A Journey into Mystery of Tales to Astonish at the 2015 Geekie Awards

By

-

October 17, 2015

It was a privileged to have been nominated for best podcast for the third annual Geekie Awards. It was a true honor that so many people work so hard for us in our Geekie campaign. Words cannot express how thankful I am for everyone.

I am extremely proud of our Geekie Awards campaign. Our supporting blog post had over 5,000 views and was shared extensively. I credit this to the superb skills of Tessa Lange, who played Thor in our video. Tessa is a tap-dancing, kick-boxing, artist, and actress. There is no question she is a Renaissance woman who will go far in her career.

I especially want to thank Gerry O’Brien, a New York political consultant, who was our un-official campaign manager. Gerry gave us a lot of excellent advice on our campaign. I credit our strong campaign to his help.

I am in awe of the fact that friends since elementary school voted daily; friends from my seventh grade comic book club campaigned on social media for us; youth from scouts and high school mock trial loyally voted; lawyers, judges, computer forensic experts rallied to our cause; and even the wonderful family I dog-sit for voted daily for us.

It is extremely easy for people to respond with a request for an online vote with silence. Our fans, family, and friends rallied for us and I will never forget it. There are no words to convey how grateful I am from such love. While we might not have gone home with that ray gun, I feel truly blessed from everyone who stood with us.

A Show for Every Geek

The fact two lawyers discussing property rights over Thor’s Hammer and where Iron Man should sue Ant-Man truly showed that Geekie Awards is for everyone who considers themselves a geek.

I broke tradition and did not wear a bow tie to the event. I instead dressed as the 13th Doctor (I count the War Doctor as the Doctor) and my friend Megan went as Clara.

I really enjoyed seeing Ernie Hudson present Michael C. Gross the Lifetime Achievement Award. The man has had an amazing career from National Lampoon to Ghostbusters. It was also awesome to see Gross give Hudson a bag of Twinkies.

Kevin Smith was very deserving of the new Geek Pioneer Award from all of his experience from movie-making to podcasting. It was also great to see how much he loved the one-cut fight scene in Daredevil.

The nominees for best podcast visited together on both nights. The team from Hadron Gospel Hour and I were at last call for two different bars after the show, discussing history, the best James Bond car chases, and Doctor Who. It was amazing to be nominated with such great Geeks.

None of this would have been possible without the vision of Kristen Nedopak. Kristen’s contribution to geekdom highlights we are a community that likes to come together to recognize those who invent, create, and inspire. I believe the greats such as Jack Kirby, Leonard Nimoy, and Ray Harryhausen would be very proud of how Kristen has brought geeks together. We all owe you a debt for creating this opportunity for all of us.

The Two-Night Format

I loved the Geekie Awards new two-night format. The first night focused on a pre-party for the nominees. This was a fantastic opportunity for attendees to network, have red carpet interviews, and enjoy a festival atmosphere.

It was great to finally meet Emily and Peter from Wrong Button, and Josh Silverman from Constantly Calibrating.

I was thrilled to finally meet so many people in person after interacting with them on Twitter since the first Geekie Awards. Moreover, the first night allowed for honorees to meet each other and enjoy being a community. This added to the experience, because there is literally so much happening in a whirlwind that two nights allowed honorees to maximize the experience. Furthermore, the photo booth was an excellent touch.

The awards show was nicely done. The “swag” for attendees included computer sleeves celebrating the time travel theme Doctor Who, Back to the Future, and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. Other takeaways included a cool new lapel pin with The Geekie Awards logo and hacky sack.

One of the challenges of the evening were long lines for the red carpet interviews. This was minimized for those who had interviews the night before. Possible ways to improve this for both honorees and press in the future would be to have any of the following:

A Line Marshal to ensure the steady flow of live interviews, so everyone has their moment to shine;

Have additional press areas for recorded interviews, so more interviews can be held concurrently; and

Have a press area for recorded interviews to be scheduled earlier in the day, so there is no rush due to the show opening.

If the Geekie Awards evolves into a festival, this would expand the opportunities for interviews to be held over a longer period of time.

