Can this be uploaded???...An E.C. Title, but posibly never renewed

[RJ Bowman]

http://www.comics.org/character/name/moon%20girl/sort/chrono/

From the Grand Comics Database, a list of appearances by the E.C. superheroine Moon Girl.

E.C. has been listed as a publisher who's entire output is not to be uploaded to this archive. I know that, do to its fame (or infamy) much of E.C.'s horror and crime comics, and even some of their war comics, have been published in licensed reprints, and I think that even Picture Stories from the Bible might still be controlled by a rights holder, but has anyone bothered to renew the rights to this oddball superheroine who is outside the bounds of what modern readers expect of E.C.? I read somewhere that a small publisher is publishing adventured of a revamped politicized Moon Girl that claims lineage to these old comics. What is the situation with the rights to old material?

[Yoc]

Hi RJ,
Until one of our resident experts can confirm their status it's best to not upload them.

-Yoc

[darkmark (RIP)]

Have a feeling we shouldn't.  Did EC Classics ever reprint this one?

[John C]

I actually rarely see renewals for EC titles, including Moon Girl's series, so it's fine (or should be) from a legal standpoint.  If there are other considerations, like respectfully avoiding stepping on someone's revenue stream or worries about some litigious nutjob thinking he owns it, though, that might be its own issue, but I don't know the landscape well enough to say.

(Note:  That's not "EC books should be fine."  That's "there's a large number of EC books that are in the public domain and they should probably be checked as they become available rather than making any kind of "rule.")

[OtherEric]

I think EC is a publisher that we avoid for a few reasons, even if they do have a few PD books.  They're both aggressive on stopping posting of their material, and they're good about keeping stuff available. 

I believe somebody determined some of the very earliest books from what became DC weren't renewed, either; but we decided it wasn't worth the headaches of trying to post them here.

[John C]

For that reason, I never get involved in those "policy decisions," but just stand by to check things.  If it was just me, I'd just post everything that didn't have a copyright and deal with the annoying lawyer folks if they ever show up.

I do somewhat worry that we're setting back public domain use, though, with these sorts of decisions.  It gives the continued impression that copyright works like trademark, in that if the company still exists, they MUST hold the copyright, by some magical definition, or if some magic number of publishers have used the property or "unimportant," then it's public domain.

Derived works, as discussed in another thread, can be very murky, but to me, the Library of Congress records should have pretty much the final say.  In other words, people should have access to Marvel Comics #1 and New Adventure Comics #27, because the public does own the rights to those books, regardless of who "might" (but probably wouldn't, if they're professionals, since they have no standing to sue) send a Cease and Desist letter.

Again, though, that's just me.

[Poztron]

In a related vein, I have an IW title, Danger #15, which is a reprint of Timely's Spy Cases #26. Is that allowable?

[John C]

Timely's off-limits here (and most places), and only a handful of copyrights (such as the Marvel Comics #1 I mentioned) seem to have snuck through, so probably not, siince IW rarely contributed any original material.

[Yoc]

Nope, don't share it here P.  Scan if you like but this isn't the place for it.
---
John, I certainly understand your feelings.  We might well be within our rights but can we sit back and confidently say there's not a single non-PD work somewhere on the site?  Do we really want to antagonize DC to the point where they find something that might have slipped by us and perhaps make life unpleasant here?  We are a tiny island with almost zero funds basically living on the crumbs (wonderful crumbs we all love) of long forgotten works in a almost universally disparaged entertainment genre.  We are here to save those almost lost works as digital scans in an attempt to keep them alive for posterity.  If we pick a fight with someone that puts our main objective in jeopardy or perhaps shuts us down completely, how does being 'in the right' really help us?  I think if it means not hosting Marvel #1, More Fun, Moon Girl or New Adventures it's not a huge loss if it means we can safely continue to share the 1000s of other books we feel are safe for the site.

That's just my thoughts on the site, you results may vary as they like to say.
-Yoc

[John C]

can we sit back and confidently say there's not a single non-PD work somewhere on the site?

That's another issue and one that should be taken up one day (and the answer is actually fairly well-known).  The worry about misinformation doesn't just go in one direction, after all.

But I also don't think it's really "picking a fight."  DC doesn't have any interest in these books (the only character who's seen print in half a century is an unrecognizable Dr. Occult and that after a fifty year lapse) and they must know, through trivial inspection, that they don't own the copyright.  Warner Brothers has also been fairly lenient even with people who reproduce entire swaths of copyrighted titles.

Is there a chance that Marvel would go ballistic at Submariner's first appearance being given away free to the point that they call in big brother Eisner?  I suppose, even though they'd know that they'd lose the case and be forced to pay the defendant's legal fees--a long way to go to avoid a book that's been (presumably, at least) "pirated" already for years.

But if we're afraid of them, why no fear of Bill Black who's reprinted (and still gets revenue from) many of the stories here?  He has the same claim to those books as Marvel has to the first Marvel Comics.  Why no fear of DC coming after the Phantom Lady books?  They actually have a history of trying to block that one.  Why no fear of a random idiot with deep pockets who suddenly decides he owns every Golden Age Blue Beetle appearance?  That's much more likely.  Why no fear of a single artist's associate demanding all his material be removed?  That's already happened.

Again, it's something that can be taken up later, but as I see it, arbitrary decisions along these lines are what make copyright confusing to people and give companies the reputation of having exclusive rights when there are none.

[Yoc]

I'm not a trail blazer John.
I just want to keep DCM running smoothly, no fuss, no muss.  Marvel especially has a history of shutting down anything and now with Disney involved I'm certainly hot interested in testing those waters.

Some of the cases you've pointed out were decisions made by Aussie and Serj before I came along.  Trust me, if I were the deciding factor in what is and isn't safe for the site there'd be a few less sections then here.

Your passion for sharing what is legal doesn't mean the site might not be hurt while proving that right.  I don't want to see it harmed making a point.  GAC has left itself open to these matters among others, let them be the test case if one should happen.  And there's nothing stopping anyone here from opening a site and sharing just those books you mentioned.  If they do I wish them only the best.

-Yoc

[RJ Bowman]

Bill Black is well versed in what is copyrighted and what is not. Much of his reprint stuff is public domain stuff that has been altered ins some way to make it a newly copyrightable derivative work; i.e. the removal of color half tones and the addition of zip-a-tone style shading, and in the case of one Fawcet reprint that I am aware of, the panels rearranged into entirely new page layouts with the character of Captain Marvel Junior being redrawn as a different Fawcett character that had passed into public domain. If you scan Bill Black's reprints and upload them, you will hear from Bill, but if you scan the public domain originals, he won't have anything to say about it.

[Yoc]

I'm betting Bill has used scans from GAC and DCM for material in his books as is his right.  Anyone can do so.
We have no intention of sharing scans of any of his books.