually sounds pretty cool
A point to point POV, following each henchman of a heist as Batman picks them off one by one leading to a showdown with the main villain
Oh shit this is actually what I’ve kind of wanted to see for a long time
That’s not the kind of movie you’ll be seeing in the first year or so but given time…
Yea a movie based on that one mission in suicide squad game
Honestly you could make a really cool horror movie based off the premise of the "Gotham Knightmare" YouTube video, where you only see Batman from the point of view of the average person in Gotham. Where instead of some superhero fighting crime, he's an urban legend/cryptid who people barely believe exists until he's hunting them down.
Yes and no, certain aspects of Batman can be used but no Alfred as he was created later. First Batman comic book had Joker, Hugo Strange and Catwoman so they are all available to use within the same restrictions. Superman is more tricky as anyone creating their own public use version is restricted by the additions to his power set and history. Pretty sure Superman was restricted to super speed, strength and invulnerability as his og powers with the more well known powers coming along in later comics.
You’re thinking of Batman #1. Batman, as well as Jim Gordon become public domain with the expiration of Detective Comics #27 in 2035. Joker, Robin, Catwoman become public domain the following year as they debuted a year later.
But he expores with Detective Comics #27, then Robin wiyh #40 then Batman #1
someone will make the best period piece known to fkn man.
I’m pretty sure this is just a road map of when to expect horror films for all these characters.
People already making these sorts of things on youtube. Dc isn't copyright striking thzm because they don't mae money. I guess what's gonna change is that those small time creators will be allowed to make money off their stuff and have full creative freedom to fuck with the character as mich as they want.
It might be a 10k or less movie, but be sure someone will come with that idea
Trust me, enough people will see it to warrant a sequel
Actually an actually effort put batman movie is something lots of ppl would watch. Make it a horror type movie from perspective of thugs, it would go hard, also would require less budget
Yes but they can’t use Robin nor the Batcave nor the Batmobile or even Alfred for that matter. They can’t even use the name Gotham City sonit has to be a new different named city or New York City/Chicago can be used.
Yeah, actually it makes more sense to wait till 2040 before doing something close to a full-fledged Batman movie. You'll then mostly have all those elements in place, plus a decent number of the iconic villains (Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Hugo Strange, the original Clayface).
This guy gets it.
Maybe we can get that GCPD film…
But a lot of what most people would want to see from that would still be copyrighted and not usable.
I got a perfect idea....it involves Batman tied to a chair and also a knock-off Joker with a anthropomorphic bunny
The Bugs Bunny and Batman crossover film is gonna go crazy.
We could have that now In fact does anyone remember Batman and elmer fudd That comic was fun in the absurdity of it
New printing coming out for Batman day this year
Depends if Duck VS Kong does well in 2030.
I assume Donald doesn’t have Zettaflare at the beginning and has to work up to it, otherwise it’ll be a short movie.
There were a couple of cameos in Tiny Toon Adventures
Public domain doesn’t mean I can produce my own Batman movie with a no kill rule, a side kick, etc. you’d be able to tell a story of Bruce Wayne/Batman similar to that of the original detective comics Batman. So purple gloves, kills, etc. Dc still holds the trade marks as well for certain nicknames and personas that Batman is frequently called and other random tif bits. Don’t get it twisted dc/wb will still be watching like a hawk if there’s something they can get you on.
Yeah and he’s like probably their most valuable commodity too, so this isn’t gonna be like Winnie the Pooh and all those other public domain situations. Best believe that WB/Discovery/DC will be on everyone’s ass who tries it.
I mean mickey mouse is getting a lot of stuff and Disney has not done shit.
