[Alessandro Bottero]

hi, i would like to know how could you be so sure about the PD status of non-english comic book.
it's a fascinating question, since copyright laws are very different in europe, and often copyright on carachters, and works too hold till the author's death, and sometimes 70 years after.
so, how could spanish or Italian comi book are in PD?

titles like AMOK, or Captain Trueno, for example.
Captain Trueno was published  in 1956.  what happened wich makes it PD?

same for l'AUDACE. it was published in 1935, and in theory copyright should be still in use.

Alessandro Bottero

[narfstar]

I think they are more abandoned than public domain

[Alessandro Bottero]

so basically  no one actively reclaim their copyright, even if they are not actually public domain.
or could be..... if the publishing house who published them (probably  it is what happened with the spanish ones) "died", maybe the books (not the characters) are without any copyright.

probably only the one who post them could answer.

[narfstar]

Even the one posting them may not know all. I have found books elsewhere online and put them up and who know where that person got them. Paw is as close to our expert as we can get. I would not advise using any of the books for commercial purposes unless a copyright search produced a clear pd status.

[Alessandro Bottero]

well, i guess all the spanish comic books come from La Mansion del CRG, a forum where you can find all sort of spanish language comic books

[paw broon]

Hi Alessandro. Domanda interessante.  Many of the non-English downloads come from sites which already host the comics and have been in existence for years.  I know of La Manson but there are many more incl. South and Central American sites.  Most of the Spanish comics are abandoned or orphaned.  El Capitan Trueno is there as an example of a very popular series and we have no intentions of hosting other issues from the series, although they are freely available elsewhere. We try to research in as much depth as possible.  The 2 French titles were published in Free France during the 2nd. World War and are very much abandoned. In fact, you can see "Le visa de la censure" on the back page.
Vado a continuare in italiano. L'esempio di L'audace viene da
http://vintagecomics.forumcommunity.net/?f=6473708
dove si trova molti copertine ed esempi di L'Audace ed informazione sui fumetti anteguerra.  Forse tu conosci gia il sito?
Devo anche dire che tutti i fumetti  trovati su CB+ sono disponibile gratuito.  Anche se vada al sezione UK and Australian, trovaresti altri fumetti e reviste che sono "orphaned"
Ci piacerebbe ricevere altri punti di vista sul forum.
Da on occhio a questo sito dove si trova un dibattito al soggetto di "comics on cd-rom":-
http://www.comicsuk.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5048 
Molto interessante e divertante.

[Alessandro Bottero]

thanks.
i'll use english.
a-if i read the disclaimer of Comic Book Plus, i get the idea ALL the comics in this site are free and Legal.
so, Captain Trueno, or Amok, or Planet Comics, or Konga, should be free and legal. and since they are free and legal, i can use them in any way i wish, to make a Derivate Work, and (eventually) using them for commercial purpuose.
i know the statement "our comics are free and legal" means nothing in a legal sense, but if i should trust you, i could be entitled to think Captain Trueno 1 original series is "free and legal" and i could translate and sell to italian reader without problem.

as i can do with all the american comics wichi are in PD.

i can see the point of "we are posting it as an example". it's the "historical" argument, and it's ok. but it should means "this is a copyrighted items, under the spanish laws, but we show it for historical and scientific purpouse".
this is not what i read here.
here i read "all the comics in our site are 100% legal and free", or "if you came here searchng for something not legal, go away". should i trust you, yes or not?
if i do, i can use them, and you could put captain trueno 2, or Amok 2, as you put  here Planet Comics 1, and 2.
or am i wrong, and i miss something?

another question:
what do you mean with "orphaned"?
sincerly i don't get the meaning.
we are talking of copyright, or if some books has someone who could tell everyone else "i have the rights to decide if this book can be shared or not, and under what means! whitout my agreement you can't do nothing!".
basically this is  -as it evolved- the REAL meaning of copyright today.
there are just two options
a-this is true, and there is someone who can enforce his rights
b- this is not true, and there is NO ONE who could stop others using that book/story/character.

