Print

[freddyfly]

The 'new' Bulletmans 3 & 7 are the old GM scans.
Also, why allow a second #1 when there's a complete good one already on the site?
Also, why are all 3 named differently from the rest of the section?
Happy spring!

[Astaldo711]

The first Bulletman #1 we had has no cover Aqualad's does. The #3 marked as 'GM' is shown as being in the suspect folder. It looks like he also uploaded a ctc of #7. Whoever approved it should have changed the name so it fits in with the rest of the series.

[DennyWilson]

I thought no "GM" Books were allowed?

[skybandit]

   Actually, some of the Blackhawk stuff I've been collecting has that watermark.  Did somebody miss that, or is the watermark thing one of those "don't do it anymore" type of things?

[boox909]

This is a natural drawback when newbies take scans from elsewhere and post them here in order to gain VIP status or such.

For the record, GM watermarked files have historically not been allowed on site as a courtesy, there was never a legal leg to stand on regarding the ownership of these pd comics; it was simply as a courtesy extended by the former site management.

B.

[narfstar]

GM scans are not allowed. It was not only a courtesy but GM complained actually claimed copyright at one time I believe

[boox909]

GM scans are not allowed. It was not only a courtesy but GM complained actually claimed copyright at one time I believe

Yes, GM claimed copyright and was soundly shot down by another member aware of the laws.

Regardless, it is better that these files not be on this site -- so stop posting this stuff newbies!!!

B.

[Astaldo711]

Is there any way to find the specific issues in question?

[boox909]

Is there any way to find the specific issues in question?

See Freddy's post.

[skybandit]

GM claimed copyright and was soundly shot down by another member aware of the laws.

  Learn something new every day.  Slapping a new title sequence on a PD film WILL provide copyright protection, but not so with comics.

[narfstar]

Not really. The film past the title sequence would still be pd

[skybandit]

   Obtaining copyrights for films requires some sort of additional material or re-editing.  For example, the film "A Boy and his Dog" was public domain upon it's initial release due to some fouled up paperwork, but the creators devised a new title sequence for it's video release and re-aquired control of the film.  Most dollar bin releases have the addition of the distributor's logo at the begining and/or end to protect the rights to "their" print, but any video editor could crop that out and leave you with a PD print.  A lot of these distributors put watermarks that pop up from time to time in a corner of the film, and that DOES provide copyright protection to THAT print of the PD film.  Watermarks added to PRINT evidently don't. 

[narfstar]

watermarks only provide annoyance and the hope that you dislike them enough to buy something without them

[skybandit]

   There are freeware programs that will remove the watermarks from a film so it can be used as any Public Domain work SHOULD be used, so these manufacturers are just shooting themselves in the foot by taking the time and effort to add them.   

   I guess we should get back to talking about comics, since VERY few superhero films are PD.