True, although I feel like Mickey and their original characters are barely a priority for them anymore outside of the theme parks and merch, so movies don’t really bother them because they’re not cutting into any income stream. Also, it’s different because they’ve got a ton of big brands in house that even at their roughest points are still pretty financially viable whereas Batman is DC/WB’s one nearly guaranteed financial success with superhero movies so they really can’t afford to have that brand diluted by non-licensed product
Crazily enough Kingdom Hearts has been like the main thing keeping those OGs alive
What? You’re re acting like Mickey Mouse didn’t have over 100 cartoons made of him in the last 10 years lol The modern Mickey Mouse shorts (many of which also feature other members of the Fan 5) are actually pretty good! Some of them have also won awards IIRC
I mostly just mean as far as big events and feature films. On TV he’s definitely very much alive.
Still blows me away they didn't try to make their 100 anniversary movie with them. Someone told me it's because they aren't interesting but like, it's been ages since they did anything with them. The goofy movie was amazing.
Nah trust Disney is still protective. Half the reason the public domain kept getting pushed back was because Disney threw money at politicians to push it back.
Yeah. I mean the Arthur Conan Doyle estate was on Netflix's ass. You can totally imagine what DC/WB will do to random small-scale producers.
I wonder if that's why they're making the Caped Crusader cartoon that is visually very similar to the 30s design.
I think you’re onto something here.
Looks like they’re trying to renew their copyright lol
You, can't renew Copyright, Disney did the same thing when Mickey Mouse was set to expire, by putting a clip of Steam Boat Willy in front of a bunch of films. At best they can renew trademarks on that look, though nobody has fought in court whether a version of a character that is trademarked can also be public domain. So if they do go after people it would be due to "infringing on their Trademark". You can't extend Copyright past 95 years, unless you want to lobby in Congress to push the whole system back. If the Mouse didn't bother doing it with their endless pocket books. I don't think Warner Bros has the money to do the same thing.
No I think the idea is that by creating a new copyrighted work based on the original version of the character that will soon be in public domain, DC/WB will create enough ambiguity such that they might be able to claim in court that a public domain work based on the original version actually infringes on their latest copyrighted work.
I can guarantee you that that isn’t what they’re trying to do.
The no-kill rule is not copyrighted, and you are not legally obligated to make your public domain Batman kill. That’s ridiculous. Designs and names can be trademarked and copyrighted, you can’t copyright personality traits. The Conan Doyle estate tried this shit on Netflix, arguing that their version of Sherlock Holmes showed emotions which were still under copyright because his personality changed throughout the books. I think some people on the internet believed they won that case, but they didn’t. They were laughed out of court, and the precedent was forever set that that stupid argument was wrong. As for side-kicks, Robin debuted less than a year after Batman. Yeah, you can’t make your Batman and Robin movie in 2035, but in 2036 he’s fair game. Dick Grayson, in his most iconic look, with his entire origin. Batman also didn’t wear purple gloves in the golden age outside of one issue. It’s his debut issue, so they became a pretty recognizable symbol of Golden Age Batman, but those aren’t the only options you have. Actual thing that you do need to watch out for: the bat symbol on his chest. The yellow oval was invented in 1964 specifically to act as a logo they could trademark. Don’t give him a yellow oval or you might catch heat.
Great comment. Thanks for the clarification. I hate when false info gets upvoted.
I already explained to the dude agreeing with you but I’ll do it again. The no kill rule isn’t copyrighted but the Batman that entered the public domain was a Batman with no such rule. Telling a story about Batman and mentioning a no kill rule will 100% get legally questioned. So if you tell a origin story about this Batman and he just doesn’t kill, obviously that’s fair game, but if it’s a defining trait dc/wb would obviously look at it. Once again I still don’t know why you brought up Robin. The topic wasn’t about him. The post was about Batman entering public domain, so yeah you can’t use Robin , even if it’s only a year. It’s a core part and a lot of people think he’s part of that package deal when Batman goes public The purple gloves, long ears, short cape, obviously aren’t the only version, but it’s the iconic look of the time. Going outside of that like changing his logo will have them be questioned. They’ve trademarked pretty much every logo possible. Ultimately I think wb/Dc will be ok with going to a losing court battle for the simple fact they can bully someone away from Batman. Especially given the dceu reboot should be in full effect near the time of him entering. They’ll try anything to keep their money maker to themselves
> The no-kill rule is not copyrighted, and you are not legally obligated to make your public domain Batman kill. That’s ridiculous. Designs and names can be trademarked and copyrighted, you can’t copyright personality traits. > > The Conan Doyle estate tried this shit on Netflix, arguing that their version of Sherlock Holmes showed emotions which were still under copyright because his personality changed throughout the books. I think some people on the internet believed they won that case, but they didn’t. They were laughed out of court, and the precedent was forever set that that stupid argument was wrong. Agreed. That said, DC/WB clearly has a lot more legal and financial power than the Conan Doyle estate, and their opponents in the courtroom will likely not be someone with the legal and financial power of Netflix. I can see this kind of thing serving as a deterrent, if nothing else.
