[John C]

from what you told me, sentencess like "Only the golden age MLJ Comet is public domain, all subsequent versions created by Archie and DC comics are NOT" from PDSH WIKI are basiclly not trust worthy, not even previus use by compeny like IMAGE of a PD character which I'm glad and thankful to you for giving it

Right on both counts.

First, characters don't have copyrights.  Characters (and their protection) comes from the stories in which they appear.  If the stories are in the public domain, then (and only then) the character is freely usable, too.  More specifically, elements of the character which appear in public domain sources are freely usable, which is what bchat corrected me about.

Second, the contributors and editors of the wiki don't "show their work."  They say something's in the public domain, but you don't know why they think so.  They might be wrong.  They page may have been vandalized.  You don't know.

Third, a copyright owner isn't obligated to sue for infringement (trademark owners are).  So just because someone else "got away with" using a character, that doesn't mean that will be the case for anybody else.  Also, when a company uses a character, it's possible that they licensed the character from the copyright holder.

The easiest solution is to find the stories of interest, head over to the Catalog of Copyright Entries (for works published before 1951) or the U.S. Copyright Office search engine (for works published...oh, let's say after 1948) and look for the renewal twenty-eight(ish) years after publication.  If there's a renewal, then you can't use the contents.

This is also a solution, because if you receive a Cease and Desist order, you can say "there's no renewal on record for your work, so you'll need to provide proof of copyright before I respond to your request."  You CAN'T say "there's a wiki that said it's OK," at least not to any useful effect.

[bchat]

The easiest solution is to find the stories of interest, head over to the Catalog of Copyright Entries (for works published before 1951) or the U.S. Copyright Office search engine (for works published...oh, let's say after 1948) and look for the renewal twenty-eight(ish) years after publication.  If there's a renewal, then you can't use the contents.

You should also take the extra step of finding a character's first appearance (if there's more than one) and determine the Copyright status of that as well if you plan on creating a new story, just to be safe.  Even if issue 22 of "Message Board Comics" is Public Domain, that doesn't mean that "Message Board Man" is a Public Domain character.  The Copyright status of one appearance doesn't affect any other appearance, so you want to find the earliest story that's in the Public Domain and go from there.

Second, the contributors and editors of the wiki don't "show their work."  They say something's in the public domain, but you don't know why they think so.  They might be wrong.  They page may have been vandalized.  You don't know.

While the PDSH Wiki may not be "trust worthy", it is a good place to start to gather information.  If nothing else, it's a good place to go to learn about obscure characters that haven't been beaten-to-death yet by comic publishers.  Another useful resource is the Keltner Index, which lists most superhero's appearances.  There's a few the Index misses, like Lev Gleason's Daredevil and his last couple of appearances in issues 79 & 80.  The Grand Comic-Book Database is a good site to visit as it can list appearances in chronological order.  From all that, anyone should be able to figure-out what books they'ld need to look-up.

Also, when a company uses a character, it's possible that they licensed the character from the copyright holder.

I'ld like to add that it's not mandatory for the company using the characters to state that they are using a licensed property.  I believe this was the case with Tarpe Mills' Miss Fury & Malibu Comics, in that Malibu held the Copyrights on the stories, so there was no reason for them to mention in the comics that they were licensing the character.  Contrast that with Hasbo's GI Joe toyline, where Hasbro owns the Copyrights to the stories, resulting in different companies being able to reprint the Marvel run.

By the way ... John C - When did the Copyright Laws change for Individual Copyrights?  More specifically, when did it go from the same rules that corporations/businesses had to "Life + 50 Years" (later, + 70)?  I've poked around a little but haven't come across an answer yet.

[Roygbiv666]

In essence, it's a legal issue and the law exists to ruin everyone's fun. At least, that's my understanding of it. 

One place to start for the basic concept is : http://www.sunsteinlaw.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.htm

[narfstar]

Well Roy I would say the creators would disagree. Would you work for free or think it fine for others to continue to profit from your work while you got nothing?

[John C]

You should also take the extra step of finding a character's first appearance (if there's more than one) and determine the Copyright status of that as well if you plan on creating a new story, just to be safe.

Yeah, I was on my way out to save the universe, or something, so I wasn't as clear as I should've been.  If only one story of a run is in the public domain, then there are two possible interpretations.  The first is that you may use or refer to elements appearing only in that story, with regard to the character.  There are others who believe that the character can be used, provided that you limit your portrayal to precisely the way the character is shown in that story.