Copyright, or NO copyright.
what's the "orphaned" status? if a copyright on El Jeque Blanco exsist, there is someone who could tell us "LEave these four issues of the book i HAVE the copyright, from your site. NOW!", and CBP should obey immediatly.
if no copyright on El Jeque Blanco exsist anymore, no one can order to leave these four numbers.

maybe "orphaned" means "we don't know if someone hold the copyright. we put them on, and as long no one tell something we'll keep them on"?
orphaned as "the one who COULD own the copyright don't look that way, and they seem to have "leaved them alone". Is this what did you meant with "orphaned"?  it seems to me a little like a russian roulette.

anyway. i hope i'm clear.

[narfstar]

You are correct if a copyright holder does show up we would immediately remove any of their books. Orphaned would mean the company that produced them is "dead" thus the title is orphaned. Much of copyright was concerned with books or other media where the author allowed the use of their work for a print run. The author could then go to another company and allow them to print the book. The author may have given the company the option of the first so many runs. When it comes to comics the author usually gave all rights to the company. Many works do not even give any credits to the creators so they would have to prove that they were the creator. It was "work for hire." The work belonged solely to the company. Thus if the company is dead then the work is orphaned. This is a layman's not a lawyers interpretation.

[Alessandro Bottero]

"When it comes to comics the author usually gave all rights to the company. Many works do not even give any credits to the creators so they would have to prove that they were the creator. It was "work for hire." The work belonged solely to the company. Thus if the company is dead then the work is orphaned. This is a layman's not a lawyers interpretation."

this is very interesting and open a whole world of thinking
in many case we have HISTORICAL info about the authors of a series of a book, like interviews, historian research, style comparision, other's people statements about "who had done what". but they are historical info, not legal info.

so, even if an author is recognized as the creator of XXXX, in historical meaning, this could not mean he can exercise his "creathor's right" on that book, since he don't have the LEGAL data to support his statement.

so "orphaned" could mean : the one who actually and legally owned copyright "died" (the publishing company), and no one else can reclaim the rights after the "death" of the owner, because there are no legal info wich could enforce the (hypothetical) creator's statement.
am i right?

but if i'm right, then i can use the "orphaned" works, same way i can use a PD work. anyone can use them, because no one can stop me, since no one can exibit the proofs of their "ownership after the death of the publisher".

[bchat]

You are correct if a copyright holder does show up we would immediately remove any of their books. Orphaned would mean the company that produced them is "dead" thus the title is orphaned. Much of copyright was concerned with books or other media where the author allowed the use of their work for a print run. The author could then go to another company and allow them to print the book. The author may have given the company the option of the first so many runs. When it comes to comics the author usually gave all rights to the company. Many works do not even give any credits to the creators so they would have to prove that they were the creator. It was "work for hire." The work belonged solely to the company. Thus if the company is dead then the work is orphaned. This is a layman's not a lawyers interpretation.

As far as I understand it (based on a failed proposal for US Copyright Law), an "Orphaned Work" (which as far as I know, isn't even a legal concept for Copyrights unless something has changed since the last time I looked) is (or should be considered) published works with a valid Copyright where it is impossible to determine who the current Copyright owner is after doing a thorough search. 

Just because a company is no longer in business, does not mean that the Copyrights are "orphaned".  A company has owners, and if they don't sell off assets like Copyrights to another company when the business folds, then the owners of that company would still retain ownership of those rights even though the "company" no longer exists.

For example: Martin Goodman's Atlas Comics (Wulf, Grim Ghost, etc) was "dead" for over 30 years.  Despite the fact that Atlas Comics was a defunct company, the Goodman family held the rights to those comics & magazines because Martin Goodman was the owner of Atlas Comics and all of its assets.  When he died, ownership of those rights were then passed along to his heirs.  At any point in time, they could restart the company ... which is exactly what Jason Goodman has done by utilizing the Copyrights the family owns. 
The Goodman family & Atlas Comics is a perfect example where the statement of "if the company is dead then the work is orphaned" simply isn't true.

