It seems as if Playboy is more protective of their babes than DC Comics is of theirs.
“DiDio indicated the “New Frontier Special” nearly got him into trouble vis-a-vis some legal issues concerning a certain “bunny club,” alluding to Playboy.”
Curious.
So, Darwyn Cooke uses the bunny imagery to allude to a Playboy Club without identifying it as such and that causes some legal issues.
Yet, Playboy puts a nude model painted as Wonder Woman – and identified as such – on the cover of their February issue and DC doesn’t make so much as a peep, a whimper, or a chirp.
[nms:wonder woman,1,0]
Obviously, I don’t know the details of the legal issues DiDio mentioned, but there appears to be a disconnect between DC and Playboy and what’s considered acceptable use of their respective imagery.
Clearly, Playboy doesn’t consider Wonder Woman enlightening the male patrons of a Playboy Club via whacking them with her breastplate to be an acceptable use of their image (although it was pretty funny, and after the February Playboy cover, a fitting retribution).
What do you think?
Never miss an update. Subscribe to Pink Raygun by Email or subscribe via RSS







Nope, just the difference between fair use laws.
In other words, the Playboy cover, while identifying Tiffany Fallon as WW, did not use the current DC authorized version of the costume. So it could be used without DC’s permission as a parody.
However, if Cooke wanted to use the Playboy Club’s name and images in New Frontier, DC would have needed to get Playboy’s permission. Obviously they didn’t and heard from Playboy to make changes to the scene before it saw print.
No conspiracy, just the difference between a parody/homage and the use of someone else’s property.
So, Wonder Woman was visually sampled.
Hurm. Well, that was clearly Hef in the story, but I suppose as a real person, Hef is in the public domain?
I found that Darwyn Cooke story bizarre anyway.