I lean towards the first, but I can see the possible merit of the second argument, which is that you can't be expected to know where every single element came from.

While the PDSH Wiki may not be "trust worthy", it is a good place to start to gather information.

Right.  I thought that went without saying, at the time, but it does sound like I'm dismissing their work.

Also, when a company uses a character, it's possible that they licensed the character from the copyright holder.

I'ld like to add that it's not mandatory for the company using the characters to state that they are using a licensed property.  I believe this was the case with Tarpe Mills' Miss Fury & Malibu Comics, in that Malibu held the Copyrights on the stories, so there was no reason for them to mention in the comics that they were licensing the character.  Contrast that with Hasbo's GI Joe toyline, where Hasbro owns the Copyrights to the stories, resulting in different companies being able to reprint the Marvel run.

True.  The licensing statement is a matter of the contract, not a legal obligation.  While most property owners will want to see that credit, they may refuse it or the publisher may offer more money to avoid it.

By the way ... John C - When did the Copyright Laws change for Individual Copyrights?  More specifically, when did it go from the same rules that corporations/businesses had to "Life + 50 Years" (later, + 70)?  I've poked around a little but haven't come across an answer yet.

As far as I know--and I haven't had reason to confirm it, since both terms are too far in the future to worry about--I think it was the 1978 overhaul that introduced the idea to conform to the various WIPO treaties in the works.

In essence, it's a legal issue and the law exists to ruin everyone's fun. At least, that's my understanding of it. 

For a compelling counterstatement, read the Don Quixote books.  In short (and pardon me if my details are wrong), after the first book was published, pirate editions and unofficial sequels abounded, making it difficult for Cervantes to make ends meet through lost revenue and ruining his reputation as the inferior stories became more prominent than his own work.

In the follow-up, our knight-errant rants at length about copycats and the lies that have been told of him.  The ending then becomes a PSA about how any future sequels are not to be associated with him, and a quick entreaty for copyright law.

That's what it's about.  Copyright is a monopoly, basically, that prevents you or I from hurting Marvel's chances of selling a Thor movie after investing so much in the character.

I'll admit that it's gone completely out of control, but not that copyright itself is a bad or harmful idea.  Successive extensions to copyright have basically deprived us of over fifty years of expansion to the public domain, in that January 2010, under the twenty-eight (plus an extension) terms we had, would have seen the lapse of works from 1954 pass into the public domain!

To me, the real shame isn't that I can't reprint 1948 Batman comics or sell my very own Beppo the Super-Monkey story (I think I have one, if anybody at DC is interested...), but rather that there are many, many comics, novels, articles, and movies for which the copyright holders can't be found.  With usable copies dwindling and time taking its toll on the medium and memory, it's likely that many works will have vanished entirely before passing into the public domain.

[bchat]

I think it was the 1978 overhaul that introduced the idea to conform to the various WIPO treaties in the works.

Ok, thanks.  I wasn't sure where to look. I know I've read the '78 stuff but I must have missed it.

To me, the real shame isn't that I can't reprint 1948 Batman comics or sell my very own Beppo the Super-Monkey story (I think I have one, if anybody at DC is interested...), but rather that there are many, many comics, novels, articles, and movies for which the copyright holders can't be found.

I think the "Automatic Renewals" is really what messed-up everything.  If a company goes out-of-business without transferring their Copyrights to another business or person, we're basically left with a "Phantom Copyright Holder" on works that, essentially, nobody actually owns.  If renewals had remained part of the law, even if bumped-up to 40 years from 28, we'ld be seeing stuff from the 60s entering the Public Domain.  On the other hand, I like the idea that anything I create today can profit my family for 70 years after I'm dead and buried.

[Roygbiv666]

In essence, it's a legal issue and the law exists to ruin everyone's fun. At least, that's my understanding of it. 

For a compelling counterstatement, read the Don Quixote books.  In short (and pardon me if my details are wrong), after the first book was published, pirate editions and unofficial sequels abounded, making it difficult for Cervantes to make ends meet through lost revenue and ruining his reputation as the inferior stories became more prominent than his own work.

