Digital Comic Museum
Digital Comic Museum => News and Announcements => Topic started by: Yoc on April 10, 2019, 01:32:47 PM
-
Hello gang,
DCM has been informed by Warner Brothers (current owners of Fawcett copyrights) legal representation that several Fawcett books on DCM are in fact not in the public domain and must come down. We have reached out and confirmed the email as authentic and they have been civil in their dealings with DCM and CB+. WB is within their rights to ask us to remove these books.
The books they have asked us to remove are:
Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150;
Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119;
Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2;
Fawcett's Funny Animals nos. 31-79;
Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15;
The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89;
Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28;
Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132;
Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155;
Wow Comics nos. 36-69.
And any foreign editions containing reprints of copyrighted material from the listed issues.
We have removed the books as requested as well as any compilations with them in it. If you notice any we have missed (particularly foreign editions) please call our attention to them as quickly as possible so we can correct the situation.
We will add bold notes in their sections about their changes in status and stress which cannot be uploaded again by anyone trying to be helpful and filling missing holes in the collection.
-Staff DCM
-
We have decided to keep this thread open so people can post their opinion and views but please be civil. We will moderate any inappropriate comments or worse case, lock the thread.
-
I'd be curious to see what documentation they provided, was it copies of registration/numbers?
-
Hoppy the Marvel Bunny? seriously? ..... Looks like they want to cash in on the popularity of the Shazam film....
-
I'd be curious to see what documentation they provided, was it copies of registration/numbers?
We are not going to publicly share the correspondence we've had with WB at this time, sorry.
-
I'd be curious to see what documentation they provided, was it copies of registration/numbers?
We saw enough evidence for us to believe their request was correct and so we have removed the comics. We feel it prudent to not share the contents of the emails.
-
I'd be curious to see what documentation they provided, was it copies of registration/numbers?
We saw enough evidence for us to believe their request was correct and so we have removed the comics. We feel it prudent to not share the contents of the emails.
The contents of the emails should stay private, but the trademark and copyright documents should be public domain, as well as any court cases, unless those records are sealed, correct? Otherwise how would anyone be able to check whether their work violates someone's copyright? If there are any records that can be accessed through public means, could you point to them?
-
It seems silly and oldfashioned of them to react in this way (civil as it is), in a times when even the big copyright holders like Disney, Marvel, Start Trek and Star Wars are starting to realize that keeping a portion of the property in view (especially if it is the portion that never could be used to make money) actually helps the IP in other venues. I applaud them for at least considering that a Marvel Bunny could be turned proviable (especially after the Marvel Mutiversu succes), but someone should tell them that the free availabillity of the comic book version can only help to achieve that goals. Surely copyright laws aren't so simplistic that allowing digital versions of the comic book to exist would obliterate character rights for new projects?
-
The books they have asked us to remove are:
Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150;
Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119;
Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2;
Fawcett's Funny Animals nos. 31-79;
Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15;
The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89;
Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28;
Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132;
Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155;
Wow Comics nos. 36-69.
These issues have also been removed from the Wanted List.
-
Hi gang:
I thought it was probably due to the Shazam movie.
I just saw the movie. It was okay, but I would have much preferred
to have the downloads available from DCM instead.
As some commenters mentioned, it would create far more interest
in Shazam and any future films to have these great comics still around.
And good will, too.
-
Well, damn! The Fawcett comics are my most visited section of DCM.
Excuse me, Warner, but I take this personally. Captain Marvel was one of my father’s favorite characters. I discovered DCM just a few weeks before he died last year, so I never got to show him any of these comics. Every Fawcett comic I’ve downloaded has made me feel closer to him and helped me grieve.
:'(
-
I've only downloaded maybe a dozen or so of the now deleted titles, but I'm grateful to have what I do. I doubt that Warner Bros. will be releasing any more Archive Editions of Fawcett material, which is disappointing.
