Comic Book Plus Forum
About The Comic Books We Have => Comics Not Allowed => Topic started by: PeterC on January 11, 2009, 01:10:06 PM
-
Hi all
I was just surfing for something completely different and found this slider to see if something is public domain or not (and if not, when the copyright will expire). It's US, so it applies there only, but I thought you all would be interested.
http://librarycopyright.net/digitalslider/
The one I didn't know about was stuff published up to 1977 without a copyright notice... This must be why some movies from the 60's are public domain... I wonder if it applies to many comics?
Peter
-
I think it applies mostly to Chartons that I know of. I found two of my favorite authors books available on Gutenberg. There are som Kurt Vonegut Jr and Alen E. Nourse books available there. My guess is they must not have had a copyright because I do nt think the orignals are that old.
-
Nice link, thanks Peter!
:)
-
What people have turned up as usable on Gutenburg is often fun. Most of H. Beam Piper's works are PD, for instance, just to name on of my personal favorites.
-
If you look down a little further, you can see that a valid copyright notice was actually required until 1989, though from 1978 on you could file an amendment of sorts. And yes, this explains a lot of the poorly-packaged movies you find in the dollar bins around the country.
As for comics, yeah, I can confirm that Charlton had some terribly-formed notices throughout most of the 1960s. Oddly, they did a lot right earlier on, and worked out the bugs around 1967-1968, so I can't imagine which legal eagle decided to "help," there. I'm sure that other companies also did this incorrectly (after all, you couldn't walk two steps without tripping over an independent publisher, back in the '80s, and not many of them had any business sense), but I'm not actually aware of any. Someone with a decent collection of indie books (and the underground books for the decade or so before that) might find it interesting to check, though.
Oh, and the Gutenberg materials are almost always based on renewals--I think the administrators find it easier than worrying about the original copyright and whether it was corrected during the limited window. Usually (especially for the science fiction works), there's a note at the beginning or end of the text that explains where the story was found and that the copyright on that work wasn't renewed. For example, Nourse's "Image of the Gods" has the following: "This etext was produced from The Counterfeit Man More Science Fiction Stories by Alan E. Nourse published in 1963. Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the U.S. copyright on this publication was renewed."
And I have to back up Eric. Piper's work is fantastic, especially if you enjoy comic books, and it's a real shame that he ended his life.
-
I invite everyone to try Nouse's work. He is in the juvenile fiction section and I started reading his books from the school library in seventh grade. Raiders From the Rings, Star Surgeon and Trouble on Titan are great reads. Juvenile section does not mean just for kids but fun for all ages without sex or foul language. I wish some modern writers could learn that lesson.
-
You'd be surprised how many works had incorrect copyright notices! :)
There's also that other bug-a-boo - works with proper noticed but not properly registered! :)
-
By the way, I know this site has restrictions against posting Marvel or DC scans, but a lot of their early stuff has fallen into Public Domain because the stories were never renewed for a second 28 year term.
So, for example, a story published in 1940, but never renewed would fall into PD even though the character is protected by Trademark.
Their main characters probably have most, if not all, their early stories still protected, but stuff like "Vigilante" or "Zatara" are very likely in the PD. That's why they can appear on Internet Archive without an issue.
DC typically renewed their copyrights simply by reprinting the stories, which automatically renewed them from what I understand, but a lot of those C and D-list characters didn't have a ton of reprints, and I would doubt that DC would spend the money on physically filing renewal forms for each and every comic and each and every story in those comics.
I know that this site concentrates on full issues only, but I would guess that a lot of DC titles such as the funny animal stuff that was never reprinted would have fallen into the Public Domain.
So my question is, if it can be proven that a specific DC or Marvel title is in fact in the PD, would it be ok to post it or is there a strict policy against DC and Marvel stuff even if they ARE in the PD?
-
So my question is, if it can be proven that a specific DC or Marvel title is in fact in the PD, would it be ok to post it or is there a strict policy against DC and Marvel stuff even if they ARE in the PD?
I would not even flirt with the issue. It simply is not worth risking the loss of the site, imho.
B.
-
I agree with you boox. With the thousands of books here, I don't miss the few we could potentially host. No need for the risk.
