|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 09/18/2001
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 113
Originally written as installment # 101 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 693, February 27, 1987 issue
For the record, my membership in the "Put Off Until Tomorrow Club" was renewed and is in force. In fact, I decided to bite the bullet and take out the life-time membership. A man has to know himself.
And, for the record, with this column, my numbering system was back on track. Would that I could say the same about myself.
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 113
by
Bob Ingersoll
I'm afraid it's been a while since I answered my mail. It's piling up again. I intend to attend to that matter.
First up, I have to answer questions from two people who wanted fast, specific answers to non-comics related questions, and which I haven't answered anywhere near fast enough. I apologize about this, people. In the future, I'll try to answer these things faster. However, as my charter membership in the "Put Off Until Tomorrow Club" is paid in full until 2001, I can't promise anything.
Greg Gildersleeve of St. Joseph, Missouri sent me a copy of a family tree format, which he found in a book, and wanted to know if it was copyrighted, or could he use it in a super-hero family tree he wanted to write. As far as I know, Greg, the format you sent me is the universal format for depicting a family tree--at least every family tree I've ever seen uses that basic format--and isn't copyrighted as such. In fact, I've seen that particular design going so far back--such as books in colonial times there in Williamsburg--that even if had ever been copyrighted, it's got to be in public domain by now. I don't see any problem with using the format or a variant of it in your projected articles.
Howard Wornom of Hampton, Virginia wanted to know if he could use a short excerpt of dialog from a real movie in a story he was writing as background noise, while a character is watching TV. The doctrine of Fair Use becomes cloudy, when the intended use is a commercial product as opposed to an educational or private use. Fair Use was created to protect the latter, not commercial use. However, snippets of copyrighted material are seen all the time in fiction and few people seem to mind, especially if the snippets are short.
To be safe, you should keep the quote short, cite the original source in some way, and request permission from the copyright holder. Make sure that they understand your intended use will be brief and credited, and I don't think they'll give you much of a problem. After all, Stephen King does it all the time. (Of course, they're probably afraid to turn Stephen King down, lest he inflict Zeus-only-knows what horrors on them.)
Two people asked, if the DC heroes were in trouble for violating the executive order banning super-heroics in Legends. Basically, the question that Jon Thomas of Canton, MI, and Patrick O'Connnor of Hinsdale, New Hampshire posed was, assuming the President had the authority to make the anti-super-hero edict, are all the heroes who violated it in trouble?
Yes and no.
Yes, because they violated the order so could be prosecuted. (That includes, Superman, Patrick, who wondered whether the fact that Superman was an authorized special deputy would excuse him. The order forbade super-heroics, not just costumed vigilantism. Superman isn't safe on the technicality that he's a deputy and not a vigilante.)
No, because the impression I got from the series was that the government forgave and forgot and wasn't going to press any charges. After all, the super-heroes, once again, saved the world from evil. The ban notwithstanding, the government would look awfully petty if it pressed charges on the people who saved their bacon.
Now, I'll answer some of the other questions Jon asked in no less that four different letters. (Sorry I can't answer them all, Jon, but there were too many.) Yes, Steel's grandfather could be prosecuted for "pulling the plug" on Steel. To the best of my knowledge, no state recognizes euthanasia as a defense to killing. They all think it's one of those aid to Vietnamese children charities. Hell, if Dr. Kevorkian can be prosecuted for helping someone pull the plug on himself, just imagine what you could get for actually pulling the plug.
Of course, the crooks Batman beats up can sue him for assault and battery. The trouble is they're not likely to find many sympathetic juries.
Yes, Vibe can be declared dead, even though his face was changed and unrecognizable. When facial identification isn't possible, finger prints or dental records are competent proof of identity. (What are you trying to do here, Jon, give DC a chance to bring Vibe back from the dead? Men have been shot for less!)
