the use of "parody" in this case is transformative. It's reasonably safe to say that DC would never produce or authorize porn content. It has even gone as far as saying there cant even be the suggestion that Batman goes down on Catwoman.
They already had that battle a couple of years ago. Since Patreon is seen as a tip jar and the end result is to be released for free, all DC/ Warner Bros. could do is request the name being changed to something other than "Injustice Unlimited". Hence why it's "Something Unlimited". So while parody is transformative (even though DC has tried to get pretty risky) the real thing that won GG the case was the intent of the end result to be released for free.
This makes me wonder to what extent companies like Disney or DC know about porn parodies made of their IP but either don't care or view it as free marketing. Surely Disney knows that people are constantly making porn out of their characters, but I suspect the reason they don't sue or issue cease and desist letters is because the publicity of "family friendly" Disney suing over porn is more damaging to their image than the porn itself.
But they didn't stop Nightwing from being raped in the comics by his stalker?
There's been porn parodies for years now, even that Aquaman movie got its own porn parody iirc. Also there's "rumour" about how Disney at one point, might still today, have a clause in their contract that gives them ownership of anything the artists they employ make during their contract, and many of those artists draw porn of their own characters. So according to the rumour there's boxes upon boxes of drawn porn of classic Disney characters that they own and keep hidden.
This work doesn't actually use it's own version of anything from the Justice League TV show (ie, it uses the same models of characters even if drawn by someone else), so it actually probably isn't quite transformative enough. Whereas a porno starring porn stars that nominally look like the intended character but ISN'T the same thing would be significantly more transformative. But that's up to a judge and/or jury to decide (depends on how far the lawsuit gets, one side usually wants the judge and the other wants the jury; this also would vary depending on the legal system).
I'll assume they know and are only concerned when it starts messing with their actually pocket book and online presence via SEO, ad traffic and click through.
Easy he's white and a man. there's no affinity group to complain about it and when there is they are declared white supremacists, and/or male chauvinists with fragile egos also known as white fragelity by the sjws
Please, lets not do this
Fuck your culture war bullshit. Take it to Reddit
The stalker's name was Tarantula. I just find it weird that having a yandere in the comics was okay (there were several of them in the comics if you squint), but a moment of intimacy? No...we can't have in an animated show meant for adults.
Good ol' USA... More afraid of a penis than a hundred atom bombs!
i have no problem with there being a yandere character, my problem is how its downplayed. i mean, she even tried to make him sign a marriage contract while drunk... and isnt she supposed to be a hero as well?
Now now, we all know that accidental sighting of penis can scar the youth for a lifetime, where as after atom bombs, they don't have to worry about anything.
If this is the case, I wonder if things are any different with Disney.
That's all a function of blast radius, pretty sure burn scars also last a lifetime (well, unless with skin grafts)Now now, we all know that accidental sighting of penis can scar the youth for a lifetime, where as after atom bombs, they don't have to worry about anything.
