Doctor Who Faces Legal Threat From Son of Tardis Creator

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

But he doesn't own it, it was made for a TV show so the TV show owns the rights to it. That's how it works in other media when you either sell the rights to something to a project or make something under contract for the project. He was being paid by the BBC to make Doctor Who so they should be automatic rights holders.

dylanmc12:
I doubt he's ever watched it. And DW is probably not for kids: Mutilation, disturbing imagery, constant death and violence, technobabble that would rot the average Chippy-child's brains, ect.

Depends if you saw anything before Moffat took over as editor X3

OT: I'm under the opinion that he's suing over the use of the name, not over using a Blue Police Box. That said, I can't see many courts holding up this case if it goes that far.

Headsprouter:

Roander:

Andy Chalk:

"It is by no means my wish to deprive legions of Doctor Who fans (of whom I was never one) of any aspect of their favorite children's program," Coburn said.

Is this actually considered a children's show in Britain? Most people I know who watch it are well into their 20s or 30s. This guy is doing a lousy job of pretending he's not a complete tool.

It's not considered a children's program, it's considered a family show. And yeah, I don't think this guy really cares about his father's honour.

Yeah. That's all I can see, here.

Should of posted the song as well!

OT Yeh this guy has lost already, no way is he going to see a penny.

Normal people: I would like my father to be acknowledged for his contribution, could you add his name to the credits?

This guy: I would like to paid for my father's contribution of which I had nothing to do.

To be fair, I'd be pretty annoyed if a relative of mine had conceived of a central element in an extremely popular show and wasn't credited for it. But I don't think that's where he's coming from.

The Lunatic:

JoJo:

Couldn't resist slipping in that little jibe eh?

Is it a jibe? I thought Doctor Who was aimed largely at kids. Is this like when wrestling fans get offended their show is called fake?

I think the best way to realise how Doctor Who is a family show and not a kids show is to watch The Sarah Jane Adventures and compare the 2.

They're both set in the same universe and have similar formats. The Doctor even shows up on 2 occasions.

Roander:

Is this actually considered a children's show in Britain? Most people I know who watch it are well into their 20s or 30s. This guy is doing a lousy job of pretending he's not a complete tool.

Dr Who started when there was only 2 TV channels to watch in the UK. The show has gone out, for the most part, between 5-8 pm on a Saturday. All this means the a show, even today, in primetime has to pick an audience between 7-70 years old. The smaller British population does not allow for niche programs to go out in prime time and get a cost per viewer that is sustainable. Hence the revail setups with a Doctor for the mums to look at and the assistant being for the dads.

Mick Beard:
i hope he wins and gets the money. its not like the BBC cant afford it anyway. they should just buy him out... or get rid of the silly kids show.. I am sick of the scarf wearing pansy being on my tv

You could change the channel...

This reminds me of a podcast where two guys were talking about how f**ked-up it is that you have to pay the decedents of Martin Luther King to use his full speech in anything because it should be public domain, charging for a speech about freedom is ironic, 7 none of them were actually involved in the speech.

I detest Dr Who and I can still see this guy is a fucking cunt.

This is all the proof we need that copyright law is a bunch of shit and needs to be done away with. If you didn't create the thing in question, then why the fuck should you be able to profit from it?

His dad must be so proud of his money-grubbing son...

Mick Beard:
i hope he wins and gets the money. its not like the BBC cant afford it anyway. they should just buy him out... or get rid of the silly kids show.. I am sick of the scarf wearing pansy being on my tv

I disagree with you, you silly man, and I will kindly ask you to remove yourself from the premises.

Copyright are property which belonged to the creator and passed one to his/her successors. If this was about a piece of real estate or a business, i bet none of you would be up in arms against this. IMO, there is nothing douchy about this. Its not like BBC can't afford to pay the kid.

The cheek of that fella :/

At least he isn't giving any bs about being a doctor who fan and admits it's purely for the money.

dantoddd:
Copyright are property which belonged to the creator and passed one to his/her successors.

No, copyrights are a government-granted monopoly over the market of a piece of information, given to specific artists with the intent of incentivizing creative industries to a certain extent.

That the copyright lobby likes to refer to said monopolistic regulations as an "intellectual property", is just an informal, unprofessional figure of speech, an analogy, and has no more legal relevance to property ownership laws, than the phrase "job hunting" has to hunting regulations or "character assassination" has to laws against assassinations.

So wait, let me get this straight...

The writer for the first doctor who story's son wants money for... what?

I'm assuming that this writer fellow got paid back in his days for his services. This looks like silly lawsuit with no foundation in reality

This is one of the reasons I disagree with the idea of inherited copyright. His father (supposedly) created the idea, why does this guy have any right to anything? Copyright should enter the public domain after the creator's death.

If there was a dick of the year award, he would be going for it. I don't like Doctor Who at all, but I understand the dickness of someone coming in and literally trying to ruin everyone else's fun. I hope he fails in this endeavor, and fails hard.

