[Alessandro Bottero]

hi all. i require your help to clarify something which puzzles me. in the summer of 2013 Archive.org started hosting a lot of Warren publications Magazines (Vampirella, Creepy, Eerie, 1984).
we all know Archive.org is a site which host public domain contents, so i was amazed to see it. as far i know Warren publications  went bankruptcy in 1985, Harris comics acquired the rights of it's library (less Famous monster of Filmland) and then Jim Warren re-acquired the rights in 1992 of the characters (less Vampirella).

since summer of 2013 no one has complained with Archive.org about the Warren Magazines, and they are still there, and everyone can download them.

Does anyone know if this is the same thing happened with Quality/DC Comics, when DC acquired the property og the characters, but the quality  books were the characters was shown were left in public domain?

what i means its: does anyone knows if the CONCRETE magazine issues are in PD, even if the characters are copyrighted?

[MarkWarner]

Hi Alessandro!

Well this is a raw nerve with me! As far as I am concerned Archive.org has A LOT of copyrighted material. They have this "reputation" as being good guys with only Public Domain material .... but just take a minute and you'll find stuff that shouldn't be there ... .. searching for Batman was quite illuminating .. not sure if they have done anything about that.

Back to the books you mentioned I looked at one ...it had a valid 1967 copyright notice on it. SO IT IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN! Now it may be orphaned and now one cares about it .. BUT the fact remains it is copyrighted and not PD. And unless it is there by agreement of the copyright holder it should not be there.

This applies to huge areas of the site ... and boy I am also so surprised they don't get done for trademark violations.

[narfstar]

Warren material is not even orphaned.  Some have given up the fight against digital and others consider it a form of advertising. I do not know about the Warren material but it can not be carried here unless we had authorization from the copyright holders.

[Alessandro Bottero]

do you know if the same can be said for skywald and eerie publications?

[narfstar]

The reprints in Skywald were from PD comics but the new material is copyright.

[profh0011]

This reminds me, just the other day I got a package of comics in the mail from a publisher I've done some coloring work for.  After a quick glance, I e-mailed him to let him knoiw a couple of the books did not have any indicias-- no copyright or trademark notices anywhere!  I know you no longer HAVE to register with the Ciopyright Office in Washington for something to be considered Copyrighted-- it's now mostly a formailty, but one that may help enforce ownership in case a lawsuit ever erupts.  But to NOT have a Copyright notice posted anywhere on the work... that CAN'T be right!!!

[MarkWarner]

Again you don't need to put a copyright on BUT it is highly recommended and stops any confusion. PLUS if there is a valid copyright notice and it goes to court a plea of ignorance when it comes to damages cannot be made. But no copyright notice gives the court more discretion. That is not speculation, I read it the other day on some US govt .pdf

[profh0011]

I've sent enough packages to the Copyright Office in Washington to know they've made changes over the years.  For example, long ago, you actually had to PUBLISH something, and register it with the Office, for it to be "Copyrighted".  Byt by the time I got involved, you could register an entire package of related "unpublished" material.

These days, you don't even have to send things in, but it's still a good idea if you can afford it.  (The rates have gone up...)

[nuelow]

I hope it's okay to revive an old thread, because the topic has relevance to a project I'm working on....

The reprints in Skywald were from PD comics but the new material is copyright.

I've been researching the Skywald magazines, and they APPEAR to be in the public domain due to the same technicality that put the early Charlton comics into the public domain.

The ownership statements in "Psycho," "Nightmare," and "Scream" do not contain the word Copyright (or an abbreviation) anywhere. The pre-1978 law clearly states that word must be present in some form, and it is nowhere to be found in the Skywald magazines. (The Copyright symbol was optional until 1978, but not the word itself.)

Is there something I've overlooked regarding the Skywald Magazines? Was there a renewal after the '78 law change that i missed? I consider myself knowledgeable in these matters and a skilled researcher, but I am not at the level of you folks in these parts, so now I'm doubting my conclusions and findings.

Now, I agree that some of the covers appear to be been properly copyrighted to individual artists, but this does not appear to be the case of the content.

Help?