Ways to Enhance the Experience

The Geekie Awards continues to make new improvements each year. The new venue and two-night format really improved the experience from the first two years.

The first Geekie Awards had activities the attendees could interact with for photos, such as the bridge of the Enterprise-D and R2-D2, for examples. People posed for photos with the TARDIS this year. Bringing in similar exhibits would give people the opportunity to have fun and take home memories that make great photos. Having more interactive elements would likely be popular for attendees.

The Geekies has always had cosplayers interacting with the audience and posing for photos. This is a ton of fun and something that should continue.

The categories at the Geekies have continued to develop each year. I would not be surprised if the podcast category became scripted and un-scripted categories in the future, similar to how the video categories sub-divided. There are differences in producing a scripted story that is told on a regular basis and a discussion show exploring different topics. Given the fact there were 60 entries this year, this category could divide to expand the opportunity for recognition.

To the Future

It was an honor being nominated for Best Podcast. It was heartwarming to have so many people seek me out to say hello from the creators’ party to the after party. I am in awe of everyone who helped us, from old high school classmates sending supportive notes, to friends calling before the show to wish us luck. This is an experience I shall not forget.

Now it is time to focus on the future. 2015 has been amazing from San Diego Comic Con to The Geekie Awards, and we look forward to the road ahead.

Can the Government Vaccinate Mutants?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 14, 2015

0

Brian Michael Bendis new Invincible Iron Man #1 adds a new taboo topic for a first date: Developing a cure to the mutant gene. This immediately raises the issue it would become a law, injecting politics into a date (another taboo). Dr. Amara Perera admits the horror of her cure and that it would be like trying to cure Judaism (adding religion into a first date, another taboo). Since this date is with Tony Stark, sex is eluded to, completing the dating no-no topic discussions.

Dating best practices aside, would it be legal to force people to take a cure for the mutant gene? The answer is surprisingly maybe…

Governments have a rational interest in protecting the public health. This is a legitimate police power.

Puberty is hard enough, so turning into an armadillo or flying lizard is just adding insult to teenage injury. Furthermore, governments have an interest in protecting students (and the public) from dangers, such as kids who cannot control deadly lasers shooting out of their eyes.

Is there any precedent that the government could use to justify having people take a “cure” to the mutant gene?

Many states require mandatory vaccinations to attend public schools. While parents might insist they have a God-given right based on pseudo-science for their children to contract Polio and kill a generation of Americans, this is not the majority view (Exhibit A is we have not had a Polio epidemic thanks to vaccinations).

The state of West Virginia requires children entering a state-regulated school to produce a certificate that they have been immunized against chickenpox, hepatitis B, measles, meningitis, mumps, diphtheria, polio, rubella, tetanus and whooping cough. W. Va. Code § 16-3-4(b). New York takes it to another level and places the responsibility on the parents that any child born after January 1, 1994 be immunized against poliomyelitis, mumps, measles, diphtheria, rubella, varicella, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis, tetanus, pneumococcal disease, and hepatitis B. NY CLS Pub Health § 2164(a).

States have a facially strong argument that immunizing children against the mutant gene in order to attend public schools is for public safety. The United States Supreme Court has held since 1905 that mandatory vaccinations are within the State’s police power. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11. We do not want the public dying horrible deaths from diseases, thus require vaccines.

There is a giant problem with the argument for forcing children to be vaccinated against the mutant gene in order to attend school: it is based on race and eugenics, not preventing the spread of disease. It is one thing for everyone student to be vaccinated, it is another to target an entire race because of their DNA.

Vaccination cases have not been held to the strict scrutiny standard. From Jacobson in 1905, which addressed people over age twenty-one being required to be vaccinated against small pox or be criminally prosecuted, to vaccinating children in New York who attend public school, all of these cases were decided within a State’s police power. Phillips v. City of New York (2d Cir. 2015) 775 F.3d 538, 542, fn. 5.

Race based legislation is held to strict scrutiny. If racial classifications are explicit, there is no requirement to analyze the legislative purpose of the law. However, facially neutral laws warrant strict scrutiny when motivated by racial purpose or unexplainable on grounds other than race. Hunt v Cromartie (1999) 526 US 541.

