[MarkWarner]

Due to copyright issues we are removing a bunch of Fawcett books. We received an email from Warner Bros lawyers. This identified Fawcett books which were now owned by DC Comics and had their copyright renewed.

They are within their rights to ask us to take them down, so sadly we have

[movielover]

These are the books that are no longer on site, including foreign reprints and compilations. Please do not try to fill holes

Captain Marvel Adventures #s 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150;
Captain Marvel Jr. #s 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119;
Captain Marvel Story Book #s 1-2;
Fawcetts Funny Animals #s. 31-79;
Hoppy the Marvel Bunny #s. 1-15;
The Marvel Family #s 1-3, 5-80, 82-89;
Mary Marvel Comics #s 1-28;
Master Comics #s 61-126, 128-132;
Whiz Comics #s 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155;
Wow Comics #s 36-69

[lyons]

That's a distressing announcement.

[positronic1]

In hindsight, I guess I should have seen it coming (multi-million dollar movie deal, duh!) and downloaded all those comics earlier. Time-Warner/DC has an army of lawyers, and they probably spent months beating the bushes looking for ways to beat the 'public domain' status of those comics. Guess I'll have to pay ($$$) DC now for that privilege. I feel like a dope.

[narfstar]

It is good that they handle with a simple cease and desist and no trying to stick to us for having them onsite for so long.

[narfstar]

I am also surprised that they did not just go after every issue, even those that were not renewed. It seems they will sometimes follow the actual law.

[positronic1]

I'd assumed that the people running this site (and DCM) more or less knew what they were doing, in regards to checking to see whether scans they hosted had copyrights which were renewed, which is why it surprises me that DC was able to discover copyright renewals on those comics where other people didn't. Almost as if... "Well you weren't looking in the right place", but that somehow sounds awfully unconvincing to me. Is it really possible for copyright renewals to remain so 'hidden' to someone who supposedly knows how and where to check? Isn't there some central database for current, valid copyrights (at least for each country of origin)? I mean, its fairly easy to figure out when the original copyright would expire, but where do you go from there to check whether it was renewed when the original copyright would have expired? Or can DC "recapture" old copyrights? Seems to me I'd heard something about recent changes in copyright law that would allow that.

For example, say I wanted to check whether DC's old Fox & Crow comics from the 1940s and early 1950s (originally a licensed product copyrighted by Columbia Pictures) were still under someone's valid copyright, and if so who owned it. How would one go about that?

[MarkWarner]

We have had instructions in the past not to discuss copyright issues. None of us are lawyers and it is safer if we just don't comment.

BUT what I can say is that Warner Bros were well within their rights to ask us to take down the books. I've read of cases of whole sites being taken down with no warning. So they gave us 7 days and were explicit on what had been renewed.

As to why they were here it is mainly due to a historic decision and a blind eye turned. I am guessing if the film had not been released then we'd still be housing them, so it could well be argued it was a good call.

Anyway, Warner did not bend facts. The renewals are there and they own the books. Now whether it would have made more sense to have left sleeping dogs lying is another matter again . But it is their call

[Serj]

I am not affiliated with CB+ and never have been but as the original creator of Golden Age Comics I just wanted to post and say that the ultimate decision was made by me when Golden Age Comics first started back in 2006. Based on the facts that were available to us at the time. I hold my hands up to say I got this one wrong but the documents available to track copyright renewals and transfers can get little grey with the age of some of these comics, but at no point did Golden Age Comics purposely decide to host these comics with the intent of copyright infringement.

[MarkWarner]

Just to clarify I was NOT passing the buck to previous admins like Serj, without whom the site would not be here today.

The blind eye I referred to is MINE, I have always been a tad suspicious of these. So the fault (if any) I 100% own ...

But who knows what the future holds, maybe they will be legitimately be back.

[Serj]

Let's not have a fight over who's fault it was

I didn't take your post as you passing the buck so don't worry about that. It's an impossible task to constantly go back and recheck every status every year in case new information has come to light with the number of books offered on CB+ and DCM. This is a community project and not a full time job by the members here.

[SuperScrounge]

I'd assumed that the people running this site (and DCM) more or less knew what they were doing, in regards to checking to see whether scans they hosted had copyrights which were renewed, which is why it surprises me that DC was able to discover copyright renewals on those comics where other people didn't. Almost as if... "Well you weren't looking in the right place", but that somehow sounds awfully unconvincing to me. Is it really possible for copyright renewals to remain so 'hidden' to someone who supposedly knows how and where to check? Isn't there some central database for current, valid copyrights (at least for each country of origin)? I mean, its fairly easy to figure out when the original copyright would expire, but where do you go from there to check whether it was renewed when the original copyright would have expired?

There was a thread, maybe there still is, either here or at DCM where it was mentioned that checking renewals had problems. The possibility I remember (possibly meant tongue-in-cheek) was of a clerk in the Copyright office writing an R on an index card in pencil and sticking it into a file. So the possibility of missing a renewal seemed possible, to me.

As for the specific situation, I'm surprised so many people are surprised. I read in a thread, either here or at DCM, a few weeks ago where it was mentioned that Gwandanaland Comics, which created POD collections based on scans of PD books got hit with a C&D about their Fawcett offerings. So this was really just the other shoe dropping, and I'm kind of surprised at how long it took.

