Now that Heath Ledger’s posthumous award has shown once and for all that superhero movies are as worthy as any other films of the best talent out there, it seems like an even better time to discuss casting for Bat-sequels.

MTV Splash Page has an interview with Greg Rucka saying he’d love to see Catwoman in the next Nolan Bat-movie, and I couldn’t agree more. As Rucka said, with the death of Rachel Dawes, the time is ripe to introduce a new love interest, and the traumatized Bruce Wayne we saw at the end of The Dark Knight would be ripe for an unhealthy, dark, messy relationship with a Nolanized Selina Kyle.

Nothing campy about Catwoman in Nolan’s Gotham City. She’d have to be sexy, of course, but also capable of being conflicted, complicated–as much so as Bruce/Batman himself. I love the idea floated of Rachel Weisz (also, the picture!). She did the genre in Constantine (eminently watchable if you allow yourself to forget that Keanu Reeves is supposed to be playing, well, John Constantine), and she’s pretty but not in a conventional way (not unlike Maggie Gyllenhaal, who fit so well into the Dark Knight cast).

At a party at NYCC, I got into a discussion with the lovely Molly Crabapple about what we’d like to see in another Batman film, and we both agreed that it was time to up the female presence. To make the film pass the Bechdel test, what if Nolan added Harley Quinn? The Joker’s gone–they’re obviously not going to replace Heath Ledger this soon. So what about a psychotic Harley out for revenge? Instead of the girlfriend in the background, she’s in the foreground, out for blood.

I love the Joker archetype and I would love to see a woman playing that type of character. Molly and I quickly tossed out a few rules for Harley: we want her to not be uber-pretty, and even better if she’s a bit older. We want her dangerous, like the Joker but both more seductive and more unhinged, Angelina Jolie in Girl, Interrupted ramped up to 11. But who could play the role? Angelina, sure, but she’d have the pretty-pretty thing going.

We didn’t reach any conclusions that night, but it hit me the next day:

Courtney Love.

Discuss.

The judge in the ongoing Superman lawsuit has postponed the upcoming scheduled trials due to “health issues related to one of [the Siegel family's] main expert witnesses.” The trial on the alter ego issue is now set for April 21, 2009; the trial regarding apportionment of profits is set to follow on June 9th.

What better way to end the week than with the official Watchmen settlement documents submitted to the court this morning?

If you read the proposed order of dismissal, you might noticed that the parties are requesting for the case to be dismissed “with prejudice.” That does not mean, as some mistakenly believe, that the court is criticizing the plaintiff for bringing the case. Rather, it’s a legal term of art indicating that the plaintiff is barred from bringing a lawsuit on the same claim–in short, the parties have agreed that this case is over, once and for all.

Of course, there might be a dispute over whether the terms of the settlement are being met. Chances are, if the settlement is true to form, the parties have agreed to have any such dispute resolved through mediation.

The proposed dismissal order needs the judge’s signature, but today’s lighthearted hearing indicates that that is not likely to be a problem.

Though the judge is already anticipating a possible sequel:

“It may be over between the two of you,” said [Judge] Feess, “but who knows what else will show up one day?”

Fox and Warner Bros. have just released official confirmation that they have settled the Watchmen dispute. The following is the companies’ reported joint statement:

Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox have resolved their dispute regarding the rights to the upcoming motion picture Watchmen in a confidential settlement. Warner Bros acknowledges that Fox acted in good faith in bringing its claims, which were asserted prior to the start of principal photography. Fox acknowledges that Warner Bros. acted in good faith in defending against those claims. Warner Bros. and Fox, like all Watchmen fans, look forward with great anticipation to this film’s March 6 release in theatres.

As Nikki Finke reports, the price that Warner Bros. is said to have agreed to pay is substantial: 8.5% of the gross, a percentage of “everything going forward, including a sequel or spinoff,” as well as a substantial cash payment for Fox’s development costs and attorney fees. Industry watchers may want to keep an eye on TimeWarner’s SEC filings for more information–the loss of a substantial amount of Watchmen‘s anticipated profits arguably qualifies as a material fact that the company must disclose to its shareholders.

That the settlement came so quickly after the judge’s summary judgment ruling for Fox should come as no surprise. As I noted earlier, Fox had nothing to lose going forward, while WB could lose everything–and given the recent track record, Warner Bros.’ executives might not exactly be comfortable relying on their lawyers’ assurances of victory. What’s more, the injunction against the manufacturers of Bratz provided a powerful reminder that federal judges in that district could view (alleged) infringement of IP rights as harm substantive enough to warrant shutting down distribution. You don’t have to be a game theorist to see where the incentives lay.