Yeah, pretty sure this guy is going to lose this suit hard. I'm pretty sure when you write something into a tv show, you're giving the show permission to use it.

The Lunatic:
Pretty reasonable to pay a guy for being part of the creation of such a memorable and profitable icon.

Dunno if he's in the right legally, but, morally, he's due something.

He had no part in its creation. He was a family member of the guy who created it. That's all.

He is not due anything. Morally, ethically, financially.

Apparently a lot of people couldn't figure out who I was talking about.

Anyway.

I'm pretty sure, if the guy who made the Tardis could see how much money it's making now, he would want a slice of that.

So what if it goes to his kid? Are you telling me a father wouldn't want financial security for his child?

Flunk:
Copyright should enter the public domain after the creator's death.

Preferably a lot sooner than that.

Copyright is inherently a limit on the freedom of expression.

It's a useful one, that modern society needs to function, just as our property rights are limited by taxes, but just like taxes, it should be applied as little as it is absolutely necessary, instead of just coddling artists all the way, the priority should be on a practical, balanced economical benefit.

When movies are bringing in most of their rvenues in the first weeks, and the rest of in the first year, it's ridculous to let publishers hold IP for several decades, especially given that the kind of IPs that still stay relevant after decades are the biggest ones that already made their creators rich long ago anyways, and that have the most urgent need to be liberalized for public usage.

I'm extremely biased towards Dr. Who, so I hope he loses this legal battle.

But even if he -did- deserve the money for some reason...

Isn't it funny how he only wants to claim his rights to it once Dr. Who is really, really close to being done and over with? When all the money it's worth is starting to finalize?

Everyone else seems to think he wants money, what I read is that he wants to hurt bbc for writing his father out of Dr. who history.

So ... let me see if I got this straight. Mr. Colburn is hired by the BBC to help create a new TV show that will eventually become the BBC. He is one of several men who come up with the now iconic elements of the show, claiming sole creation of the Tardis. He helps write TWO scripts for the show, one of which is never filmed and eventually rejected and upon its rejection he quits.

I don't know how television contracts worked in the 70s, but I know in EVERY other field of employment part of your contract reads "Any idea, method or practice you develop while working for us becomes ours IF it was developed on company time and you have no rights to it after leaving."

You know ... I just had a great idea! The writers of Dr. Who should create an episode where the SON of the creator of the Tardis tries to steal the Tardis from the Doctor to use it for his own desires and the Doctor destroys it so neither of them can have it. Then, when the companion of the day asks how they are going to get back to her time, the Doctor snaps his fingers and a new Tardis, maybe shaped like one of those red telephone boxes you see all over London, appears and he says "Oh, we'll just use the spare. Not as pretty as the original, but damn good gas mileage."

Psychobabble:
Peter Cushing Dr. Who movies!!?? *sticks fingers in ears* THEY DO NOT EXIST!!! Lalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!

The night was dark and clear. Above, the new moon left the sky almost black, and the radiant stars shown down on the forest below. The nighttime air makes every noise seem so much worse, ever crack of a twig or shifting of leaves some new creature on the prowl. Deep in the woods, a group of Whovians are on a camping trip. Their large tent is TARDIS blue, and for some strange reason they're all dressed similarly to Companions. They sit around the fire, toasting fish fingers to dip into their custard, and they're engaging in the tradition of campers everywhere: ghost stories. Being Whovians, they do it a bit differently: taking turns, they try to remind their companions of the scariest Doctor Who monsters who could be out in the woods tonight. Weeping Angels, Macra, Silurians, the Vashta Narada... all are gone through. Until finally, the last one looks at them over the light of the dwindling fire, and grins.
"It's the human Dr. Who, chasing around rainbow-colored Daleks..."
And suddenly, out in the darkness, they hear a sound that could almost be Peter Cushing shouting...

FalloutJack:
Also, I love how apparently either Coburn or this article's writer don't know how it's spelled. TARDIS, not Tardis. Tardis is from the Cushing Dr. Who movies. Yes, I'm a dork.

Sir, I'd offer you a jellybaby, but I have not perfected the E-Fist program just yet. That was hilarious.[/quote]
Well, what if I reversed the polarity of the neutron flow, and then used my Timey-Wimey Detector to locate the best moment to perfect the E-Fist program?

Rawbeard:
I am the ancestor of the guy who invented the wheel. Money, please.

That is quite an impressive achievement, sir. You're either the oldest man alive, or you have a time machine. Possibly both, if you're Rory Williams.

I have a lot of problems with copyright scummers, but not this one. If it holds weight, give his family their due. You can afford the time a money. If it falls flat, deny it. Either way in this particular case, I have no bias

Not a fan of Doctor Who myself, but at the same time this fucker is going about setting a horrible precedent... and I don't think he'll get dick. Isn't he essentially after retroactive compensation for something that was agreed upon being fine to use at the time?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but you can't "change" a contract that existed just because the person who was in charge of that contract that you just inherited passed away. I don't get a refund on all my grandfather's purchases because I didn't approve of him spending that money.

