[Perseus]

Some time ago I uploaded some Spirits to the ftp. Scanners are unknown.

[narfstar]

Great. Thanks a lot for these. My mod log in does not work from this computer so hopefully someone will post them soon.

[narfstar]

The Spirits are now availablethanks to Perseus

[Yoc]

Hold on now.  Are these PD?
JC, can you confirm these?

-Yoc the worried

[darkmark]

Doubt it.  The Spirit has always been the property of Will Eisner and now his heirs.

[narfstar]

We had some Spirits and the category so I thought they must have been approved for posting

[Yoc]

And I guess Aussie set up the folder with the following:
"As far as we know the golden age Spirit is public domain. Please make sure that any material uploaded is the original and not a later copy protected reprint."

So I'm unsure on this one.  We've also been posting Police Comics with lots of Spirit stories.

-Yoc

[John C]

I don't see any renewals, which is what matters.  Eisner's estate surely owns the Spirit trademark, but that's like DC "owning" Black Condor or Bulletman.

As I mentioned (in private), though, I'm assuming that the comic was registered with the Copyright Office as "The Spirit" and that it wasn't registered as a bound book each year or something like that.  I know it has always been possible to do such things, but very few companies bother.  And a spot-check doesn't turn up anything renewed by any Eisners in 1970, when a 1942 copyright would come up.

If anybody has more precise information about the copyrights, by all means speak up.  Without specific years and sometimes the names of people involved, there's obviously some risk that I'm wrong.  Can anybody, for example, point to a Quality or Eisner renewal that can be used as a model to find others?

[Yoc]

A search for Eisners name should have done it no?  He was very specific from day one about retaining control of the character.  He'd have Never signed the rights in any form over to someone.

With Aussie starting the folder and addressing the issue there and JC not finding anything I guess we can leave the section up for now until more information is found one way or the other.

-Yoc

[John C]

A search for Eisners name should have done it no?

I'll take your word for it, but I'm not at all familiar with how Eisner managed his career.

Here's what I do know:

- Ockerbloom's "first renewal" index doesn't show a Spirit anywhere, which is a good first pass.
- Quality published the book from 1944-1950.
- If renewals exist, they'd be in the years 1972-1978.  There are no periodical renewals listed (which is why Ockerbloom didn't find'em, I bet--I've yet to find a case where he's wrong, but I'm too paranoid to just take his word for it).
- There's also no Eisner-owned book renewals for 1972 or the first half of 1973; going past this is nightmarish, because the Copyright Office stops sorting by author and instead lists by renewal number--ugh!  Please don't make me go back in there!
- Since the same names are involved and the years overlap, the results should be just as true about the newspaper-syndicated strip (1940-1952), if that's important to anybody here.

There are some post-1960 copyrights (from the much-easier online database) filed by Eisner on what should be NEW Spirit material.  Those would still be in effect.  Also, as I had guessed before, the Eisner Trust (trustee Ann Eisner, specifically) hold the trademark as it relates to periodical comic strips, kept up since January of 1940, if I'm reading this correctly.  So that would prevent anyone from publishing the stories in competition with DC.  But, unless the registrations and renewals are somehow "hidden," they stories themselves are in the public domain.

[OtherEric]

The Quality books were NOT the first appearances of the stories; they showed up in the "Spirit sections".  And while that's the name collectors know them by, it's entirely possible they were 'officially' named something else.  I really don't know.  The Spirit Sections started in 1940, so renewals could be as early as 1968.  The early stories were not originally copyright by Eisner, he did regain his copyright sometime after the war and before the end of the series.

This probably needs closer investigation.

[John C]

It might, but then again, the laws are relatively clear, which should limit the possibilities.  Keep in mind, though, that I'm doing this off the top of my head.  Nobody should take this as definitive and I'd ask anybody who's remotely interested to follow my logic and steps to make sure I haven't missed anything.

First, I'm making the perhaps naive assumption that these "Spirit sections" need their own copyrights.  I admit that it's possible that it was copyrighted along with every paper that ran it, but that can't be the law since that would make it impossible to determine ownership.

