Comic Book Resources

I think it may fall under fair use provisions. Re: any controversy, I think this one's a bit of a tempest in a teapot, and the little bit of outrage I've seen over it reads downright perfunctory. I mean, it's Playboy. This is what they do. If it turns out DC did sign off on it -- which I can't begin to imagine is true -- that might be a different story.

Yeah, I think it's just different enough from the actual Wonder Woman costume to prevent legal action -- different boots and bracelets, no tiara or lasso, different star pattern, and we can't even see the front where the trademarked WW and/or bird logo would be.

...

Yes, I looked at a Playboy cover and said, "That's not comic-accurate!" I'm that nerdy, apparently.

Call me a caveman, but I can't really see the problem with this.

News stations have libraries of background music that sounds like copyrighted material but is just different enough to avoid infringement (music close to the theme of Star Wars or Psycho, etc.)

Playboy rakes in enough money that their legal department must have looked it over. Of course in the 80s, the Oscars had Rob Lowe and an actress dressed as Snow White sing a duet. Normally Snow White would be public domain but the idiots designed her exactly like the Disney version and were sued.

Maybe Playboy screwed up but I'd imagine they'd be cagey enough to change things just enough. Or claim it's a parody.

Honestly, I'm more interested in the "Women of Hooters" pictorial. Because there's good odds I'll see somebody I know in there.

Also, I'd just like to remind everyone: Bondage character.

Awesome.

Aaaaaand this is misreading the intent of that costume how, exactly?

Beyond the WW costume, what strikes me is that they mention Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, without a single tag line about WW. Anyone else?

And which DC Heroine is she supposed to represent?

Wonder Woman?

I dunno, she doesn't look that wonderful.

All I can think is how useless those boots would be.

It does probably differ enough to make it legal. I doubt DC signed off on it. Though, from the picture...I don't think the majority of the outfit is cloth. I think it's paint.

I don't know, I think I will have to carefully take a look into every page and every photo to express my opinion. And, in fact, it might be better if I take a look at the previous editions for, uh, comparison.

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

It's not the first time she's posed as Wonder Woman.
http://tv.ign.com/articles/783/783905p1.html
Another knockoff costume, but closer to the real thing... and a lot more work-safe.

"Fallon: I'm obsessed with Wonder Woman. I grew up and I had the Wonder Woman Underoos, when Underoos first came out. And I was always a big fan of the show and Lynda Carter. And the older I got, the more I would get these comments like, "My god, you look like Lynda Carter in that picture!" And it doesn't happen all the time, but I just grew to appreciate her and the character and the campiness of the project. I was Wonder Woman at one of the Playboy Mansion parties, and I just started getting all these comments, like, "My god! You would make a great Wonder Woman!" And I'm like, "You know, I would!" [Laughs]. And so I just have fun with it. And I heard they were starting to make a movie about it, and so I was like, "You know… Stranger things have happened in my life!" You never know. But that would be something I'd be really proud to be a part of."

I don't see anything wrong with this.

I'm sure Disney didn't sign off on Playboy having a girl dressed as Jessica Rabbit on a cover of theirs, so I'm sure DC didn't on this one.
It's probably the reason Wonder Woman isn't mentioned on the cover.

Besides, comic fans want mainstream acceptance, what more do you want?
Playboy has tons more readers than Wonder Woman comics do.

Also, I'd be more interested in reading the whingers whinging if they didn't just use the same two pics over and over again.
I'd just like to see the evidence for myself is all!
Honest!

They wouldn't let Sufjan Stevens have Superman on the cover of Illinoise, they need to get their priorities straight.

That´s be a joke!

WW in Playboy!

Sure that the amazon know it some head been cut...

Where is the problem?

An icon is an icon everywhere...

They wouldn’t let Sufjan Stevens have Superman on the cover of Illinoise, they need to get their priorities straight.

But he still is, isn't he?

Nope. I believe the album had to be re-issued without Supes.

That is a very, very good point, Ninjawookie.

"That is a very, very good point, Ninjawookie."

Yet another sentence I never would have dreamed I'd ever read before the Internet.

not sure i understand exactly what the problem is.

Are we arguing about the objectification of women or the sexualization of a comic character?