-
I don't see a problem with taking them down. There's enough material on the site to provide plenty of reading material. The funny thing is, a copyright lawsuit has to show damages. Since the site is not charging for the content nor profiting from it, the only damages would be lost sales on their end. Since they aren't publishing the material currently the settlement value would be close to $0. I'm very careful with my cover galleries to never make an attempt to profit off of my site. I listened to a really cool interview with Charles Schultz. He said that the way the copyright laws are written, the copyright holder has to be proactive in shutting down unauthorized use of the material. All they are really doing is showing due diligence whether they care on a personal level or not.
-
I thought that copyrights apply only to financial or business use of copyrighted material and that they are freely available for non-profit hobby or educational use. Also, how does Warners view buying and selling of old Fawcett comics? Are they now going to demand a share of a seller's profit from a comic book?
-
I'm assuming that the books still allowed up on the site are the ones they didn't have a problem with? Does that mean they all but confirmed Whiz Comics #2 and others really are PD? This raises even more questions.
-
This action and it's results, i.e. the books still available, does raise some interesting questions. We probably shouldn't go into them here right away.
Since DCM and CB+ went public with the situation, I've been in touch with a few other sites and none has received any communication from WB. A couple of the sites are highly visible and a couple are those which have the most recent issues scanned and available. All the sites have complete or extensive runs of Fawcett comics.
It is good that WB have been civil in their dealings with both sites, and it is absolutely correct that they have the right to defend their copyright. I also don't think that the communications between the parties should be made public at this time. Anyone wanting info. on "registration/numbers" etc. should be able to find it elsewhere.
As for the foreign reprints, it is interesting that many of the particularly Spanish language editions from S. America feature strips from a number of publishers. I have anthology books featuring Fawcett characters, Marvelman (plus Young and Kid)(which are Miller characters and nowadays part of the ongoing Miracleman debacle) and Superman in the same issue.
I'm waiting for a reply from a friend who's a bit of a comics historian, if only to get his views on this.
Just adding that the Uderzo story is O.K. as Bravo bought rights to produce new stories. Pheeeeewwww"
It is rather sad, and I have to admit, depressing. But if all is correct, that's it.
By the way, I wonder if any action has been taken about the unlicensed Spanish "Robin Y El Murcielago" comics, or the French language Superman stories from the '50's. There were runs of both titles. I have to go into your and our files to see if the Uderzo issue has been removed. Now that would be a shame.
-
I thought that copyrights apply only to financial or business use of copyrighted material and that they are freely available for non-profit hobby or educational use. Also, how does Warners view buying and selling of old Fawcett comics? Are they now going to demand a share of a seller's profit from a comic book?
It all comes down to fair use.
Under certain circumstances, material can be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder. Even an school will still need to abide by copyright laws, a book can be photocopied fine as long as they don't exceed 10% of the book. A school might still have to hold a copyright license to allow this (depends on country law)
As for a hobby, as an artist you could make fan art of your favorite character fine but if you tried to sell this fan art on a t-shirt / poster you could end up in hot water if it still closely resembles the original character.
Disturbing a movie / comic etc as a hobby is still copyright infringement even if you don't make a profit. Under copyright law, it is illegal to download or share copyrighted materials such as music, comics or movies without the permission of the copyright owner. If this wasn't the case, file sharing music, movies, comics and games wouldn't be an issue and wouldn't be taken down. This defense has been used previously when the P2P programs were first under threat and the courts sided on the copyright holders.
As for selling / buying a physical comic book or a movie etc, once a copyright holder sells the copyrighted volume to a consumer, the copyright holder’s rights have been exhausted, and the consumer has the right to dispose of (not copy, but dispose of) the book any way he or she sees fit. If this didn't exist there would be no second hand market and this is why companies these days are pushing to digital versions of movies, books, games, comics because they retain the rights and you are restricted from selling the items so killing the second hand market. Most digital items these days are protected with Digital Rights Management (DRM) software.
