[John C]

Speaking of befores-and-afters, while I do understand that you want the highest quality results for the archive packages, keep in mind that some might consider that extra work to be sufficiently creative to deserve its own copyright; it does change the original work as published substantially, after all, even if it's just to make it "what it was supposed to be."  That's as opposed to cover or page restoration, which I know is also painstaking and impressive work, but not, by legal precedent, creative.

Since you want the resulting book to be circulated, whoever does the work may wish to consider formally releasing the results into the public domain so that nobody feels they're stealing from you if they decide to post on a webpage--like here--or print in a book, if the "before pictures" aren't released.

[Yoc]

Hmm, something to consider I guess.  I'm the one doing all the work so far and I have zero desire to 'own' the scans.  They are to be shared where they may go.  This is all being done strictly because I respect Matt Baker's artwork and the Phantom Lady character enough to feel it's worth the effort.  It's a shame Fox didn't feel the same way about the book all those years ago.

-Yoc

[JonTheScanner]

The notion of recopyrighting this seems strange.  How do we know that some of the print run wasn't printed correctly (excluding Charlton of course :-).  Now you'd have two potential  scans that were virtually identical and one had a new copyright.

[John C]

In principle, I agree.  But if updating the choice of words in a text or typesetting qualifies as creative input in the literary world, then this seems like it'd constitute a new copyright, too, even if it's only following the original intent and mimicking something that may, in fact, already exist.  I mean, how different is this (in concept, if not execution and results) from Marvel hiring ghost-pencillers to recreate panels for the archives?

Err...That's meant as a compliment.

I mean, I know that Yoc isn't going to snap and unleash his monkey minions (simianions?) on the United States if someone fails to assert a copyright he doesn't really think he should own.  But I figure there's no harm in raising the issue, just to make sure everything's done cleanly.

[Yoc]

This is an interesting topic deserving of it's own topic.
Heck it does already sort of exist in these links:
http://goldenagecomics.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,345.0.html
http://goldenagecomics.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,446.0.html

If we'd like to continue the copyright topic I can split this off into one of those.

I'm still hoping someone super smart out there has created a Photoshop plugin for just this off registration problem!

-Yoc

[cimmerian32]

Damn, man, my apologies...  I misunderstood the question.  I thought the colours were just off, not off-SET...  again, my apologies, and unfortunately, the only recommendation I could make would be to make the entire image grayscale, and recolour, if you are intent on having it look "right"...  but, in all reality, this would not be the kind of defect that I would even attempt to fix...  As it is, is how it was printed, and it is not THAT ugly...

[JonTheScanner]

In principle, I agree.  But if updating the choice of words in a text or typesetting qualifies as creative input in the literary world, then this seems like it'd constitute a new copyright, too, even if it's only following the original intent and mimicking something that may, in fact, already exist.  I mean, how different is this (in concept, if not execution and results) from Marvel hiring ghost-pencillers to recreate panels for the archives?

I'll make an other analogy.  They've been restoring the Sistine Chapel.  Should it be copyrightable?

[John C]

I'll make an other analogy.  They've been restoring the Sistine Chapel.  Should it be copyrightable?

Actually, most museums do assert what I'll call "not-quite-copyright" because I don't know the real name.  But they own the only existing piece, so they actually do control who can copy something and for what purpose.  I assume it's like the likeness rule for faces; France and Egypt were looking at something similar for their major monuments not too long ago.  (Also, Benedict shocked the publishing world a couple years back by asserting papal copyright on all speeches over the last fifty years, so you actually never know how the Vatican will go on these things.)

The artists are also not trying to adjust the existing structure of the painting to Michelangelo's probable intent.  They're just putting things back where they physically once were.  That's more like fixing a tear in a page, which would have nothing to do with the copyright.

But as I said, I'm not thinking in terms of "should," because I think that we all agree that the original copyright SHOULD cover what was intended to be printed, not the artifact that arose accidentally.  However, the courts seem to agree that this is enough to qualify as a new work, which is why Serj and Aussie don't allow reprints unless they're actual copies of the original pages.

Now, I'm not agitating for a rigorous licensing system.  I hate people like that, and you have permission to slap me if I become one.  But I figured I'd float the idea now, rather than get bitten by it later if someone else tries to pull a fast one or starts insisting that reprints should be OK.  Especially since the added work is a public statement to the general effect that "any added value from restoration is hereby placed in the public domain."

[narfstar]

Pure Imagination "secretly" changes something so they can tell if their reprints have been reprinted. There was a statement on their Alex Toth book to that affect. Since IW did not put proper copyright on their reprints and apparently reprinted without alteration they should all be OK except their Marvel and EC.

[John C]

Right.  IW used the original plates without changes (and didn't file for copyright, anyway, because Waldman didn't feel it'd be worth the money).  Likewise, the companies that put out microfiche merely took pictures of existing books.  Neither of those qualify for copyright except as it applies to the source material.

The Pure Imagination thing sounds interesting.  I'll have to investigate that to see what details are available.

[narfstar]

Greg Theakston is a member of the GCD and I can give you his email if you would like to ask him. I got a free copy of the Toth book for supplying scans. I am not sure what was changed but the notice is on the book. Lots of great Toth art and information if you wish to order a copy.

[JonTheScanner]

What most museums do is prevent you from photographing, copying, etc.  They do this not by asserting copyright, but by asserting ownership of the physical item.  Just like JVJ could have said "No you can't scan *my* comics."  But he said just the opposite.

[Yoc]

I've split this topic off onto it's own from my poor old and lonely 'colour registration' request.

[John C]

Let me clarify.  There is no such thing as "recopyrighting," as such.  What exists is the idea of adding enough work to an existing project to qualify for a new copyright.  So it's unrelated to physical posession and the scanner, who are (while extremely generous and hard-working in their own rights) not adding anything that courts might view as creative.

But shifting elements around in the picture (which is what fixing the color registration needs to involve) sounds like it might qualify, just like it would if you (please nobody do this...) replaced Phantom Lady with Abraham Lincoln in every panel.

(Oh, and yes, if you have the e-mail address handy, Jim, I'm very interested in seeing anti-piracy measures that might actually work.)

[JonTheScanner]

It would seem strange (though this is the law we're talking about not logic) that a small change purposely put in to be small enough not to detract from the original or, presumably, even be noticed by the casual observer and solely for the purpose of preventing further copying would be considered sufficient to actually enable a new copyright.

[John C]

Yeah, I'm not convinced that it'd be as applicable to public domain material beyond tracking, but it's a field I've been thinking of looking into for the more general case, and if someone has solved the hard problems already, I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel.

[prady_sp]

Useful infos. thanks friends.