-
I think it better to avoid DC. There have been specific books we have found that are PD but not worth the risk.
-
I haven't done a lot of investigating into DC's books after they were acquired from The Major, but Action Comics alone has renewals starting with issue 1 to 127, which is as far as I care to look right now. Since the renewals cover everything between the covers, I don't see how anyone can argue that the Vigilante stories are PD when the issues they appeared in have valid renewals.
On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the two books produced by The Major are PD. I haven't found evidence of the original Copyrights for issues I've looked for, and haven't come across any renewals for New/More Fun Comics 1-32 & New Adventure Comics 1-27.
-
On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the two books produced by The Major are PD. I haven't found evidence of the original Copyrights for issues I've looked for, and haven't come across any renewals for New/More Fun Comics 1-32 & New Adventure Comics 1-27.
This is something worth looking into. Would be nice to see some of this material here.
Has DC even renewed the trademark for MORE FUN COMICS?
-
On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the two books produced by The Major are PD. I haven't found evidence of the original Copyrights for issues I've looked for, and haven't come across any renewals for New/More Fun Comics 1-32 & New Adventure Comics 1-27.
This is something worth looking into. Would be nice to see some of this material here.
Has DC even renewed the trademark for MORE FUN COMICS?
Ya'll can look into it, but you'll never see it on GAC! ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D
-
Ya'll can look into it, but you'll never see it on GAC! ::) ;D ::) ;D ::) ;D
I can see concern if DC has an active trademark on the "Adventure" title/logo - but if those NEW/MORE FUN issues in whole - including content are not copyrighted/trademarked,then it should be allowed. But I think that we'd have to be 100% Certain before posting any of the material. Can we even find the material! :)
-
I don't think we should even try. There quite a few books here in every sort of genre so missing a few is no problem. Let's explore a scenario wherein we host an old DC that is believed to be PD. Some big wig there finds out and decides he needs to protect their interest. Even if we're 100% correct they can tie this place up in litigation while they work it out. My credo is "If it 'aint broke, don't fix it."
-
I, know it's probably a very arduous and time consuming task... but how does one determine if a comic is in the public Domain???
-
On one hand it's very simple. With golden-age books, you simply add 27/28 to the year it was published and then check to see if it was renewed.
However, for books that had to be renewed before the 1970s, the only place that the research can really be done is at the Library of Congress in Washington DC. And, the listing for the title in question may be filed under the publisher's name, not the title. And, publishers, especially ones from the 1940s liked to file copyrights under a bunch of different names. Even Marvel did this in the 1960s. Their Daredevil comic is not copyrighted by Marvel. Most of the times there is a card telling you where to check when you look under the title name, but not always. Sometimes you can get a clue by checking the original copyright registration to see what name it was filed under. So, the truth can be that you or whoever did the proper research and could not find any notice of renewal and thus you are operating in good faith. But, it could simply be you just didn't know where to look.
-
Actually there are on-line scans and data files for the catalog of copyright entry so one does not need to go to washington for the information of the pre-1977 information and renuals.
-
Question is, are they the complete catalog or are they second-hand research? One site that I check lists titles and the date and issue of their first renewal as well as having links to scanned entries. I've not checked them to see just how complete they are though. And, while I've not found any errors in their information, it's still relying a bit on someone else's research. If you really want to be sure and when talking about something that would fall under a company like DC who has a long history of going after the mere appearance of stepping on their copyrights they may or may not truly own, it is best to be prepared. Most of the online sources are a good place to start and get an idea. But to really be sure, nothing beats doing the research at the source.
Concerning trademarks, nothing on this site would actually violate any trademark law. If a Superman comic was public domain, it can be reprinted and distributed without violating trademark law. It's only if it was used to create a new cover, a new logo or advertising that it would start infringing on the trademarks, such as I wouldn't use a scan of the cover in a montage of books to advertise the site.
