Digital Comic Museum > Welcome and Introductions

'Bleeding Cool' and 'boing boing' Readers

(1/4) > >>

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page