Batman, one of the most complex superheroes ever created by DC Comics, first made his debut in issue #27 of Detective Comics on March 30, 1939. Since then, DC Comics (National Comics Publications) has created a whole complex universe for Batman that can be discovered through its comics, magazines, movies, series, and much more. Not only has this hero starred in approximately 13 feature films, but he has also been the center of multiple debates and legal disputes.
Batman's popularity inevitably brings with it controversies related to copyright and the recognition of his creators. A notable example is the case of Bill Finger, who, after decades in the shadows, finally received the well-deserved recognition as co-creator of Batman in 2015. On this occasion, we will focus on one of the most recent controversies, in which Batman is once again the protagonist: Wozniak v. Warner Bros. To start with, what has made Batman so popular and who were the masterminds behind his birth?
Batman was created by illustrators Bob Kane and Bill Finger. The character has achieved global popularity thanks to a unique combination of elements that distinguish him within the superhero universe. His origin as Bruce Wayne, a millionaire philanthropist who, as a child witnessed the murder of his parents, Thomas and Martha, and who decides to dedicate his life to fighting crime, establishes an emotional point of connection that resonates with the audience.
For many, Batman is a captivating character due to the psychological complexity of his character. Bruce Wayne, who adopts the alias Batman to hide his identity, is a character tormented by guilt and pain from his past, which sets him apart from other superheroes. In addition, his focus on justice, physical training, detective skills, and innovative use of advanced technology such as the Batmobile and gadgets make him a versatile character.
El origen de la controversia entre Christopher Wozniak y Warner Brothers
The case Wozniak v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., centered on a dispute over alleged copyright infringement of Christopher Wozniak (herein, "Wozniak") by Warner Brothers and DC Comics.
Relevant Facts
1985 - 1999
According to the parties' allegations, from about 1985 through 1999, Wozniak developed several projects for DC Comics as a freelancer, and submitted several comic book projects that were rejected by DC Comics. This contractual relationship was documented in several contracts that included the following disclaimer clause:
"Artist [Wozniak] acknowledges that the Work shall be derivative of preexisting material, including, without limitation, the name and pictorial and literary representations of fictional characters, companies, places and things (the "Preexisting Material"); that DC owns or otherwise has rights in the Preexisting Material; and that the Artist would be unable to produce the Work without the Preexisting Material. Artist further acknowledges that Artist shall not have, acquire or claim any right whatsoever in any of the Preexisting Material and shall not have the right or privilege to use any of the Preexisting Material except as provided herein or as DC otherwise consents in writing."
Additionally, Wozniak was financially rewarded for his work.
2017 – 2022
Given that DC Comics has held the copyright to Batman and the universe that has been created around him since 1941, in 2017 Warner Brothers acquired a license to develop a new film project, the movie "The Batman."
For the development of this project, Warner Brothers hired Matt Reeves (here "Reeves") to write the script and direct the film. According to the evidence presented by Warner Brothers, the text of the script would have been developed by Reeves together with Mattson Tomlin and Peter Craig independently. Additionally, according to Reeves' sworn statement, neither Warner Brothers nor DC Comics executives were involved in the creation of the script from which the film was based.
In 2022, the film "The Batman" was released, which grossed around $772.2 million dollars. According to Wozniak, the film copied most of the creative elements that Wozniak would have incorporated into a comic book created by him in 1990. According to Wozniak, Warner Brothers was given access to his story through Michael Uslan, executive producer for Warner Brothers.
Who is Michael Uslan?
Michael Uslan is an American attorney and film producer. Between 1979 and 1981, Uslan acquired the rights to develop the Batman film universe from Polygram Picture Inc. In 1981, Polygram transferred all rights to Warner Brothers. As a result, Uslan and Warner Brothers agreed that Uslan would receive Executive Producer credit on all films featuring Batman, but would not be involved in any way with the creative development of the Batman universe.
The legal dispute between Wozniak and Warner Brothers
Following the release of the film "The Batman," Steve Wozniak sued Warner Brothers for copyright infringement. The suit was filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York. According to Wozniak's lawsuit, the Warner Brothers film contained substantial elements copied from a work he had written. Wozniak argued that Warner Brothers used portions of his copyrighted work without permission, thereby violating his copyright. In particular, Wozniak claimed that Warner Brothers had copied key elements of his work, including characters, plot, and specific dialogue.
In contrast, Warner Brothers argued that Wozniak's work and the film in question were not substantially similar. Furthermore, the similarities Wozniak referred to in his suit were merely superficial and some elements were not even protectable by copyright.
DC Comics, who also became involved in the controversy, argued that, regardless of any elements that Wozniak's story might contain, since it was a derivative work of the creative works of the Batman universe, any copyrights that existed were owned by DC Comics, making Wozniak's work an infringing work. Furthermore, since Batman, as well as his comics, magazines, series and films, were works registered with the United States Copyright Office, DC Comics was entitled to a presumption of validity of its rights.
In addition to responding to Wozniak's lawsuit, DC Comics and Warner Brothers countersued Wozniak for copyright infringement.
