Thing is...Johnny Stacks appears to be using a "well known artist," Andy Price, to design the packages for his products. And a quick glance at Andy Price's website reveals that his art focuses on comic books by DC and Marvel. If Johnny is being honest in saying that "All kits are sold to portray an Actor and NOT ANY CHARACTERS OWNED BY DC COMICS," then why seek out a professional artist for packaging design who specializes in artwork based on their comics? This all seems a bit suspicious to me...

The figurine that looks like batman is NOT batman, that is a figurine of Adam West dressed in a batman costume. You just can't tell its Adam West because he has a mask on. Since you can't see his face you need an artist who can design the costume.

That Batman logo underneath is merely an optical illusion caused by swamp gas spontaneously combusting in the other room.

Please correct me if I am wrong (and someone probably will) but don't Copyrights only apply in the countries where they are registered, although checking that out may prove tedious. Not sure how that works where the internet is concerned though. Is it breach if you reside in a country where the copyright is not registered but can be viewed globaly?

No, jawol, that's not the case. Almost every country is a signatory of the Berne Convention. They agree to respect the copyright of other member nations. Moreover, the convention makes it clear that registration is not a requirement of copyright.

Thank you Stewart, I stand corrected (as I suspected I would be) and better informed.

He doesn't "intend" to infringe on any copyrights, he just does. Maybe an anonymous tip is in order...

No, we should leave him be. He's not doing anyone any harm, and to expose him would be to unleash the force of the government on him. Whatever case one might want to make in favor of the legitimacy of socially-enforced sanctions against taking advantage other people's creative work without their permission (that is, "intellectual property rights"), I don't believe that this is the sort of situation where such an argument would coherently apply. No one is being made materially worse off by this guy's actions than they might otherwise be. To direct a violent force towards him would, I think, be wrong.

I do not believe in IP, so I totally agree with your assessment, and that's just the point. I really want the guy to have a taste of the violence he's threatening others (who've NOT harmed him or made him materially worse off) with. Nonetheless, I wasn't seriously considering doing that, because I actually adhere to the NAP as best as I can (not an asbestos can). But, if Karma kicks in and DC finds his little operation in violation of their copyrights, or some actor is offended by his use of their likeness, I'd not be above a little schadenfreude.

DC is suing John Stacks.

Here's a good place to read an article about it, if you're interested.

I couldn't resist taking my shot at him.

Whoa. "And now we know................................
The REST of the story."

Well, he DID out Conrad as a Child Liker, so at least we can be thankful for that.