[beokop]

That’s not how this works. The actual books/movies/cartoons that Batman appears in will eventually be public domain — you’ll be legally allowed to copy, edit and distribute these without restrictions. However, “Batman” (the idea, the concept) is still protected by trademark laws making it illegal to produce new (non-derivative) Batman books/movies/cartoons without the trademark holder’s consent.

[habitue]

> “Batman” (the idea, the concept) is still protected by trademark laws making it illegal to produce new (non-derivative) Batman books/movies/cartoons without the trademark holder’s consent

This isn't true. The concept of Batman as it existed in the comics that are in the public domain is open to being remixed and put into new stories and derivative works. Even with the name "Batman" and even without giving any credit to DC comics whatsoever.

What the Batman trademarks are able to prevent is someone trying to use the Batman name to confuse consumers into thinking some product is being sold by DC comics.

As the article points out, the exact borders of what trademark can be used for in terms of merch is fuzzy, but a specific strategy that doesn't work is using a trademarked name to prevent creation of copies or derivative works of something in the public domain

When creating new works with Batman, you'll have to fastidiously avoid using any elements of the character that were introduced later, but you should be good.

[avar]

> When creating new works with Batman, you'll have to fastidiously avoid using any elements of the character that were introduced later, but you should be good.

Everything in your comments makes sense except this part. If this goes as currently planned Batman will be in the public domain, but not e.g. Batwoman (introduced decades later).

However, I can make my own new superhero now called Foobarman and introduce a Foobarwoman without anyone having grounds for saying I'm ripping off Batman.

So if Batman is in the public domain I'll be able to have a Batwoman. Having a female version of a character isn't per-se a copyright violation just because that path's been taken before.

Of course if I go further and actually rip off entire stories involving Batwoman I'll be in trouble.

[habitue]

> if Batman is in the public domain I'll be able to have a Batwoman. Having a female version of a character isn't per-se a copyright violation just because that path's been taken before.

I think you're making a legal argument, and I have no idea if your interpretation is what the court has already decided/will decide.

[vel0city]

IANAL (only been following IP law for a long time), but if your Foobarwoman is still substantially similar to Batwoman, you're gonna have problems. Sure, there could be some kind of female companion to Batman in your new series enabled by Batman being in the public domain, but they'll have to look different and have some kind of different story line than the Batwoman currently in the DC canon.

[vesinisa]

> "Batman” (the idea, the concept) is still protected by trademark laws

Trademarks very explicitly do not protect concepts or ideas like you claim. Trademark only grants a monopoly on some limited and well-defined identifying design, such as a logo or brand name.

[pwg]

Trademark is actually more narrow than that. It is a "logo or brand name" used in the identification of the source of a good:

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-b...

What Is a Trademark or Service Mark and How Do They Differ From Patents and Copyrights?

A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services.

[nafey]

But, as the article mentioned, you can still sell merchandise of Batman with original design after 2024. Meaning the idea of Batman is not protected only the "implementation" of those ideas that are still within copyright period will be restricted. So you should be able to make Sherlock and Batman movie if you want.

[jamieson-becker]

>Sherlock and Batman

Sounds awesome.

[toyg]

Ish. Batman is basically an “action Sherlock” already. You would have to significantly tweak one or the other to make it interesting. But yeah, having the freedom to do that in a professional production would be pretty fun.

[estebank]

"Batman: consulting detective"

[crooked-v]

That seems like it could be a Pride and Prejudice and Zombies-style remix, with a few Sherlock Holmes stories rewritten to feature Batman instead and then packaged as a book.