[slingsla]

I was wondering if anyone could explain the copyright situation with Archie comics, in particular Pep comics (which features characters still in use such as Archie, Betty, Veronica, etc)?  I want to create a derivative work using the images from Pep comics (i.e. like creating a new comic) but wasn't sure how that would work with images containing those characters.

[boox909]

I was wondering if anyone could explain the copyright situation with Archie comics, in particular Pep comics (which features characters still in use such as Archie, Betty, Veronica, etc)?  I want to create a derivative work using the images from Pep comics (i.e. like creating a new comic) but wasn't sure how that would work with images containing those characters.

My opinion -- Don't! Even though the files are hosted here and elsewhere. Even though Archie knows the files are out there and knew from the beginning when individuals first began gathering the comics and scanning them and selling them on disc -- Don't! Regardless of the copyright situation of the individual issues of the various comics, the characters are all Archie's trademarks, and DC's licenses of such might bring you into conflict with them if you were to utilize these characters.

Think about it, if he could Alex Ross would have butchered the MLJ characters in $uperpower$ already.

As for fair use issues, I think someone will come along and comment.

B.

[DennyWilson]

As for fair use issues, I think someone will come along and comment.

How did you know I'd come along and comment?

It's an interesting situation when works fall into the public domain when they may still have characters or images that are still protected by trademarks.

Fair use of trademarks is slightly different than fair use for copyright. In most cases a trademarked element can't be referred to without using the trademarked name and/or visual element!

Any use here on the site would be fair use as it's for education and informative purposes. Since the material isn't being altered, it's non-commercial and the work cannot be identified without the presence of the trademarked elements - such as names, logos, visual elements, etc.

Any "transformative" use of material in a similar no copyright/trademarked element may go beyond "fair use" and get into trademark violation.

Take the public domain cartoons on DVD/VHS - Warner Brothers, Popeye, Superman, Betty Boop - all have active trademarks - but these DVD feature unaltered works and present the works as they were originally presented.  It's only when they use images on packaging not taken from, or not directly based on the material presented where it crosses into trademark infringement.  They can't use the Superman logo on the box, but they  can use the word Superman on the package in a way that identifies the contents without infringing.

I suggest to anyone doing anything of a commercial for-profit nature with public domain material that may have trademarked elements, to consult a lawyer - to make sure when it comes to trademarks, use of public domain material with the trademarked elements is presented within the bounds of fair use.

Here's a disclaimer from a favorite book of mine on American Gas-Station History  - It is recognized that some words, model names and designations, for example, mentioned or featured on or in this book may still be the property of the original trademark holder. They are used solely for identification, illustrative and informational purposes under the  "Fair use provisions." of United States Code Title 17

[slingsla]

Thanks for the info, that was very helpful.  I'll just stay away from those works to be safe.  From my understanding, the key with trademarks is likelihood of consumer confusion and that seems like a dangerous area when it comes to recognizable trademarked characters even if that actual work has fallen into public domain.

However, it is interesting to think about fair use type works, such as a parody of archie comics for example, that directly uses the public domain works.  Does anyone know of such work or legal precedent?  I wonder how a court would treat it.  It seems like it would be ok given the court's history of being pretty generous when it comes to the fair use of parody, though the big companies would still probably fight it and it would get costly.

[boox909]

However, it is interesting to think about fair use type works, such as a parody of archie comics for example, that directly uses the public domain works.  Does anyone know of such work or legal precedent?  I wonder how a court would treat it.  It seems like it would be ok given the court's history of being pretty generous when it comes to the fair use of parody, though the big companies would still probably fight it and it would get costly.

Bill Gaines & Mad Magazine fought some of these parody battles. I know you can parody MLJ -- Mad did it with 'Starchy' -- but it would be interesting to combine parody with public domain material.

I wish we had some copyright lawyers on these forums to discuss such things.

B.