Print

[Roygbiv666]

Will do.  Though fair warning, of course, that it'll probably be mixed in with (or buried under) programming, cooking, education, and, y'know, whatever other geeky stuff happens to be on my mind when I write.  It may not win me millions of fans, but it should be a good excuse to vent and to have a place to point potential employers as I move into job search mode.  (Gotta love running a small automated company that doesn't need my input--when money's tight, I can wander away without bothering anybody.)

One piece I that'll be the biggest pain is checking against copyrighted sources.  Has anybody, by chance, run across a list of when Superman's powers first saw print?  I've seen lists of evey single power ever to see print.  I've seen which "Smallville" episode showcased a power.  However, I've never seen, for example, which issue first showed Superman using his X-Ray Vision.

(Not that X-Ray Vision is the specific concern, of course.  I actually have a pre-Siegel instance of the ability in a source I was already planning to use.)

As much fun as it could be to ALSO review every single early issue of Action Comics or Superman for content, that's a lot of extra noodling around.

There is a starting point here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080826195354AA2ziFB

There aren't specific citations, but this might have it:
http://www.fanzing.com/mag/fanzing43/feature2.shtml

You might also try leaving the question here:
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Go to the bottom right under the "Ask a DCPedian", click the button, leave the question. You won't get an email, so you'll need to register with the site (free) and check back.

It's a fan-run site with plenty of comic geeks who might know the answer.

[John C]

What "superman" power doesn't pre-date Superman in print?
Super-strength, flying, super-speed date back to at least the Greek myths.

That's true, but I'm thinking in terms of immediate sources so that they're in the context of an adventure hero.  And while myths do tell stories about heroes having adventures, that doesn't really make them "adventure heroes," if that makes any sense.

It's not a Superman example, of course, but if I were looking at a masked hero, the logical inspiration for the purpose would be Zorro, not the bunches of real and fictional people throughout history who have worn a mask.

I'll check those other sources, Roy.

[Ed Love]

A couple of heroes that predate Superman in terms of strength:
The Nightwind
John Carter of Mars
Hugo Hercules

Carter is the most direct link, man on another planet is able to be stronger, faster and leap further than the native inhabitants and the St. John drawings are not too dissimilar from the costume that Superman, Dr. Occult and later Amazing Man wear with just different tweakings.

The dime novels such as Nick Carter sometimes had super-characters but they were the villains not the heroes. It can be argued that while you had above average heroes, usually the villains were the most colorful and fantastic characters often over-shadowing the "hero" in terms of memorability. Thus the super-villains come first: Captain Nemo, Dr. Moreau, Mr. Hyde, the Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Fu Manchu, Fantomas

[John C]

Carter is the most direct link, man on another planet is able to be stronger, faster and leap further than the native inhabitants and the St. John drawings are not too dissimilar from the costume that Superman, Dr. Occult and later Amazing Man wear with just different tweakings.

Most importantly, regarding Carter, is that Jerry Siegel cited him as inspiration for Superman.  Even more important would be Philip Wylie's Gladiator (Hugo Danner), who Siegel denied reading, and yet manages to replicate with high fidelity, in several cases...

The dime novels such as Nick Carter sometimes had super-characters but they were the villains not the heroes. It can be argued that while you had above average heroes, usually the villains were the most colorful and fantastic characters often over-shadowing the "hero" in terms of memorability. Thus the super-villains come first: Captain Nemo, Dr. Moreau, Mr. Hyde, the Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Fu Manchu, Fantomas

And that's sort of interesting, given the drive that so many creators have to imply or show that villains only exist as a reaction to heroes.

While it wasn't a route I was planning to explore, by the way, Frankenstein's monster has some remarkable parallels to Superman, particularly under Schwartz.  Things don't go nearly as well for him, but their fathers sent them both away to avert a disaster, they both have a dizzying array of nonsensical abilities, they're smart and eloquent but are recognized only for their strength, they both have contrived girl troubles, and both continually worry about their place in the world.

Li'l Vic is basically the Kal-El who would've joined the X-Men, what with his persecution complex, shady morality, and parental issues.

(The Phantom of the Opera's Erik also reminded me a lot of a Batman-gone-wrong, but that's neither here nor there.)

[Yoc]

Very interesting points John.
It would make a great blog entry.

[John C]

I wouldn't necessarily believe that line of reasoning, though it's close enough to be possible.

Copyright originates with creators, even when the United States government is involved.  Even assuming they asked for it and paid for it, it's probably still under copyright by the studio acting as a contractor.  If the studio transferred the copyright to the government, it's still under copyright--the government can hold a copyright, but can't originate one.

However, there's a slim chance that it was written and produced by Federal employees.  If that's the case, then yes, it'd be in the public domain.

Placement on the Internet Archive also probably shouldn't be considered definitive.  They carry a fair run of the Jimmy Olsen series, for example, that's clearly still under copyright.  I don't think they screen uploads unless someone notifies them...and even then, I told them about the DC books a long while ago and they're still there...