News reports note that Warner Bros. is going to seek reimbursement from film producer Larry Gordon, from whom the rights to the film had ostensibly been purchased. The basis for such a claim would be the indemnification provision referred to in these court filings–in short, an agreement to indemnify is a contractual promise to compensate someone for loss or other harm.

The extent to which Gordon may be obligated to pay for Warner Bros.’ loss depends on a few key circumstances. Read these documents carefully and you’ll note that in the course of its dispute with Warner Bros., Fox argued that Warner Bros. had “actual knowledge” of Fox’s rights when it entered into the indemnification agreement with Gordon. If that’s indeed the case, a court might rule that Gordon does not have to pay, on the grounds that a party should not be allowed to insure itself against its own reckless or willful misconduct. Even if a court does determine that Gordon must indemnify Warner Bros. for its loss, he himself might have insurance or grounds to sue his own lawyers for malpractice.

However, for most fans of the graphic novel, Gordon’s fate is probably not the immediate concern. What matters most: provided the judge approves the proposed settlement, the Watchmen film will indeed be released on March 6.

The Watchmen case is not the only comics-related lawsuit that has been heating up. Lawyers on both sides of the Siegel case have also been filing a number of documents, although without a settlement in sight.

The primary focus of attention for the past few weeks has been the relationship between DC and Warner Bros. In a nutshell, the Siegels allege that the various deals between DC and Warner Bros. do not represent fair market value. Rather, the Siegels claim, because of the close corporate relationship between the two companies DC received substantially less than an unrelated company would have paid–which could affect the amount the Siegels might receive from the apportionment of profits derived from their copyright interest in Superman.

We’ll be covering the specifics in more detail as the case unfolds. For now, for those of who don’t want to wade through several thousand pages of depositions and corporate documents, here’s one interesting bit of history entered into evidence as part of the dispute: unproduced scripts written over the course of developing the latest Superman movie.

Fox and Warner Bros. have asked for a hearing later today to report on a final settlement or to discuss how to proceed in the hearing scheduled for January 20. The filing, available on FilmEsq.com, notes that the studios “are continuing to address a few remaining settlement issues.” It also confirms that settlement negotiations began in late December, a few days after the judge’s decisive December 24 ruling in favor of Fox.

The New York Times’ Michael Cieply reads the body language at last night’s awards ceremony:

From where this reporter sat at the Golden Globes last night, that sure looked like Tom Rothman of Fox and Alan Horn of Warner Brothers down among the superstar seats, smiling and back-patting — each other, not the superstars — just before the show began. A public display of affection between studio chiefs, along with those pricey “Watchmen” ads on the National Football League playoff games this weekend, would add up to a message as big as the Hollywood sign: The talks between hitherto warring Fox and Warner over a settlement of Fox’s lawsuit over rights to “Watchmen” must be on track.

The final fate of the Watchmen movie could be determined next week. Later today–January 7th–Fox and Warner Bros. are scheduled to meet with the judge to discuss the next steps in the case.

As FilmEsq explains in more detail, the parties have agreed that the next proceeding should “be limited to the question of whether Fox is entitled to a permanent injunction” on the film’s distribution. If Fox were to prevail, the film would likely not be released without a settlement or action on appeal. The current date for the next hearing is set for January 20th, but Warner Bros., citing the urgency of resolving the matter, has asked for it to be moved up to next Monday, January 12th.

The question of whether the judge should grant the injunction involves some rather technical points of law. One key factor in the movie’s fate will be the judge’s perception of relative hardship. For example, the judge in the Bratz case recently decided that the harm to the manufacturer was severe enough to warrant modifying the court’s previous order to stop production and sale of the dolls.

For anyone who wants to read both sides’ arguments and their joint stipulation about the scope of future proceedings, here are some of the most relevant documents.

Fans anxious to know whether Watchmen will be released in March as scheduled will have to wait a few weeks. The New York Times is reporting that the judge in the Watchmen case has decided to refrain from ruling on the injunction sought by Fox until after a hearing set for January 20, 2009.

For anyone who wants more details on the judge’s 12/24 ruling, I’ve uploaded a set of documents that includes not just the Christmas Eve order, but both parties’ motions for summary judgment as well as fascinating material filed by Fox just yesterday.

These three rulings in particular provide detailed allegations as to how Warner Brothers got into this mess. In a nutshell, Fox claims that it has evidence that Warner Bros. initially relied on an inaccurate chain of title provided by Paramount. Once Warner Bros. was aware of Fox’s documented claims, it nonetheless decided to proceed in a deliberate “business calculation” that it would be more profitable to deal with a court case than clear the rights before making Watchmen.