[Alessandro Bottero]

ok bchat, but we are not talking about the copyright of the characterm, or if i can do NEW stories of El Jeque Blanco, or Plastic Man.

the Quality publications is a good example.
quality publications "died" because the owners of quality choosed to leave the comics field.
they sold the copyright of their characters, the copyright of their titles, and the films of their archives to DC Comics.
but they DID NOT sold the rights on the back issue.
this is why i can't create new plastic man stories, why i can't do a new book, using the plastici man logo, and i can't use the films of the quality archives,
but since no one renewed or acquired the copyrights about the back issues, all theback issues of wuality series are PD.
and i can use the SCAN (not the films) to re-print these stories, because they are made from PD books

copyright is a multi-level word
it cover
-the copyright of the characters
-the copyright of the book's title
- the copyright of the print materials
-the copyright of the actual back issues

in case of Atlas, surely no one can do NEW stories about atlas characters, but the back issues are included in "all it's assets"?

With Quality (and Fawcett, too) they weren't.

so, a company could had been dead. the OWNER of the company could retain the rights on the characters, but not on the back issues. so i can't use the characters for new stories, but i can use the back issues in any way i want, without infringing any copyright.

let's take the newspaper strips, for example.
a strip apparead on a newspaper, before 1963. let's say "Beetle Bailey".
THAT newspaper died. no one renewed the copyright for that newspaper. or the owner of the newspaper did not kept the back issue magazine as an "asset".

that put the copies of that newspaper and their pages (with all of the contents) in PD. so, if i use THAT pages, of THAT newspaper, i could print a Beetle Bailey's selection.
it's called Derivative work, and it's based NOT on the character, but on the single copies of publications in PD.

[JVJ]

Your logic doesn't seem to hold up, Alessandro,
especially in the newspaper/Beetle Bailey example.

For what it's worth:
That "one" newspaper did not purchase any rights beyond a one-time printing status for the Beetle Bailey strip. You could, in theory, reprint the page of the newspaper with the BB strip on it and be safe, but, since the paper had no rights to confer to YOU, it's impossible for you to acquire them second hand from the paper. That's why EVERY strip has a "Copyright King Features" (or whatever) on it. It doesn't work the way you are thinking about it. It's not that easy.

You Register the Trade Mark on a character - you can't Copyright a character.

You Resister the Trade Mark on a book's title - the Words/Logo, not necessarily the name and you hold it based on continual usage. That's why Marvel could publish Daredevil less than ten years after Lev Gleason stopped. No Copyright involved.

You Copyright the printed entity/issue

You hold the Copyright of the back issues for different lengths of time based on what the laws were when you published it and whether you renewed it. It makes no difference whether you sold any rights with your business or if you abandoned the business. You, the register of the copyright, continue to own those rights until they expire. NOTHING can change that unless you SPECIFICALLY sell them to someone else.

Sticky business, these copyrights.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

We recognize that the non-English works are problematic. We do not wish anyone to get into legal difficulties by using works that are not clearly pd. While we believe them to be abandoned we will immediately remove any that are challenged.

[Alessandro Bottero]

it's (sadly) hilarious. i was just asking something, simply because i were sincerly interested and because i found an enrichment to see all those non-english comics, and my question ended in a removal of them.

i want to be very clear: it was not my intention to make CBP to remove the non-english books. i was just asking a question, who could be of public interest. My mistake was to make this a topic, instead of a private message.

i sincerly hope this forum will go on with the non english section.

x JVJ
i see your points, but.....
my beetle bailey example was extreme, and i choose a character whom we all know IS copyrighted.
but think about the "Spirit Section" of quality. Or the Spirit comic book published by Fiction house.

-DC and Marvel put a copyright  on all their character, so character (with their likeness, constume, and shape) can be copyrighted.

-what i wrote about quality and their back issues is exatly this: quality holders never sold it to National/DC, and National/DC never tought about acquiring them. 28 years after 1956 THAT back issues went PD.

i suspect something similar happened with the THUNDER agents Archive , published by DC few years ago.

