Print

[alee8582]

Are the characters Green Hornet and Kato public domain now?   

[darkmark]

Doubt it, as they've been featured within the last 30 years in Now comics.

[John C]

It might be worth investigating, actually.  I'd guarantee that the Striker estate still holds the trademark (after all, he's been in some medium or another for seventy years with few interruptions), but the Golden Age comics were published by Helnit/Holyoke, Harvey, and Dell.  None of them have a particularly good track record of maintaining copyrights back then.

However, there's a hidden danger:  Any of the comics might be based on episodes from the radio show, and copyright protection for audio is left to the states, rather than the Federal government.  For one example, New York State courts have ruled that old audio gets "maximum possible" protection, which means that Bell calling Mr. Watson?  Protected until the earliest Federal protection expires in a couple more decades.

So, whether or not the comics are public domain, themselves, it's possible that a state court could find that they're derived from the radio shows, making them unavailable for use, even if they're public domain.

Obvious, right?  Right...?

[narfstar]

First they would have to be aware of GH reprints being put up then they would have to feel it worth the effort to stop them.  I do not think there is any problem and if ask we could stop.

[John C]

Unfortunately, the way the DCMA works, they don't have to ask.  They contact the web host, and the web host shuts you down while the courts handle things.

So, I don't suggest "try it and see if anybody stops you."  Certainly not without more research and advice from a copyright lawyer.

[Aussie500]

The Green Hornet comics are all licensed material, no individual copyright records exist for them since as far as l know they were licensed from the radio serial copyright holder. The character is certainly not public domain, sorry but no Green Hornet comics are allowed.

And contrary to what people might think Dell actually did renew a lot of their their copyrights. Since they also published a large amount of licensed material though, many copyright records simply do not exist for Dell, and the comics are still likely not public domain, which is one reason why l never wanted Dell comics on the site in the first place.

[John C]

The Green Hornet comics are all licensed material, no individual copyright records exist for them since as far as l know they were licensed from the radio serial copyright holder. The character is certainly not public domain, sorry but no Green Hornet comics are allowed.

To clarify my comments, I wasn't suggesting that we needed the books here.  I was merely pointing out that some of the Holyoke and Harvey books are likely in the public domain (the original question), trademarks notwithstanding.

And contrary to what people might think Dell actually did renew a lot of their their copyrights.

You're right.  That was sloppy commenting on my part.  Sorry.

Since they also published a large amount of licensed material though, many copyright records simply do not exist for Dell, and the comics are still likely not public domain, which is one reason why l never wanted Dell comics on the site in the first place.

Well, copyright registration was by title, not company.  If you can't find a registration or renewal, then (unless the Copyright Office misplaced it, which happened from time to time) the book is absolutely in the public domain.  Trademarks or licenses don't affect that, except to the extent that (as I hinted earlier) the public domain work is itself derived from a copyrighted work.

A good example from another medium would be the Fleischer Superman cartoons.  They were throwaway media that DC licensed, but wasn't directly involved in producing.  The cartoons were never renewed, and so they're in the public domain (you can buy them and download them for free from many sources, too), even though Superman books and other cartoons are thoroughly copyrighted and Warner Brothers is very strict on trademark use.

However, if DC could prove that one of the cartoons was based on a copyrighted source, distributing the cartoon would be infringing on the original.  That's why I wouldn't trust the Green Hornet without first checking every issue against every episode of the radio show and every pulp story, first.

(The Green Lama fits a similar description, but I believe the different sources were unrelated.)

[rez]

Just for info sharing...

Years back someone decided to call a local dancehall/bar, in this small nowheres town in Ohio, by the name of Goofy's with the Disney dog cartoon painted up there alongside the sign over the place.

About 6months later they were warned and had to change the name to something else as they were contacted directly to do so by Disney.

[John C]

About 6months later they were warned and had to change the name to something else as they were contacted directly to do so by Disney.

