[archiver_USA]

Do we know for certain that Green Hornet Comics (1-6) are not public domain, these are the Temerson issues (i.e. Holyoke) and not part of the Harvey series.

[John C]

The Green Hornet situation (at least the end I'm aware of) isn't that the books are under copyright, because the Harvey issues are not.  The problem, though, is that details and even stories may originate in the radio show, making the comic a derived work.

Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal.  Very few companies registered radio programs for copyright, even of those who could have done so (you can only copyright a "fixed" work).  However, there's no Federal copyright protection for pre-1972 audio (fixed or not), and so protection of radio shows is therefore left up to the state.  Several states have declared "full" protection, meaning that they won't expire until the longest possible Federal term expires.

So, without knowing the degree of derivation between the sources, the actual copyright registrations of the shows, and the relevant states and state laws that might enter into a discussion...well, it's probably best to keep hands off the character.  It's a shame, because I'm sure at least some of the stories are good, but without a Green Hornet expert to answer some of those questions, I doubt it's worth potentially infringing on someone's copyright.

[archiver_USA]

I guess we could always ask:

THE GREEN HORNET, INC.
President
George W Trendle, Jr.
C/o Csc Services Of Nevada Inc.
502 East John Street
Carson City, NV 89706

[John C]

In theory, yes.  And it (probably) wouldn't hurt to try.  However, my experience has been that potential copyright owners either won't respond or will interpret things even more conservatively than I have, especially when the property can make them money.

(Plus, it's always worth remembering that there's no law against fraudulently claiming to own a copyright.  They'd lose any lawsuit, of course, but there's no reason not to assume that you own everything, if there's even the tiniest possibility.)

On the other hand, maybe the whole audio thing is too insane to follow.  I notice, for example, that the Internet Archive happily hosts many radio programs that I would think seriously troublesome.  I've got an e-mail out to them to see if anybody can help clarify, because I can't imagine that they'd take chances in such an organized way.  I know they have some things maliciously or ignorantly uploaded, but they're not neatly collected and labeled, so they surely must know what they're doing.

If I get anything out of them, I'll pass it along.

[John C]

I notice, for example, that the Internet Archive happily hosts many radio programs that I would think seriously troublesome.  I've got an e-mail out to them to see if anybody can help clarify, because I can't imagine that they'd take chances in such an organized way.  I know they have some things maliciously or ignorantly uploaded, but they're not neatly collected and labeled, so they surely must know what they're doing.
If I get anything out of them, I'll pass it along.

Following up, I didn't get anything useful out of them.  From an impersonal support e-mail address (never a good sign), I was directed to this, presumably because the anonymous respondant saw the word "copyright":

http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#Rights

You'll notice the complete lack of content regarding audio rights.

Someone brought up a similar question in the forum, and got back the thoroughly-uninformed answer that "anything over seventy years old is probably public domain."

Ah!  I've been misapplying the term, though I needed some clever searching to find the answer (and then use the Wayback Machine to find it for me):

http://web.archive.org/web/20050125075013/http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1998-03/0595.html

     17 USC 101, which provides in part that a public
     performance or display of a work includes transmittal (i.e., broadcast)
     of the work, and that "a public performance or display of a work does
     not of itself constitute publication."

In other words, radio shows are fair game, provided that THEY don't adapt some prior work (like a copyrighted script, for example, which seems improbable, or the 1940-42 Whitman novels).  So that certainly narrows down the work that would need to be done, should someone be sufficiently motivated.

Edit:  To clarify, the bizarre rules for audio copyrights are on recordings, which are the fixed form for publication.  In other words, a 78 you have in the attic may be protected under copyright in your state (but also might not), but if the material was first performed, the contents of the performance can't be protected.  At least, that's what I'm getting from all this.

[Ed Love]

In other words, radio shows are fair game, provided that THEY don't adapt some prior work (like a copyrighted script, for example, which seems improbable, or the 1940-42 Whitman novels).  So that certainly narrows down the work that would need to be done, should someone be sufficiently motivated.

Not all that improbable. My recent research shows that Street & Smith for one DID copyright their radio scripts. Of course, they also often had stories that were on the radio reflect those in the pulps or comics and vice versa.

[John C]

Do you happen to have some direction on that point, Ed?  I'm never quite sure where to find such things, and it'd be good to know.

And it also occurs to me that they would need to publish and copyright the scripts prior to airing for the copyright to be relevant to our purposes.  For example, I know that DC recently published the Superman radio scripts, but that doesn't retroactively make the radio show a derived work.

[Ed Love]

I only know by coming across some scripts that were copyrighted by Street & Smith while doing research at the actual Library of Congress. There were a few radio shows that lasted post 1950, so the renewals on those could be researched online. It doesn't really matter which was done first as long as both are BEFORE a work that could be challenged for violating it.

I didn't have time to really look into radio shows and various characters that crossed over into comics while I was there though I would have liked to included them and comic strip characters as well. If I had spent a whole week at the Library I'm sure I could have filled each day with research.

[John C]

It doesn't really matter which was done first as long as both are BEFORE a work that could be challenged for violating it.

