Loving Submission

[Dazzle1]

There have been articles on Microsoft browser about how WonderWoman has changed from the original concept.

William And Olivia Marston the creators along with thier lover were into soft dominance, bondage and submission.

That is what WondeRWoman used to be about either her in bondage or her putting other into bondage.

Forgetting our genre for a second, should D.C return to those good days in the comics?

[Dogfish]

Could definitely see Wonder Woman projecting a whole 'Step On Me Mommy' energy instead of being hot girl superman.

Could definitely not see that happening in a DC sanctioned commercial product though.

[Dazzle1]

Could definitely see Wonder Woman projecting a whole 'Step On Me Mommy' energy instead of being hot girl superman.

Could definitely not see that happening in a DC sanctioned commercial product though.

We can hope if D.C loses enough money. Someone may think"Hm when WonderWoman made money what were the stories like?

"Oh Pricilla Rich or another female had her in bondage"

[Dogfish]

Maybe she needs to appear more often in Harley Quinn. If Bane can fuck a building then maybe there's a chance for something with Wonder Woman.

[Mr. X]

Isn't WW coming up in public domain?

[Visitor]

They use her enough to retain copyright and with all the history changes this version wouldn't be public domain. DC used to issue special comics not for public release where they used characters so they could retain copyrights. They would only lose rights to the oldest issues being reprinted in public domain.

With modern political correctness you can run the old storylines where Wonder Woman got tied up almost every other issue. No more emphasis on Priscilla Rich (first Cheetah) and her extensive collection of bondage devices. They got rid of her losing her powers if a man chained her bracelets together. They pretty much eliminated anything from the Golden Age version except from an island of women and daughter of the queen.

[Dazzle1]

They use her enough to retain copyright and with all the history changes this version wouldn't be public domain. DC used to issue special comics not for public release where they used characters so they could retain copyrights. They would only lose rights to the oldest issues being reprinted in public domain.

With modern political correctness you can run the old storylines where Wonder Woman got tied up almost every other issue. No more emphasis on Priscilla Rich (first Cheetah) and her extensive collection of bondage devices. They got rid of her losing her powers if a man chained her bracelets together. They pretty much eliminated anything from the Golden Age version except from an island of women and daughter of the queen.

It well well named the Golden Age

[Mr. X]

Given the sad state of DC affairs I doubt they can actively enforce copyright except maybe the Gal Gadot version of WW. And there is a point, if the cat is out of the bag too much, there's not much they can do. Probably they would destroy one person to set an example.

[phopho]

There was a recent comic by Grant Morrison which really leans into that aspect of the character. I liked it but it might not be for you.

To be honest with where the industry and culture in general is right now, there's not that much pervy stuff out there. I really think it's because it's so easy for everyone to see porn wherever they want that there's no all the subverted sexual stuff to pop up as cheesecake, fetish elements in all-ages programming, "entertainment for dad" scenes in kid's movies, etc. Think about a show like Baywatch, Batman 66 or even something like Gilligan's Island or Star Trek.

Now anyone who cares to do so can watch gangbangs all day but blockbuster action movies don't even have any kissing in them and the beautiful heroines have costumes that emphasize their strength instead of their sex appeal. I know I'm preaching the choir.

[Dogfish]

Given the sad state of DC affairs I doubt they can actively enforce copyright except maybe the Gal Gadot version of WW. And there is a point, if the cat is out of the bag too much, there's not much they can do. Probably they would destroy one person to set an example.

I don't know why it has to matter that it's even the actual Wonder Woman. Make up a new character.

You could absolutely have a character who does everything the original Wonder Woman did and it wouldn't be a copyright infringement because Wonder Woman doesn't do that any more. And I doubt DC would want to remind anybody about it either.

[Visitor]

I don't know why it has to matter that it's even the actual Wonder Woman. Make up a new character.

You could absolutely have a character who does everything the original Wonder Woman did and it wouldn't be a copyright infringement because Wonder Woman doesn't do that any more. And I doubt DC would want to remind anybody about it either.

It goes back to the DC Comics vs Fawcett Comics lawsuit over whether Superman or Captain Marvel was infringing on the other's copyright when you had two super powered characters.The lawyers kept flipping through comic books of Superman, Captain Marvel, and Popeye to show which one did a super feat first in print to establish whether one was stealing ideas from the other or if Popeye predated both so it was fair use.

If the new character is considered similar enough, you can sue for infringement unless it is used as parody.

Edit - An article about another character falling into public domain, but still under trademark and other copyright restriction

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ori ... 04970.html