[bchat]

ok bchat, but we are not talking about the copyright of the characterm, or if i can do NEW stories of El Jeque Blanco, or Plastic Man.

the Quality publications is a good example.
quality publications "died" because the owners of quality choosed to leave the comics field.
they sold the copyright of their characters, the copyright of their titles, and the films of their archives to DC Comics.
but they DID NOT sold the rights on the back issue.
this is why i can't create new plastic man stories, why i can't do a new book, using the plastici man logo, and i can't use the films of the quality archives,
but since no one renewed or acquired the copyrights about the back issues, all theback issues of wuality series are PD.
and i can use the SCAN (not the films) to re-print these stories, because they are made from PD books

copyright is a multi-level word
it cover
-the copyright of the characters
-the copyright of the book's title
- the copyright of the print materials
-the copyright of the actual back issues

As JVJ points-out, nobody can Copyright a "character".  What IS eligible for Copyright protection (and keep in mind that I am approaching this with regards to US Laws only as I understand them) are "fixed works", which in the case of a comic book means the cover and the interior pages (basically, a story & the packaging it comes in).  A comic book title or a character (name & visual design to be used to brand a product like a lunchbox or underwear) is a Trademark, not a Copyright. 

in case of Atlas, surely no one can do NEW stories about atlas characters, but the back issues are included in "all it's assets"?

Yes, the Copyrights on the books Martin Goodman published under that "Atlas Comics" banner should be considered assets of that company.  I don't understand why you would question that, especially since there are plenty of examples of Copyrights belonging to defunct companies being sold-off to other publishers (Chaos, CrossGen and Valiant, to name a few).

With Quality (and Fawcett, too) they weren't.

Assuming you mean that DC Comics did not acquire the Copyrights that Quality still owned at the time, those examples are more along the lines of bad business decisions by DC Comics.  DC should have acquired the Copyrights along with whatever else they were buying from Quality (I'm assuming just the Trademarks to specific titles and the exclusive right to create derivative works for the "characters" Quality owned).  However, DC didn't acquire the Copyrights, they expired, and now those comics are Public Domain, technically making those "characters" (Plastic Man, Phantom Lady, Bulletman, etc) Public Domain as well.

so, a company could had been dead. the OWNER of the company could retain the rights on the characters, but not on the back issues. so i can't use the characters for new stories, but i can use the back issues in any way i want, without infringing any copyright.

The only rights on a "character" a company actually holds is the Trademark, which can expire should the Trademark not be used within a specific amount of time.

let's take the newspaper strips, for example.
a strip apparead on a newspaper, before 1963. let's say "Beetle Bailey".
THAT newspaper died. no one renewed the copyright for that newspaper. or the owner of the newspaper did not kept the back issue magazine as an "asset".

Newspapers license the cartoon strips they print, they don't own the Copyrights to something like "Beetle Bailey" and similar features, they simply print them inside their paper.  All the newspapers in the world can go out-of-business and it won't affect the Copyright status of "Beetle Bailey" at all because those rights belong to either a syndication company or the creator.

that put the copies of that newspaper and their pages (with all of the contents) in PD. so, if i use THAT pages, of THAT newspaper, i could print a Beetle Bailey's selection.
it's called Derivative work, and it's based NOT on the character, but on the single copies of publications in PD.

A company going out-of-business does not negate a Copyright, nor does it automatically make everything a defunct company published Public Domain.  That's simply not how Copyrights work.

[MarkWarner]

Alessandro

Firstly, HI!

Secondly, it is a VERY good question you asked! And it should be on the forum not on private messages. So thanks

It is probably true, take for an example some of our non-english section may well fall into the orphaned copyright category. BUT times change the Spanish Section which at the moment holds most of our non-english comics come from Franco's Fascist era.