PS. I'm not a lawyer so take all of the above with a pinch of salt and always do your own research
-
Fortunately I have already downloaded all the Captain Marvel Adventures and Captain Marvel Jr and have them on my hard drive for future reading. I really disagree with their decision because they are never going to reprint these books particularly the ones which feature Steamboat and this is the only way many people have of enjoying these great Golden Age stories
-
It's pointless to discuss the fine points of copyright law, hobbies, and fair use, because in the present environment copyright law is whatever the biggest corporations with the most expensive lawyers say it is. Innovations like the astonishingly bad EU online content law, the concept of having material removed merely by claiming ownership real or imagined, putting public domain material back under copyright, and copyright terms that run into many times a person's lifetime, demonstrate that "rights" have little to do with what's fair or even legal (if the law gets in the way just pay for a new, favorable law). The overarching goal seems to be to convert every piece of "intellectual property" into a source of eternal rent. Nothing is ever "owned" by anyone but the conglomerate at the top. As I've said before regarding Mickey Mouse, what I'd like to see is fifty thousand creators all over the world simultaneously publish Captain Marvel books, posters, movies, and music. The system needs to be broken.
-
I thought that copyrights apply only to financial or business use of copyrighted material and that they are freely available for non-profit hobby or educational use. Also, how does Warners view buying and selling of old Fawcett comics? Are they now going to demand a share of a seller's profit from a comic book?
No. Copyright is a legal right, existing in many countries, that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to determine whether, and under what conditions, this original work may be used by others. They can prohibit or allow whatever they want.
-
It's pointless to discuss the fine points of copyright law, hobbies, and fair use, because in the present environment copyright law is whatever the biggest corporations with the most expensive lawyers say it is. Innovations like the astonishingly bad EU online content law, the concept of having material removed merely by claiming ownership real or imagined, putting public domain material back under copyright, and copyright terms that run into many times a person's lifetime, demonstrate that "rights" have little to do with what's fair or even legal (if the law gets in the way just pay for a new, favorable law). The overarching goal seems to be to convert every piece of "intellectual property" into a source of eternal rent. Nothing is ever "owned" by anyone but the conglomerate at the top. As I've said before regarding Mickey Mouse, what I'd like to see is fifty thousand creators all over the world simultaneously publish Captain Marvel books, posters, movies, and music. The system needs to be broken.
I agree with what you say except the point about it being pointless to discuss. The copyright system is broken and functionally useless. If cavemen had started it, musical notes would be copyrighted and we'd have to pay to use them. The heirs to the inventor of the wheel would be very rich. The inventors of every pigment would be rich. Everything we encounter is an accumulation of what someone before us did. At what point do people quit worrying about what they can get from others and start thinking about what they can give to others. If everyone gave to those around us instead of taking, we'd all be rich in the ways that really matter.
-
Thanks for the info CapDJ, Roy, et al. Here's an imaginary problem for this board: suppose I own a Fawcett comic that's on Warners prohibited list. Since I own the hardcopy, I can do what I want with it. Right? I decide to scan and send it electronically to a friend (or maybe to several friends!). Further, my friend(s) reciprocate by sending me electronic copies of their own 'prohibited' Fawcett hardcopies. We've now established a PRIVATE electronic comics-trading circle. Are we breaking any copyright law?
By the way, I'm in the midst of scanning my own Fawcett 324-page Gift Comics #1(1942). The job is slow going because of the tight binding. When it's done, I'd like to send it here -- if that's acceptable.
-
Thanks for the info CapDJ, Roy, et al. Here's an imaginary problem for this board: suppose I own a Fawcett comic that's on Warners prohibited list. Since I own the hardcopy, I can do what I want with it. Right? I decide to scan and send it electronically to a friend (or maybe to several friends!). Further, my friend(s) reciprocate by sending me electronic copies of their own 'prohibited' Fawcett hardcopies. We've now established a PRIVATE electronic comics-trading circle. Are we breaking any copyright law?
