'Bleeding Cool' and 'boing boing' Readers

[John C]

Hi, new folks (and relatively new folks).  Welcome.  The emergency exits are here, here, and back there next to the triceratops.

If you've come here through the link from Bleeding Cool, I want to quickly clarify what goes on here, since Mr. Johnston seemed a bit confused in his brief piece--understandably so, given the weirdness of Intellectual Property law.

In short, the books here are (should be--there's always the possibility of error) free of copyright in the United States.  They are, therefore, the property of the American people to, for example, republish as we like.  (If you're from another country, the issue is slightly murkier, but these are publishable in the United States, regardless of where you read them.)

If we published them individually, there could be marketplace confusion with current titles like "Daredevil."  However, we're not using any individual names except as identification among many other distinct characters, so there's no chance of being accused of "trading" on Marvel's reputation in that case.

I hope that clears things up.  Enjoy the comics and the community.  We like it here, and think you will, too.  And buy war bonds or something.

[Astaldo711]

I'm glad you mentioned this John. That guy is a dink. Pardon my French and I don't mean to be crass but it seems to me his is opening a can of worms for no reason.

[bchat]

Actually, it's more like he's speaking out of ignorance of the applicable laws, and because of that, even more people will be misinformed & confused about the Public Domain, Copyright laws & Trademarks.  That's why I'm glad that (love 'em or hate 'em) things like Project Superpowers & Erik Larsen's use of the Golden Age Daredevil in The Savage Dragon are out there, because it throws into doubt everything these knuckleheads are saying.  Hopefully, as a result, the "misinformed & confused" are smart enough to go to the right places & ask the right questions.

[John C]

Agreed.  He's just wrong.  There's not much horrible in that.  If I'm not seriously wrong at least once a day, I worry, personally.

And in a field like trademark law, which is (quite possibly intentionally) complex and confusing, I can't blame anyone who thinks they have a handle on it for trying to be careful.

But the key (for anybody who's interested) is in brand confusion.  If you do something that looks like you have the goodwill of another company (like using the Spider-Man logo), then that fraud is trademark infringement, because typical people instantly think of the Marvel character when they see the logo or hear the name.

A lawyer, however, would have to make the case that a user could come to the site, wander through the Lev Gleason section (y'know, a company that's very much not Marvel), and believe that the "Daredevil Comics" (the title of the series) is seriously confusing people into thinking that we have Marvel books and damaging Marvel's business (either by implying quality or by stealing customers) as well.

Real example, Bill Black's Phantom Lady:  If you picked up his early Phantom Lady work, you might easily think DC is behind it because Phantom Lady is "theirs" in the trademark sense.  If you didn't like it, then, you might avoid the Freedom Fighters title because you didn't like Bill's art or occultist vision for the character.  (The flaw in my reasoning is that nobody knows who Phantom Lady is, let alone associates her with DC.)  By changing the character to Nightveil, not only does he decouple his fate from DC's, but he ends up with a stronger trademark, himself.

What's funny is that, while we're almost certainly safe here from anybody but a rogue lawyer who doesn't know his stuff but has big pockets, I'd bet that Marvel could have a pretty good case against the "Death Defying 'Devil" if they wanted.  Trademark infringement doesn't need to have identical marks.  It's about similar positioning with confusing identities.

Lastly, I'll point out that Xerox gave trademarks a bad name.  They were concerned about their brand becoming genericized and so pressured publishers to avoid using the name as a verb.  That was more public relations than legal action, though, since you can't exactly sue someone for mentioning you...unless it's libel or slander, of course, but that's another story...which you can (heh) Google if you want.

[Drusilla lives!]

Every time I read this stuff about trademarks, copyrights and lawyers, with regard to comics and comic book characters I wonder why I ever liked them in the first place (comics and comic book characters, that is). 

It just reminds me of how they really are used for one purpose only, to suck money out of young children's pockets (or to be more specific their parent's pockets)... it's a real joy killer if you ask me... although I can understand the reasoning for it being the topic of discussion here on this site.

[Roygbiv666]

Every time I read this stuff about trademarks, copyrights and lawyers, with regard to comics and comic book characters I wonder why I ever liked them in the first place (comics and comic book characters, that is). 

It just reminds me of how they really are used for one purpose only, to suck money out of young children's pockets (or to be more specific their parent's pockets)... it's a real joy killer if you ask me... although I can understand the reasoning for it being the topic of discussion here on this site.

You enjoyed reading them and therefore valued them enough to pay for them. And someone else provided you with the means of your enjoyment and got paid for it. I don't see the problem. :-)

[Drusilla lives!]

I like comic books... imo there's a lot of great art (that I truly love) that was done, and some wonderful stories and concepts put forth in them as well... but I don't like what I've learned about the business side of comic books.  It was at times (and probably still is to some extent) a filthy and even disgraceful business... although perhaps not as bad as some.  