They are we believe REALLY orphaned. This means that the person/company who created them have long gone or have no interest in them. Remember this is a long time ago! These scans we have found on the internet on various sites so we have not created them. They are just a bit of fun and it actually costs us to put them online. If we are contacted AND the person proves they are not just a mischief maker, obviously we will remove them immediately.

Personally, I think that is a fair compromise.

We will NEVER EVER host material that is blatant copyright infringement. No Superman, Batman Spiderman etc. And for the main US comic site we check copyright so as an example a few Gene Autry and also Black Magic that slipped through the net and actually were renewed we do not host.

Looking at the top bar now we have 13,760 comics and trust me I fret daily about disk space and I have to back them all up. Plus we are about to embark on a massive project to categorize them all. So from an admin point of view I don't want any more comics!

To your other point about using the material for derivative works. I looked at this myself and the conclusion I came to was DON'T. It is a real mine field, especially if you are trying to earn a buck on it. Really just not worth it

Best regards and please enjoy the site,

Mark

[JVJ]

x JVJ
i see your points, but.....
my beetle bailey example was extreme, and i choose a character whom we all know IS copyrighted.
but think about the "Spirit Section" of quality. Or the Spirit comic book published by Fiction house.

-DC and Marvel put a copyright  on all their character, so character (with their likeness, constume, and shape) can be copyrighted.

Actually, Alessandro, what Marvel and DC put on their characters is an (R) for "Registered Trademark". The books are (C) Copyrighted.

-what i wrote about quality and their back issues is exactly this: quality holders never sold it to National/DC, and National/DC never thought about acquiring them. 28 years after 1956 THAT back issues went PD.

Well, maybe. 28 years USED to be the length of time a copyright lasted unless renewed. Now, about 1975 the laws were changed to keep things out of the Public Domain for extended periods of time. If DC never purchased the copyrights from Fawcett and Quality, and those companies didn't renew them, then the COMICS are PD.

But, for argument's sake, let's say that Quality DID renew the copyrights on their comics (or that the rights are still in effect due to the changes in the U.S. copyright laws) and Quality did NOT sell those rights to DC. Even though Quality doesn't exist, those rights remain with the estate and heirs of Busy Arnold. They are NOT abandoned or orphaned.

i suspect something similar happened with the THUNDER agents Archive , published by DC few years ago.

I don't know anything about the Tower boondoggle and wouldn't trust any analogy that called them into the equation. Suffice it to say that Copyright is a lot more complicated than it seems to be on the surface. As JohnC always says, "hire a lawyer."

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Alessandro Bottero]

X bchat
i'm talking about Quality books, based on what i read and pondered in these years, all over the net, about the question "Quality's books copyright, and why the Quality books can be considered PD".
the thigs everyone always say is DC made a BIG mistake not acquirig back issues copyright too. SO, after the lenght of time recquired by american laws for books publisxhed before 1963, all the quality books are PD. and this mean i can take qualit's police man issues, and reprint them, without asking a permision to no one.

Or the spirit books.
or, just to change publisher, the captain Marvel books of fawcett.
i can't use the NAME or the image of Plastic Man, or SPirit, or Caprain MArvel on the cover, because this is what trademark is.
Same thing Fantagraphics did with Krazy KAt and Ignatz.
the STORIES are PD, but the name "Krazy Kat" is trademark, so she called her books "Krazy & Ignatz"

so, Mr.Quality sold his character and print files to DC.
Mr.Quality did not sold the bak issues
Mr. Quality did not renewed the copyright

the books now are PD

i'm not saying Atlas books are PD. i'm saying "Are we so sure the BACK ISSUES of atlas books are still under copyright, even if someone else re-started Atlas titles, using same names?"

Frankly i'm not interested in Atlas titles, because there are over 10.000 other comic books wich are PD and i can choose, if i want to do something derivative.
it's just a theorical question. If i say "this i mine!", the simple act of shouting it don't make it true.
it makes just me one who shouts.