[Yoc]

Skybandit's avatar scares the heck out of me!

[John C]

According to the fellow who posted it, who runs his own video distribution company and knows of what he speaks, it was donated by the production company to the U.S. Treasury Department to promote "School Stamp Day," whatever that was or is. In 1954, the government couldn't hold copyrights,

Fair enough.  My information is never definitive and should always be considered a layman's best guess.  I figured it was worth raising the possibility.

and I was unaware that this had changed. Thank you for informing me that they now can. This MUST have happened under a Republican administration:)

I don't know when the Code was changed, but currently, it explicitly says that the goverment may receive and hold copyrights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/105.html

I can't find a 1954 USC for comparison, but the best I can find, the section is apparently created by the Copyright Act of 1976, enacted 1978, if that helps.  Though technically that means that the government is NOT barred from originating a copyright prior, though again, I don't know.

[John C]

NASA is a government agency, so the creation of their material is on our dime and thus public domain.

Interestingly, their website mentions that, while images are not under copyright, the logo may not be used.  I don't know why that would be.  Nor do I understand why "It is unlawful to falsely claim copyright or other rights in NASA material."  It's not honest, but it's entirely lawful to claim copyright on a public domain work.  Who's going to sue you, The Public?

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

Oh, but of course, NASA also has a bunch of private contractors whose works would would be under copyright.

[zoinkin]

NASA is a government agency, so the creation of their material is on our dime and thus public domain.

Interestingly, their website mentions that, while images are not under copyright, the logo may not be used.  I don't know why that would be.  Nor do I understand why "It is unlawful to falsely claim copyright or other rights in NASA material."  It's not honest, but it's entirely lawful to claim copyright on a public domain work.  Who's going to sue you, The Public?

I know this is an old post, but as my reply directly responds top the specific comments above, I decided to revive the thread.

The NASA logo may not be used as it's a trademark. Using the trademark elsewhere without permission would mislead the public by stating or implying official endorsement or partnership with NASA.

And it most certainly is not lawful to falsely claim copyright on a public domain work. Falsifying copyright ownership is a federal offense. It also directly works against the whole concept of public domain: if the public falsely thinks something is under copyright when it isn't they are functionally prevented from using it themselves. Of course as far as I know nobody has ever been convicted or fined for falsifying copyright notices on public domain works. It's not a high priority, and they really would only want to go after intentional violations instead of ones made out of ignorance. Even the people who know better can claim ignorance unless they screw up and somehow document that they knew the information was false.

Some groups trying to claim copyrights on public domain works (certain libraries and museums, for example) typically send out threat letters for alleged violations but have been advised by their lawyers to never actually go to court because they are "not sure" if they would win and don't want any legal precedent against them. So they go on making what they suspect could be (or what I believe they know *must* be) baseless threats hoping to bully their way into stopping legitimate use and/or getting unnecessary licensing fees.

[DanieleTomasi]

Hi,
I've read this topic but I need some information and clarification.
You're saying that stories, not the characters, are subject to copyright.
Again, you're saying that a copyright can be renewed (I remember that the recent case about Shuster's heirs, that have reacquired some rights on "Superman", is due to DC un-renewing the copyright).
Here starts my questions:
-the copyright ends, and the PD starts, after 70 years from the death of the last author (if there are more than one), so why there is the need of a renewing? 70 years from death should be the only reference. For instance, ERB is dead in 1950, so his stories should become PD in the 2020, but only those he wrote, because the derivative ones have (or should have) different property (like the Kubert comics for DC... if they are property of Kubert);
-some works are in PD because the author is dead from more than 70 years but its main character (Conan stories by Howard) has a trademark (so states Conan Properties in his website) but his stories should be usable. At the same time nobody should be enabled to make a new story or a derivative one (like a comic-book version of the same Howards' tales) but can print the original tales. Well, due to the trademark, he should delete every "Conan" from the titles, what do you think? ;
-when the property isn't of the author but is of a company there are different rules? For instance, Hulk when will be PD ? 70 years after the death of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee?
Thanks everybody.
DT

[narfstar]

My quick non-lawyer explaination is this. Congress changed the copyright laws and did it retroactively. Copyright was for 28 years then renewed for 28 years. Books that fell in PD before the law changed remained PD. Those that were not PD got the 70 year rule. Trademark is for trade dress identification. If a character's stories are PD but not the trademark then the character can be used in a story but promoted on the cover to sell the story. The stories inside must be based totally on the pd works of the character. This is not legal advice check with a lawyer before publishing anything questionable. Here is a link to the public domain slider
http://librarycopyright.net/digitalslider/

[DanieleTomasi]

Thanks for the answer. the majority of the points now are quite clear, remains the question about a company properties, if they are linked to the death of the first author (which should mean creator in the most cases) or not.
DT

[Roygbiv666]

Isn't part of the confusion over "copyrighting a character" that when comic nerds say "copyright the character" they basically mean protect the visual representation of the character, basically the costume, and maybe the name and superpowers?