Second, heading over to the GCD, we can look at "covers" for the newspaper inserts.  Selecting a few arbitrarily, I see a couple of things.  The title absolutely must be "The Spirit," because it's the only title indicated.  Various "issues" do not carry a copyright notice at all, meaning that they were never protected--if it's stuffed inside, then it's not a valid notice.  Those that do carry a copyright notice are credited to Everett Arnold.  (I verified this as well with a scan I somehow have of one full insert--in that case, the notice is on the banner and names Arnold; that also confirms that there's no internal indicia.  Hats off to Cimmerian for spreading that widely enough that even I have a copy without even knowing.)

Third, this should be a periodical, so I default back to my prior CCE check.  The name of the series must be "The Spirit," and there aren't any listed.

Fourth, just in case, we spot-check a few years in books.  I already did this with Eisner's name, since he probably would've been the person renewing the copyright, but checking a few years under Arnold's name can't hurt.  And while I see stuff renewed from guys named Arnold as I check, none is "Busy."

Hopefully, if I've missed anything, someone will speak up, but I'm pretty sure that this covers all the possibilities.  Unless Arnold and/or Eisner did something horrifyingly shady with regard to registrations or the Copyright Office systematically didn't bother to record their renewals, I'd have to say that this material is public domain across the board.

The only remaining tool I can think of would be to drop the Eisner estate a line, but my experience is that lawyers like to claim that the estate owns all and then remain bizarrely silent when there's no actual ownership.  In other words, they'll tell you when there's money to take, but never confirm public domain status.

(Normally, I'd also suggest that the paranoid hire a copyright researcher in Washington to physically check the records, but that would imply--as I suggest above--an oversight consistently lasting through twelve years.  While it's possible that ONE renewal slipped through the cracks, or even a season's worth, it's impossible that hundreds spread out over years would.)

[JonTheScanner]

What do the Archives indicate?  Do they give an original copyright date and or a renewal date?

[Perseus]

Just added an edited version of narfstar's Marmaduke Monk 014 (no ibc, bc) to the ftp.

[darwination]

I'm thrilled at the possibility that the original sections are public domain.  There are some existing scans and they look so, so much better than the recent dayglo archives.  Not to mention the archives lack all the backups like Lady Luck, Mr. Mystic, and Jonesy.  I'm eager to hear a ruling on whether these scans might be uploaded to the site...  I'm trying to track down one of the recent archives to check the copyright info.  The reprinted sections from the 70s have a new copyright as "collector's edition", and Jcolag seems spot on in that when copyright is listed on the sections, it is listed as Everett Arnold...

[darwination]

Mmkay,

Volume 5 says

"Cover and compilation copyright (c) 2001 Will Eisner.  Introduction copyright (c) 2001 DC Comics.  All Rights Reserved.  Originally published as individual weekly comic sections, Copyright 1942.  All Rights Reserved."

So, it looks like they are PD?

[John C]

While it's never conclusive (modern books aren't required to state anything), I'd say this strongly indicates public domain status.  If there were renewals, the estate would require every last one to be listed, to make sure that nobody questions their rights.  Instead, we have "there's an original copyright, way back when, and now the compilation has a new one."

(To be honest, even if renewals had been listed, I still might not believe it.  I've found quite a few books where a reprint listed bogus renewals--it's not illegal to assert a bogus copyright, apparently.)

So, I think this tells a consistent enough story.  The only element in favor of copyright is that Eisner "fought for" the rights, but that (as we've seen elsewhere) can mean so many different things, including the long-held trademark, that it probably doesn't apply to this particular discussion.

[Yoc]

Thanks again for all your work on these issues JC.

[John C]

Just a reminder, though, that I'm by no means an authority in these matters.  While I'm not "making stuff up as I go," the laws and registrations seem designed to make you feel like you are, and it's always possible I'm missing something.

I'm not being humble here, but rather drawing attention to the fact that everybody (Jon, Eric, and Darwination in particular) had critical input.  I don't want anybody to think that they shouldn't question me or perform their own checks, because their opinions and, well, eyeballs are just as valid as mine are.  (And moreover, if anybody's going to reuse this for a business purpose, absolutely do your own research again.  If you're sued, you want everything you can find on file, and "John said it's OK" isn't particularly compelling testimony...)