Actually, it makes all the difference in the world.  Broadcasts aren't fixed forms and are therefore unprotectable, making them public domain.  If the script comes later, then it's (from a legal perspective) a work derived from the broadcast, from which anybody can also derive.

Copyright terms began on registration, not creation.  The exception would be unpublished works (which are protected from creation, for obvious reasons), but even then, the public release should take precedent in that argument.

Thanks for the details, by the way.  That'll help me narrow it down, should I decide to poke around there again.

[Ed Love]

I see what you're saying but I'm still not really sure it matters as it doesn't really change the status of either item. Before or after, the script would still be copyrighted and the radio broadcast not and both are by the same company. Someone could still do a transcript or a rewrite of the basic story from the radio show and try to make the argument that the radio show is public domain and the company would still pull out the script and show that the story was copyrighted BEFORE this new version. Even though that unless it's an inside job such derivative works would have to come from the broadcast and not the script as the scripts weren't actually for publication so it would be next to impossible for someone to truly be copying the copyrighted product and not the public domain one. But, I can see it from your angle too. I'm just not if that distinction matters legally, does the fact that it's the original item copyrighted and not the derivative work? I remember on my first trip years ago, an example was made of a classic film (I think it was a Bogart one, Casablanca, African Queen or The Maltese Falcon) where the original script/play had the copyright lapse due to not being renewed but the filmmakers did renew their version and thus became the owners of the story though they were the owners of the derivative work. I am curious as to whether that difference really does matter as my research bore out the fact that Motion Picture Funnies, the comic with Namor's first appearance is public domain though Marvel Comics #1 which reprints that story with a couple added pages is not but it does make that appearance a derivative work of the other strip.

[Ed Love]

Also, related but is a bit of a mystery to me... Moonstone recently published Doc Savage: The Lost Radio Scripts of Lester Dent. The copyright information has "The Doc Savage Radio Scripts are copyrighted 2009 The Estate of Norma Dent". The book nor the section with the scripts are actually titled "Doc Savage Radio Scripts" but I assume this notice is meant to cover all the scripts in book. The scripts themselves cannot be copyrighted 2009, only this printing of them, there is no listing in there of the original copyrights if they exist or if renewed (such as you'd find in the Bantam paperbacks would list both original copyrights and renewals of the pulp stories and the new copyright). There are other legal angles a bit unique to Doc Savage as Lester Dent actually had the rights to film, newspaper strips and radio broadcasts and this was renegotiated in 1971 for the George Pal movie but allowed for royalty payments to still be paid to Norma Dent or her sister if she died http://www.munseys.com/heh/elderabuse.pdf. It doesn't really mention something like the actual scripts to the radio show, just the broadcast rights but I'm assuming the copyright to Norma Dent's Estate is in relation to that agreement and that Norma's sister is still alive or a later deal was renegotiated concerning her estate. But, it gives you something further to check, even if the scripts were copyrighted, were they renewed?

[John C]

My understanding (and we're obviously getting further from where I do understand things) is that studios play fast and loose with copyrights, because as I mentioned elsewhere, there's nothing illegal about claiming extra rights.  Public domain means that we all own the copyright, so I can safely stake my claim to "War of the Worlds."  But you can, too.

I admit that I don't know the Casablanca situation, but I know that there's an analogue in "It's a Wonderful Life."  The movie fell into the public domain some years ago, but it's again considered out-of-bounds because the soundtrack has a separate, valid copyright.  I wonder if something similar happened there, like perhaps the movie was distinctive and popular enough to make it impossible to create a copyright-free derivative.  Or maybe it's a trademark issue.  Again, I'm guessing by analogy.

The Moonstone situation may be more direct:  Copyright statements are meaningless, today.  They carry no legal weight, so you can honestly say whatever you want, and many companies simply have boilerplate--think of how many web pages you see that are perpetually copyright this year, even when nothing has changed.

Heh.  I'd suggest returning to the Internet Archive with questions, since they host the (Green Hornet, I mean) shows and generally know what they're doing, but my last interaction with them was rather suggestive of them not wanting to deal with questions.

As to the original discussion of the script copyrights, the philosophy I'm using is that there are plenty of modern, copyrighted works built on public domain underpinnings.  In every single case, the adaptation has a distinct copyright covering its original material, while the original remains in the public domain.  That goes for the recent Broadway adaptation of "Lysistrata," Zorro novels, comics, and movies, and "Little Shop of Horrors."

I have to assume that, if I can sell copies of the earlier "Little Shop" without Greg Moranis and company suing me, then I can adapt the story (unless it's based on an earlier, copyrighted work, which well may be the case).  If I can do that, then the same must apply to radio shows, even if there's a later-copyrighted script.

[JVJ]

Copyright statements are meaningless, today.  They carry no legal weight, so you can honestly say whatever you want.

Very true, John, which makes it even more incumbent upon those of us who WANT to legally use older material to understand the law(s). However, there is ONE aspect of modern copyright statements that IS meaninful: if the "copyright" can frighten away even ONE potential legal user, they've lessened their competition to a certain degree.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[John C]

While this is now ancient history for most of us (in fact, I have the ominous "are you sure anybody cares after more than a couple of months?" red banner waving in my face), I wanted to follow up and mention that I happened to notice that the online scans of the CCE have started to add renewals for dramatic works.