The UK needs better contract law and statute of limitations on Copyright Infringement claims, this wouldn't be the case if it was in the United States.

Drizzitdude:
To be honest, I would be pissed if my dad invented something someone else used and they never mentioned him too. Considering the TARDIS is such a huge part of the universe you would think they could at least mention the guy who invented it.

Except he isn't suing them to make them give proper credit. He is using that as a poor smokescreen for greed. I would fully support a lawsuit to make the BBC actively acknowledge the TARDIS's creator, being the pro-littleguy type person I am.

However, he is a selfish prick. His father liked/loved the show, designed the TARDIS for it and now his kid wants to piss on his fathers legacy for a quick buck. I can't think of a worse insult to a parents legacy outside of the Dune series.

dantoddd:
Copyright are property which belonged to the creator and passed one to his/her successors. If this was about a piece of real estate or a business, i bet none of you would be up in arms against this. IMO, there is nothing douchy about this. Its not like BBC can't afford to pay the kid.

Let's consider a business: specifically, a lemonade stand.

A dozen neighborhood kids put together a lemonade stand. Unlike most lemonade stands, this one endures; it stays open for several years. As time passes, some of the kids move away, some quit, and others join in. At all times, profits are shared in a manner the kids agree is equitable. After the lemonade stand has been in continuous operation for 20 years, one of the original kids(now 30 years old) goes through the formal process of turning the lemonade stand into a legally-recognized business, which then franchises and goes international. This new business goes on through another 30 years of operation, including a massive world-wide popularity spike about 25 years in.

At this point, a young man comes forth. His father was one of the original kids who built the lemonade stand, but had to move away after its first year. This young man sues for 1/12 of the money the lemonade stand has brought in over the past 50 years, because his father was 1/12 owner of the original lemonade stand. When asked why he's only bringing this up now, he explains that his father, who would have been responsible for making this claim while alive, passed away 10 years ago, and that his mother, who would have inherited that responsibility, passed away just recently, leaving the responsibility to him.

How would you feel about that claim, now that it's about a business?

... Again it's all about the money..

If he was serious about standing up for what's right, he'd just have BBC give the dad credit for the TARDIS and make a mention before the next episode airs or something. But, again this isn't the case... and the son who's got no part in his dad's work is demanding money overall. This is why he may lose the case and end up having nothing in the end... mm.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that he's timed this to line up with the 50th anniversary of this little known tv show. Nothing funny about that all.

The Lunatic:

I'm pretty sure, if the guy who made the Tardis could see how much money it's making now, he would want a slice of that.

So what if it goes to his kid? Are you telling me a father wouldn't want financial security for his child?

Well, the man apparently couldn't care less for 14 years, and his wife didn't make any fuss about it for another 30-something years.

Even so, as people have said, I find it highly probably that he didn't actually own the intellectual property of the TARDIS in the first place. I mean, how often do you hear of scriptwriters getting royalties? The dude was in all likelihood paid for making the story arc and that would be the end of it.

Lastly, and this is just a personal thing, I would be fucking ASHAMED if my child tried to cash in on my success without doing a lick of work himself, especially if he happened to be holding my creative work hostage to do it!

Thankfully, this guy seems to be holding the TARDIS hostage with a banana instead of a gun, without realizing it... so there's that.

Limos:
"I would have sued you for infringing on my copyright earlier but I didn't have the copyright."

So what legal grounds do you have for this then? You don't actually have the copyright seeing as they got that thirty years ago. You just sort of assumed you would have it by virtue of your family, even though they probably waved goodbye to any claim they had on it the aforementioned 30 years ago.

If you read the whole thing, he probably wasn't particularly worried about it until the BBC seriously snubbed his father, and by proxy his family, by not even giving him lip service for inventing the most iconic (and consistent) part of the Doctor Who lore.

My guess is it's less about the money and more about pride.

LazyAza:
This guys claim is completely stupid. It's a police box, he has no more right to claim copyright on its design than I do if I drew a picture of a type of bus that exists in reality and that particular type of bus became a thing people gave a crap about.

Another greedy idiot abusing copyright and not understanding what it exists for. Certainly not for something like this god.

Can I ask you a question? Did YOU know, as an obvious Doctor Who fanboy, who created the TARDIS? I certainly didn't. Now I do.

I think that's the whole point of this. It says right in the article (which I assume half the people spewing pure hatred towards this guy didn't read top-to-bottom) that he's miffed mostly because his father didn't even get a by-your-leave in the 50th anniversary celebrations, despite creating THE most important aspect of the universe. This is about getting everyone to recognise what the BBC won't. The money, if any, would be a happy side-effect.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here