In the follow-up, our knight-errant rants at length about copycats and the lies that have been told of him.  The ending then becomes a PSA about how any future sequels are not to be associated with him, and a quick entreaty for copyright law.

That's what it's about.  Copyright is a monopoly, basically, that prevents you or I from hurting Marvel's chances of selling a Thor movie after investing so much in the character.

I'll admit that it's gone completely out of control, but not that copyright itself is a bad or harmful idea.  Successive extensions to copyright have basically deprived us of over fifty years of expansion to the public domain, in that January 2010, under the twenty-eight (plus an extension) terms we had, would have seen the lapse of works from 1954 pass into the public domain!

To me, the real shame isn't that I can't reprint 1948 Batman comics or sell my very own Beppo the Super-Monkey story (I think I have one, if anybody at DC is interested...), but rather that there are many, many comics, novels, articles, and movies for which the copyright holders can't be found.  With usable copies dwindling and time taking its toll on the medium and memory, it's likely that many works will have vanished entirely before passing into the public domain.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean copyright protection is bad, but that legal issues are complicated and not easy to suss out for oneself. Legal issues are why I can't, for example, get various movies on DVD yet, or why Marvelman isn't available in North America. Plus, I am naturally sarcastic.

Plus, you can't really prove that something is in the public domain, you can just prove that you looked and didn't find anything. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So it's always possible that something was misfiled, but the copyright owner retains their registration copy.

[John C]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean copyright protection is bad, but that legal issues are complicated and not easy to suss out for oneself. Legal issues are why I can't, for example, get various movies on DVD yet, or why Marvelman isn't available in North America. Plus, I am naturally sarcastic.

Well, yes and no.  There's nothing complicated about the law as such.  You could write out a summary of the relevant parts of an index card.

The complexity is the human factor and pig-headedness.  The Batman TV series (for example) isn't on DVD, because there are two rights holders (Warner and Fox), and they both want all the profits, basically.

Marvelman is one of the cases where the (British) law is probably insufficiently complicated.  Coverage "for the life of the creator" plus some?  Whuzzah?  Who's a "creator"?  When did all these people die?  Who signed over what rights to whom and when?  So everybody thinks they own the whole kit and kaboodle.

I mean, if anybody wants to collect my exciting and brilliant message board posts in the future (just go with the example!), what are the chances they'll know when I died?

Plus, you can't really prove that something is in the public domain, you can just prove that you looked and didn't find anything. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So it's always possible that something was misfiled, but the copyright owner retains their registration copy.

That's certainly true in theory (and I emphasize that distinction whenever someone asks me about copyrights here), but I don't know that there has ever really been a case where it's happened.  And if it did, it certainly limits the liability with a documented lack, because the entire point of the Copyright Office is to maintain the registrations so that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.  (Modern copyrights, lacking the need for explicit registration and renewal, is another story, of course.)

But yeah, if I were running a business recycling public domain material, I'd be visiting the physical records in DC or paying a lawyer to do it rather than trusting the CCE.  Or not, depending on my mood and budget.

[narfstar]

You should also take the extra step of finding a character's first appearance (if there's more than one) and determine the Copyright status of that as well if you plan on creating a new story, just to be safe.

To me, the real shame isn't that I can't reprint 1948 Batman comics or sell my very own Beppo the Super-Monkey story (I think I have one, if anybody at DC is interested...), but rather that there are many, many comics, novels, articles, and movies for which the copyright holders can't be found.  With usable copies dwindling and time taking its toll on the medium and memory, it's likely that many works will have vanished entirely before passing into the public domain.

But there are DCP sites seeing to it that most will be preserved

[John C]

there are many, many comics, novels, articles, and movies for which the copyright holders can't be found.  With usable copies dwindling and time taking its toll on the medium and memory, it's likely that many works will have vanished entirely before passing into the public domain.

But there are DCP sites seeing to it that most will be preserved

For comics, that's fine (as long as they're not distributing widely enough and as long as the owners don't show up to stomp them down, of course), but I doubt there are hordes of people roving second-hand bookshops for copyrighted material to scan, for example.  Or movies, paintings, newspaper/magazine articles, and so on.

Plus, as JVJ has pointed out, while it's great to have them, some details are lost and the scans aren't quite good enough to produce high-quality reproductions.

I'm thankful for what we have, as I said, but imagine how much better things would be if it wasn't all underhanded and disorganized.