A memorial to a Canadian boy who loved to dress up as Superman before he was starved to death by his abusive grandparents will not be allowed to use the Superman logo. DC Entertainment refused to allow the famous “S” to be used on a memorial to honor five-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin who died in 2002.
Todd Boyce, an Ottowa resident who heard Jeffrey’s story after his death, has raised money for a statue of the boy, and wanted to see him depicted in his Superman costume. Jeffrey’s father Richard testified in court that before his teenage parents lost custody, Jeffrey loved to dress up as the superhero and pretend to fly.
“He wanted to fly,” Baldwin said, according to CBC News. “He tried jumping off the chair. We had to make him stop. He dressed up [as Superman] for Halloween one year. He was so excited. I have that picture at home hanging on my wall. He was our little man of steel.”
The company confirmed that the memorial could not use the logo, but made no further comment on the issue.
http://time.com/2963473/memorial-to-murdered-boy-denied-request-to-use-superman-logo/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/memorial-statue-of-jeffrey-baldwin-not-allowed-to-use-superman-logo-1.2698795
Comments
Yeah, by allowing it may set the precedent for other memorials to be made in this way, but how much harm is there in allowing the symbol to be used in this manner.
Disney routinely sends cease and desist letters to day care places, even non-profits, that decorate with paintings of Disney characters.
My feeling? Charge a dollar and let it be. But they HAVE to protect the trademarks because that is what they make their living from, and where do you draw the line? This is a clear "let them family have it" in our minds, but what about the 50 year old biker who wants it on his helmet? The pop star who wants it on their t-shirt? The mason who carves it into gravestones?
Where would you draw the line?
Usually, rather than parsing things, they just say no, deal with the bad publicity and wait it out.
A Disclaimer: Just because I UNDERSTAND why a corporation or person doesn't something, does NOT mean I approve.
@bralinator, did you read the article? Doctorow goes into all aspects of trademark protection: the good, the bad, and the unnecessary lawyering. It's a good read, even if you know the technical legalities.
It boils down to this: Does DC have to protect its trademarks? Yes. Does this particular case threaten any of their trademarks? Not in the least. Corporate lawyers tend to react first and analyze later, if at all, whether in the best interest of their clients or simply to justify their existence is debatable.
Just like copyright law, trademark law needs reform.
I disagreed with how this went down but it was hard to get too upset about it because when the story blew up I knew this outcome was inevitable.
What a surprise.