Talk:Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc.

Eisner testimony
The Eisner testimony, apparently false (see citation to transcript and blog comments accompanying it), that the artwork was original with him rather than copied from Superman, is at best marginally relevant to the article. The notability of this case, and therefore its appropriateness in Wikipedia, is the Second Circuit's comments about what can be protected by copyright--the expressive aspects of the depiction, not the idea of a tights-wearing, booted, benevolent Hercules character. Eisner's false testimony is not relevant to that. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)