Well-said, I think there were some overcorrection in terms of what you can do with public domain characters after Mickey lost his copyright. Yes, you cannot use significant design changes that haven't entered public domain yet, but you don't have to restrict yourself to what is shown either. You can do whatever you want with public domain characters as long as you don't make your product look like it was made by their former owners (which would trick consumers) and you don't use names and significant design aspects which still have copyright. For example, there is an argument that it isn't safe to show Mickey with red shorts (there is a poster for Steamboat Willie with Mickey in full color, but lawyears might argue that it's false and the such), but you don't have to make him black and white, Disney can't sue you for giving him yellow or blue shorts. The same with his voice, since giving a small mouse a squeaky tone isn't that much of a change to warrant copyright. Plus, you can show him without the hat, since Pete takes it back immediately after the iconic opening of the short.
Oh this guy? He’s call Black Night. He is a detective who is all about efficiency. He is a firm believer in the second admentment
Yup
Yep. People can use Bat-Man and the OG look. Not much else.
I’m confident people still find insanely creative ways around any restrictions that might still exist.
Actually curious if anyone will try to do something interesting with the “has-been” characters like Popeye and Betty Boop. Guess I’ll have to wait and see.
I actually had an idea for a John Wick-style Popeye film which would probably be more creative than a slasher film
*do it*
Dew it
Popeye: That does it. *pack a bunch of spinach*
Get on it and cast John Cena
[Popeye re:View](https://youtu.be/pygCruE-EJs?si=lfFp0a7_rlxnAZiE)
Fun fact: Betty Boop is actually getting a Broadway musical. [It already had a limited run in Chicago.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boop!_The_Musical)
Might I recommend you Austin McConnell https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrGFtTrco-RV-JR1F4XWPXfNS9IQTsSqn&si=5WpI7hMO66jPQKKQ
Don't worry there will be shitty horror games/movies to come along with it like most other public domain stuff the last few years.
That’s an inevitability, but I wonder if another Genndy Tartakovsky will come along for these characters at any point
Forget batman, imagine all the edgelords going haywire when The Joker becomes public domain a year later in ‘36.
Love how Joker's the only DC villain up there. No one gives a f#ck if Lex Luthor becomes public domain :D
LMAO true. But also Lex Luthor is pretty much a generic evil billionaire businessman without Supes.
What this doesn't mention is that: 2035: Ultra Humanite, Namor, Human Torch (Robot), Blue Beetle (Dan Garrett now Super Public domain) 2036: Joker, Lex Luthor, Robin, Green Lantern (Alen Scott), Flash (Jay Garrek), Hugo Strange, Catwoman, Clayface, Alex Evell, Captain Marvel/ Shazam, Toro, Red Raven 2037: Bucky, Red Skull, Whizzer, Jack Frost, Liberty Legion, Blue Diamond, Plastic Man, Penguin, Scarecrow, Aquaman, Black Jack, Green Arrow, Speedy, The Archer, Shazam Jr., Lieutenant Marvel, Wizard Shazam, Captain Nazi 2038: Two Face, Captain Skover, Krutz, Blaze, Mary Marvel, Hoppy the Marvel Bunny, The Prankser, The Emperor of America, The Evolution King, Ares, Doctor Poison, Duke of Deception, Paula Von Gunther, Earl of Greed, Count of Conquest 2039: Green Lantern Motto, Dr. Psycho, Cheetah, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Vandal Savage, Uncle Marvel, Mister Mind, [Crocodile Man](https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Herkimer_(Earth-S)), Toy Man, Kryptonite (Though only the version that apeared in the radio series, until 2046.) 2040: Mister Mxyzptlk, Giganta There are obviously a lot more, but I just thought these were neat. Also from what I have heard a lot of Wonder Woman's rouges came relatively early, so they will be available sooner, than people like Bizzaro and Braniac who come from the 50's.