And with regard to this whole issue with GA characters... although I can sympathize with the families of these long gone artists and writers... I can't help but feel that in many instances that sympathy is misplaced somewhat, after all, to me it does seem at times that they're really just looking to grab a piece of the pie.  If money wasn't involved how many would REALLY care about their long lost relative twice removed?  How many times would they go and visit their grave or light a candle for them?  No, I have a greater sympathy for the artists and writers themselves, the ones who WERE screwed, money-wise.  Not a bunch of great great grand kids looking to live off something created long ago into perpetuity... and in many ways, perhaps this goes for anyone else who has nothing to add, but nevertheless profits on these works (DC and Marvel included, because imo I really don't think what they're doing lately is "adding" anything positive to the existing body of work).  The only thing that should be remembered is the artist and his work... and ultimately that IS the recompense to any true "artist" for his or her work... the work of any artist ultimately is (or should be) a labor of love.

[bchat]

I like comic books... imo there's a lot of great art (that I truly love) that was done, and some wonderful stories and concepts put forth in them as well... but I don't like what I've learned about the business side of comic books.  It was at times (and probably still is to some extent) a filthy and even disgraceful business... although perhaps not as bad as some.  

Knowing how complicated Copyrights & Trademarks can be at times gives me a greater appreciation for something that is somewhat original that's created in today's world.  Hearing so many people complain about Copyright & Trademark Laws and how they restrict creativity, it's nice to see some people get past that line of thinking and actually BE creative.  The "business side of comic books" is, for me, neither here nor there when it comes to sitting down and reading them.  Knowing Marvel owns the Trademark on "Captain Marvel" doesn't make an issue of "Shazam!" any better or worse than it is on its own, and DC owning the TM on "Blue Beetle" doesn't make their take on the character any better, either.  "It is what it is".

No, I have a greater sympathy for the artists and writers themselves, the ones who WERE screwed, money-wise.  Not a bunch of great great grand kids looking to live off something created long ago into perpetuity...

I can't agree with the sentiments of that last sentence.  I'm sure someone like Jack Kirby, being family-oriented, would be thrilled to know that his grandkids can make money off the work he created and owned himself.  I'm sure that there are plenty of creative people who own their own work that have looked back on their careers/lives and smiled knowing that they have "provided for their families" for years to come.  I mean, all the money that those Golden Age creators "missed-out on" ... what do you think would have eventually happened to that money had they gotten their "fair share"?  My guess is that a good portion of it would have gone to their children & grandchildren after they passed away.

[Drusilla lives!]

...

No, I have a greater sympathy for the artists and writers themselves, the ones who WERE screwed, money-wise.  Not a bunch of great great grand kids looking to live off something created long ago into perpetuity...

I can't agree with the sentiments of that last sentence.  I'm sure someone like Jack Kirby, being family-oriented, would be thrilled to know that his grandkids can make money off the work he created and owned himself.  I'm sure that there are plenty of creative people who own their own work that have looked back on their careers/lives and smiled knowing that they have "provided for their families" for years to come.  I mean, all the money that those Golden Age creators "missed-out on" ... what do you think would have eventually happened to that money had they gotten their "fair share"?  My guess is that a good portion of it would have gone to their children & grandchildren after they passed away.

I love Kirby and his work... but honestly... I really feel he should have sued everyone's asses off back in the day.  I'm talking about the late 60s, when he left Marvel.  That was the time to make a legal move IMO... did he really think things would get better in time?  

Well, whatever the reason he did what he did (perhaps because he loved the work, not the money), he's a perfect example of my original point... the business side of comics was a filthy, cutthroat one.  What more proof does one need than his story... a poor, but talented kid who went to work in the comic book sweatshops at a young age, worked his fingers down to the bone (and in the end, even lost his eyesight in one eye) creating and co-creating some of the most memorable characters of all time, at one point practically reviving the entire industry, and what does he get?  He gets a fraction of what he was due monetarily IMO.  And if they could do that to him, an industry leader worth his weight in gold, a true insider (practically family to some of these people really) what chance did anyone else have?

Well, I guess I've given myself the best answer to why I hate hearing about copyrights, trademarks and lawyers in regard to comics... it reminds me that they were a product of slave labor (to a certain extent).

[bchat]

If money wasn't involved how many would REALLY care about their long lost relative twice removed?  How many times would they go and visit their grave or light a candle for them?"

  In my opinion, if money wasn't involved, how many creators would care about not having ownership of their characters?  Does Joe Simon care about not owning "Ranch Dude"?  Did Paul Gustavson ever say "I wish I would have hung-on to Twister"?  Has Martin Filchock ever said that he wished he had self-published all his superhero stories instead of selling them to Hardie & Kelly?  Did Siegel & Shuster ever fight to get ownership of Dr Occult back?

