[JVJ]

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 "

[John C]

One thing that's different about both the Warren and the Kitchen Sink incarnations, jc, is that they have ALL been reworked by Eisner (& staff) with gray tones and art modifications. None of the pages is identical to the original printing. So perhaps the "entire contents" is meant to secure copyright over the NEW version of the material that might otherwise be assumed to identical to the earlier versions.

That makes the most sense.  It also reeks of (and you've confirmed it as Warren's) boilerplate, so little to no thought of Eisner's ownership probably entered into the contract.

Another factor to take into consideration is that The Spirit Section was a syndicated strip and each newspaper printed it in slightly different format. Some were actual inserts and some were full-page versions that the reader was instructed to cut and fold and trim into an eight-page booklet.

I tried to give some thought to this a while back, but decided that it couldn't matter without invalidating the copyright.  What I mean is that one smart-sounding approach is to assume that the strips should be covered by the newspaper copyrights.  I didn't know that there were different formats, but that would be another reason to believe that possibility.

However, if that's the case, then every issue actually has dozens of different copyrights.  And, since you can't tell which one is "real," none of them can be valid, because copyright law has always demanded absolute clarity.  This is similar to the reasoning used against Disney's copyright on "Steamboat Willie;" this is probably valid, because Disney keeps threatening to sue anybody who even discusses the possibility.

So, I do hear you, there, but like most syndicated comic strips, the Spirit would be required to carry its own copyright or none at all.

Also, was it Eisner or Busy Arnold who trademarked The Spirit in 1940?

Oddly, I can't find that.  I can see the 1982 mark renewed in 2002, and the 1967 mark.  They all refer to having been in use since 1940.

If I had to guess, I'd say that means that the trademark went unregistered until 1967--registered trademarks carry more weight than informal trademarks, but they still "work."  That doesn't and shouldn't invalidate it, but it does mean that the trail goes cold, no matter what the story.

[JVJ]

Another factor to take into consideration is that The Spirit Section was a syndicated strip and each newspaper printed it in slightly different format. Some were actual inserts and some were full-page versions that the reader was instructed to cut and fold and trim into an eight-page booklet.

I tried to give some thought to this a while back, but decided that it couldn't matter without invalidating the copyright.  What I mean is that one smart-sounding approach is to assume that the strips should be covered by the newspaper copyrights.  I didn't know that there were different formats, but that would be another reason to believe that possibility.

So, I do hear you, there, but like most syndicated comic strips, the Spirit would be required to carry its own copyright or none at all.

I agree. I think that there should have been SOME notice IN the artwork of the strip that was distributed to the newspapers. There wasn't. So even if the newspapers copyrighted their Sunday editions, The Spirit could not be included under the blanket copyright since dozens (hundreds?) of other newspapers were doing the same thing.

Also, was it Eisner or Busy Arnold who trademarked The Spirit in 1940?

Oddly, I can't find that.  I can see the 1982 mark renewed in 2002, and the 1967 mark.  They all refer to having been in use since 1940.

If I had to guess, I'd say that means that the trademark went unregistered until 1967--registered trademarks carry more weight than informal trademarks, but they still "work."  That doesn't and shouldn't invalidate it, but it does mean that the trail goes cold, no matter what the story.

This is EXACTLY what I expected. I don't think Eisner ever registered his copyright or trademark until after the reprints from Harvey in the 1960s. This is backed up by your inability to trace it further back than 1967 and further supported by the lack of ANY claims on the newspaper sections. Consequently, I'll bet that there are NO renewals because, despite Eisner's reputation as a great businessman, he DIDN'T follow through with the basics of controlling his character. This also is a partial explanation for why Busy Arnold was able to create Midnight, who was the Spirit in all but the name.

Again, I'd suggest Cat Yronwode or Denis Kitchen as sources for confirmation of these speculations.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

Carrying the Spirit should be no problem. We have this correspondence and Jcolag's research that we attempted due diligence and the most that anyone would attempt is to ask us to stop. It would not be profitable for them to sue us and not very likely.

[John C]

This is EXACTLY what I expected. I don't think Eisner ever registered his copyright or trademark until after the reprints from Harvey in the 1960s. This is backed up by your inability to trace it further back than 1967 and further supported by the lack of ANY claims on the newspaper sections. Consequently, I'll bet that there are NO renewals because, despite Eisner's reputation as a great businessman, he DIDN'T follow through with the basics of controlling his character. This also is a partial explanation for why Busy Arnold was able to create Midnight, who was the Spirit in all but the name.

Actually, I now have another piece of the mystery, and one that's far more conclusive than the rest.  It turns out that Google Books has scanned several CCE volumes (1931-1946, with more promised on the way).  They're a pain to read, because it's a couple hundred pages per quarter on what appears to be a very shaky scanner.  Some pages are blurry, and some are inexplicably missing, so it's not particularly entertaining reading.

However, even though I gave up midway through 1943, I think I can safely say that the reason Eisner didn't renew the newspaper insert or the comic is that the books were never registered for copyright in the first place.  Yes, I know there are randomly-placed notices, but the only periodical by the name of The Spirit known to the Copyright Office between 1940 and 1943 is a Catholic poetry journal, not a comic strip.

That explains a lot, and opens a bunch of new questions, like why was Crack Comics registered but not the Spirit.

And no, I didn't make a systematic check of Quality titles.  I just happened to land on a C page and wondered if Arnold actually registered anything.  He did.

Oh--For those who want to continue this line of research, or need those CCE listings for something else, they're linked from Mark Ockerbloom's page regarding the CCEs:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/

Summaries, including the all-important "first renewals" list, are up top, followed by single-page scans of the renewals for each year from 1950 to 1978, and then links to the full 1931- scans after that.

[narfstar]

Perseus rocks with two more Spirits uploaded. Good stuff man now available

[DennyWilson]

So I take it other than covers there were never any "new" SPIRIT comics done for Quality?

Has anyone ever identifed which reprints came from which spirit sections?

[narfstar]

check out www.comics.org many are identified there

[DennyWilson]

Thanks