Batman and the Shaddow. Bob Kane does it again?

[eledoremassis02]

This was a suggested video and a rather interesting watch

[The Laughing Fish]

I was under the impression that Bob Kane and Bill Finger were influenced by quite a few characters when creating Batman: The Shadow and Zorro for their pulp fiction appeal (DC Comics often pay homage to The Mark of Zorro as the last movie the Wayne family saw together on that fateful night), and Sherlock Holmes for his detective and intellectual prowess.

But if it is true that Batman's debut had blatantly plagiarised a story from the Shadow, it's definitely shocking. The only logical reason I could think of for why the Shadow's creators never pursued any legal action is because they may have underestimated Batman's growing appeal. Either that, or maybe copyright regulations weren't as stringent at the time.

While we're on the subject of influences, Bob Kane was quoted saying he was also inspired by one of Leonardo da Vinci's drawings.

"I remember when I was 12 or 13 I was an ardent reader of books on how things began . . . and I came across a book about Leonardo da Vinci. This had a picture of a flying machine with huge bat wings . . . . It looked like a bat man to me."

Source: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/19981109monday.html

[thecolorsblend]

We need to put everything into context. In the 30's, pulps were considered trash fiction and comics were regarded as only slightly better than pornography. Walter Gibson remarked that his career as the main writer of The Shadow basically made him Depression-proof. But that didn't win him any friends or influence many people.

As for comics, the industry has perpetually operated on the assumption that they're five years away from extinction. In large part, the rest of the world has never questioned that assumption. Thus, what possible motive could Street & Smith have had to sue National Periodical Publications over The Case Of The Chemical Syndicate when S&S never expected to reprint their story and probably regarded NPP as little more than a fly-by-night publishing operation?

In hindsight, it's easy to criticize S&S's lax attitude about protecting their copyright. Because if you wanted to file suit against DC Comics today for some reason, serving their legal department would be pretty easy.

But if you wanted to sue NPP back in the 30's, you should expect the publisher himself to greet you and inform you that the company went out of business five minutes before you showed up, sorry, can't help you, buh-bye. Don't be surprised if the office is cleared out the next day either.

In the middle of a depression, why should S&S have spent money they may not have had to protect a story they believed they'd already milked to its fullest by suing a company that may as well not actually exist (and probably won't exist in a year anyway)?

I adore comics. But my love for the form doesn't blind me to the facts. The comic book industry has never been entirely (or even mostly) respectable. Goings on with TCOTCS is probably the least of the comic book industry's sins. And believe me, they have some interesting ones.