In every other business, when you're working for someone else, you accept that an idea you come-up with & the work that you do that helps the company make money (or save money, depending on the idea) are only going to benefit the owners in the long-run.  It's a part of the job you accept when you take a paycheck.  When a comic creator works for a publisher, they're also working a job, and creating new characters for that company is a part of the job sometimes.  Sometimes a publisher gets lucky and they have a character that will make them millions of dollars, but more often than not they get a character that nobody (including the creators) cares about.  If a creator can't accept that something they did is making a lot of money for someone else, "that's a shame" but that's the job they chose to do in order to make a living.  They got paid more money than most people made (no matter what year you're talking about) to do nothing but draw all day, so I can't really feel too bad for them.

[thefishyartist]

Now THIS  is what an online comics museum should be! I'm glad you're here and I'm glad I found it.

It's a good thing I'm single, because I'm going to log many many many MANY hours in here.

CHEERS!

[Drusilla lives!]

If money wasn't involved how many would REALLY care about their long lost relative twice removed?  How many times would they go and visit their grave or light a candle for them?"

  In my opinion, if money wasn't involved, how many creators would care about not having ownership of their characters?  Does Joe Simon care about not owning "Ranch Dude"?  Did Paul Gustavson ever say "I wish I would have hung-on to Twister"?  Has Martin Filchock ever said that he wished he had self-published all his superhero stories instead of selling them to Hardie & Kelly?  Did Siegel & Shuster ever fight to get ownership of Dr Occult back?

In every other business, when you're working for someone else, you accept that an idea you come-up with & the work that you do that helps the company make money (or save money, depending on the idea) are only going to benefit the owners in the long-run.  It's a part of the job you accept when you take a paycheck.  When a comic creator works for a publisher, they're also working a job, and creating new characters for that company is a part of the job sometimes.  Sometimes a publisher gets lucky and they have a character that will make them millions of dollars, but more often than not they get a character that nobody (including the creators) cares about.  If a creator can't accept that something they did is making a lot of money for someone else, "that's a shame" but that's the job they chose to do in order to make a living.  They got paid more money than most people made (no matter what year you're talking about) to do nothing but draw all day, so I can't really feel too bad for them.

So you're saying now that if Kirby were alive he wouldn't be entitled to pursuing legal action?  I'd say he'd have MORE of a right to pursue such an option (if he chose to)... more so than a group of relatives a generation or two removed.   

And drawing all day isn't the same as "doing nothing," particularly when that "nothing" you were doing ends up making obscene amounts of money for someone else.  If it's nothing, then why did they pay them anything to do it in the first place?  Yes, drawing all day is a job, ask any draftsmen (if there are any left... in America, that is) but it's still one that not everyone can do, and moreover not every draftsmen can be an architect either.

[bchat]

So you're saying now ...

My stance hasn't changed.  I feel the same way "now" as I always have.

... that if Kirby were alive he wouldn't be entitled to pursuing legal action?  I'd say he'd have MORE of a right to pursue such an option (if he chose to)... more so than a group of relatives a generation or two removed.  

If someone owns a Copyright (like Kirby & "Captain Victory" or Todd McFarlane & "Spawn") then I feel it's right that their children & grandchildren are able to benefit from that.  Kirby's work-for-hire production at Marvel belongs to Marvel.  Are you trying to argue the point that Kirby didn't know what he was getting into by working for someone else?  He was working a job to pay his bills and I don't think it was any big secret who the Copyrights belonged to on the work he created during his time there.

And drawing all day isn't the same as "doing nothing,"

I didn't say it was.  Way to misquote me.  I said "do nothing BUT draw all day".  I would have thought the meaning there was pretty clear.

... particularly when that "nothing" you were doing ends up making obscene amounts of money for someone else.

That's the price you pay for working for (and getting paid by) someone else, plain & simple. Don't like it, don't do it.  These people chose to draw comics for a living.  They could have applied their talents in other ways, by doing portraits, creating murals * paintings, working in advertising, or any number of fields that require artistic talents.  They chose to work in comics and they chose to work for someone else rather than self-publish.

[Drusilla lives!]

So you're saying now ...

My stance hasn't changed.  I feel the same way "now" as I always have.

And drawing all day isn't the same as "doing nothing,"

I didn't say it was.  Way to misquote me.  I said "do nothing BUT draw all day".  I would have thought the meaning there was pretty clear.

I'm not trying to misquote you, I'm just trying to discern where you stand on the issue... it seems pretty obvious to me now.

... that if Kirby were alive he wouldn't be entitled to pursuing legal action?  I'd say he'd have MORE of a right to pursue such an option (if he chose to)... more so than a group of relatives a generation or two removed.  