In your imaginary situation, you own a hard copy so you can do what you want with ONLY the hard copy. If you make a copy of that book and pass it on, you would be breaking copyright law. Doesn't matter if it's private or public, it still infringing on their copyright and if found out you could face legal action.
If you owned the hard copy and wanted to preserve it, in case it got damaged, you could create a copy as long as it was for personal use and was not shared. Libraries and Museums do this with rare books/art and these copies are filed away and not for general public viewing normally, just archiving purposes.
-
By the way, I'm in the midst of scanning my own Fawcett 324-page Gift Comics #1(1942). The job is slow going because of the tight binding. When it's done, I'd like to send it here -- if that's acceptable.
Hi Larry,
We would love a share a scan of your Gift Comics #1 but we have to confirm what the contents are. It's never been indexed on the GCD. But if you could list the story titles to me we can use the GCD site to track down the details. You can send me a Private Message or use the Contact Us link with the info and I will get back to you asap.
-Yoc
-
Luckily there won't be a Kilroys movie anytime soon.
-
As a purely historical matter, I thought I would mention the original purpose of copyright—to give creators a temporary monopoly on their creations as an economic incentive to create, the ultimate goal being to enrich the cultural and intellectual life of society as a whole. It was not to supply revenue streams to corporate entities or to assure the livelihoods of the creators’ descendants in perpetuity. The limited term of copyright was essential to its purpose—once a creator had had an opportunity to economically benefit from what was created, the words, ideas, artworks, etc. were expected to circulate freely for the benefit of all.
With “benefit” eventually being re-defined as solely and entirely as “economic gain,” and the concept of “benefit of all” in danger of disappearing entirely, things are now . . . considerably different.
-
Excellent points Blastaar!
Couldn't have put it better.
-
Ugh, I always meant to check out the original Captain Marvel at some point. Now I'm going to have to find out where I can find scans elsewhere- that's not going to be much fun.
-
Something not yet discussed:
Along with the comic itself were the details on who wrote, drew and inked the stories, as well as a table of contents and brief descriptions of each story. Now that the comics are gone, these details are also all gone.
Any chance that this information could still be made available?
Also: huge thanks to those who did the scans as well as those that compiled all this information. T'would be a shame if ALL this effort disappeared!
-
tymime, we still have a LOT of Captain Marvel books on the site, including a paper scan of the very first appearance in Whiz Comics that was recently contributed to the site by Erik Larsen; over 200 issues total are left.
seary, the info on the books was all pulled from the Grand Comics Database; https://www.comics.org/ . You can get the info there.
Our glass is still at least half full.
-
Thanks for the clarification CapDJ. Looks like the corporations have it all their own way right now. I hope someday we can change the copyright laws back to their original intent, as mentioned by Blastaar
-
I had an idea about these missing issues, which could solve a few issues. Would it be possible to put just the covers for these issues online? The file comment could indicate that the rest of the issue can't be hosted for legal reasons. This way, new uploaders would see the cover placeholder and be less inclined to upload a missing issue. Plus, the GCD details could be linked to the cover upload. I would think that just the covers would be okay, since GCD has been allowed to host even Disney, Marvel and DC covers for years now.
If covers are acceptable, then perhaps other partially allowed titles, such as Super Duck and Wilbur, could potentially be filled in (up to the 1960 cutoff).
Does anyone else think this would be a reasonable compromise?
-
That's an interesting idea Moose. We will talk it over in the staff room.
If needed a generic cover for them all but an entry with the GCD ID info still listed would work.
-Yoc
-
What about the Canadian "Whites"? The WW2 Era B&W Canadian comics - They licenced the American scripts but drew new artwork - there's been a couple of articles recently around the web -(Wish I could recall the links at the moment)
Not many of those have turned up on line,sadly.
What's interesting is the renewal on the following books
Captain Marvel Adventures 3-6
Whiz Comics #3-6
Captain Marvel Story Book #s 1-2
All of those would have come due for renewal in the late 1960's, long before Fawcett licenced The Marvels to DC/National - the rest of the renewals fall into the time-period when they had licenced out to DC (and by extension, to Filmation) and beyond. Interesting that they were renewed and others were not.