Specifically requiring children with the mutant gene arguably could subject the law to strict scrutiny, because the law would be targeted specifically at children with mutant DNA and not the public as a whole. While mandatory vaccinations are not targeted to specific racial groups, vaccinating children with mutant DNA would be on race (Homo Superior, opposed to Homo Sapien).

Strict scrutiny analysis examines the 1) character of classification in question; 2) individual interests affected by classification; and 3) governmental interests asserted in support of classification.

As to the first point, the classification is for anyone with mutant DNA; 2) the individual interests are that the individual is forced to take medication in order they do not mutate as they get older; and 3) the government interest is to ensure there are not super-powered individuals endangering the public (namely other students in public schools).

There is a good chance mutant vaccinations could NOT survive strict scrutiny, but there is no question the vaccination is not to stop the spread of disease, but the speculative injury to students in the future if their classmates can breathe fire, spit venom, or throw a bus into the pool.

If the “cure” were expanded to adults who had already mutated, that would be different than the State interest in protecting the public as a legitimate police power. It would be the equivalent of gun confiscation of law-abiding citizens or bringing back Prohibition in order to stop drunk driving. Just because someone had the ability to fly, does not mean they will use for ill intent.

In a world with mutants, those with powers might be viewed as those who are athletes or excel from other gifts. There is no way to “equalize” the population so everyone is the same, only that they have the same opportunities to advance. Whether or not it would be legal to impose a cure to the mutant gene might one day be decided by a fictional court, but unlikely one in the real world.

Pro Gamers Stuck on First Level of Immigration Due to Visa Issues

By

Roger Quiles

-

October 12, 2015

0

Visa issues are unfortunately prevalent in the eSports industry, as international travel is required for most top level players.

Most recently, EHOME, a team from China, had to be replaced at the ESL One tournament in New York for failing to obtain a Visa to attend the tournament.

EHOME qualified for ESL One on September 23, 2015, but due to a public holiday in China, the US embassy was closed September 26^th, 27^th, 28^th, and 30^th.

Since ESL One was scheduled for the weekend of October 3^rd, that left EHOME three days to obtain the requisite visas to attend the tournament. However, several team members failed to obtain the necessary documentation in that limited timeframe.

The EHOME players weren’t the only individuals to have difficulty obtaining visas lately to partake in eSports tournaments in the U.S. lately. On September 30^th, William “Leffen” Hjelte, a professional Smash Bros player from Sweden, was denied entry into the U.S. to attend a major tournament. The specific facts involved in his situation are unclear, although Leffen indicated that there was an issue being sponsored by a U.S. business (his team) and utilizing the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, as opposed to obtaining a visa.

Although it may be surprising, according to the Federal Government, professional video game players are also professional athletes, at least as far as immigration is concerned. Foreign players may apply for the P-1A visa, which the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services specifies is for individuals which “are coming to the U.S. temporarily to perform at a specific athletic competition as an athlete, individually or as part of a group or team, at an internationally recognized level of performance.”

Despite allowing eSports players to obtain P-1A visas, the visa process, in general, is notoriously complex. For example, according to the USCIS, a requirement to obtain a P-1A visa is to show documentation of at least two of the following:

Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in a prior season with a major United States sports league
Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in international competition with a national team
Evidence of having participated to a significant extent in a prior season for a US College or university in intercollegiate competition
A written statement from an official of a major US sports league or an official of the governing body of the sport which details how the player or their team is internationally recognized
A written statement from a member of the sports media or a recognized expert in the sport which details how the player or their team is internationally recognized
Evidence that the player or their team is ranked, if the sport has international rankings
Evidence that the player or their team has received a significant honor or award in the sport.

Given that this visa initially catered to the professional sports industry, it is easy to see how many of these requirements can be met. However, depending on the particular game, eSports teams and players cannot easily show evidence of these categories. For instance, if a player plays a game which is not team based, yet is a member of an international team, and this game does not have a professional league in the United States but occasional professional tournaments, which of the above categories could they possibly provide evidence of? Seemingly, the only available methods would be the multiple written statements, or evidence of international rankings, assuming such rankings exist. Yet, the difficulty continues, because as a nascent professional industry, which individuals would satisfy the statement requirements? Unfortunately at this time, there are not many clear answers.

