You’re Not a Wonder, Wonder Woman – DC Comics’ Official Position
This morning I called the VP of Brand Management at DC Comics, Cheryl Rubin, for a quote regarding Playboy’s use of Wonder Woman on their February 2008 cover. Ms. Rubin’s secretary, Pamela, informed me that Ms. Rubin was out of the office and in California all this week. Pamela was unable to refer me to another office within DC Comics. Then, through the Warner Bros. corporate website, I found an email contact for David Hyde, who is listed as DC Comics’ press contact. Our exchange went like this:
Mr. Hyde.
Our website, Pink Raygun, is covering Playboy Magazine’s use of Wonder Woman on their February cover and would like a quote regarding DC’s position on the issue. Was this a DC approved usage of their character?
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Lisa Fary
Editor
http://www.pinkraygun.com
This was Hyde’s response:
Lisa-
DC Comics is declining to participate in this story.
Best-
David
Seems that DC is deciding to weigh in on this by putting their hands over their collective ears and saying, “LALALALALALA!” Fair enough. What do you guys think?
Never miss an update. Subscribe to Pink Raygun by Email or subscribe via RSS
|
|
![Wonder Woman 2009 [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51baGpvMm4L._SL75_.jpg "Wonder Woman 2009 [Blu-ray]")
I read something in some comments here ( http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/01/13/offered-without-comment/ ) that pretty much sums up what I figured about DC’s position on this (it’s stated in comments #50 and 51). Here’s an excerpt:
“Since no trademarks are used in an infringing way, there’s no trademark infringement. Since both Warner and Playboy know that the other has a really strong and healthy legal department, they each know that a lawsuit will be ridiculously expensive and pointless. And since Playboy most likely isn’t planning to pull this on a regular basis, and the worst DC can do is send a “Cease & Desist” letter, the whole thing is moot.”
I think that would pretty much sum up why we’ve not heard anything from AOL/Time/Warner and DC on this. And probably won’t.
There’s no such thing as bad publicity after all, and with the Wonder Woman movie in development hell I’m sure DC will take any attention it can. Girl needed the tiara though.
Every girl needs a tiara. They make you feel pretty.
I’m surprised, though, that they’d decline to say anything about it…why not chime in with DC’s two cents? Are they that worried about being associated with something like Playboy?
Maybe DC doesn’t mind being associated with Playboy, but they just don’t want anybody to know?
We all know that DC just reads the articles.
Well, we’ll probably never get DC’s position on this, but Playboy sure has no problem spelling out where they stand on things: http://www.playboy.com/blog/2008/01/comic-book-sex-symbols.html#more
DC really need to grow some damn balls.
much ado about nothing
John -
And yet, you felt the need to comment…
Since we’re randomly throwing around the titles of Shakespeare’s plays. . . .
The Tempest
Measure for Measure
As You Like It
And before anyone else chimes in with it:
The Taming of The Shrew
That was fun! Let’s go again!
hum… so maybe they did approve the use of the paint on the NAKED GIRL
The playboy cover was fine imho. I think people just like fealing morally outraged.
I mean WW as a sex object! :gasp: Say it’s not true!
Next we are going to see Supergirl all sexed up or something.
The line from comic to porn can be a very small one and I think playboy is well within its right to cross that just for fun of it.
Hell my wife is a bigger comic fan then me and her only comment was “This is new?”.
I haven’t read a playboy mag in 10 years or so. I think the cover is awesome, however. I am a straight man I’m afraid. Yes, feminists (old line feminists?) are outraged. Camille Paglia type feminists, probably not. Anyway, Wonder Woman will never be unsexed in the human mind. She has been portrayed in halter top/panties since day one. Showing that much skin will always bring sex into the mix. Its just the way we are wired. If you want to unsex Wonder Woman, please suggest that the illustrators portray her fighting crime in an Afghan burkha.
If you read the history of the character, I really doubt her creator, or the two ladies she was based on (his wife and their lover) would mind. In fact I think they'd be quite honored considering the iconic status Playboy has within America. Wonder Woman was always meant to be a sensual character.
Besides, I think if DC minded nudity 1) female comic characters would be drawn differently and 2) Megan Gale would not have been cast for the Justice League Movie that is now in production hell.
The reason there's no tiara is that it would likely end up trademark infringement if there were. With the slight difference, Playboy is in the clear and DC doesn't have to react.
For Shakespeare, you forgot King Leer. =P