The other thing that is interesting is the "Gap" in the renewals in the later part of the runs - those fall around 1953 (Which means the renewals would have been due c.1981) - clearly paperwork went missing and DC and/or Fawcett never bothered to double check when they filed the renewals.
But the best thing to come out of this is now it's 100% clear of what DC owns and doesn't with regards to past Fawcett copyrights.
-
It's funny this should come up as I finally finished my animated version of Whiz Comics #2. I actually had an almost identical list of "off limits" issues that I knew I couldn't adapt, if I ever got more than one done every few years.
In a way, it's encouraging that they were narrow in their demands, rather than trying to threaten you guys in to taking down everything in the Fawcett section and hoping you wouldn't call their bluff, the way the Edgar Rice Burroughs and Arthur Conan Doyle estate's do it.
You know this January was the first time new works fell in to the public domain in 20 years. Maybe corporate America will be satisfied with what they have for awhile and not try for another extension. Steamboat Willie almost belongs to everybody at last.
-
My understanding has always been that Gift Comics were rebound copies of unsold books, so that each copy could potentially be totally different books. If that is the case, there's a good chance with 300+ pages that at least some of the content is on "the list."
-
To me, the most disheartening part of this development is that the members here were making good progress on upgrading the scans of the Fawcett Marvel titles (the originals of which were becoming more substandard by the day.)
I hope emphasis will shift to the remaining PD Fawcetts (WOW 13, in particular, is in poor shape.)
-
DC Warner Brothers is really grasping at straws claiming copyright on these. When they do not even hold copyright to ALL of these comics then what is the point? Not like they are ever going to reprint or do anything with them. All they are doing is decreasing interest if you cant read the ones that have been pulled. I think they have done this more so because of their failed Shazam movie and thought they would have more interest than they got.
On another not all of these ones that have been pulled by DC are still available on the internet archive site. Seems DC is not flexing their muscles with them. I for one am now boycotting anything DC. This is just plain stupid. Some of these have been available for over 10 years and DC never ever made any type of copyright claim. Why now?
-
Most of the Fawcett's we need are not on their ban list.
-
That's sad and strange news indeed. I always thought of DCM as sort of what it's name implies, a digital museum archiving old comics.
Many of the early Whiz Fawcett issues on here were originally from fiches of the Library of Congress or other libraries, weren't they? It seems like if DCM is not profiting and acting more as archivist or library there would be some kind of legal protection as such. People contribute here to keep those old stories out there and relevant. To me it's like banning books at a library.
It makes me kind of nervous now about uploading and contributing more of the old comics I might have run across to scan. It makes me worry about other characters from the golden age comics I figure are PD but have the name of certain current DC characters. I'm glad I downloaded several issues earlier this year.
On another hand it seems like this helps the ebay collection profiteers and or other robin hood seeding sites. (https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/forum/Smileys/yarex2/rolleyes.gif)
-
That's sad and strange news indeed. I always thought of DCM as sort of what it's name implies, a digital museum archiving old comics.
Many of the early Whiz Fawcett issues on here were originally from fiches of the Library of Congress or other libraries, weren't they? It seems like if DCM is not profiting and acting more as archivist or library there would be some kind of legal protection as such. People contribute here to keep those old stories out there and relevant. To me it's like banning books at a library.
It makes me kind of nervous now about uploading and contributing more of the old comics I might have run across to scan. It makes me worry about other characters from the golden age comics I figure are PD but have the name of certain current DC characters. I'm glad I downloaded several issues earlier this year.
On another hand it seems like this helps the ebay collection profiteers and or other robin hood seeding sites. (https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/forum/Smileys/yarex2/rolleyes.gif)
DC is going after ebay sellers as well. There are also sellers selling hard copies on amazon yet DC is doing nothing about that. It just seems arbitrary. The thing is DC never ever claimed copyright on these for over 10 years and then all of a sudden.
