Print

[kusunoki]

I have 3 books which look wonderful (1 from each of these publishers), and I'm wondering if the site can host them. Let me know and I'll put them up.

Kusunoki

[kozmo]

Consolidated and McKay have been out of business for decades, so they are very safe. McKay mainly published reprints of older comic strips. So the characters are most likely still trademarked, but the work themselves should be PD.

I.W. was pirated in the first place!!  The story is that Israel Waldman was a print-broker who was able to purchase used printing plates really cheaply. he then would reprint the comics using those plates and sell them through non-newsstand sources to keep under the radar. I believe that he was the innovator behind the 3 comics for 25 cents packages that you used to find in thrift stores like Ben Franklin and Kmart back in the day.

I remember once finding a 3 or 400 page "coloring" book published by IW (back in the mid to late 70s) that was funny animal comic book pages printed in black and white.  And they were pretty good funny animal stuff too.

So given that the material could never have been properly copyrighted in the first place, any IW/Super comics should be PD.

[bchat]

The current status of a company has no affect on the status of a copyright.  Copyrights last for set periods of time and are not nullified by a company going out of business.  That's a bad assumption to make.

You're also confusing Trademarks and Copyrights when you state "the characters are most likely still trademarked, but the work themselves should be PD".  That isn't the case at all, since Trademarks only protect brandnames and designs (such as logos or specific costume elements for superheroes).  Also, Consolidated and McKay didn't own the licensed characters to begin with, so the copyright for the stories in question would not be owned by them but by the companies that created those stories and characters (King Features, for example).  To renew their copyrights, all any company that licensed material to other publishers would have to do is renew the copyrights for the individual stories ... they wouldn't need to renew the copyright on the entire publication if they chose not to or if they were unable to due to the comic containing material owned by other companies.

Case in Point:  Hasbro owns the characters of GI Joe, as well as holding the copyrights on the comics produced by Marvel Comics, Devil's Due, etc.  Check any issue of the Marvel run on that book and you'll see everything is copyright Hasbro Industries Inc and not Marvel.  The only thing Marvel owns from that book is "all other material", which would include advertising for their own books.  Marvel Comics cannot reprint those stories any time they want to without first working-out an arrangement with Hasbro.  However, Hasbro can have the comics reprinted whenever they want and not owe Marvel any money, since they are the original copyright owners to that material.

Regarding the IW books: whether the material was properly licensed or no, Illegal material is not Public Domain, it's simply Illegal.  The status of the copyrights on the reprinted material is not affected by what IW did with it but on what the original owners have done or not done regarding those copyrights.  Plus, even if the original material is Public Domain, the IW books may not be if the copyrights to those books have been renewed.

I would prefer not to see this site get shutdown because of a false assumption regarding the legality of illegal reprints.  Let's err on the side of caution and "Just Say NO to IW Publications".

[Yoc]

It might help if you named the books Kusunoki.

[Aussie500]

l am pretty sure l actually answered it last year, the David Mckay would have been no anyway. Bchat while l appreciate your informed answer, we lost a lot of posts and threads when the site crashed please do not reply to anything where the last post is as old as this one.

[bchat]

aussie500

I didn't notice the date when I saw this topic, and didn't feel that the answer given by kozmo was accurate.  If you don't want people to reply to old posts, you need to either lock them out so nobody can post a new reply or remove them altogether.

[boox909]

aussie500

I didn't notice the date when I saw this topic, and didn't feel that the answer given by kozmo was accurate.  If you don't want people to reply to old posts, you need to either lock them out so nobody can post a new reply or remove them altogether.

---butting in ---

bchat,

Your asshattery is not appreciated.

You just arrived here to the boards and your word is suddenly that which we all should beholden and note? As if...

I have already complained about you -- yes, I did -- and now I know for a fact that I was not off base.

You are on the way to earning a spot on my block-file. The lost of access to your whizdom will naturally be mine, but alas, even fools tire of bores.

B.

[bchat]

Which statement from me qualifies as "asshattery"?  The fact that I honestly didn't notice that this thread was old and out of date, or the fact that I corrected kozmo on his statement of "Consolidated and McKay have been out of business for decades, so they are very safe"?

As for the rest of your post about "bores", "earning a spot on my block-file", "I have already complained about you" and "your word is suddenly that which we all should beholden and note?" ... I can only respond with "Whatever floats your boat".  I didn't come here looking for friends.

[boox909]

I didn't come here looking for friends.

             

[Aussie500]

OK enough of the fighting, the post was answered when it was still current (over 12 months ago), l am sorry but it was one of the many posts we lost in the crash, no l am not going to spend time sifting through the old posts working out if some one new will come along and reply to them.