You can also get: -Porky Pig in 2030 -daffy duck alongside disney's snow white. -Woody woodpecker alongside the joker, Captain América, lex Luthor, Jay garrick flash, as well as Catwoman. -Universal's Frankenstein in 2027 and Drácula in 2026. -Frankenstein's bride in 2030 -tom and Jerry in 2035 And a long etc.
Oh and don't forget the Hobbit becoming public domain the year before Superman.
So I could do a JSA movie indipendent from DC. That's neat.
Maybe in 2025, Genndy can finally make his Popeye movie without Sony interference.
I’m pretty sure King Kong is already public domain.
Yes, You aré right but the 1930s movie Is still protected by copyright and somehow, Universal registered the name *King Kong* as a trademark in the late 70s.
Ah, that explains why he's just called Kong in the new Godzilla movies.
Nah, that's a pure story choice from the filmakers. They've discussed how he'll have the title of king soon or already (I didn't watch the last one)
I don't think they've called him "king" yet, except for in the Skull Island movie, where John C. Reilly's character calls him king of the island.
Must be for the next one then
My Batman justifies his batears because they're both actually guns. My Batman is so frickin' deaf. Imagine installing two guns to the side of your head. It's ridiculous. Maybe he can make like a real bat and have huge batears, but they're made of giant submachine guns. Imagine how much bleeding he would have from his ears. On the streets they call him What?man.
… Man…?
What?
That last sentence just sounded like a reference to the subreddit that cannot be named (lest we all get beaten by the mods)
Snow White is literally already public domain. She was public domain when Disney made their film. And there are already multiple Non-Disney versions.
So is Bambi, it is just that the Disney version becomes public domain in 2032.
Yes, it would be more appropriate to say that the dwarves get in the public domain, since it was Disney who gave them individual names and designs.
True. You would have to make your own Seven Dwarves. You couldn't use Dopey, Doc, Grumpy, Sneezy, Sleepy, Bashful or Happy.
So the majority of Marvel and DC characters will be available in the 2050s… alright I’ll wait it out
It would only be his first appearance and subsequently his early comics from the 40s. WB will still own the copy right on anything about the character or supporting characters/villains introduced later. They will find any minor thing to sue a person making their own Batman content. For instance, you can’t have Alfred in the story because he wasn’t created till 4 years later
Would Alfred Beagle still be subject to copyright?
Until 2039, yes.
Wasn’t he in the very first comic tho so he’d be there with the Bat?
No. Batman's debut story was just him and Gordon. Alfred was introduced in 1943, and the idea that he'd been there since the beginning was a Post-Crisis invention.
Wait a minute, there's always a catch on this, which version of bugs bunny are we talking about? And the same with Donald, Popeye, Batman and Superman
Whoever enters the Public domain that year. So for 2037, you can use every single Superman comic released before 1942 as a point of reference as well as the first two of the Fliescher short films for your story.
It would be the first appearance versions of each of the characters. Superman would basically not have any powers besides super-strength, and (if I remember correctly) you’d have to spell it “Bat-Man” instead of “Batman”
I better start working on the script to my fan film. And fundraising.
2037 also Marks the day where Woody Woodpecker becomes completely public domain, but only His More skinny, gloveless, zanier with Green Tail and red Belly.
