The BBC reports that Zack Snyder has tweeted the first official photo of the new Batmobile, which will be featuring, if not actually taking the star role, in the forthcoming movie which he is directing, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. [Merpel was rather hoping for something more legal content, maybe Batman v Superman: Court of Justice, but this seems unlikely at present]. The vehicle (below), which is likely to give Batman a headache fitting it neatly into a supermarket parking lot, is a good deal less car-like than the original model (even more below).
Never mind issues of fuel consumption, one wonders how the new Batmobile does for spares and components. Merpel is just a little disappointed that the vehicle doesn't have a number-plate. As for insurance ...
This Kat has been doing some legal speculation too, since he suspects that there may be some synergy between the new Batmobile and Deadmau5. Having recently pondered the case of the de-branded Ferrari/Purrari belong to Deadmau5 (on which see Lucy Harrold's guest post here), it occurred to him that the new and plainly monochromatic Batmobile, suitably de-branded and decorated, might appeal to the Canadian rapper (or is it wrapper?) [it has now been explained that he isn't a rapper, but the pun was too good to waste -- and Merpel is sure that he could if he tried ...]. After all, what is a bat but a flying mouse, so the Batmobile embodies an aural-to-conceptual link between "mouse" and "mau5". But how might Deadmau5 choose to decorate it?
If Deadmau5 were to get his hands on the Batmobile and give it the Nyan Cat treatment, an interesting issue would arise. On the assumption that the newly-styled Batmobile is an authors' work in which moral rights vest, would the exposure of a Deadmau5-decorated Batmobile to potential ridicule infringe its creator's right to object to derogatory treatment or distortion in those countries where that right is protected? Such decorative activity might fall within the protective scope of parody under the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Deckmyn [on which see fellow Kat Eleonora's post here] -- but that ruling appears to this Kat to have no application beyond the realm of the distribution right, and at a pinch other economic rights, and would not be able to assist a defendant in a moral rights-based claim.
Readers' comments and suggestions are welcomed.