Silver Age Charlton?

[John C]

Yes and no, though we're getting further into the real legal advice issues, and so I shouldn't be relied on for accuracy.  However, my understanding is that you can't bring an infringement case to court without a registration and that you can't collect damages for the time the work was unregistered.

Don't think of it as "if."  Think of it as "until."

That is, Zombie Chip Goodman (who I imagine with affection and not much crassness, mind you) would need to file a registration before taking you to court (the Cease and Desist letter isn't really a legal concept, as far as I know; it's a tool to show that you made a good faith effort to resolve the problem privately before suing).  Once there, he couldn't moan about your ruining sales in early 2010 by distributing the books, because there was no registration at that time.

However, he could file the registration and show that you've ruined the chance to publish reprints from now on, and presumably take you for the damaged future business, eating your brains.  But not your eyes, because he's not unreasonable.

As for Charlton...don't know.  The records aren't organized that way, don't forget.  They're in books published by year, organized by title.  We'd need a lot more to go on to keep it from being a needle in a haystack kind of search.  And works published between 1964 and 1977 can be registered for renewal ANY time during its 67 year renewal term.  So even if it's not registered now, there's still another fifty or so years to go.

[JVJ (RIP)]

Yes, John,
You're exactly right. You cannot sue until you've registered the copyrighted work. Registration is a prerequisite to a law suit, but not to a renewal.

I found your post about the wording of the copyright laws to be illuminating. I'd never studied them that closely. My simple needs are satisfied with "anything published PRIOR to 1923 is in the Public Domain."

(|:{>

[John C]

I found your post about the wording of the copyright laws to be illuminating. I'd never studied them that closely.

Peanuts compared to the Holyoke discussion, since better-versed people than I have already compiled the information.  I haven't even given Google much of a workout!

Oh, and the other use of registration is the ability to terminate a grant when the property changes hands before the renewal.  That is, if a writer licensed his text for ten years before the end of the first term and died before the expiration, the heirs would only have the option to revoke the license after renewal, and then only if the registration was made beforehand.  At least, I think that's what it says.

Anyway, here's yet another twist, from as late as 1977.  This might be of interest:  "After copyright has been secured by publication of the work with the notice of copyright...there shall be promptly deposited in the Copyright Office...two complete copies of the best edition thereof then published..." (S13).  If not?  That's S14.

"Should the copies called for by section 13 of this title not be promptly deposited as provided in this title, the Register of Copyrights may at any time after the publication of the work, upon actual notice, require the proprietor of the copyright to deposit them, and after the said demand shall have been made, in default of the deposit of copies of the work within three months from any part of the United States, except an outlying territorial possession of the United States, or within six months from any outlying territorial possession of the United States, or from any foreign country, the proprietor of the copyright shall be liable to a fine of $100 and to pay to the Library of Congress twice the amount of the retail price of the best edition of the work, and the copyright shall become void."

Wait, what?

OK.  Copyright comes with only the notice.  However, within three months of  publication (unless you live far away), you must deposit a copy of the work with the Copyright Office.  This was a requirement.  If a publisher failed to comply, they'd be fined and lose the copyright.  However...that only came into effect if the Copyright Office bothered to pursue it.

To make this more confusing, this is NOT related to registration, which is still optional.

Hm.  I wonder if there's a list, somewhere, of those works the Copyright Office demanded but never received.

Interestingly, most of this clause is still in effect, but not the last part.  S407 still requires deposit and imposes non-compliance fines ($2,500 plus expenses), but "Neither the deposit requirements of this subsection nor the acquisition provisions of subsection (e) are conditions of copyright protection."  It doesn't seem to say what happens if you're billed and still don't comply.

So...uhm...yeah, I got nothin'.  And the twists and turns are making my head hurt.  I'm getting some fresh air...

[Keith Dallas]

David M. Singer is an acquaintance of mine and since he's not saavy on how to post messages on these kinds of forums, he asked me to post the following message for him (if the administrators/moderators would like to verify the legitimacy of this message, please don't hesitate to contact me):

“I have recently posted comments regarding the copyright status of the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents as public domain characters. My comments were incorrect. I must make the following clarification: John Carbonaro and David Singer, Singer Publishing Company, Inc. and Deluxe Comics, have reached a final settlement in the lawsuit between the parties (entitled John Carbonaro, et. al. v. David Singer, et. al., 84 Civ. 8737 (S.D.N.Y.)). Singer acknowledges Carbonaro’s registered copyrights and trademark in the “T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents®” and has consented to be permanently enjoined from utilizing any of the “T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents” characters, stories or artwork or Carbonaro’s trademark. Under the settlement, Carbonaro will receive, among other things, an assignment of all rights to “Wally Woods T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents,” previously published by Singer.”