Although the visa process may still be complex, at least the U.S. has recognized that eSports players are athletes for immigration purposes. However, for the eSports industry at large, immigration is a problem. Most of the major eSports tournaments do not take place in the U.S., and many countries have not yet clarified their immigration stance for eSports players. As the eSports industry grows in popularity and revenue worldwide, these immigration issues should be addressed both domestically and abroad.

We Should Not be OK with Agents of SHIELD Planning a Murder

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 8, 2015

0

The Agents of SHIELD episode “The Purpose in the Machine,” had a lot of positive things going for it, from using steampunk technology with an Asgardian to figure out how the Kree monolith operated, to Agent May spending quality time with her dad.

The only way it could have been better, would have been leaving Simmons on that Kree Moon for a few more episodes. This was a great opportunity to have introduced Captain Mar-Vell as an ally, or Una treating Simmons, or a Peter Quill cameo. Sadly, none of those things were not meant to be. Let’s see what the flashbacks hold for us.

The problem with the episode is Lance Hunter being sent out to kill Grant Ward. SHIELD is a rogue government agency, not following the Constitution, not taking orders from the President, and doing whatever they see fit. This pattern of behavior is not that dissimilar from the Red Skull going rogue with HYDRA from Germany.

A former secret agent deciding to kill a terrorist is still murder, even if the intended victim is a horrible human being. We have a pesky Constitution that specifically prohibits people being deprived of their life without due process of law. Director Coulson deciding to have Ward killed is simply murder and everyone participating is part of the conspiracy.

SHIELD acted as an agency with law enforcement, military, and espionage missions before the HYDRA coup. Continuing to blend law enforcement and national defense is highly problematic, because law enforcement in the United States does not execute kill orders from the President. The mission of law enforcement is to arrest with specific rules on when lethal force can used.

Military operations are inherently different. In the War on Terror, Congress has authorized the use of force in combating terrorists groups. President Obama has used drones executing his “kill list,” which has included Americans operating with terrorists. These individuals are no doubt traitors who took up arms against the United States in foreign counties. The military does not conduct law enforcement; it wages war. Those who take up arms against the United States overseas should not be surprised to have war waged against them.

We have a very different situation in the fictional world of Agents of SHIELD. Director Coulson has no legal authority to order any missions, let alone to decide to kill people. Moreover, the FBI and CIA would both be monitoring for HYDRA communications to counter terrorism at home or abroad. The mission of the FBI would be to stop HYDRA, but the goal would be to arrest those involved and use lethal force if met with lethal force.

It would not be farfetched in this imaginary world to see Congress authorize the military to hunt down HYDRA on US soil, just like Congress did against the Klan during President Grant’s administration. General Talbot might have such a mandate, but it is not clear to what extent.

Director Coulson deciding to kill a US Citizen who should be prosecuted for murdering a US Senator, multiple military service personnel, treason, terrorism, and a long list of other crimes, really makes him no better than Grant Ward. If SHIELD is successful, there really is no going back from the fact that Coulson, Hunter, and May, have more in common with the Punisher than Captain America.

Can Predictive Analytics be Used to Hold Someone as a Danger to Themselves?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 6, 2015

0

Minority Report continues to explore legal issues for a future that is seriously undermining civil liberties for security. Can Hawk-Eye’s predictive analytics be used to hold a person for 48 hours for observation?

In “Hawk-Eye,” the CEO of a company aptly named Narcissus, was put on a 48-hold for observation after purposely driving the wrong direction on the highway at a high rate of speed (reckless driving that would justify an arrest). The Hawk-Eye system cataloged and analyzed his behavior and vitals, thus activating the car’s self-driving mood to return him to home for observation. Other examples included placing a hold on someone exhibiting warning signs of suicide.

Could predictive analytics of data be legally used to show a person is a danger to himself or herself? The answer is maybe.

California allows someone to be placed on a 72-hour hold under the following:

(a) When a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service.