Fox’s claim that Warner Bros. has an established “studio practice” of bad faith in clearing title is central to its argument that the court should enjoin Warner Bros. from releasing the film.

Besides these documents, I also recommend checking out Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily and Rodney Perkins’ Film Esq., which provide detailed analysis of the latest developments.

A quick editorial addendum to Jeff’s post: On Monday, Warner Bros. issued a statement about the ruling, saying: “We respectfully but vigorously disagree with the court’s ruling and are exploring all of our appellate options,” the studio said. “We continue to believe that Fox’s claims have no merit and that we will ultimately prevail, whether at trial or in the Court of Appeals. We have no plans to move the release date of the film.”

Fox responded with: “We are gratified by the recognition of our rights in the judge’s order, which speaks for itself.”

Apparently a judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox does own a share in Watchmen.

The Associated Press reported:

A U.S. federal judge has ruled that 20th Century Fox owns a copyright interest in “Watchmen,” potentially jeopardizing the superhero movie’s March release.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feess of Los Angeles disclosed the decision in a written order Wednesday, The New York Times and Variety reported.

I’d be willing to be that Fox will settle for allowing the release and wanting a chunk of cash that the movie’s bound to make. They’d be pretty stupid not to. But I’m neither a copyright lawyer nor a Fox exec, so who knows.

Sorry to ruin anyone’s fun.
(h/t a friend)

Comic book depictions of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct have once again become a major legal issue.

Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that “extended the prohibition against child pornography to images that . . . were produced without using any real children.” However, last week, in U.S. v. Whorley, a federal appeals court upheld a 20-year prison term for a man convicted of receiving “Japanese anime-style cartoons of children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults.” This follows a lower court case–U.S. v. Handley–in which a judge ruled against a manga collector who argued that indicting him for possession of child porn is unconstitutional. An additional sign of the importance of this issue is that it is not limited to the United States–an Australian court upheld a man’s conviction for possessing sexually explicit Simpsons cartoons.

The flurry of cases has sparked a considerable amount of discussion both online and off. Back in October, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund announced that it had become a special consultant to the defense of Christopher Handley, the manga collector facing trial for receiving and possessing manga alleged to be child pornography. Neil Gaiman garnered considerable attention for his eloquent post supporting the CBLDF’s decision; citing the First Amendment and the problematic nature of the law as “big blunt instrument,” Gaiman argued the defending the freedom to express what you find reprehensible is a necessary part of defending speech that you like. Others, most notably comics writer Valerie d’Orazio, raised serious questions about whether they could support the CBLDF when it is “fighting for the right of a publisher to print images of little children having sex.”

Is it constitutional to send someone to jail for possessing comics with sexually explicit images of kids? And how should the comics community respond? My thoughts below, after the jump.

(more…)

Just in time for Christmas, a federal judge has ordered MGA Entertainment to stop production and sales of Bratz. It’s a major victory for Mattel and Barbie–a jury had found in favor of Mattel’s claim of copyright infringement, but it was not clear whether this finding applied only to the original Bratz dolls or to the entire line.

This case is relevant to the comics world for several reasons, even if you don’t count Barbie’s multiple marriages to GI Joe and Mego Batman.

At the very least, the Bratz ruling illustrates what’s at risk for a company that builds its brand on a derivative work from someone else’s copyrighted images. Consider the recent discovery that an early Emily the Strange drawing was a clear copy of a character from a children’s book, from the character’s appearance to her cats to the identifying description as “strange.” This could arguably be the smoking gun in a copyright infringement lawsuit–while subsequent images may not have copied the book in such a blatant way, core similarities still remain.

However, there’s an even more direct connection. The judge in Bratz case, the Hon. Stephen G. Larson, is also presiding over the Siegel heirs’ Superman and Superboy lawsuits. Judge Larson’s reasoning in the Bratz ruling may provide clues as to how he will see the relationship between the Superman material in Action Comics #1 and subsequent works. Moreover, the Bratz case also involved the use of Mattel’s copyrighted material in the Bratz trademarks. Although the specific legal issues aren’t exactly the same, it’s possible to infer from the judge’s reasoning that he might be favorably inclined toward the Siegels’ argument that their copyright interest gives them a share of the trademarked Superman “S” symbol.