-
Question is, are they the complete catalog or are they second-hand research? One site that I check lists titles and the date and issue of their first renewal as well as having links to scanned entries. I've not checked them to see just how complete they are though. And, while I've not found any errors in their information, it's still relying a bit on someone else's research. If you really want to be sure and when talking about something that would fall under a company like DC who has a long history of going after the mere appearance of stepping on their copyrights they may or may not truly own, it is best to be prepared. Most of the online sources are a good place to start and get an idea. But to really be sure, nothing beats doing the research at the source.
Concerning trademarks, nothing on this site would actually violate any trademark law. If a Superman comic was public domain, it can be reprinted and distributed without violating trademark law. It's only if it was used to create a new cover, a new logo or advertising that it would start infringing on the trademarks, such as I wouldn't use a scan of the cover in a montage of books to advertise the site.
There are sites that have scanned the actual volumes and posted pdfs of them. Other sites have text files created from the entries. So the scanned volumes would be the best to go with.
-
The term "volumes" would give me pause. For the most part, it's a card catalog and it takes up a couple of rooms. We're talking about easily well over a hundred thousand cards. AND, there are some bound volumes as well, which contain information regarding sales and transfers if said information is not recorded in the card catalog. Which is where I looked for a transferal of copyrights to DC from Quality as said information didn't show up in the card catalog itself (although Gaines selling his part of the company to DC was as well as Quality transferring rights to Columbia in order to make the Blackhawk serial). That's why I'm a little cautious at saying the online scans are completely exhaustive. I'd start my search with them though.
Another little warning, I don't know how the scanned pages are, but the LoC catalog had a very inconsistent alphabetizing system giving you something along the lines of:
* Air, Ralph
* Airboy
* Air Fighters
* Air filters
* Airboy
* Airconditioning
* Air Fighters
-
You seem pretty knowledgeable in this area Ed. Any idea if Dell renewed anything?
-
The term "volumes" would give me pause. For the most part, it's a card catalog and it takes up a couple of rooms.
The "Catalog of Copyright Entries" volumes are supposed to mirror the information in the card catalog.
-
So I guess the pre-DC issues of NEW FUN/MORE FUN/NEW ADVENTURE won't be hosted here?
Or is this still up for debate?
-
Not hosted at this time. May change in the future if Janus decides he is willing to take the risk because the law is on our side.
-
As far as I could tell, Dell did not renew their GA comics (I didn't look for any of their post 1940s books). They copyrighted the original material in their books under the name of R.S. Callender and the card catalogs reflected that the strip reprints were owned by their respective parties. But, at the time of renewal, I could not find any notice that Dell, R. S. Callender or by looking under the title name that their original features were renewed though one could find that at least some of the strips that were reprinted were renewed by their owners.
-
We do carry most Dell. The exceptions are generally noted. Roy Rogers,Lone Ranger and some others.
-
Since Space Family predates Lost it might be available. Again I read somewhere that Dell claims no record of comic books. Does anyone know how Turok, Magnus and Doc Solar (as well as the Harbinger name not great character) were obtained. Did they obtain copyright or just Trademark? Did Carbono actually have copyright or just trademark? I believe the law is/was that copyright could be restored from public domain if the material had never been published in public domain. Anyone have contact will Dell or Jim Shooter or Dark Horse who published the Magnus and Herbie archives to see what rights they have and how they got them? This would be something well worth pursueing as it could open up a host of opportunities
-
Since Space Family predates Lost it might be available. Again I read somewhere that Dell claims no record of comic books. Does anyone know how Turok, Magnus and Doc Solar (as well as the Harbinger name not great character) were obtained.
As I understand it, Western Publishing provided content for Dell Comics, which included Turok. "Turok, Son of Stone # 596" (the first appearance) is Copyrighted to Western, not Dell. When Western started-up Gold Key, Western simply took Turok as their own property and produced the title. Doctor Solar & Magnus Robot Fighter were, as far as I know, never Dell properties.
Anyone have contact will Dell or Jim Shooter or Dark Horse who published the Magnus and Herbie archives to see what rights they have and how they got them?