If someone owns a Copyright (like Kirby & "Captain Victory" or Todd McFarlane & "Spawn") then I feel it's right that their children & grandchildren are able to benefit from that.  Kirby's work-for-hire production at Marvel belongs to Marvel.  Are you trying to argue the point that Kirby didn't know what he was getting into by working for someone else?  He was working a job to pay his bills and I don't think it was any big secret who the Copyrights belonged to on the work he created during his time there.

No, if anything, I'm trying to argue the point that most of the GA of comics was built on slave labor.  I'm sure Kirby knew the situation he was in... and infinitely more so than any of us here (it was his life after all, he lived it, we didn't)... and that was (IMO) one of being exploited by his professional "family."   The work-for-hire system that was put in place IMO was a form of slavery... just as the sweatshop system that most of these comics came out of was.  

... particularly when that "nothing" you were doing ends up making obscene amounts of money for someone else.

That's the price you pay for working for (and getting paid by) someone else, plain & simple. Don't like it, don't do it.  These people chose to draw comics for a living.  They could have applied their talents in other ways, by doing portraits, creating murals * paintings, working in advertising, or any number of fields that require artistic talents.  They chose to work in comics and they chose to work for someone else rather than self-publish.

How would they self-publish?  And how would they paint murals and portraits?  All I have to do is read your comments to know that such work isn't valued by society at large... and when it is, it's usually done by artists whose work is valued by people who don't read comic books.  In fact, with that last thought in mind it probably hurt these people even more to do what they did in comics.

[John C]

Uhm...first, everybody relax a bit.  I'll turn this car right around if you can't behave.

Anyway, I object rather strongly to the idea that working for someone is slavery.  Kirby could have (and did) produce other material.  He could have left the industry.   He didn't.  Therefore, he was getting some benefit that, in a world where every idiot whose name we know is an oppressed folk hero or mustache-twirling villain by fiat, nobody wants to tell us about, because it spoils the legend (or because he never mentioned it).  I guarantee it's not because he loved the people.

Before you accuse me of not knowing what it's like, I'm a programmer.  I sit in front of a computer for eight hours a day producing code--innovating on demand, so to speak--for someone in exchange for a salary.  The code is written on my employer's behalf, for the company, and they own the rights to every bit of it.  I, on the other hand, don't.  In fact, at my previous job, I was asked how I wanted code (which was to be released to the public) to be licensed, and I explained that it wasn't mine to decide, plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with "work for hire;" it's just the deal you make.  Why would anybody pay me to make stuff that I'll then own!?  (And if you know why and who, why haven't you sent me their number?)

(Also:  Everything in software is named after some guy, like there's some land grab going on, which is what I refer to above with folk legends--do you care that the Shell Sort was named after a guy named Shell?  Does it help you understand how it works?)

I think that's appropriate and fair, because, if it becomes popular, it's probably because of the marketing muscle brought to bear, not my genius and artistry.  Let's face facts:  If Action Comics had been published by Nicholson-Wheeler as (I believe) planned, Superman probably wouldn't be much more known than the aforementioned Dr. Occult.  If Siegel and Shuster had self-published, Superman would probably be as popular as Jon Juan or Funnyman.  I imagine that most of Kirby's creations, likewise, would have fared about as well as Silver Star or Captain Victory, without the backing of Timely/Marvel or DC.  If it weren't for shrewd (even if unethical) businessmen pushing the product, none of these trademarks or copyrights would be worth a thing to anybody!

However, as a human being, you're perfectly free to refuse to work for anybody who doesn't grant you the rights you want.  If I wanted partial ownershiip of my software, I could actually semi-successfully approach prospective employers and find such a position.  If I wanted full ownership, I can sell it myself...and I do, in fact, run a small business where I do exactly that, but that's more about me not being able to find a position where I can pursue those ideas than about me owning them.  It works just like shopping around for flexible hours, a higher salary, fringe benefits, or any other "perq."

I won't say that you shouldn't believe as you do, of course, but you do need to understand that a lot of people see the "loss" of rights (to something you might not have created otherwise) is more than a fair price to pay for a paycheck and being able to skip past the part where you build your own business and distribution infrastructure to get your work (and your name) into the hands of appreciative consumers.  And there's absolutely nothing wrong with making that decision or with a company holding you to that decision if you later decide you shouldn't have traded ideas for rent.

There is, however, a problem (in my eyes) with kids trying to convince the country that the big bad company owners are evil and should be punished for, y'know, having upheld their end of the bargain and profited by it, and that they, instead, should be allowed to make gobs of money from something that they had nothing to do with.  (The endless copyright extensions and reclamation laws are going to bury this country in lawsuits and stalled innovation, as far as I can tell.)