I'm not making any kind of point. I wasn't sure about the copyrights and trademarks and whatever else was involved, but it seems like they altered it enough so that DC can't really do anything. I didn't know that about Sufjan Stevens - that's weird.

Apparently she's not in the magazine, which is why nobody is showing different pictures. It's just something to do with their "Year in Sex" article. So there's no half-dressed Wonder Woman posing.

I also assume that everyone at Playboy knows about Wonder Woman's legacy of bondage. That just adds some nice subtext to the photograph.

And no, I don't have a big problem with it either. That's why it's offered without comment!

Hmm. Makes me wonder what was on the schedule to get upset about before this "controversy" (yawn) reared it's ugly head. I can only imagine that it must have been extremely lame.

Y'know, the NSFW warning might be more helpful if it weren't located one line above the offending already-loaded picture. Like, if it were in the title or something.

Just sayin'.

It does say Wonder Woman on the cover, at the bottom left. So if DC didn't approve, they could sue right?
My problem with this is it presents Wonder Woman as a sex object, and yes she has a bondage past, but Captain America used to have racist slogans on his magazine, and he is not still portrayed as racist. Both characters have changed with the times, at least in the comics. It seems weird to me that DC, who won't publish a lesbian Batwoman comic, would have one of their three biggest icons and their only real female icon, appear on a pornography magazine. Which they may not have allowed, but the fact that the name "Wonder Woman" appears on the cover leads me to believe that either DC signed off on this or Playboy could have a lawsuit on their hands.
Where is my image of Batman with a wedgie and a bare midriff on the cover of "Honcho"?

I miss when Playboy was relevant. And J. Edgar Hoover wore a Wonder Woman outfit. And Playboy would put J. Edgar Hoover, wearing a Wonder Woman outfit, on the cover.

No, that was National Lampoon.

But Playboy would lead an article with it.

Ah, good times....

Makes me wonder what they got on the cover of Playgirl this month.

I'm thinking that they are gambling that the costume is different enough. If not, the publicity would out-weigh the legal costs.

I'm more amazed that there is actually a brunette in Playboy.

But to hell with all that:

Irish McCalla!!!

Woo hoo!

Those boots are anything but useless. Renders any male within viewing range completely and utterly frozen, mouths agape in joyful paroxysms.

"Y’know, the NSFW warning might be more helpful if it weren’t located one line above the offending already-loaded picture. Like, if it were in the title or something."

Because one line below the title and above 'click to read more' is just so inconvenient?

Because one line below the title and above ‘click to read more’ is just so inconvenient?

I come in through the CBR main page, where only the title is given.

So, yes.

I think DC gave permission. Why not? It's good, wholesome hetero porn, albeit milquetoasty porn, from a company run by a woman. (Hef's more of a mascot these days, I think. His daughter runs the show.)

Isn't there a WW movie on the way? I'm sure DC wants to get WW back into the non-comic-reader's attention by then. This would be a start.

"My problem with this is it presents Wonder Woman as a sex object"

brains aren't photogenic.

Sorry, Matt. I wasn't thinking about coming to the post that way. I hope your boss wasn't looking over your shoulder!

Isn't DC the same company that said they would never want Charisma Carpenter as Wonder Woman because she posed for Playboy? I doubt that they signed off on this for that reason alone.

My problem with this is it presents Wonder Woman as a sex object

You are shitting me, right?

Have you seen how she's been drawn in the last 20 odd years of comics?
Have you seen her costume?
She's a cheesecake icon - always has been, always will be.
Her whole ambassador from another world thingy jig story, where she's smart and kind and can handle herself, is straight out of a Russ Myer or Roger Corman type film.
Enjoy her comics and character all you want, but she's cheesecake, and always will be.
And thus fair game for Playboy - at least they'll actually show her topless in the mag, instead of covering just the nipple with a hair.

Didn't Kevin Smith shoot a pictorial of his wife for Playboy in which she costarred with a dude in a Superman costume? I'm pretty sure it falls under fair use. And the bloggers getting pissed off over comparisons to Linda Carter must be sad, empty people.

Will

You know what's funny? I keep reading about how "controversial" this is, and how outraged people are.