That said, the Bratz ruling also highlights what I’ve previously referred to as the Achilles’ heel of the March 2008 ruling that awarded the Siegels half of the copyright in the Superman material in Action #1–namely, the similarity between Action #1 and the cover images that appeared in promotional house ads. Due to a technicality, the Siegels’ claim did not extend back to these house ads, but Judge Larson determined the only thing that these ads gave DC was ownership of “the image of a person with extraordinary strength who wears a black and white leotard and cape.” Nonetheless, it’s conceivable–though by no means certain–that a panel of judges hearing the case on appeal might find the similarity to be more substantial.

Of course, this is all speculative reading of judicial tea-leaves–the Superman case and Emily the Strange have their own distinct facts and legal issues. The one thing that is certain: if the MGA injunction is not struck down on appeal or settled out, Bratz must be destroyed.

Neil Gaiman recently wrote on his blog about the Christopher Handley Comic Book Legal Defense Fund case. If you haven’t followed the sordid circumstances, Christopher Hadley bought a series of lolicon (which I’ve recently gathered is the manga sub-classification dealing with sexually charged depictions of Lolita/under-age persons) manga volumes from Japan. A nosey postal inspector decided to investigate, found material of “questionable” content, and alerted the police, who then followed Mr. Handley home and arrested him. The CBLDF’s statement on the case is here.

On his blog, Mr. Gaiman addressed a reader’s concern that supporting the CBLDF in this matter is tantamount to supporting child pornography.

Rest easy, Dear Reader. Backing the CBLDF in this circumstance is the right thing to do. Look, I won’t lie, I’m a CBLDF backer; if I lived some high-stepping, lavish lifestyle, I’d probably give them a lot more money than I do ($100 annual donation, plus various small fundraiser purchases throughout the year), but even if I wasn’t on their side usually, this case is patently ridiculous.

Sometimes you can’t get between a fanboy and his movies.

In Salt Lake City, a father left his two-year-old strapped in the car while he went to go see “The Dark Knight” this past summer entered a guilty plea this past Wednesday.

Why so serious? Because while suspect David James Farnham claims that his son was asleep when he left him to go see the movie; when bystanders discovered the baby an hour later, the inside of the car was 87 degrees. The child was allegedly awake and crying at this point.

Farnham was being charged with reckless endangerment, and the baby is currently with his mother. The kicker is that the police interrupted the screening to arrest him. Party foul!

In all seriousness, this is very un-heroic behavior. We all know Batman’s a much better parent than that–

…Sigh, I give up.

[Via Salt Lake Tribune.]

When state Rep. Jason Mumpower neglected to report his comics collection to the Tennessee Ethics Commission, somebody dropped a dime. Or, rather, an email.

Mumpower needn’t worry, though: His 17,000 comics apparently don’t qualify as a financial investment that must be disclosed to the commission.

“My common sense tells me that isn’t something that should be reported,” Bruce Androphy, the commission’s executive director, tells the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

Mumpower, the 35-year-old House Republican Leader, says he’s been collecting comics since he was 12, and has no idea of their value.

He notes that President-Elect Barack Obama also is a comics fan. (He reportedly likes Conan and Spider-Man.)

“There are two things Barack Obama and I have in common: We both collect comic books, and we both have big ears,” Mumpower told the newspaper.

The mayor of a city in southeastern Turkey plans to sue director Christopher Nolan for unauthorized use of the name “Batman.”

You see, that’s the name of the city: Batman. It’s the the capital of Batman Province, an important oil-producing region. It rests on the banks of the Batman River.

I’m not making this up.

“The royalty of the name ‘Batman’ belongs to us,” Mayor Hüseyin Kalkan tells a Turkish news agency. “There is only one Batman in the world. The American producers used the name of our city without informing us.”

He tells Hürriyet Daily News that after a media spotlight was cast on the city last year because of an increasing suicide rate among women, a columnist asked why the mayor hadn’t sued the producers of the Batman movies for royalties to aid the struggling economy.

With that, a light bulb went off.

But there is, apparently, another issue at play: Residents of Batman who live abroad can’t use “Batman” in the names of their businesses because of trademark infringement.

Curiously, though, Kalkan’s wrath is reserved solely for Nolan. He doesn’t plan to sue DC Comics or Warner Bros.

Bizarro update: A commenter points to this 2007 article that states Kalkan “was awarded damages by DC Comics after a lawsuit over the use of his town’s name for the superhero Batman.” In February 2008, the mayor was sentenced to 10 months in prison for “spreading terrorist propaganda” in a newspaper interview.

The final calendar for the Superman case has been set.

The judge has divided the remaining issues into two separate trials. Because of the specific legal questions involved, neither will be a jury trial. Instead, the judge will issue the final determinations on his own.