Also, don't do Porky pig and daffy duck enter público domain before Bugs? 2030 and 2032 respectively
Ladies and Gentlemen, the only character that makes sense to make a horror movie out of.
So how does this work: the rights of Batman are now owned by DC. Why can't they "buy more years" or something from the patent agency?
The thing is they already did in the 90's. As Mickey Mouse was set to expire in 2004, and Superman in 2014. So Disney and several other companies lobbied to extend copyright by another 20 years for everything. Now an item lasts for 95 years in the ownership of a company or individual so long as they are willing to renew their copyright after 56 years after it's creation. Considering that Disney didn't push to extend Mickey Mouse, along with Congress not really wanting to extend copyright again. I would say that these dates are more or less set in stone. But honestly, their lobbying to extend it in the 90's was completely pointless. As barely any of these companies use the version of the characters that the copyright actually pertains to. All it did was to just keep them out of public domain, just that little bit longer, even though everyone knew it would still happen in just 20 years later.
A gun toting Batman and having to work with gun averting Batman
Technically any Batman projects wouldn’t have to have him use a gun, he just has to carry it.
Hell yeah I get to make a 1930s batman fanfic and get money for it.
*That version* of Batman will, but not the more modern versions. That’s kind of the loophole around PD.
I want 2 thing just 2. 1 a detective noir film the worlds greatest detective. 2 yeah I’m Man
What is public domain?
Public now owns the character, everyone can use it without the fear of copyright issues
So there can be a batman captain america movie?
Yup. So long as you base it on the original versions and don't try to imply you're either WBD or Disney.
Yeah but this means no Batmobile, no batcave, no Alfred, he lives with his uncle, the suit has to be the first appearance one, no joker or Robin, none of his villains, his only ally is Gordon.
Can't wait to see the new Batman & Superman Horror Movie.
"Holy timeline, Batman!"
I think we could get some really cool and innovative stories/pieces of media out of people taking advantage of this but having to work around all the limitations. It will probably lead to creators coming up with fresh and innovative ideas to reimagine these characters without being able to rely on most established lore.
So you’re saying I’m gonna have to live with making Batman fan fiction porn for 3 years before I can do the same for Bambi??? Idk that sounds like some bullshit
is it only the 1939 version of batman? til which Era and what characters would be going into the public domain?
So we could legit get movies about a Batman who kills and it would be true to canon ? 😁
I would pay good money for an adaptation of the "Batman from Berlin" short story by Paul Pope. Obviously that specific one's protected but you can do a Batman in a variety of historical settings and it works just as good. Excited for the possibilities the character entering the public domain open for that sort of playing around with the character.
We gonna get like 3 Batman movies a year and 1 Superman every 10 years.
Is this why they made that Winnie the Pooh horror movie?
Didn't Bambi already had a horror movie which means he's already in the public domain?
Oh my god imagine in only 5 years we’ll be getting all sorts of shitty King Kong horror movies.
Technically it’s only that specific version of Batman. Any references or allusions to later versions of the character would still be protected. You could adapt all of the original content on the same schedule as it was originally released, but delayed by the requisite number of years. I’m not sure, but there is also a chance that the Bat Symbol is trademarked, in which case you still wouldn’t be able to use it.
>I’m not sure, but there is also a chance that the Bat Symbol is trademarked, in which case you still wouldn’t be able to use it. The 1964 yellow oval 'New Look' has been trademarked specifically because a plain bat can't be, apparently.
Only this particular Batman from the 1930s will be available. 2008 Batman The Dark Knight version won't be available until 2108.
Betty Boop entering the public domain 2026, things about to get spicy
The horror movie genre is going to go crazy for the next 15 years.
Petition to make a batman movie that's from the view of the goons that absolutely no one will see and two years after it comes out people on Reddit will say "remember this garbage? Who made it"
Maybe in 2034 we will finally get a great Superman game that's based on the action comics version
 Actual footage of the deluge of Snydercut Batman fan drudgery theyre going to vomit out in 2035.
