Print

[tymime]

One thing I've wondered for a while is: who (if anyone) owns what's left (if anything) of Dell? The licensed properties of course are still owned by their respective owners, but what of their original stuff? As I understand it, some of it went to Gold Key in '62 and again in '73 when they closed down (and thus to Western Publishing), but what of the remaining properties? Are they public domain? Did someone else snatch them up?

[DennyWilson]

 Anything copyrighted before 1964 and not renewed when due are in the public domian.

Anything copyrighted after 1964,or works renewed would still be under copyright and would be owned by whoever is Dell's successor - direct or purchased.

[tymime]

whoever is Dell's successor

See, that's what I'm wondering. Did everything go to Gold Key? Which pre-'64 properties where renewed, if at all? IS IT ALL A MYSTERY? :O

[boox909]

whoever is Dell's successor

See, that's what I'm wondering. Did everything go to Gold Key? Which pre-'64 properties where renewed, if at all? IS IT ALL A MYSTERY? :O

Have you checked Alter Ego Magazine? I would think that by now they would have delved into these mysteries and sorted things out. Maybe one of our other members has some insight on this.

B.

[Ed Love]

Alter-Ego? Have they done any copyright research at all? After all, every image they print that I've noticed, they just give it a catch-all statement "copyright belongs to copyright owner if applicable". I'm kinda waiting for them to get called on that. If someone owns the copyright and it is researchable, I don't think that kind of statement will necessarily fly.

My own research did not turn up any of Dell's original characters of the 1940 comics getting renewed.

[boox909]

Alter-Ego? Have they done any copyright research at all? After all, every image they print that I've noticed, they just give it a catch-all statement "copyright belongs to copyright owner if applicable". I'm kinda waiting for them to get called on that. If someone owns the copyright and it is researchable, I don't think that kind of statement will necessarily fly.

My own research did not turn up any of Dell's original characters of the 1940 comics getting renewed.

Ed, I was just offering a suggestion  I didn't mean to anger anyone over it  Alter-Ego is a nice magazine and I only meant that perhaps they had done a special on "Dell-Gold Key-Western" and might have things sorted out. It has been a while since I subscribed to the magazine personally. 

B. 

[Ed Love]

No anger. Just that I don't recall anything in the mag that ever  addressed copyrights other than in the most oblique way. They might have done an article that talked about the properties moving to another company, but that's sorta the same as saying that DC bought the Quality and Fawcett characters, ignoring the actual copyright records.

[JVJ]

Yes, Ed,
Alter Ego hasn't the most rigorous scholarship approach, but it often turns up hitherto unearthed facts and connections as a bi-product of its incredible dedication to comics history. Thank Roy Thomas and Jim Amash for getting out there and asking as many questions as possible to the last men (and women) standing and publishing it in a permanent format. One can learn an awful lot by reading all those back issues. A lot of it turns out to be mere window dressing but there are some surprising nuggets, too.

Check out the contents on-line. You might get lucky...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[kquattro]

Alter-Ego? Have they done any copyright research at all? After all, every image they print that I've noticed, they just give it a catch-all statement "copyright belongs to copyright owner if applicable". I'm kinda waiting for them to get called on that. If someone owns the copyright and it is researchable, I don't think that kind of statement will necessarily fly.

I believe ALTER EGO or anyone who uses an image out of context likely falls under the Fair Use factor, "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," listed by the U.S. Copyright Office. I'm certainly not a copyright expert, but I assume that as long as ALTER EGO isn't reprinting full stories or comic books, they have a right to use an image to accompany the text. And not to mention that in many--if not most--cases, the images used in ALTER EGO come from material from which copyrights have expired.

And if you have any concerns about ALTER EGO's use of images, Ed, you may want to direct them to Roy Thomas. He's easily reachable either through his email or snail mail address which are printed in every issue of the magazine. Roy is a wonderful person and the last one to violate someone's copyright purposely.

--Ken Quattro

[Roygbiv666]

Alter-Ego? Have they done any copyright research at all? After all, every image they print that I've noticed, they just give it a catch-all statement "copyright belongs to copyright owner if applicable". I'm kinda waiting for them to get called on that. If someone owns the copyright and it is researchable, I don't think that kind of statement will necessarily fly.

I believe ALTER EGO or anyone who uses an image out of context likely falls under the Fair Use factor, "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," listed by the U.S. Copyright Office. I'm certainly not a copyright expert, but I assume that as long as ALTER EGO isn't reprinting full stories or comic books, they have a right to use an image to accompany the text. And not to mention that in many--if not most--cases, the images used in ALTER EGO come from material from which copyrights have expired.

And if you have any concerns about ALTER EGO's use of images, Ed, you may want to direct them to Roy Thomas. He's easily reachable either through his email or snail mail address which are printed in every issue of the magazine. Roy is a wonderful person and the last one to violate someone's copyright purposely.

--Ken Quattro

Any image they use likely falls under Fair Use: "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship." -- from Wikipedia

They are used in a scholarly article, so ...

[Ed Love]

It's a mass produced "scholarly" article for profit though, and often the images aren't necessary to the purposes of the article other than to pretty up the layout, keep it from being just text. It pushes the "fair use" doctrine a little bit. The main thing I was getting at though,  through their use of a generic catchall disclaimer on the images, it pretty much implies that Thomas and company don't do any real research into the actual ownership of said images or characters. Otherwise, it's a great resource on interviews of the creators and looks into the businesses at the time through people that lived it and can sometimes bring to light little known or forgotten characters.

[narfstar]

In most instances the mag is promoting the creators and their work. Often the interviews are "live" for the purpose of inclusion. Not likely it would be considered by anyone but maybe Marvel or Walt Disney as anything but fair use. Most prolifically used images are PD anyway.