BatmiteReturns wrote:How were they legally able to use those designs if they didn't have the clearance?
Surely more than a few extra scallops on the bat-cape or a fatter "R" logo would have to be done.
Although there was an adult movie that was released recently that apparently had accurate costumes and they obviously didn't have the license.
Perhaps I just answered my own question.
For the tv movie, they needed to alter about 12% of the design to deem it as another design. Wally was directly involved in it and that's what he understood they had to do and delivered as much. More glove fins, lighter tights, higher boots all were a part of the variations.
In the "other" example you presented (which will not be discussed any further on this board) that was deemed as a parody and claimed to have a legal loophole in doing such. But that's as far as that subject will ever be dealt with here.
Regarding DC - are they serious? I didn't notice any difference in costuming whatsoever, so I raised an eyebrow when I read the comments on this board. Now, about DC's somewhat reluctance to cooperate, are they serious? They consented to let the producers use the names, the title of the series, the names of the characters, yet they were uptight about how the costumes would look? Holy sheesh! I suppose it's all really water under the bridge, thinking about NEXT MONTH, but it's to laugh when you think about how uptight holders of licenses can be. You can call yourselves Adam and Burt, you can physically resemble Adam and Burt and you can say your characters are acting in a television series called "Batman", and you can reenact various incidents which occurred during the filming of such a series, but you can't dress exactly like Adam and Burt. Holy sheesh it is to laugh.