Cal Wel & Inst Code § 5150.

California case law further explains:

“[A] state of facts must be known to the peace officer (or other authorized person) that would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person detained is mentally disordered and is a danger to himself or herself or is gravely disabled. In justifying the particular intrusion, the officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his or her belief or suspicion. [Citations.] Each case must be decided on the facts and circumstances presented to the [detaining person] at the time of the detention [citation], and the [detaining person] is justified in taking into account the past conduct, character, and reputation of the detainee. [Citation.]”

Heater v. Southwood Psychiatric Center, 42 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1080 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1996).

Predictive analytics that complies a persons purchases and health data might constitute specific and articulable facts to show a person is a danger to themselves or others. For example, data analytics could cause an alert someone could be considering suicide from the following:

Public cameras shows a person purchasing line, a stool, and steel eyebolts that could support a person’s weight;

Social media posts include statements that they have no reason to live; and

Social media posts expressing rage.

Would that be enough to demonstrate probable cause to justify an observation hold? This person could be venting about home improvement projects or is considering suicide. There is a reason to have someone knock on this person’s door, but a hold might not be supported without more evidence.

The challenge with Hawk-Eye is 1) it is the tool of a police state and 2) the data that would truly show concerning behavior would require a search warrant. For example, police cannot simply monitor bank accounts. Furthermore, law enforcement cannot use technology such as infrared thermal imaging devices on private residences without obtaining a search warrant. There are limits on what law enforcement can use on the pubic, so Hawk-Eye at best would be limited to what is in “plain view.” Even then, the prediction on behavior would need to be validated by more than one data point for analysis.

Will police one day find ways to analyze publicly visible data? Without a doubt. Society must decide what is acceptable, such as whether law enforcement can use drones without search warrants and similar issues created by technology.

Can President Ellis Create the ATCU by Executive Order?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 30, 2015

0

The fictional President Matthew Ellis on Agents of SHIELD (plus Iron Man 3 and his voice on Captain American the Winter Soldier) issued an Executive Order creating the Advanced Threat Containment Unit (ATCU). The Government responding to an alien threat, that is both fatal to human beings and mutating others with alien DNA, is the very purpose of government to protect its citizens.

There is one very big problem: 1) President Ellis should be dead politically; and 2) Ellis can issue Executive Orders, but Congress has to fund the project.

A Politically Damaged President

No one thinks of courage when they hear the names James Buchanan or Herbert Hoover. Buchanan was asleep at the helm as the fires of Civil War started to burn and Hoover mishandled the response to the Great Depression.

President Ellis would be considered far worse. On his watch, President Ellis was 1) Kidnapped; 2) the Vice President attempted a coup d’etat; 3) SHIELD was compromised by HYDRA in what could have been mass murder of millions; and 4) an Eastern European city was dropped out of the sky by a killer robot made by American scientists, one of whom had been one of the largest weapons manufacturers since World War 2.

Those are political hits that no President could survive. The Ellis Administration would look rotten from his treasonous Vice President and SHIELD being overrun by Neo-Nazis who sought to commit genocide with American-made flying aircraft carriers. Ellis would be mocked domestically as clueless and demonized internationally for threats created by Americans. It is highly unlikely Ellis could run for re-election. It would be politically wise to let his political party nominate another in hopes of retaining the White House.

Lawful Executive Orders

Presidents have issued Executive Orders since the founding of the Republic. However, issuing Executive Orders is not supposed to be an end run around Congress in creating a government agency.

An “Executive Order” is issued based upon Constitutional or statutory authority. Executive Orders are given the same force and effect of law. As Courts have explained:

The use of executive orders may be employed by the President in carrying out his constitutional obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed and to delegate certain of his duties to other executive branch officials, but an executive order cannot impose legal requirements on the executive branch that are inconsistent with the express will of Congress.

Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Bush (D.Utah 2004) 316 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1184.

Could the President create a new agency to fight aliens?