Yep.  Trademark law is VERY unforgiving.  If Disney had "let it slide," then they'd have no legs to sue anybody else using Goofy's likeness.  That's anybody.  Not if they use him to sell cigarettes to children.  Not if they use him to advertise a theme park.  Not if they use him in outright obscene situations.

Xerox used to have an entire department of readers who would make sure that the name/trademark "Xerox" was always used as a specific brand name and never as a generic noun or verb.  They didn't want their name to go the way of Kleenex.

[ericinwisconsin]

Just for info sharing...

Years back someone decided to call a local dancehall/bar, in this small nowheres town in Ohio, by the name of Goofy's with the Disney dog cartoon painted up there alongside the sign over the place.

About 6months later they were warned and had to change the name to something else as they were contacted directly to do so by Disney.

There's a saying among copyright lawyers: You don't screw with the Mouse. Disney protects its trademarks and copyrights to the point of paranoia.

I saw a daycare center in Baton Rouge that had Disney characters (rather crudely) painted on the building. Disney got the word and there was a new coat of paint.

Using copyrighted characters on a local business is not that uncommon. Just off the top of my head, I can recall seeing Fred Flintstone, Sugar Bear, and Daffy Duck hocking products for local businesses, much to the copyright holder's ignorance, of course. 

[Aussie500]

Well, copyright registration was by title, not company.  If you can't find a registration or renewal, then (unless the Copyright Office misplaced it, which happened from time to time) the book is absolutely in the public domain.  Trademarks or licenses don't affect that, except to the extent that (as I hinted earlier) the public domain work is itself derived from a copyrighted work.

Well a licensed comic title is usually not going to have a seperate copyright registration since it is licensed by the holder of the original copyright, l have no access to any contracts that have been signed between publishers and copyright holders, so there is really no way as far as l know to tell if a licensed comic is PD or not, especially as a lot of them come from newspaper strips or radio serials. Some legal eagle wants to explain how to solve the mystery l will be happy to increase our collection, but l have to be pretty sure the title in question is actually in the public domain.

[John C]

Well a licensed comic title is usually not going to have a seperate copyright registration since it is licensed by the holder of the original copyright, l have no access to any contracts that have been signed between publishers and copyright holders, so there is really no way as far as l know to tell if a licensed comic is PD or not, especially as a lot of them come from newspaper strips or radio serials. Some legal eagle wants to explain how to solve the mystery l will be happy to increase our collection, but l have to be pretty sure the title in question is actually in the public domain.

Oh, OK.  I see what you're saying--we're talking about the same thing from different directions.  The way I'm looking at it, if you don't find a registration/renewal, the book is in the public domain BUT because of licensing, the contents of the book may not be.

Either way you look at it, avoiding books where that may be the case is definitely the best policy, unless someone proves that their book is original material, which is not a trivial undertaking.

[Aussie500]

Well they always say somewhere on the cover or inside if they are licensed, and who from, which does not always help knowing where to look for the original copyright source. The other problem is strip reprints which many of the early comics were, for some reason l often have trouble tracking down the original copyright records. l am no expert at GA comics, and l do not always have a scan available to check so sometimes things sneak past simply because l checked and found no copyright record.

Then there are the many titles that have multiple stories reprinted from the newspaper strips, one King Features owned strip and the whole thing is out of the question even though all the others might be OK. Not all the comics in the series might have the offending strip, so they all have to be individually checked to see what they include. l am not going to find a copyright record for the comics because they are reprints, so the copyright records will be no help there either.

[fendertubeguy]

Can we communicate to other members about trading these one collector to another?  I am researching the history of Green Hornet comics, and I have collected all of them but I am missing about 40 issues from the 40's Harvey comics etc.  All our digital and are used for my research if anyone can help I would appreciate it.

Thanks
Ed

[JonTheScanner]

Since this is a public-domain oriented site, Aussie and Serj have said they don't watn such communicatioin going on here.  I'd suggest you go to the newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.comics and ask there.

You can PM me if you want more info, though I'm far from a computer expert.