Except that every single feminist blogger I've read on the subject- and I read a few- has made it clear that they really don't care very much about this (Valerie D'Orazio for example- http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/01/wonder-woman-amazon-superhero-playmate.html)

Yeah, it's Playboy. We all know about Playboy. Is there something interesting we can talk about instead?

I think the problem here is not that Wonder Woman is being used as a template for titillation, but rather that a character with roots in bondage and fetishism was appropriated as a symbol of feminism.

And we can all blame Ms. magazine for that, I think.

I don't think there's a "problem" at all. But the Playboy photo surely does make more obvious the absurdity of most female superheroes' costumes. If they were really out there fighting all the time, Wonder Woman and Black Canary would have some tights covering their legs, and they wouldn't be showing cleavage either. And don't get me started on Power Girl and all the other characters with titty windows in their outfits.

I don’t think there’s a “problem” at all.

I don't think that's really up for debate. You have people complaining, so that means there's a problem.

It's just not obvious who's got the problem, the complainers or complainees.

I've seen worse* stuff in comics themselves.

*Not that there's anything bad about this photo.

Also, in my mind Wonder Woman is always hotter than this.

You know, I might be more outraged...if the cover didn't feature someone who was the first "firing" from Celebrity Apprentice.

Let the flaming begin!

The use of the words "wonder Woman" in the lower left does not constitute trademark infringement. Trademarks are marks that indicate the source or manufacturer of a product, and as such, infringement is not defined merely by use, but by the purpose and context in which it is used.

If Playboy had put "Wonder Woman" in distinctive lettering across the top of the cover, in order to confuse the buying public into believing that this was an official Wonder Woman themed issue of Playboy, or that Playboy publishes Wonder Woman, or that there is some sort of endorsement or relationship between the two companies in order for Playboy to benefit from Wonder Woman's popularity, that would be infringement.

The reason they wouldn't let Sufjan Stevens use Superman on his album cover is that he showed the "S" logo. And he probably asked for permission. I'm certain Playboy didn't.

Also, there is no "fair use" provision for trademarks. That's copyright, and it doesn't apply here, since copyright only protects individual works of art, not broad concepts. Since DC does not publish photos of women in painted-on costumes, and can't produce a piece of art from which this photo is copied, there's no copyright infringement. 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.

A pre- or early-adolescent girl will engage in non-sexual gushing. She'll gush on a safe and playful adult in their environment, declare him her boyfriend, to which he'll respond by trying to feed her her own foot while taunting her that she has no friends. It's a time of freedom and simple pleasure, and the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman became a potent archetypal figure for this period of life for her fans.

Then this fan grows up and can't help wondering if she's been living a lie, and if she's the last person to realize this, because -- among the sexist crap and the ornamental idealization taken to a degree men are kidding themselves if they think they are even remotely subject to -- she sees her own notion of this archetype publicly humiliated, portrayed stroking her own exposed crotch. She can't think of her own childhood without wondering if everyone was thinking she was some sexualized monstrosity and no one told her.

The woman who doesn't give in to the ornamental idealization may see it for what it is. But in an American comics-based community, where men have no reservation against saying they can't even comprehend its controversy, she only has her own word in this environment that anything wrong has taken place. She should be pissed.

I come in through the CBR main page, where only the title is given.

So, yes.

And I come in through the RSS feed so yes again.

Oops - Cocked up the qoute

Down in the corner it does say "as wonder woman." However, it does not say "as wonder womanâ„¢" and there is no way that DC would allow someone to use Wonder Woman and not insist that it appeared as Wonder Womanâ„¢ therefore Playboy is gambling that DC won't take legal action and if they do they will a)take the publicity and b)settle out of court.

DC's best move is to stay out of the fight. So long as it's perceived as a "fangirls vs. Playboy" thing, they'll gain huge amounts of free publicity for any Wonder Woman-related projects they might have (like their JLA movie) with no downside. If they sue, they will be perceived as siding with the fangirls against Playboy, and will lose some fans. It would be incredibly dumb of them to get involved in this brouhaha, which begs the question: "Why haven't they done so already?"

Valtrex.

Dosage for valtrex. Valtrex. Valtrex and pregnancy. Order valtrex online.