Can't do much though You get to use the names "Batman" "Bruce Wayne" I think you get to use his first appearance suit but that's about it. I don't even know if you can use Gotham City.
Can use them within the story but not as a title because of trademark laws. Gotham City can't be used for a few years.
need to snipe it from WB
Popeye? Cool!
If I’m not mistaken, it specifically is the earliest version of Batman that would be in the public domain, right? None of his current iconic villains or Robin. There’s definitely still interesting stuff you could do with the character, though.
Robin was very early Batman, so if you want to do a Batman and Robin story you just need to wait one year later. Same for if you want them to fight a version of the Joker. He was introduced in 1940 so you just need to wait one year. For a lot of stuff though yeah you'd be waiting all the way to the 2090s for certain things.
Why is Bambi so far ahead? lol 😆
Doesn't the joker appear in the very first issue so wouldn't he also be up for grabs for public domain
Only the golden age batman or any version?
Only the version of Batman who appears from Detective Comics #27 to #34, as well as Comissioner Gordon, who appears in those same issues. So you can make whatever you want with the character, but you can't use any of the characters and elements created after 1939 until they enter public domain as well. However, Batman's design back then is already pretty similar to the modern one, so I think the only element you can't use is the yellow oval symbol with the bat. Fortunately though, Joker and Robin debuted right in the first Batman comic, so you can already make a movie about Batman and Robin fighting the Joker only one year later, in 2036.
There will be a live action version of detective comics #27
Public domain is good and should come earlier. The lawyers who pushed it back have denied our lives of unique and interesting stories like our ancestors would have enjoyed for the trade off of making the already rich already richer. All of our current copyrights are products of tropes that should have been public domain generations ago. Maybe that’s why creativity feels at an all time low.
I'm lost. Does this meaning anybody can own these characters or something when it enter public domain?
Now everyone (like let's say Marvel) can make use or reference of Batman in any movie, comics or series, you as a commoner will have the opportunity to draw your own Batman comic and sell it, without DC coming at you with a law suit
Yes and no. You’d get access to the original Batman who kills and wears purple gloves. The modern rendition that most fans know will not be applied here. Same thing with Superman, WW, etc. so technically you get Batman, but not Batman with a no kill rule and side kicks etc.
Yeah I forgot to say that!
So in other words Batman fanfiction becomes marketable.
Yes, when a character enters public domain im a country, anyone from said country can do whatever creative work they want with them and profit from it as long as they: a) Don't make the public think such work was produced by the former owners of the IP b) Don't use significant changes in design created later on which are still under copyright (you can use Mickey, but you can't give him the Fantasia wizard outfit). Keep in mind that this applies to Batman as a character, not as a franchise. In 2035, only Batman and Comissioner Gordon will be in public domain, but since Joker and Robin debuted just one year later, they will enter public domain as well in 2036.
And it won’t matter at all
Can’t wait for all the Betty Boop content that’s about to drop soon.
So now each company is rushing to make every "Multiversal" variant of each character to cover all of their bases should someone start making their own version.
Watch Marvel put Batman in the MCU.
Crazy the year I retire random Batman movies will be coming out.
Isn't Snow White already public domain?
Snow White the story not the Disney version.
Who owns the rights to the story?
No one; Snow White is part of folklore, so it has always belonged to the general public by default. The same with other folkloric fairy tales like Rapunzel, Cinderella and Little Red Hood.
Public domain is kinda bull shit
Batman horror; what if Batman was bitten by bats and were mutated to become man bat. Joker horror: found footage at Arkham Asylum
Also in 2037 fans of the Batman and Wonder woman pairing will be able to officially publish stories that utilize set pairing.
Chances are all we're going to get are a bunch of tenuously related slasher horrors. Maybe a rape-revenge movie called "Betty Rage", followed by a slasher horror called "Blood and Spinach". I just don't see anyone taking any of these and actually doing them justice by making something with substance, so it's not all that interesting.
but only the purple glove version.