Turns out that (I know: duh) this is where the radio shows live.  For example, relevant to the Green Hornet:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/cache/1966/CopyrightEntries_1966_pg139.jpg

That said, I'm still a mite suspicious, here.  I don't believe that fixed-form recordings or scripts were ever offered for sale to the general public, which would be a key condition ("publication," specifically) for copyright protection at the time.  It could be that Striker used some gimmickry (making the offer where it was unlikely to be found, perhaps) to get the paperwork through, but it could also mean that the copyright registrations are for performances and thus aren't valid.

Upshot:  There's probably no way to get around a Green Hornet copyright, for our purposes here, unfortunate as that may be.  Any comic containing elements from the protected episodes would be derived and indirectly protected.

In other words, radio shows are fair game, provided that THEY don't adapt some prior work (like a copyrighted script, for example, which seems improbable, or the 1940-42 Whitman novels).  So that certainly narrows down the work that would need to be done, should someone be sufficiently motivated.

Not all that improbable. My recent research shows that Street & Smith for one DID copyright their radio scripts. Of course, they also often had stories that were on the radio reflect those in the pulps or comics and vice versa.

[Ed Love]

If the comic is public domain due to copyright lapse, then it can be reprinted regardless of it being a derivative work. What you cannot do is produce a "new" work based on it as it is in turn based on protected work. Say the radio scripts or what have you are protected, but the Harvey comic is not, Marvel Comics could reprint the stories from the Harvey books. What they could NOT do is produce a book with a new cover and new artwork of the Green Hornet nor have the Green Hornet start appearing in the Avengers. Nor would I think Marvel be able to copyright their reprint book.

So, for the purposes of this site, it should be fine to reprint the Green Hornet if you ascertain the book was either not copyrighted or not renewed. You wouldn't be violating the owners copyrights or trademarks.

[Yoc]

Very interesting Ed.  I'm sure John will have some thoughts.

BUT even if everything you say is true do we are just a small site with zero money to try and fight anyone that cared to file against. Do we really want to take chances such are posting GH stories especially when the current owner seems quite willing to defend 'their' rights?

I've said it before - let's not rock the boat and lose the baby with the bath water... or something like that.
-Yoc

[John C]

Ed's right, but it's an awkward area that gets grayer as you explore it, since public domain reprints, for example, may not be copied, so there are exceptions relating (potentially) to how "transformaive the derivative work is.  Plus, I don't believe that has ever been tested in court, which would make me nervous--just because nobody's been sued so far for selling "Little Shop of Horrors" DVDs (the '60s version) doesn't mean that an infringement case from the basis of the book would fail.

And, in the case of Green Hornet, you have Conde Nast owning an active AND registered trademark and a recent case where somebody tried to weasel around technicalities to rip them off even after they tried to be nice about it.

Those are more than enough risk factors for me, especially here, where an increasing number of people seem to be coming to us looking for properties to adapt.  The site may not be infringing on a copyright, but these days, all those factors could still line up for a decent lawsuit.

[Mindshadow]

Hi, I have the issue of the Green Hornet Fights Crime which has a Spirit of 76 story "The Society of the Black Skull" and a Calamity Jane story called "the case of the Fat Tuesday".

I also have another issue of that same series (#37). this comic has this spirit of 76 in "Kidnap Kapers", Shock Gibson in "the Giant-Eared Giants" and an anthology comic called The Furnished Room. Nice feature is narrated by a landlady who tell stories about the unusual things that happened whenever she tried to rent out a specific room in her boarding house. This particular episode is called "The Smiling Salesman".

I intend to post these two books if someone is willing to get rid of the green Hornet stories, should I be doing this?

[boox909]

Hi, I have the issue of the Green Hornet Fights Crime which has a Spirit of 76 story "The Society of the Black Skull" and a Calamity Jane story called "the case of the Fat Tuesday".

I also have another issue of that same series (#37). this comic has this spirit of 76 in "Kidnap Kapers", Shock Gibson in "the Giant-Eared Giants" and an anthology comic called The Furnished Room. Nice feature is narrated by a landlady who tell stories about the unusual things that happened whenever she tried to rent out a specific room in her boarding house. This particular episode is called "The Smiling Salesman".

I intend to post these two books if someone is willing to get rid of the green Hornet stories, should I be doing this?

Get with jonthescanner, narfstar, snard, or builderboy...one of them should be in the mood to tackle it.

[narfstar]

Use the upload feature and I will pull out the GH before putting them onsite.

[DennyWilson]

And, in the case of Green Hornet, you have Conde Nast owning an active AND registered trademark and a recent case where somebody tried to weasel around technicalities to rip them off even after they tried to be nice about it.

Green Hornet,inc (Trendle's Estate) not Conde Nast owns GREEN HORNET.

What case?

[narfstar]

Green Hornet Fights Crime 35 and 37 have been put up minus the GH stories but the other stuff is still cool.