Again, from what I understand, the deal between Jim Shooter's Voyager Communications (aka "Valiant Comics") & Western Publishing was a "lifetime agreement" that included the option for Western to shop their properties around to other companies (video games, etc), but Valiant had final say on any deals. Western was also allowed to license characters that Valiant had no plans for, such a Mighty Samson and Tiger Girl. This deal was unaffected by Acclaim's aquisition of Valiant. When Acclaim went belly-up, the rights to the characters reverted back to Random House (which acquired Western's properties in 2001). Random House then licensed the Gold Key heroes to Dark Horse in 2007. My guess is that the deal not only included the rights to reprint the original Gold Key stories, but the option to create new stories as well. I believe that I read somewhere that Dark Horse was interested in producing new material from the beginning of their deal, but they were not in any rush to get started on anything at the time.
-
And, all those properties would have been automatically renewed. So, any copyright question is basically one of were they properly copyrighted to start with.
I would love to see a more standard and true return of Solar, Man of the Atom. Shooter's Woody Allen-as-God-as-a-superhero aka Dr. Solar grew stale pretty quickly for me. I would love to see the character treated a bit more like Captain Atom with some honest-to-gosh supervillains.
Maybe someone could dust off Nukla...
-
Thanks for the info. So GK characters and stories will not in any way be pd as Random house owns the rights and they came after 1962. Does anyone know the story of Dell claiming they have no record of their comic book production. Yes I would like to put Nukla and Brain Boy here as well as Neutro, Naza, Toka, Kona and the Fab 4.
-
Woo hoo! Fab 4! Love those lame comics. So enduring. I'm also finding myself getting interested in all this history of comic book production with Dell, Western, etc. There's so much I don't know about it. Never thought about all the background work.
-
I've heard conflicting reports about the status of Quality's Blackhawk run. Some folks say that many of the 50's comics had their copyrights renewed. Is this true, and if so, have these expired as well?
-
Thanks for the info. So GK characters and stories will not in any way be pd as Random house owns the rights and they came after 1962.
The magic number for automatic renewals is "1964". Comics produced in 1963 or earlier still needed renewals filed, so it's possible that something may have been missed & a renewal wasn't filed for whatever Gold Key Comics produced from 1962 to 1963. My search of the Copyright Office's online site turned-up no renewal for Turok's first (Dell) appearance.
I've heard conflicting reports about the status of Quality's Blackhawk run. Some folks say that many of the 50's comics had their copyrights renewed. Is this true, and if so, have these expired as well?
Copyright Renewals don't "expire" until the full Copyright term is over (95 years or Life+70 years for individual creators).
-
That's true NOW, but not in the 1950's, and doesn't answer the original question. Were such renewals make by Comic Magazines Inc? I've been told that 47 Blackhawk books ranging from 1951-1955 were renewed.
-
I am a huge fan of lame comics. My not so normal personality lead me to be a fan of things not Marvel or DC.
I loved Archie's Ultra heroes although Reinman's are was had to take. His GA stuff looked good but his Archie stuff was horrible. I loved the Dell monster heroes and thought the Fab 4 to be fabulous. I loved Nukla but did not like Brain Boy as a kid but do now. Shows how important marketability is. BB did not wear a costume although he was "super" so as a kid I was not interested. Ted Kord was not super but wore a costume so more attractive for a ten year olds twelve cents.
-
Y'know, even as a child, Magnus' costume set off my gaydar? Long, long before the term existed :)
-
Y'know, even as a child, Magnus' costume set off my gaydar? Long, long before the term existed :)
Anyone remember the fuss that erupted when Northstar came out as gay? Marvel may have been gratuitous in the process, but it served to set the marker and represent a segment of the comics reading public.
Wildstorm's (DC) Midnighter is one of my favorite characters who rips 'gay stereotypes' to shreds. Seriously, if you want in your face super-hero'n check out the run of his series.
B.
-
Thanks for the info. So GK characters and stories will not in any way be pd as Random house owns the rights and they came after 1962.
The magic number for automatic renewals is "1964". Comics produced in 1963 or earlier still needed renewals filed, so it's possible that something may have been missed & a renewal wasn't filed for whatever Gold Key Comics produced from 1962 to 1963. My search of the Copyright Office's online site turned-up no renewal for Turok's first (Dell) appearance.
I've heard conflicting reports about the status of Quality's Blackhawk run. Some folks say that many of the 50's comics had their copyrights renewed. Is this true, and if so, have these expired as well?