Two other people--Laney Loftin of Monroe, Louisiana and Donald Webster of Hapeville, Georgia--asked the same question about the trial of Abby Cable in Swamp Thing: isn't Swamp Thing a plant, and if so, how could Abby be tried for having sex with an animal? First, Swamp Thing is a plant elemental. How do you know a plant elemental is a plant and not an animal? Second, we're talking about an ambulatory, sentient, talking humanoid creature here. Who's going to assume it's a plant? Third, and not to be too crude about it, try coupling with the knot hole in the old oak tree and see if you don't get popped for some crime, too. Fourth, we never saw a trial only a probable cause hearing. All the state had to prove was that it was more probable than not that Swamp Thing was an animal. It didn't have to prove his animalness beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that the evidence presented in the hearing--and the fact that Abby didn't argue that Swamp Thing was a plant and not an animal--was enough to satisfy the less stringent probable cause standard. But I'm jaded. I think prosecutors can do worse things than that. Like the real life local prosecutor, who got the grand jury to indict someone for impersonating a private investigator, despite the fact that impersonating a private investigator isn't against the law.
Three quick answers for three quick questions from Jol Silversmith, of Rockville Maryland. Yes, if Batman can be prosecuted for child endangerment because of Robin, then so can the X-Men for Kitty Pride, the Teen Titans for Changling, and the New Mutants for every single member. The jury is still out on Matrix and the DNAGENTS, however. No one has decided if the age of an artificial person is determined by the physical age, in which case the DNAgents are minors, or the mental age, in which case only Surge and Sham are minors.
Yes, there are a lot of extra-terrestrial aliens in comic books. Those who keep their ET status a secret, as Hawkman and Hawkwoman did, are illegal aliens and could be deported if caught. Others like Superman or Starfire or Martian Manhunter are open ETs. I presume that these persons either have some form of green card or have been awarded citizenship. Considering some of the people we have on this planet, I don't see where humanity can get too picky.
I presume that most heroes that have flying vehicles also have some sort of permission or clearance from the FAA. The fact that no one showed this, only means comic book writers are smart enough to realize studying pocket lint would be more interesting than reading twenty-two pages of Tony Stark wading through the red tape to secure permission to launch a quinjet from mid-town Manhattan. (Actually, with the way the bureaucracy works, that story would probably not have been one issue but a maxi-series.) On the other hand, Jol, Tony Stark didn't need NASA's permission to colonize space. Space is open to everyone with sufficient capital to finance building all the hardware. (Watch, someone will find some obscure NASA regulation monopolizing space exploration, which makes Captain Kirk Public Enemy No. 1.)
Peter Bosch of Burnaby, British Columbia pointed out that in a recent issue of Mickey Mouse, Mickey broke into a bad guys office to steal records to prove the man's guilt. I agree with you, Peter, that was illegal breaking and entering. Maybe we can get Mickey to star in his own Dark Knight parody. (Oops, did I just advocate another Frank Miller inspired parody comic? Men have been shot for less!)
Darin Wallace of Crawfordsville, Indiana has been reading that disclaimer in the comics that says, "...any similarity to persons living and dead is purely coincidental," and noticed some of the companies print a shortened form of the disclaimer. He wanted to know if there was any greater legal significance of the one over the other. No.
There have been some recent law suits in which people sued book authors and publishers for libel despite the existence of the disclaimer. They won. The conclusion: the disclaimer doesn't protect people from suit. The only real protection is not to write libelous fiction.
Finally, Geoffrey Tolle of Alliance, Ohio wanted to know how they can keep Warp, the Teen Titans' villain who can teleport, in jail. He wondered if it would be permissible to keep him drugged or hypnotized to insure his incarceration.
Probably. While the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, a state can justify such punishment, if it can prove that a compelling state interest requires the cruel and unusual punishment. Personally, I think the compelling state interest of keeping Warp off the streets during his lawful incarceration could justify some extreme measures designed to prevent Warp from warping. But what do I know? None of the Constitutional Law tests I studied from made even one mention of super-villain incarceration. I had to make up the whole answer.
Bob Ingersoll
<< 09/11/2001 | 09/18/2001 | 09/25/2001 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
