[DennyWilson]

Is it possible that there are comics that are partly public domain? Yes, I know this does sound odd,but something I was thinking about with regards to titles that are part strip reprints/licenced characters and original content where no record of renewal is not found for the overall comic/issue?

I'm not sure how people would feel about partial titles - but it would be a shame for public domain content to be in a "restricited" Limbo not to be posted just because part of the book is still protected due to strip-reprints or licenced property/story based on another source. (or a character/story that the rights reverted back to the creator - such as say to S&K.)

[OtherEric]

Yes, there are definitely comics where the contents are a mix of PD and non-PD.  The one that first comes to mind is Famous Funnies; it's mostly PD but the Buck Rogers stories are not.

We are generally not posting partial books at this time; there are a few exceptions and as far as I know we're willing to reopen discussions on the subject.  I would let Yoc or Aussie say for sure before we start the debate, though.

[Yoc]

We've got a lot of partial issues on here and I'm not apposed to the idea of removing no-PD books and sharing the rest.  But Aussie ans Serj have the final say.

-Yoc

[narfstar]

I see no reason to deprive readers of what they are legally able to have.

[phabox]

One way round the problem with characters who share space with non PD material such as Dell Comics 'Phantasmo'' is to try and pull together a complete set of scans and then make up our own Archive style collections.

-Nigel

[John C]

There's nothing odd about it, for the reasons explained.  Well, no, but kind of.

See, technically, you're supposed to be able to reprint (and ONLY reprint) an uncopyrighted collection, regardless of the presence of copyrighted content.  But no court is going to support you, because the collection is a derivative work (since it includes the original), which is covered under the original copyright.  Plus, it's tacky and misleading to your consumers, since they can't reuse the reprint anywhere except in the same way.

So, no, nothing can be "partially in the public domain."  However, you can have a work that's in the public domain has parts unusable due to copyright, which would functionally be the same thing.

Probably because of that and just plain old good nature, the rule here is to simply avoid the portions of books that are covered (or even probably covered) by other copyrights.  And, in fact, I remember quite a few books that have been "sanitized" for posting here, though I can't recall which they were.  Hopefully, there's a "this page is not included due to copyright" page inserted in their places, wherever they are.

The books I most worry about are the characters licensed from other media, where the renewals might not be available (films, for example--nobody has scanned'em, and my local library doesn't maintain a CCE collection) or where the copyright rules change drastically depending on where you live (radio dramas, for example--if you're in New York State, like I am, even Edison's first recording is protected under copyright until the 2030s, if I remember correctly).

[DennyWilson]

I've actually done a bit of research on this subject in General - I always found this interesting.

A Derivative work is considered a DIFFERENT work because it's not exactly the same work and requires separate copyright. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.

Thus derivative work of the same medium CAN go into the public domain while the work it's from is still protected. A case in point is the Feature version of The 1936 FLASH GORDON serial,

[OtherEric]

Well, I think I can add a couple of useful points here, even if some of the discussion is getting outside of what I know:

As you point out, adding color may be sufficiently transformative to require a new copyright and therefore be safe for us to use.  As far as I know, our policy is to err on the side of caution here- even if we could win in court there's no way we could afford the court battle.  Has there been a case specifically involving colored comics being out of copyright?  Yes, it should be the same as with a colorized movie.  If coloring a PD movie lets it get a new copyright then something colored when the rights were owned then allowed to lapse out of copyright should have its own expired copyright which now puts the colored version into the PD.  But I have no doubts lawyers would be happy to argue and quite possibly win if we tried that argument.

The answer to your Dell question is yes and no.  We generally check specific titles if and when somebody wants to scan and post them; but Dell is far more complicated than most publishers.  And some groups we simply don't mess with.  (There's at least one Mickey Mouse short where they forgot to renew copyright- I want to say "The Mad Doctor" but I'm not even close to sure.  But you don't see that on PD compilations very often...)

[bchat]

The issue of the Licensed Characters is not that complicated - Go into your local video store and you'll see loads of public domain DVDs featuring cartoons that have fallen into the public domain - Betty Boop, Popeye, Superman, The Warner Characters, etc. Also Lone Ranger Episodes, The Flash Gordon, Tarzan and Dick Tracy serials, etc - You don't see King Features/Hearst, Tribune Media, ERB, Classic Media/ER or ERB going after these products. Why? Because the use of these falls under "Fair Use" - the works are not being used in a manner that infringes on any existing trademarks or copyright.

Maybe I'm not grasping what you're saying here, but my understanding is that "Fair Use" as it applies to Copyright Law is the allowance of non-copyright holders to use material protected by Copyright for use in "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (critics using clips of movies or a panel from a comic to state their opinions about the material), and really has nothing to do with Public Domain material.

[DennyWilson]

My reference to "fair use" is with regards to the uses of a trademarked character or property in the most general of terms, not the public domain material itself.  Perhaps I should have been clearer in my reference as perhaps being similar to "fair use". 

A nonowner may use a trademark nominatively

[JVJ]

Boy HOWDY! Denny,
As Harry Belafonte once said, that's "clear as mud, but it covers the ground." I kinda, almost, sorta get what you're trying to say, but some examples would save the day.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Aussie500]

l have no objections to posting scans where the copyright protected material has been removed, unfortunately doing that causes problems with other people coming along and uploading scans where the material is not removed, because they saw an issue on the site and thought it was OK to post. Posting collections of PD material from different issues and titles is fine, or if you want to post the original, please indicate what was removed and why so others will know. If scanning a comic yourself l would prefer the entire scan be uploaded elsewhere so that there will at least be an existing c2c scan even if we cannot host all of it here.

[bchat]

Denny (may I call you Denny?) ...

Wow.  That's is one clear explanation ... even if I did have to use the old dictionario to look-up "nominative" (not that I didn't understand what the word meant in the context of what you were saying, I just never ran across the word before and was curious as to its true definition ... "you learn something new every day!")

I always did wonder how the makers of DVDs with the old Superman cartoons were able to use the name "Superman" on the packaging without having DC getting excited.  Now I know, and as they say, "knowing is half the battle."

[OtherEric]

On those PD Superman collections, you will note that the box art and even the logo is normally taken directly from the cartoons themselves just to be safe.

I'm actually looking forward to the upcoming Warner release of the material; the PD collections range from decent to ugh.  A full scale restoration like the Looney Tunes should be nice.

[John C]

What I meant by "derivative work" is that the compilation, including the reprinted strips, is derivative.  If you take a picture of your local town and I use it in a collage, I've created a derivative work.

In both cases, since the compilation includes the earlier work, the original owner has some say in how it can be used--not a direct copyright, of course, but a copyright on the relevant underlying Intellectual Property.  Even if the derivative work falls into the public domain, this is true.  The newer copyright covers anything new and the compilation itself, but not anything previously under copyright.

I didn't mean to imply that I was worried about the "character copyrights" (whatever those really are) or trademarks.  My comments should only apply to collections which include previously-copyrighted material.

Oh.  And I pointed out the sound recordings because it's relevant to character licensing.  If the comic includes a story that's adapted from another media, like a movie or episode from a radio show, then the underlying copyright status is important.  New content is covered by the new copyright, but derived content is (again, indirectly) covered by the original copyright.  So, for example, it's a good idea to tread lightly around the Green Hornet or Flash Gordon, since the story may be covered differently in different jurisdictions.