Copyright Renewals don't "expire" until the full Copyright term is over (95 years or Life+70 years for individual creators).
I wasn't sure when the Dell stuff came out. I thought they would have been a bit more of the late 60s.
Many of the 50s Quality stuff was indeed renewed. Some of it by DC and some by Arnold's widow. According to my research, the 1950s Blackhawk titles up to 1956 when the title was sold to DC were renewed by Clare Arnold. At the time of the sale, there was no record of transfer of copyright, but if DC was smart, they would have rectified that by now and secured the 1950 copyrights to the Blackhawks and Plastic Man. Otherwise, they still rest with either Clare Arnold or her heirs. Nothing DC can do with the earlier titles other than try to lock down the trademarks. As they do very little with those characters and have changed many of them wholesale, it would be fairly easy to get around the trademark issue.
-
"Extra
-
According to my research, the 1950s Blackhawk titles up to 1956 when the title was sold to DC were renewed by Clare Arnold.
So how come these comics are here?
-
According to my research, the 1950s Blackhawk titles up to 1956 when the title was sold to DC were renewed by Clare Arnold.
So how come these comics are here?
Fair use?
-
All files here available for download have carefully been research by our users and staff to make sure they are in the public domain.
True or not?
-
Madame Fatal was rectconned? Must have happen in the Uncle Sam series? I didn't follow those -- its hard to keep up on the retcons these days.
I thought the only times DC has actually used Madam Fatal was in the Golden Age mini-series in a one-panel appearance where he's getting hit-on by two other clueless heroes. Then there's the passing reference in JSA 1, but unless there's some other appearance I missed (which is likely), I don't think DC has ever done anything specific with the character.
-
Madame Fatal was rectconned? Must have happen in the Uncle Sam series? I didn't follow those -- its hard to keep up on the retcons these days.
I thought the only times DC has actually used Madam Fatal was in the Golden Age mini-series in a one-panel appearance where he's getting hit-on by two other clueless heroes. Then there's the passing reference in JSA 1, but unless there's some other appearance I missed (which is likely), I don't think DC has ever done anything specific with the character.
Somehow, I think we've stumbled onto potential contest material. ;D I wish I had my run of Golden Age with me so I could look at that panel. Maybe Sky is referring to a book in which Madame Fatal was retconned that non of the rest of us geeks have come across. Uncle Sam was my shot in the wind since I had never actually followed the 1st series.
Sky? Clarification? Snickers bars?
-
Good old Wikipedia.
Granted, Madam Fatal was a crossdressing crimefighter, but I haven't seen or read anything to imply he was a homosexual. The two traits do not always go hand-in-hand.
-
All files here available for download have carefully been research by our users and staff to make sure they are in the public domain.
True or not?
I guess we'll have to get rid of all Blackhawk comics here then...
-
Actually, only numbers:
39, Apr. 1951.
40, May 1951.
41, June 1951.
42, July 1951.
43, Aug. 1951.
44, Oct. 1951.
45, Oct. 1951.
46, Nov. 1951.
47, Dec. 1951.
48, Jan. 1952.
49, Feb. 1952.
50, Mar. 1952.
52, May 1952.
53, June 1952.
54, July 1952.
55, Aug. 1952.
57, Oct. 1952.
58, Nov. 1952.
59, Dec. 1952.
60, Jan. 1953.
61, Feb. 1953.
62, Mar. 1953.
63, Apr. 1953.
64, May 1953.
65, June 1953.
66, July 1953.
67, Aug. 1953.
68, Sept. 1953.
69, Oct. 1953.
70, Nov. 1953.
71, Dec. 1953.
72, Jan. 1954.
73, Feb. 1954.
74, Mar. 1954.
75, Apr. 1954.
76, May 1954.
77, June 1954.
78, July 1954.
79, Aug. 1954.
80, Sept. 1954.
81, Oct. 1954.
82, Nov. 1954.
83, Dec. 1954.
That were renewed by Arnold's widow, and
84, Jan. 1955.
85, Feb. 1955.
86, Mar. 1955.
87, Apr. 1955.
88, May 1955.