X Mark Warner
you touch a very interesting point
"most of our non-english comics come from Franco's Fascist era."
true.
and the new spanish law about intellectual property is of 1996.
i have tried to research about older version, but i couldn't find anything.

i propose you all a question
you know i'm italian, and some of the spanish comics  posted here are spanish version of itlaian books
take SUchai, for example.
Suchai is the spanish translation oc Sciusci

[MarkWarner]

Alessandro,

As I think you have realized all of this is a tricky subject.

Here at CB+ we try and do what is right and not infringe any active copyright. What I mean is that 95% of the comics here are 100% public domain, NO questions about it. The other 5% which are really in the non-english section are we strongly believe long forgotten, available elsewhere and no one is using them for any financial gain (including us!!).

If you notice this site itself is copyrighted. It would be very wrong for someone to come and take all our work and make a duplicate site. It is not for the individual comics, it is for intellectual property of the whole site. That is why it is there, so we are great respecters of copyright and would not want the "dirty" done on us.

So as I said before there really is nothing to be gained by digging around looking to see if there is a buck or two to be made. As there isn't. trust me I have looked. The only people who would make anything out of it (as they always do) are lawyers.

So just enjoy and more importantly we only have ONE Italian comic. So it would be great if you could help us find some more. I guess there must have been comics published during the time of Il Duce ... they would be very interesting to read.

Best regards

Mark

[MarkWarner]

Alessandro,

Sorry I have a semi related question. No one here (forum) seems to know about Don Camillo. But I grew up with translations and love the stories very much.

The translations are most definitely copyrighted, but I think I read some time ago that the originals and art work were not. I guess this would include other work by Giovannino Guareschi.

Anyway if you could find out an answer for this I would be REALLY grateful. They would be immense to hold on the site!

Regards

Mark

[Alessandro Bottero]

Mark, i really respect your work, and the one other all over the web do, sharing PD comics, and letting everyone to know things that would be forgotten.
This is the first and themost important thing.

That's said it's not a secret for anyone, since i've already said it openly  at DCM  Forum, i'm actually publishing books, wich are translation in italia, of PD comic books.
i've already published three books:
Jack Kirby Strange Worlds of My Dreams
Steve Ditko The Thing n.1
Fletcher Hanks Stardust n.1

and i'm planning to do many more books. it's a small niche, but it's doable. And i'm not hte only one in Italy. Other two small publisher do the same, and one is signed on this site too.
I've checked and re-checked , and i'm absolutely relaxed about this.

So, when i ask something about copyright or other question, is to learn more, and to check what i  "think" to know about this subject.

the non-english comics, the "orphaned" series, for example, are fascinating arguments, and they gave me much to think about.

About Don Camillo. A year ago an italian publisher started a project: the comic book version of every short story written by Guareschi.
probably i'll see him in one of the convention we have during fall season here in Italy, and i will ask him the situation about the original artwork.
as far i know the Guareschi's sons retain the ownership of their father's works, so i suppose artwork too. i suppose with "original artwork" you talk about the Guareschi's drawings, right?

[MarkWarner]

Well I was most interested in the Don Camillo stories. As I believe they first appeared in newspapers that Guareschi edited, I guess that indeed there maybe a chance that they were not copyrighted. The later anthology books I guess were copyrighted and the English translation definitely is.

[Alessandro Bottero]

i'll do my best to know something about Guareschi's works.
but probably it will take some time.

[MarkWarner]

Ok Cool!

I really like what I have read although it is in translation ... I still can't quite figure how they were anti-communist. Camillo and Peppone even though they fight like cat and dog are underneath it all the best of friends and have a lot of respect for each other. It is like Guareschi's characters took over and the original intent was lost. Plus having Christ/God talking to Camillo from the cross and by all accounts it never appearing to offend anyone was a masterstroke.

There are so many favorite bits I remember. Like Camillo being surprised that God knows about the arsenal of tommy guns he has hidden in the bell tower. Makes me chuckle just to think about it.

[thismachinekillscommies]

The Spanish, most Eastern European and a good portion of Asian governments were destroyed in WW2, so copyrights on them are de facto irrelevant.