[John C]

Thanks for the input, Keith, and please pass the same along to Mr. Singer.  (If he thinks there's some sort of protocol he should follow before posting, please assure him there isn't one beyond registering an account.  If he would like to be, he has as much right to join discussions here as everyone else, and he can be identified or anonymous, depending on his desire.)

For clarity on my part, my analysis (I stress, though, NOT as a lawyer) didn't pertain to anything I have seen Mr. Singer state, and didn't even know he had made such a statement.

But I appreciate the legal effects a court settlement can have on how one presents himself in public and understand the need for such a disclaimer.  I also greatly appreciate his taking the time to make the statement and find someone to help him get the message out.  (It's actually sort of a fun world we live in, where producers of media can just drop out of the sky to give fans some information.)

That said, the overwhelming physical evidence is on the side of the comics being in the public domain (with the exceptions I noted), and I'm not a believer in the idea of a distinct "character copyright" apart from the works they appear in.  Singer's statement recognizing Carbonaro's rights, while presumably obligatory with the settlement, have no bearing on the copyright status of the original works.

In short, Tower didn't protect the books, so Carbonaro licensed and bought nothing, no matter how much muscle he managed to use against Singer and Deluxe.

(I should also mention that this site doesn't carry any of the THUNDER books, so it's somewhat moot, here, regardless.)

[narfstar]

So Undersea Agents, Fight the Enemy and the Tippy books should be pd?

[John C]

The copyright on the first issue of Undersea Agent may be valid, depending on interpretation.  Unlike the first issues of THUNDER and Dynamo, the notice reads clear as day, though it's still technically in the wrong place (on the cover).  Judgement call, basically, but I'd say it's clear.  (Edit:  What I mean is that, if the Carbonaro estate were to sue, a modern judge could still say that the cover location is "valid enough," because it is today.)

I've never seen a copy of Fight the Enemy or the Tippy Teen family, though, so I can't hazard any guess.  Cough--One might take that as a hint, if one were so inclined, had access to such things, and wanted a clearer answer...

(That Seaboard licensed Tippy in creating Vicki suggests that those copyrights were valid, when everything else they considered licensing they just ripped off.  On the other hand, if Tower licensed imaginary copyrights to Carbonaro, I don't see why they wouldn't license imaginary copyrights to the Goodmans.  So it's definitely something to check if any issues turn up for inspection.)

[narfstar]

Just checked two issues of Tippy one of Teen-In and one Go-Go there are NO copyright notices. Look for some to pop up at GAC

[John C]

Neat!

And yeah, from 1964 through 1988, if there's no copyright statement, then there's (probably) no copyright.  The exceptions are where the printing was an "honest mistake" that was corrected within a certain time frame (ranging from six months to five years, depending on what year it is), and if it's registered.

For most comics, they're meant to be published quickly and thus "expire" quickly.  Therefore, I really doubt we're ever going to find a book where the plates were changed mid-print (or that had a second printing within the year) just to fix the copyright, and it's probably not worth checking.

So for the most part, just spot-checking the indicia should be definitive for issues during those years, though of course, be wary of anything that's readily seen on the cover, as well.

[narfstar]

I just got some Prize Romance comics from 1963. Any idea if DC renewed any of these Young Love or YOung Romance from Prize when they took over the title?

[John C]

Looks like Young Romance was renewed (by DC, originally copyrighted by Arleigh Publishing) from #125 on, and Young Love from #39.

Sidenote #1:  I meant to say it earlier, but good to see you posting.  With the rains and flooding in your neighborhood, I was a bit concerned.

Sidenote #2:  I officially hate whoever named the "Young Love" title.  Do you have any idea how much junk there is to sift through...?

[narfstar]

Thanks John and thanks for the concern. I am in one of the most flood safe areas. Biggest problem is flash flooding if on the road. If I am home I am safe. I do not live far from a place called Spring City. You can guess they do not always fair as well.

[DennyWilson]

Hm.  I wonder if there's a list, somewhere, of those works the Copyright Office demanded but never received.

If there is, then under the "Freedom of Information Act", it's obtainable.

[narfstar]

My guess is they don't have a list just sent stuff out not keeping track.

[John C]

Well, if they took the law seriously, then they'd need a list of requests sent to check for compliance, plus a record of who complied.  Without either one, then there's no way to determine the copyright's validity.

As to FoIA, that's probably not warranted, here.  It's sort of a buckshot approach, where you ask for anything on XYZ with a check to cover copying and shipping costs.  But if I can confirm that the lists exist, then it's obvious who to contact, and the Copyright Office has a pretty good reputation for being friendly and helpful.