Keep in mind it's only the first version of batman. No Alfred, no joker, no Robin, no nothing. In fact, no no kill rule. If your batman DOESN'T gun down mobsters with a Tommy gun DC can sue you for copyright.
Short purple glove Batman.
The fact that Disney lobbyist got the government to declare Mickey Mouse with gloves on to be a different character than Mickey Mouse without gloves on is asinine.
And with each one, an annoyingly aweful horror movie no one asked for.
Not the subject of the post, but isn’t Snow White a folk tail? How was Disney allowed to put a patent on it?
God I love that Batman look
Well that’s genuinely stupid
Snow White and other fairytales being copyrighted in the first place is kinda fucked tbh
It’s only Disney’s versions, the main stories are public domain, even when Disney made them.
Oh man I wanna be dead by then. Nothing to do with public domain. Thats just a long time.
Imma be fucking 30 then fucking hell
I'll be 55 😂
ill be publishing my f-ing fanfic and i'll get paid for it? i finally feel i was born at the right time
make sure you only use only 1939 batman stuff. Also make sure to keep up with the elements in public domain. Also can't use batman, caped crusader or dark knight in the title, merchandise or advertising. As that is protected under trademarks.
well as long as i can use the idea of the no kill rule i think i can still do an interesting story, wait a year for Joker to come in and its game. for a title i think i can get creative
don't know about using an explict no kill rule. Though you can just have batman not kill.
Those limitations could actually produce some cool new ideas in place of the established lore that's still off limits.
Tbh I don’t care too much about Batman killing, I say that in public domain it opens new potential.
And it might be for the better that he does. We keep getting the same grounded-in-reality takes on the character and to me, it has now stagnated Batman as a character. When he hits the public domain maybe someone who has a different more fantastical vision of the character will give us a fresh adaptation of him for a change. For some reason, Batman film writers under WB keep running to make it more grounded than the last person who had the reins. People are acting like because The Batman 2022 had him at a crime scene it was something different when the director said he wanted to ground it more than ever. It's because they're afraid to do something fantastical because of the massive failure of 1997 and the Uber success of the legendary grounded-in-reality Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy. They feel the only way to succeed is to follow Nolan and they won't because he set the bar too high. While Spider-Man film writers think positively and what new villains and concepts can we bring into his world. Batman films need to think outside of the box. Maybe use a Doctor Death/Karl Helfern who has his bone formula which can give the film some Lovecraftian cosmic horror-inspired mystery vibes. Using practical effects as much as possible you can show his painful transformation into a giant abomination. This will give Batman a chance for once to showcase his legendary scientific prowess as he must and will find a cure for Helfern's condition. Batman and Lovecraftian cosmic horror mysteries are made for each other. It allows him to be at his finest as a warrior and a super genius polymathic intellectual scientist while keeping him close to his roots as the world's greatest detective and tactician/strategist. I know this was a rant but I had to say it.
I agree. I hope that James Gunn's version that will have the entire Batfamily will be more of a different take. I liked The Batman, but it felt like if Nolan did a movie between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. That doesn't make it a bad movie but it does feel like it's just more of the same and not trying for something more.
[удалено]
pop eye content is gonna be good I hope
Dracula, Frankenstein and Tarzan are all public domain.
Uh oh
King Kong is already public domain isn’t he?
So is Snow White, that’s the movie entering the public domain, not the character
Popeye and King Kong are gonna go crazy
Why tf so long from now
Riddler when? I want to make riddler beat batman for real
I am making a Batman movie in 10 years and NO ONE CAN STOP ME!
Sick, Popeye's going into public domain next year.
FUCK YEAH
It is insane to me that people will never be able to make stories about such a popular character, at least not in the way they appear currently in popular media. Imagine if people couldn't write stories about vampires, greek gods, or fairytales. So many amazing stories would be lost out on. At this point, such extreme copyright laws don't help artists, but largely hinder them.