89, June 1955.
90, July 1955.
91, Aug. 1955.
92, Sept. 1955.
93, Oct. 1955.
94, Nov. 1955.
95, Dec. 1955.
96, Jan. 1956.
97, Feb. 1956.
98, Mar. 1956.
99, Apr. 1956.
100, May 1956.
101, June 1956.
102, July 1956.
103, Aug. 1956.
104, Sept. 1956.
That were renewed by DC.
That's all.
-
Strange DC didn't register 105,106 and 107. :)
Also notice a few issue numbers were skipped by Arnold's widow,too.
-
Scattered within a series is usually not going to be a problem. It would not be worthwhile for DC to complain about the issues we have onsite that were renewed among those that were not and freely available. Yes they could but not likely. And DC has been very unconcerned about known bootleg sites of their new books so the old ones should not present a problem. Final decision is up to Janus
-
New Adventures of Pinocchio published by Dell copyright 1962 by videocraft internation ltd. was this renewed?
-
All I found was renewals for the 130 "New Adventures of Pinocchio" cartoons, but nothing online for the comics.
-
New Adventures of Pinocchio published by Dell copyright 1962 by videocraft internation ltd. was this renewed?
That was the comic based on Rankin/Bass's first "Stop-Motion" TV Series :)
-
Scattered within a series is usually not going to be a problem. It would not be worthwhile for DC to complain about the issues we have onsite that were renewed among those that were not and freely available. Yes they could but not likely. And DC has been very unconcerned about known bootleg sites of their new books so the old ones should not present a problem. Final decision is up to Janus
If there might be issues with the issues (Atleast with the ones DC Renewed),then they shuld be taken down. I'd hate to see stuff removed, but better to be safe than sorry.
On the flip side, this ads to my argument that pre-DC issues of New Comics/More Fun/New Adventures
(and the annuals) that are not under copyright should be hosted (Provided scans can be found!)
-
Regarding Blackhawk: Were the Copyrights owned by Mrs Arnold transferred to DC (there should be a record of this somewhere, if not online, then at least on-file at the Copyright Office)? If not, did Busy & Clare have any children? If the answer to both is "No", then the books could be considered "Orphaned Works" as there wouldn't be any living Copyright Holders.
-
All I found was renewals for the 130 "New Adventures of Pinocchio" cartoons, but nothing online for the comics.
Looking forward to seeing this.
Loved the TV Shows - used to see the reruns on Canadian TV when I lived in Buffalo as a kid in the mid-1970's
-
did Busy & Clare (sic) have any children?
Good point about the orphaned works. I've been mining the Blackhawks for images to use in a project of mine, but fortunately I started at the beginning of the series, and the few images from the copyrighted works are bits and pieces rather than entire adventures, so I can probably cry "fair use" if anyone bitchs about it. Y'all had me worried I'd just threw away 3 months of photoshopping!
Another point is that Cash Gorman's research found NO record of copyright transfers from Quality to DC, so their renewals may not be valid anyway. Maybe that's why nobody's complaining about all these "copyrighted" works being here: if Busy & Claire had no issue, and the DC copyrights are invalid, they ARE orphaned or PD!
A case could also be made that since nobody has sent a C&D letter to GAC, they haven't defended (and therefore abandoned) their copyright, but from what I've read you'd better have an EXCELLENT lawyer to go that route!
Let's not go into all the "Doll Man" and "Plastic Man" issues that were renewed, even though they're here, too :)
-
copyright does not have to be defended but trademark does
-
...Let's not go into all the "Doll Man" and "Plastic Man" issues that were renewed, even though they're here, too :)
Leave that up to the administrators to worry about, I'm sure if there is a need to address it, they will. - anything that might have slipped through is clearly "Fair use" as this is an educational site when you get right down to it.
-
Regarding Blackhawk: Were the Copyrights owned by Mrs Arnold transferred to DC (there should be a record of this somewhere, if not online, then at least on-file at the Copyright Office)?
Just want to amend this statement. After reading a little more, it looks as if all DC would have to do is prove that they are the legal Copyright Owners. From what I understand, it isn't mandatory that this "proof" be recorded at the Copyright Office (especially for the issues that were renewed by Clare Arnold), only that a legal document exists that proclaims that Clare Arnold passed ownership over to DC at some point.
