The caveat is however, that at some point in the future, IF and when a character with particular and distinct characteristics becomes so common place, that the reasonable observer can instantly recognize that “genre” of character, then it’s no longer copyrightable. (Does this make any sense at all?)

But for the most part I agree with Blevins:
The Spade Test seems logical. Most copyrightable characters that were previously mentioned are copyrightable because each had a different history or upbringing that made the characters who they are up to that point where the author starts reveling the story the characters play a part in. The Batman character becomes copyrightable when you as the reader find out that Bruce Wayne’s parents were killed by a mugger (who later reappears) and he falls down a well and see bats…Blah..Blah..Blah. The history of Batman Character is the important part, not what evil villian he is fighting or the inner demons the protagonist (In honor of the big words used in this thread) is battling at the time the author tells his story. How the audience relates to the existential idea of the protagonist/antagonist is irrelevant. The bar is met when through a story the author assigns the embodiment of values to a character. i.e. batman fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way because…{at this point the copyright protection begins]

So says Sam Spade, so says
Jason Feldman

Penelope Barrett

The characters, alone, cannot be copyright protected. The reasoning is that the characters are not original. Even if the originality or the uniqueness requirements are de minimis, no original character has been created in centuries. If the character could be independently copyrighted then the Mathew, Mark, and Paul would have a copyright in Jesus and every derivative work thereof (it would be in the public domain about now). So every “Jesus” character could not be copyrightable because the character is not original and the expression is in the public domain. Further, Jesus may not be copyrightable. He is the culmination of Prometheus, Atlas, Hercules and others. It is not illogical to conceptualize that even those characters are rip-offs. So if characters could be copyrighted then no new stories would be told. The fallout would be the retardation of “Progress.”

Heroes and anti-heroes are all expressions of the same idea but with some different attitude. The attitude or the varying dispositions should not be enough for protection. The story of the character and the compelling nature is based on the layers of the character. If you peel the layers away, most characters are the same. Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, and Jesus are all the same person…think about it…The package is different to reach different audiences.

Characters should be thought as ideas in the copyrightable sense. The character is the idea and the surrounding adventures or misadventures are the expressions. Therefore, without the surrounding storyline or surrounding universe ,the character is just an idea. The adventures are the expression of that idea. If Gotham is lacking then Batman is nothing. Homer did not copyright his characters, he coprighted the story as a whole.

A serial is not required. The character must be told in conjunction with a story. Don Quiote is enough for Dumas to have a copyright in the wayward hero. The character is protected in the sense in which the story is told. OR I am way off base…