The Federal Court's decision in favor of Warner Brothers and DC Comics.
The Court's decision, regarding copyright infringement, was mainly supported by the large amount of documentary evidence provided by the defendants and the absence of evidence or supporting elements on the part of the plaintiff.
The Validity of DC Comics Copyrights
According to the Court, the existence of a copyright registration with the United States Copyright Office creates a presumption of validity that, if refuted, bears the burden of proof. Therefore, DC Comics was not required to provide additional evidence such as contracts or rights assignment agreements to defend its interests in this litigation. Additionally, even if the copyrights had changed ownership over the years, DC Comics provided affidavits in which the CEO of DC Comics and third parties affirmed that DC Comics is the sole owner of all copyrights covering the Batman universe.
Copyright Infringement, the proof of copying
In order to prove copyright infringement in the United States, the plaintiff must show by direct or indirect evidence that elements of the second work are substantially similar to those of the first work, such that there is a misappropriation of the original author's work. In order to prove such misappropriation, the substantial similarity between the two works must be more than minimal; it must be such that an ordinary observer could mistake the two works for the same work without much effort.
To satisfy the second element of a copyright infringement claim-unauthorized copying -"a plaintiff must show both that his work was 'actually copied' and that the portion copied amounts to an 'improper or unlawful appropriation.'" Jorgensen, 351 F.3d at 51. This inquiry has two parts. First, DC Comics must show that Wozniak "actually copied" its work. Bauer v. Yellen, 548 F. Supp. 2d 88, 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Actual copying "may be established by direct or indirect evidence." Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262,267 (2d Cir. 2001). Second, the actual copying must have "amounted to an 'improper or unlawful appropriation."' Bauer, 548 F. Supp. 2d at 93 ( citations omitted). This inquiry "explores whether the copying that occurred was of such a nature that copyright infringement may have taken place as a matter of law." Id. For there to have been improper appropriation, "the accused work must exhibit 'substantial similarities' to the [allegedly infringed] work." Id. (citations omitted). "Substantial similarity" must be "more than de minimis," Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moorrify, Inc., 338 F.3d 127, 131 (2d Cir. 2003), and the similarities must be such that "the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same," Boisson, 273 F.3d at 272.
Wozniak infringed DC Comics' copyright
Based on documentary evidence provided by Warner Brothers and DC Comics, the Court concluded that Wozniak had committed copyright infringement by creating a story that borrowed heavily from the Batman universe. The Court focused not only on the existence of copyright registrations but also on the following facts:
- The contract between Wozniak and DC Comics established ownership of all works or projects developed based on elements and materials from the Batman universe.
- Wozniak admitted that he used characters from the Batman universe such as Bruce Wayne, the Riddler, and the Joker to develop his story. He also used elements characteristic of the Batman universe such as the Batmobile, the Batcave, and Gotham City.
- Wozniak did not use the characters and elements of the Batman universe as inspiration, he used exactly the same characters to develop his story.
Can a character or the title of a place be copyrighted?
Wozniak argued that even if the characters in his work were homonymous with characters in the universe created by DC Comics, the names "Batman," "Riddler," "Joker," or "Bruce Wayne" were simply words, which by themselves were not protected by copyright.
However, denying full validity to this argument, the Court explained that multiple judicial decisions have recognized that if a party is the copyright holder of multiple works in which a character or a place is described in detail, such copyright protection extends to the characters and places described therein.
As the Second Circuit has long recognized, "characters and events" that "spring from the imagination" of authors are copyrightable, creative expression." Penguin Random House LLC v. Co/ting, 270 F. Supp. 3d 736, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Castle Rock Ent., Inc. v. Carol Pub. Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1998)). When a party "own[ s] the copyrights in various works embodying the character," as DC Comics does here, that party "thereby acquire[s] copyright protection for the character itself." Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 720 F.2d 231,235 (2d Cir. 1983) (citing Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publ'ns, Inc., 111 F.2d 4. 32 (2d Cir. 1940)).
Warner Brothers did not copy elements from Wozniak's story
After analyzing in detail Wozniak's story and the plot of the film "The Batman," the Court determined that there was not enough substantial similarity between the two works and that the elements common to both were not protectable. The Court explained that the typical elements of a certain literary or cinematographic genre are not protectable, since they are elements, characters, and environments necessary for the development of a story in that context. In this sense, the following elements were not protectable:
- Killers described as loners.
- Killers or villains who want revenge on society
- Killers who leave clues and mock superheroes
- Moments of epiphany experienced by villains
Thus, the Court ruled in favor of the original defendants, Warner Brothers and DC Comics, finding that Wozniak's story was infringing for having used the characters and iconic elements of the Batman universe without authorization. This ruling was, however, limited in scope because the Court did not recognize all of the defendants' requests and recognized that even some elements of the Batman universe were not protectable, specifically those that are common to a literary or cinematic genre.
If you wish to read the decision in its entirety, you can read it here: Wozniak v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., No. 22 CIV. 8969 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024),
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.