To clear something up real quick: An "Orphaned Work" is not the same thing as "Public Domain". In the case of Orphaned Works, it has to be shown that an attempt has been made to determine & contact the legal Copyright Owners before reproducing the work in any format. As far as this site is concerned, my opinion is that Orphaned Works have a place here, as there would be no legal owners of the books who would be able to reproduce the material for the mass market.
From what I've read, it looks as if there's a limited amount of time DC has to take action (I assume from the date the files were created) IF they were the legal Copyright owners. DC would not be "abandoning" the Copyright, IF they are the legal owners, based solely on the fact that they have not taken any type of action against GAC, but after that period of time has passed, they would be unable to start a "Criminal Proceedings" or "Civil Action".
-
Hi all
I was just surfing for something completely different and found this slider to see if something is public domain or not (and if not, when the copyright will expire). It's US, so it applies there only, but I thought you all would be interested.
http://librarycopyright.net/digitalslider/
The one I didn't know about was stuff published up to 1977 without a copyright notice... This must be why some movies from the 60's are public domain... I wonder if it applies to many comics?
Peter
I've read that while the film "Night of the Living Dead" has some copyright protection, copies of the film made from early prints don't violate copyright because due to an oversight a number prints were delivered to theatres without a copyright notification in the credits. Later prints have the notification and any copy made from those prints would violate copyright law.
-
What exactly constitutes a legal copyright notice? Charlton used the phrase International copyright secured. That is not enough. If it includes the date is that enough? If it says International copyright secured 19xx and included Charlton Comics Group is that valid?
-
What exactly constitutes a legal copyright notice? Charlton used the phrase International copyright secured. That is not enough. If it includes the date is that enough? If it says International copyright secured 19xx and included Charlton Comics Group is that valid?
Not sure, as it would probably vary by date, as copyright laws change.
From the Public Domain Super Heroes site article on the THUNDER Agents:
http://pdsh.wikia.com/wiki/T.H.U.N.D.E.R._Agents
Tower Comics never registered its titles with the US copyright office, nor did it include a correct copyright notice on their books. The copyright notice on the first issue was not in the proper location of the book which under copyright law at the time of it's publication had to be "either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading." Secondly, it was hidden in the artwork, which goes against the part of the law that stipulates that "The notice should be permanently legible to an ordinary user of the work under normal conditions of use and should not be concealed from view upon reasonable examination." According to US copyright law, all works published between 1923-1977 that did not comply with copyright law became public domain upon publication. So, because the first issue had an incorrect notice, the characters fell into the public domain.
Does that help?
-
The fact that some judge ruled that Carbonno could pull the Thunder Agents out of pd and get the rights to them does not make things easy. My question really concerns the wording of the copyright statement that makes it legal or not. Mainly concerning Charltons. Doubtful there would be any problems as their value has not proven worth fighting for. Last reprints of Charlton and ACG did not seem to be very profitable.
-
The fact that some judge ruled that Carbonno could pull the Thunder Agents out of pd and get the rights to them does not make things easy. My question really concerns the wording of the copyright statement that makes it legal or not. Mainly concerning Charltons. Doubtful there would be any problems as their value has not proven worth fighting for. Last reprints of Charlton and ACG did not seem to be very profitable.
Well, my post was to basically give some general info about the copyright laws at the time the Charltons would have been produced, assuming you mean Silver Age ones, as well as the idea that you would have to know the law at the time the comics were produced. Not sure what the answer is.
Doesn't anyone on this site have some intellectual rights lawyer friends ;-)
-
"With the thousands of books here, I don't miss the few we could potentially host."
No kidding. You could spend YEARS here, reading stuff every day, and never run out of new things to find and enjoy!
-
New Adventures of Pinocchio published by Dell copyright 1962 by videocraft internation ltd. was this renewed?
Hi
Any information about that? Renewed or not? Public domain?
Thank you
-
It does not show up here https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog?exhibit_id=copyrightrenewals&search_field=search&q=New+Adventures+of+Pinocchio