Otherwise, no problem.  It's nice to take a break from programming to get my brain jumping through different hoops, from time to time.

(Now, if only my hosting support team can every get back to me with a straight answer as to how to connect to their dang newfangled database server, maybe I can get actually my business running...)

[DennyWilson]

A 1942 copyright would have required a renewal by 1970. Could Eisner have been sloppy? There has to be somesort of renewal someplace for the SPIRT sections?

[Yoc]

Hi Denny,
That is the crux of the problem.  From everything I've read on the man he was a shrewd business person just as much as a talented artist/writer.  It boggles the mind he didn't renew control of the strips in the 70s.

-Yoc

[John C]

If anybody can think of another place to look, I'm all ears.  I've checked the post-1978 database for Eisner and Arnold (the latter having a lot of useless stuff to sift through).  I've checked all the periodical renewals from 1968 through 1978 for Spirit anythings.  I've checked most years (I gave up when the carpal tunnel kicked in) between the two for annual periodical compilations registered as a book, under both Eisner's and Arnold's names.

There are only three possibilities that can explain this.  First, and most obvious, is that nobody renewed them.  Second is the absurd possibility that the Copyright Office spent more than a decade systematically losing his renewal paperwork; as I said, it might happen once, but more than twenty times in a row is impossible.  Finally, it's possible that the officially-registered names are obscure and/or hidden.  But why would that be, when the entire point of copyright is to keep people away from using your ideas?  It'd be like hanging a No Trespassing sign underneath your sink.

Again, I'm willing to entertain that third possibility, but without any possible leads, it's just wishful thinking and/or paranoia, depending on who you are.

Plus, keep in mind that Eisner might not have thought that the copyright was worth the money.  He'd have to pay a lawyer to maintain the forms and then pay the renewal fees.  And that would stop...who, exactly?  It also cost quite a bit of money to open a publisher, and finding a collection of the original stories would be difficult and expensive.  Even if you overcame those hurdles, you wouldn't be able to market the books, because Eisner DID own the trademark, unbroken, back to 1940.

Keep in mind that, no matter how good a businessman Eisner might have been, he wasn't a fortune teller.  While he probably wanted to exploit his own work, he probably didn't envision a near future where a bunch of people would be thinking of making his work available for free on a shoestring budget.

[OtherEric]

I agree that Eisner not feeling renewing the copyright is the most likely scenario on some level, but there was the Harvey reprints in 66 and 67; and then starting in 1973 there were reprints constantly for about 20 years.  Even between then and the archives there were some collections.  So it seems odd.  My copies of the Spirit magazines and the Kitchen Sink comics are in storage or I would check the copyright notices on them.  (Then again, Eisner always seemed most concerned about his new work, not his old.  So perhaps not worrying about the copyright is in character on some level.)

[JVJ]

I agree that Eisner not feeling renewing the copyright is the most likely scenario on some level, but there was the Harvey reprints in 66 and 67; and then starting in 1973 there were reprints constantly for about 20 years.  Even between then and the archives there were some collections.  So it seems odd.  My copies of the Spirit magazines and the Kitchen Sink comics are in storage or I would check the copyright notices on them.  (Then again, Eisner always seemed most concerned about his new work, not his old.  So perhaps not worrying about the copyright is in character on some level.)

Here are the copyright notice in Warren's - The Spirit #1 (April 1974).
"Entire contents copyrighted

[John C]

Can anyone find out WHEN Eisner TRADEMARKED "The Spirit"? That might give us a clue as to if and when he began to renew (if he did) his copyrights.

That, I can get you.  The current trademark on file says that the mark has been in use since either January of 1940 (19400109).  The current incarnation (and no, I don't know the difference, unfortunately) was registered in 1982 and renewed in 2002 as expected.  The filing before that (probably renewing the original) was in 1966.

For what it's worth, that copyright statement strikes me as weird.  Don't get me wrong, it's valid in that it carries the "