[bowers]

Mark, you did what was necessary to keep the site going! These books had been available for years, so it's a classic case of "you snooze, you lose". In the future, who knows what else may need to be taken down, so get it while you can! I think we all need to be thankful for the freebies we've been able to amass over the years from CB+ and DCM. Keeping the sites up is far more important to me than losing some books. All these books can still be found on the internet anyway if anyone cares to look for them and, no, I'm not going to tell you where. Special Cheers to Mark, Serj, and all the rest who created and maintain these wonderful websites. Bowers

[positronic1]

Just to clarify: I am not trying to cast any blame here. Foremost in my mind is the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"... but how is it possible for an ordinary layman to know whether or not he/she is in violation of the law? You or I can buy, sell, trade or lend an old comic book to another person with no worries, but when we do the same thing by scanning and posting the same old comic book on the internet, we've entered a possible danger zone where we might unknowingly be breaking the law. Certain things would seem to be common sense (like old Marvel/Timely/Atlas and DC/All-American/National comics), but what about the tens of thousands of potentially-unrenewed original copyrights of now-defunct or no longer extant (in their original incorporation) publishers? Does posting anything on the internet entail a responsibility of the individual to employ a professional lawyer to check whether or not they might be breaking the law?

The only thing I'm really asking here is whether with all of the resources available on the internet, there isn't some way (without hiring legal help) of determining in any given situation whether an original copyright was renewed or not (or renewed more than once, for as many times as would be applicable up to the present time) -- and (this part is pretty important too) to whom the renewed copyright was tranferred or assigned. That last part is particularly relevant because companies go out of business, change names, get absorbed into conglomerates, and their copyrights get sold or are otherwise passed on to different corporate entities. Your only recourse to a lack of ignorance shouldn't be to discover these things only when you inadvertently violate someone's copyright.

The other thing that occurs to me is: Even Warner/DC wasn't sure of this until very recently, or they would have taken action a lot sooner to give notice that these things were owned by them.

[Devil Scans]

what's done is done, why don't we all just shut up about it and carry on, Mark would be doing us all a favor by just deleting this thread. 

If you did not get them all while they were up, oh well. Try asking other members if they had got them all and if they would share with you.

jeez

[paw broon]

As is usual, I have to agree with Bowers.  And, as is often the case, what he says goes for me.
I also am coming round to agreeing with some of what Devil Scans writes - when did you think I'd be saying that?

[MarkWarner]

Indeed it is time to move on. I would just say the Warner attorney we dealt with was very civil, the copyrights were renewed so the books are not in the public domain. Therefore we should not have been housing them without permission.

But deleting forum content (which is not profane or spam) is against my religion! A nice thread like this for the search engines to digest is like gold dust, should get a lot of hits due to it lol

[NEWSBOYARIZONA]

Ugh, I thought as much when I noticed the missing scans. Actually, I thought, "Gee, I wonder if that new $55+ million dollar movie had something to do with this." It's interesting that Warner Bros/DC/ATT didn't demand that all the Fawcett scans be removed, much less all the Captain Marvel related ones. Thanks for providing all those scans.

[DennyWilson]

Wow Comics #s 36-69

Someone pointed out something to me - Mary Marvel's last appearance in the book was issue #58 - so when they did the renewals, they didn't realize that books without any Marvels were renewed! (Which would be the final Mr. Scarlet,Command Yank,Phantom Eagle stories, and some of the early Ozzie & Babs Stories, along with some Tom Mix as well.)

As noted, only Marvel Family related titles were renewed by DC (as licencing agent for Fawcett) as there are other Fawcett titles from the same time period that were not renewed. 

[Electricmastro]

Wanted to chime in from the

[justice]

Copyright issues aside, it is regrettable and tragic that the original Captain Marvel and his siblings are being buried for a second time by the folks at DC.
Copyright issues effectively deprived a generation from enjoying the phenomenon that the Hopalong Cassidy films were.
Such creations are really a part of history, Americana and international heritage.
If good money has been paid to renew copyrights, then it is of course an entitlement to enforce them.However, I wish some accomodation could be arrived at to ensure that such media do in fact get republished in some way to prevent them being lost.
Wishful thinking by a lifelong fan perhaps, but what if the internet produced pressure on the copyright holders in the form of demand for affordable legitimate reprints of Fawcett publications that are currently supressed?

[The Australian Panther]

Whatever

demand for affordable legitimate reprints of Fawcett publications that are currently suppressed'

would be very small calculated against the money to be made from the newer versions, so that is unlikely to happen. Most modern fans aren't interested in anything historical, which to them means 'last century',  DC and Marvel comics are now very small subsidiaries of huge corporations. The muscle now is with the movie adaptations of the properties because that is where the marketing and the money is. And in games. So if a game is made from a comic property, and the game sells, then a comic will be made from the game.
And so it goes! 

[justice]

I do understand what you say, but it seems such a shame.......

[The Australian Panther]

Yes, it is!

[DennyWilson]

...Copyright issues effectively deprived a generation from enjoying the phenomenon that the Hopalong Cassidy films were....

I recall a joke going around a few years ago that the "Cease and Desist" letters regarding Hoppy's films were considered a new collectable!