Ward Sutton’s Bat Porn

twitter Ward Suttons Bat Porn0facebook Ward Suttons Bat Porn0google Ward Suttons Bat Porn0pinterest Ward Suttons Bat Porn0tumblr Ward Suttons Bat Pornreddit Ward Suttons Bat Porn0stumbleupon Ward Suttons Bat Porn0email Ward Suttons Bat Porn

its bat porn.4967146.87 Ward Suttons Bat Porn
Cartoonist Ward Suttonlooks at the recent BATMAN XXX movie via the healing medium of funny drawings.

Comments

  1. Garret Groenveld says:

    I happened to catch a part of it, and all I can say, the Batpole is not impressive, and Robin seems to have a little pecker.

  2. Marcus Lusk says:

    They’re using the actual character names, even in the title.
    How can they do that without being sued into forever?

  3. I “uncovered” this last week on my blog:

    http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=81316234&blogId=535972432

    Robin giving Batgirl oral was kinda fun.

    But I *ahem* normally don’t go for this sort of thing.

    ~

    Coat

  4. Synsidar says:

    How can they do that without being sued into forever?

    Parodies are permitted under copyright law. That’s why MAD and Cracked, for example, could do all their parodies of TV shows, movies, etc., without infringing copyrights. The parody provision is also why the Literotica Web site, for instance, allows members to submit Wonder Woman prose stories.

    SRS

  5. Marcus Lusk says:

    They’re using the actual name “Batman” as part of the title, that’s what surprises me. To my mind it crosses the line in that it becomes something that could actually damage the brand. I guarantee we won’t see Vivid trying this with Disney characters.

  6. Copyright law allows parodies, but trademark law is a bit more fussy. Parodies usually mix up the title and character names to make it perfectly clear that that it’s not authorized by the trademark holder, and avoid “confusion in the marketplace”.

    The only way I can see that they’re (apparently) getting away with it is the fact that they’re making it very clear in the marketing – including the word “parody” in the title – that it’s not a Warner-brand Batman movie.

  7. Actually, many of the Disney films are based on stories and characters already in the public domain (ironic, huh?) so titles like Snow White XXX or Hercules XXX or Frog Princess XXX would actually be MORE defensible than Batman XXX.

    Parody is indeed an established “fair use” exemption to (US) copyright law but it bears reminding that “fair use” is a legal defense and NOT a preventative measure against being sued. Most creators simply can’t afford to defend against Disney or WB or other huge corporations so they get crushed and give up before the case even gets to court. I suspect, however, that Vivid may have the resources and financial motivation to fight.

    But I was also surprised to see Batman in the title (and, therefore, presumably any packaging as well). Although it’s true that titles cannot be copyrighted, the logo is a protected trademark which affords stronger protections. And any cover/packaging that might “confuse” consumers could also be a factor in court.

    Now, here’s the twist: since Batman XXX is so clearly aimed at the old Batman TV shows (which are STILL unbelievably and cruelly not commercially available for me to purchase)… just who would be suing for loss of income? Whose value is being diluted? Could this in any way goad Fox and WB into finally cooperating to put the old series out?

  8. Bill K. says:

    Please tell me this is on Todd Alcott’s list.

Speak Your Mind

*