The image and name would be trademark, right? 

[josemas]

I'd like to point out here that there is a difference in how copyrights affect individual authors as opposed to corporations (such as comic companies like DC Comics and film producers such as Warner Bros).

Check out this web site as I've found it useful on several occasions.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Best

Joe

[DanieleTomasi]

I'd like to point out here that there is a difference in how copyrights affect individual authors as opposed to corporations (such as comic companies like DC Comics and film producers such as Warner Bros).
Check out this web site as I've found it useful on several occasions.
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
Best
Joe

Thank you very much!!!

DT

[josemas]

Isn't part of the confusion over "copyrighting a character" that when comic nerds say "copyright the character" they basically mean protect the visual representation of the character, basically the costume, and maybe the name and superpowers?

The image and name would be trademark, right? 

Roy,

This piece from the wisegeek.com site pretty simply explains the difference between trademark and copyright,

"A copyright protects original works that fall under the categories of literature, dramatic, musical, artistic, and intellectual. These works may be published or unpublished, and the Copyright Act of 1976 gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce his or her work in any medium. A copyright protects a form of expression, but not the subject matter of the work. For example, if someone wrote an article about a new car on the market, the text would be copyrighted, preventing someone else from using that particular material. A copyright does not prevent others from writing their own original article about this new car, however, or from using or making the car themselves.

A trademark is used to protect a word, symbol, device, or name that is used for the purpose of trading goods. The trademark indicates the source of goods and distinguishes them from the goods of others. A trademark may also be used to prevent others from using a mark that might be confused with another; trademarks, however, do not prevent other people or businesses from producing the same product or services under a different mark.

In the US, trademarks can be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The filing fee is more substantial than it is for a copyright, and it usually takes a longer time to obtain registration, since the Patent and Trademark Office conducts a substantive review of any potentially conflicting marks, or marks that might be confused with others."

Best

Joe

[Roygbiv666]

Isn't part of the confusion over "copyrighting a character" that when comic nerds say "copyright the character" they basically mean protect the visual representation of the character, basically the costume, and maybe the name and superpowers?

The image and name would be trademark, right? 

Roy,

This piece from the wisegeek.com site pretty simply explains the difference between trademark and copyright,

"A copyright protects original works that fall under the categories of literature, dramatic, musical, artistic, and intellectual. These works may be published or unpublished, and the Copyright Act of 1976 gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce his or her work in any medium. A copyright protects a form of expression, but not the subject matter of the work. For example, if someone wrote an article about a new car on the market, the text would be copyrighted, preventing someone else from using that particular material. A copyright does not prevent others from writing their own original article about this new car, however, or from using or making the car themselves.

A trademark is used to protect a word, symbol, device, or name that is used for the purpose of trading goods. The trademark indicates the source of goods and distinguishes them from the goods of others. A trademark may also be used to prevent others from using a mark that might be confused with another; trademarks, however, do not prevent other people or businesses from producing the same product or services under a different mark.

In the US, trademarks can be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The filing fee is more substantial than it is for a copyright, and it usually takes a longer time to obtain registration, since the Patent and Trademark Office conducts a substantive review of any potentially conflicting marks, or marks that might be confused with others."

Best

Joe

Thanks, I'm pretty sure I understand the difference, I was just trying to indicate that when nerds talk about a "character", they generally really just mean the name (trademark) and image (trademark), not the abstract concept of "character".

Although there apparently is some overlap with "cartoon" characters which have both a literary and visual representation, see http://norcal.gag.org/legalities/2007/legalities_no29.html and http://norcal.gag.org/legalities/2007/legalities_no31.html

An interesting paper on it is http://tlc.usm.maine.edu/documents/Superheroes.pdf

[JonTheScanner]

I believe, but am not certain, that a character can be copyrighted in the following sense. I do not believe I could publish a story about Superman (one that was clearly about the Superman by using Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Daily Planet, etc.) even if the story was completely original and I didn't use that name on the cover or otherwise infringe on the trademark in any way.  For example I don't think I cold have a Superman short story in an anthology even if it was not advertised on the cover or dress in any fashion.

I could do this if my story was a parody because parody is allowed under copyright.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[zoinkin]

Copyright covers the text of a work, which includes plot, setting, mood and characters. Copyright violations include not only copying direct text but also making unauthorized derivative works. If someone writes a story with a character that is easily identifiable as a character in a copyrighted work, it's derivative. The extent of the violation will depend upon how much of the original work it is derivative of and also whether it causes any damages to the copyright owner in lost sales/licensing. What you can get away with is all a matter of how much your new work depends upon the original and how much the copyright owner cares.

[narfstar]

Sounds like you have worked in the publishing field zoink

[reversesuperman]

So does this mean someone could take the old published Captain Marvel Adventure comics that are in the public domain and just re-publish them without DC's consent or permission, so long as it didn't say "Captain Marvel" or "Shazam" on the cover?