President Ellis could argue that the ATCU Executive Order was based on the President’s authority under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution and likely a combination of Defense Authorization bills for the military and NASA. However, the smarter course of action would be to seek Congressional approval and funding of the agency specifically tasked with planetary defense from aliens and advanced threats. While it is shooting for the Moon, Ellis could be trying to look decisive in the face of alien genocide from the ocean being contaminated by a eugenic weapon. This plan might be the only chance for re-election.

It is not clear what legal authority the ATCU is claiming to arrest Inhumans. While people running around destroying property would justify arresting them, things could get Constitutionally ugly is President Ellis ordered the internment of citizens based on race. If the Government was willing to go that far, what other Constitutionally questionable laws could we see before Captain America Civil War?

Let’s just say it is not a good list legally.

General Pardons for SHIELD Agents?

Director Coulson’s illegal SHIELD organization and ATCU appear to have similar goals. They are facing the same threats. The big difference is how Inhumans are being treated by the ATCU, however, there is a good argument both are falsely imprisoning US Citizens. That being said, both view Lash as the common enemy who is killing people.

It is highly plausible that this commonality of interests for national defense could result in general pardons for the rogue SHIELD Agents. This would also be a great way to make SHIELD legitimate once again, so we are not cheering for characters who should be charged with 1) Terrorism (18 USCS § 2331(5)); 2) Treason (18 USCS § 2381); 3) Rebellion (18 USCS § 2383); 4) Enlistment to Serve Against the United States (18 USCS § 2390); 5) Obstruction of Justice (18 USCS § 2390); and 6) RICO (18 USCS § 1962). The US Government did not fall in Winter Soldier, so it is time the good guys stop being a rogue organization.

Everyone wants a piece of the Batmobile, even judges!

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 26, 2015

0

These days, everyone’s a geek: fashion designers, TV stars, models, even judges. We’ve covered before the fun judges have had with Star Wars and Star Trek references and apparently the august judges of the 9th Circuit (as federal appellate judges they’re only one step below the United States Supreme Court) have decided it’s time they get in on the fun.

This week, in DC Comics v. Mark Towle, the Ninth Circuit had to decide whether the Batmobile, a fictitious car created seventy four years ago in a comic book, was entitled to copyright protection. As the court explained in the opening paragraph of its decision, it had to decide whether the defendant had infringed DC Comics’ rights when he built and sold replicas of the Batmobile as depicted in the Adam West TV show and in Tim Burton’s movie version. And the court couldn’t help itself, it had to end its opening paragraph with “Holy copyright law, Batman!”

It then went through the history of the licensing agreements DC Comics made over the years. Then a description of the cars the defendant was making. I thought these cars were just little models but they’re not: they’re real cars the defendant was selling for 90 grand apiece!

After setting up the key facts, the court turned to copyright law. Copyright law in the US protects fixed expressions of creative works (e.g., songs, books, movies). As the Ninth Circuit noted, copyright protects not only a work as a whole but also distinctive elements within the work (e.g., Robin, the Joker, etc.). Not all characters get copyright protection, however, they have to be “especially distinctive” and display “consistent, widely identifiable traits.” The characters do not always need to be exactly the same–they can have some changes in appearance so long as its distinctive elements or traits stay the same. (By the way, the court then discussed what makes James Bond distinctive and it’s pretty entertaining to read the court’s take on what makes Bond distinctive, including his cold-bloodedness, overt sexuality, and love of martinis that are shaken, not stirred).

The court, after analyzing previous decisions in this area, decided that there is a three-part test that must be used: (1) the character must have physical as well as conceptual qualities; (2) the character must be recognizable (i.e., you always know it’s Bond, regardless of whether Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig is playing him); and (3) the character must be especially distinctive with unique elements of expression. The court then applied this test to the Batmobile (even quoting cheesy Robin lines from the TV show in footnotes–this is why I love footnotes!) and found that, yes, the Batmobile was an “automative character” that had distinctive elements.

So, while Batman fans already knew this, the Ninth Circuit has now confirmed that the Batmobile is an important and protected part of Batman’s world (bet it doesn’t have to cheat on its emission testing). Guess that means I should no longer refer to my awesome black minivan as the Batmobile! Now I just need the Ninth Circuit to step in and confirm that this guy is Batman:

And this guy is not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmP3YFk_YHA