1980–1981 C
h
a
p
t
e
r
N
i
n
e
t
e
e
n
Silver Bullets and Soccer Balls
A
s the decade rolled over, the new year brought much change. Early in 1980 Marc Richards left Filmation after over six years, to take a job with an independent film company, Portal Productions. He had done well with us, but wanted to spread into new ventures. A week later we announced that we had a firm deal with Sport Billy Productions to produce at least 16 half-hour cartoons, with an option to do ten more if things worked out. Our plan was to debut the first of the toons at the Marche International de Producteurs conference (MIPCOM) in April at Cannes, which meant we were working on them in the off-season when the fall 1979 shows were finishing up, but before the fall 1980 shows were starting. In March we revealed to the press that we were working on a new series concept with Bill Cosby that would be aimed at eight- to 15-yearolds and be live-action mixed with animation, for a potential weekday afterschool series. On March 21, 1980, the U.S. District Court in New York decided the matter of DC COMICS, INC. v. FILMATION ASSOCIATES. The judge rejected our contention that the Lanham Act was not as narrow as we contended—we argued that its scope was mainly for advertising and not “ingredients” of characters such as physical abilities or personality traits. The judge agreed that DC’s broad argument was too broad, but our argument was too narrow, and the points went to DC. We also argued about the insufficiency of evidence, which resulted in the 7th claim, for Aquaman, being thrown out. Basically, the court said that DC didn’t prove that we had used any of their Aquaman materials to create Manta and Moray. As to damages, the judge found that despite the jury damages regarding Aquaman versus Manta and Moray, DC Comics did not lose any potential profits from sales or licensing, nor was there sufficient evidence that we had caused any confusion among licensors, viewers, or the general public. The damages of $389,091.75 for the remaining two Aquaman claims were thrown out. The four claims in the matter of Plastic Man versus Superstretch and Microwoman were more complex, but the judge decided that although the evidence did support a finding of some damages, the amount was “seriously excessive.” The judge threw out two of the claims immediately, due to lack of sufficient evidence that there was any public confusion about the characters, or direct copyright violation. However, because we had licensed and tried to sell a Plastic Man show prior to creating Superstretch and Microwoman, and had not succeeded, our actions became suspect. We had sold Superstretch to CBS during the time we had an option on Plastic Man, and then DC had sold—through Ruby-Spears—their own 1979 Plastic Man series to ABC. The jury and judge found that DC might have sold their show earlier had we not done Superstretch. This meant that we were found to owe damages in two claims: Opposite: breach of contract and breach of confidential relationship. Damages were Promotional art for The Tom and Jerry Comedy Show and based on lost television profits and potential negative effects on licensing character designs for Lone Ranger and Journey Back to Oz revenue; no damages were incurred by the declining sales of the Plastic Man Above: comic book series though. Lou enters the 1980s CHAPTER 19: SILVER BULLETS AND SOCCER BALLS 171