On Jan. 12, 2009, the issue at stake will be the Siegels’ claim that DC Comics, Warner Bros., Time Warner and other companies connected to the Superman properties are alter egos. That is, the Siegels are arguing that these companies are so intertwined that they are essentially one and the same. The primary reason a plaintiff files an alter-ego claim is to reach the assets of separate entities that would otherwise not be required to pay. For example, if DC could not pay the full amount of its debt and the court deemed Warner Bros. and Time Warner to be its alter egos, the Siegels could collect the remaining amount from those other companies.

As for any amounts the Siegels may be owed from exploitation of the material in Action Comics #1, the date set for trial in regard to accounting of profits is March 24, 2009.

Of course, the dispute between the Siegels and DC (et al.) is not necessarily over even after the court issues its decisions, as an appeal is a distinct possibility. In addition, the court might also schedule a trial for any remaining issues in the Superboy case.

A mother in Halsey, Ore., has filed paperwork to have Andy Riley’s popular The Book of Bunny Suicides removed from the Central Linn High School library.

But Taffey Anderson, whose 13-year-old son borrowed the book from the library, refuses to return it so a school district committee can review her complaint. Instead, she reportedly plans to burn the graphic novel.

“I understand her feeling very strongly about her rights, values and responsibility as a parent,” Principal Julie Knoedler told The Oregonian. “But I’m disappointed that she is forcing us to buy another copy before we can review the book.”

Published in 2003, the darkly humorous book is a mix of single-image gags and multi-panel strips depicting, as the title suggests, cute little bunnies committing suicide in imaginative ways.

“I saw poor bunnies going through meat grinders; people, like, throwing them in there and they’re getting shot out,” Anderson told the Albany Democrat-Herald. “People in Nazi helmets, and there’s a bunny, and they’re shooting him.”

In her complaint to the school district, she wrote, “This book has absolutely no curriculum value to anybody.”

Anderson pledges not to return the book. And if the library were to replace it, “I’ll have somebody else check it out and keep that one. I’m just disgusted by the whole ordeal.”

I am, too. Just not about the book.

(Via Examiner.com)

Update: As a reader points out in the comments, Bunny Crisis appears to be over, at least mostly. According to an item posted Tuesday on American Libraries, Anderson has returned the book and, after numerous negative articles, has softened her stance.

She nows says she’d be satisfied if The Book of Bunny Suicides is kept behind the circulation desk and restricted to high-school students. The Central Linn High School Library serves both high-school and junior-high students.

Nathan Fisher, the Connecticut teacher pushed out of his job last year after giving a copy of Eightball #22 to a ninth-grader, is still teaching — just not at Guilford High School.

Rick Green of the Hartford Courant updates Fisher’s story, noting that the educator landed at Coginchaug Regional High School in Durham, Conn., where he’s happily teaching English and journalism, and serving as adviser to the online student newspaper.

“It feels like a family,” Fisher told him. “It’s like they say. It’s the hardest job you will ever love.”

Fisher resigned from Guilford High School in September 2007 after complaints that he gave the Daniel Clowes comic to a student as a reading assignment. A police investigation found that no criminal charges were necessary.

• Mariko Tamaki and Jillian Tamaki‘s Skim has been shortlisted for the Canada Council for the Arts’s 2008 Governor General’s Literary Awards in the Children’s Literature-Text category. [Xtra]

• An Italian prosecutor claims that a vampire manga — which one, I don’t know — inspired Raffaele Sollecito to kill Meredith Kercher in 2007. The defense calls the theory “stupid.” Curiously, earlier this year British tabloids tried to link the bloody murder to Akira. [BBC News]

• Designer and author Chip Kidd talks briefly about Bat-manga! The Secret History of Batman in Japan: “”It was a labour-of-love project, an act of graphic-novel reclamation, if you want to call it that.” [National Post]

• Suzan Colón of The Advocate is encouraged by the promise of two non-heterosexual characters in James Robinson’s new Justice League series: Batwoman and the alien Starman. She also rattles off a list of “seven of the most memorable queer heroes.” [Advocate.com]

• If you’re thinking about starting a blog, don’t. Paul Boutin says the Age of the Solo Blogger is over: “Scroll down Technorati’s list of the top 100 blogs and you’ll find personal sites have been shoved aside by professional ones. Most are essentially online magazines: The Huffington Post. Engadget. TreeHugger. A stand-alone commentator can’t keep up with a team of pro writers cranking out up to 30 posts a day.” [Wired]