By: Drew Carlson

In late 2022, writer Chris Wozniak sued Warner Brothers, claiming that the 2022 hit film The Batman copied a comic book story he’d proposed thirty years prior. In a 45-page judicial opinion from March 27th, Judge Paul Engelmayer held that the recent movie had not infringed on Wozniak’s copyright and even declared that Wozniak infringed on DC’s copyrights by writing a Batman story.

Was there infringement? If so, from whom?

What’s the situation, Commissioner?

In 2022, The Batman was released in theaters. Set in a corrupt and strife-filled Gotham, the film features a younger Batman investigating a series of murders committed by the Riddler, a long-time Batman villain since the 1940s. Batman solves the villain’s signature riddles to try and foil his destructive plans. The film was a hit with critics and audiences alike, making $370 million in the domestic box office and earning an 85% rating from critics. However, one man was less than pleased.

In 1990, Christopher Wozniak wrote a story called The Ultimate Riddle, later retitled The Blind Man’s Hat. Set in a corrupt and strife-filled Gotham, the story features an older Batman investigating a series of murders committed by the Riddler. Batman solves the villain’s signature riddles to try and foil his destructive plans. Wozniak submitted the story to DC Comics along with a few other publishers (changing the character names to correspond with the company) but none were interested.

However, when Wozniak saw the movie, he believed the film’s premise and large portions of its plot were identical to his own story. He sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement against his story, leading DC Comics to file a counterclaim against Wozniak for infringement against their Batman property.

Holy Infringement, Batman!

Copyright infringement “occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.” For example, copying someone else’s story or characters is infringement. However, copyright does not protect against more than one artist creating identical works, so long as they do so independently of each other.

When there is no direct evidence of copying, courts can use indirect evidence to infer it. This method requires proving both access and substantial similarity. Proving access shows that it is plausible for the accused infringer to have actually seen the work they supposedly copied. After all, you cannot infringe on a work you have not seen. 

Substantial similarity requires that the two have enough similarities that an ordinary observer would believe that one is imitating the appeal of the other. Some similarity is allowed, but not to the point where similarities become so apparent that the total look and feel of the infringed-upon work has been taken by the infringing one.

However, ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, only creators’ expression of them.  So, the idea of a boy training a dragon cannot be copyrighted. But, the way dragon training is expressed in both Eragon and How to Train Your Dragon can be copyrighted. When it is inevitable that ideas will be expressed in certain ways, copyright is more lenient to similarities between works. Elements that are common to a type of work are often protected as “scenes-a-faire.” For example, it is not infringing for a western to show the heroes riding into the sunset because such imagery is common.

Did the movie infringe, Batman?

No, it did not. For one, Director Matt Reeves had no access to Wozniak’s story. Wozniak submitted his story to DC Comics and a few other publishers in the 1990s, along with film producer Micheal Uslan in 2008. 

Matt Reeves worked for Warner Brothers, not DC. He claims he did not even contact DC during the film’s writing, nor was he even aware of Wozniak’s story. Instead, he took inspiration from noir films like Chinatown, Taxi Driver, and his own prior knowledge of Batman.  Even if he had contacted DC, the company could not find Wozniak’s story in its archives and its executives were unaware it existed. Producer Micheal Uslan, whom Wozniak pitched his story to, was credited as an executive producer on The Batman. However, Uslan had no actual involvement making the film, and was only credited due to an agreement he made with Warner Bros. in 1988. Thus, the judge found there was no reason to believe Reeves had any access to Wozniak’s story. No access, no infringement.

Additionally, the two stories are not substantially similar. Strip away the parts DC owns (the Batman mythos), and what is left are a collection of story elements that easily qualify as scènes à faire. Both stories depict a loner serial killer lashing out at a corrupt society and leaving riddles to his crimes, while an intrepid hero investigates to stop him. All of these elements are common to the crime genre and have appeared in works like Sherlock Holmes to Dirty Harry.

When the Batman elements are added back, the scenes-a-faire becomes even clearer. The Riddler has been leaving clues for over half a century. Gotham has been depicted as corrupt and crime ridden for decades, and Batman has been solving crimes there since before the Second World War.

In short, the film did not infringe on Wozniak’s story. But did Wozniak infringe on DC’s property by writing a Batman story?

Counterclaim, Old Chum:

DC filed a counterclaim against Wozniak for infringing on their copyright to Batman. Batman is DC’s property, as are his villains, his supporting cast, and even his car! Wozniak did not just write a crime story, he wrote a Batman story. While DC was fine with him writing stories to pitch to them, they did not authorize him to create it for his own personal use.

If Wozniak wanted to overturn this infringement ruling, his best argument would be that his story was fair use. Fair use is a defense to infringement where the accused infringer admits to copying but alleges said copying is “fair.” The defense examines the purpose and character of the usage, the nature of the underlying work, the amount and substantiality of the copied portions, and the effect on the original’s markets. Commercial use weighs against the use being fair. However, uses that are transformative, meaning the new work has a different purpose and thus is not a substitute for the original, are more likely to be fair. The most important factors for a finding of fair use are the purpose of the use, and the effect on the original’s market.

Wozniak’s story was offered to DC as a spec script, and has not been sold to anyone else. Therefore, he could argue that his work had a different purpose (as a spec script) and did not threaten DC’s market. However, the fact that he was trying to sell the story could easily weigh against fair use. Even if he did win, it would cost him valuable time and money after he already lost his main argument.

And The Batman got away:

In short, the filmmakers of The Batman had no access to Wozniak’s story. Most of the similarities between the two are common among works of their genre. Meanwhile, Wozniak’s story used many elements belonging to DC comics, opening him to an infringement claim.

In his decision, Judge Engelmayer granted Warner Bros. and DC’s motions for summary judgment, dismissing the copyright claim against Warner Bros. and granting the one against Wozniak. The only claim left open is DC’s claim of copyright fraud. Wozniak’s lawyer responded by saying, “[w]e respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps.” Whether the case continues is in the parties’ hands. We’ll just have to tune in, same Bat Time, same Bat Channel.