-
Everyone,
Gaad!!!
It is so frustrating after all of these years all of a sudden the copyright is renewed?
I really don't understand.
After it has fallen into the public domain, this can be reversed somehow?
Have I missed something?
I thought once it was pd, it remains in the pd.
B.
-
Everyone,
Gaad!!!
It is so frustrating after all of these years all of a sudden the copyright is renewed?
I really don't understand.
After it has fallen into the public domain, this can be reversed somehow?
Have I missed something?
I thought once it was pd, it remains in the pd.
B.
The books were actually renewed on time, for whatever reason the fact was missed and not pursued by WB until now.
Generally, once something is PD it stays PD. The major exception would be certain foreign items coming back under protection due to various international agreements. There have also been some weird cases where certain aspects of an item have been demonstrated to still be protected even when the final work isn't. It's a wonderful life would be the classic example of that second case, the soundtrack is what's actually still under copyright.
-
To all my DCM chums,
They may seem like a silly question but-
How do we go about checking the copyright status of comic books here on DCM?
I imagine some of it can be somewhat convoluted at times.
Take a look at this video I stumbled on a while ago explaining how "It's a Wonderful Life" went from no copyright, to copyright again!
From the great online video series "FILMAKER IQ" I just love to watch his shows!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnUGXQwJMSM
I imagine there is some thread here that I have missed over these past years?
It has got to drive you guys that run the site crazy at times!!!
Thanks again to all of you who do what you do!
Yours,
Brian
-
Hi Brian,
Yep, there is a topic for this - JohnC's 'How To Check PD Status Tutorial' at this link:
https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/forum/index.php/topic,2453.0.html
-Yoc
-
Am I the only one who has noticed Master Comics #128 to 132 are back on the site? https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/index.php?cid=69
-
Am I the only one who has noticed Master Comics #128 to 132 are back on the site? https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/index.php?cid=69
Thank you very much for the heads up, I suspect something glitched and we had to restore something from backup. Not sure, I'm not the tech guy. I've re-removed them.
-
I think this is tragic news.Our beloved Captain Marvel-the ORIGINALCaptain Marvel-is being buried once again by an incarnation of DC who caused his disappearance for 20 years in 1953. It would not be so bad if Warners were reprinting these comics so the public can legitimately by/download/collect/read them,but I see no sign of that.
I wish I had downloaded all of the material they have caused to be excised; I always felt secure that Fawcett comics were preserved and available on this site and I could read and enjoy them when I wanted to.
These comics have a special place in peoples hearts and should be readily available for research and enjoyment for posterity.
I wonder if a deal could be struck whereby such comics could be posted with a clear copyright acknowledgement , with permission of course.Might Warners be open to such an arrangement, or is this wishful thinking on my part?
Of course, if you don't ask, you don't get......
-
Unhappy state of Captain Marvel whom I'm just appreciating and getting into. Wonder what situations, events and characters W is copyrighting/trademarking for their future projects - CM's marriage from the last issue? CM battling the Seven Deadly Sins (used in the movie)??
Anyway, are many of these missing issue stories reprinted in the Shazam Archives and Shazam DC comic reprints of the '70's? Have a couple of the latter, should I chase the rest down? Thanks and stay well.
-
On a happier note, but also a sad note because it can't be shared here (it's on the verboten list), I just purchased a copy of Captain Marvel #137. Really wish I could scan it a share it. A small addition to my very small GA collection.
-
Congrats on your new book Face!
:)
-
Thanks, Yoc! It's CM Battles the Seven Deadly Sins. 36 pages, 2 CM stories plus other characters.
-
Additional - CM Battles the Seven Deadly Sins (inside title is "Battles King Kull and...") is in the 75 Years book. 2nd CM story is Mr. Tawny's Culture Craze, 3rd story is CM and the Royal Riddle involving Billy Batson's double Tommy Archer and a switcheroo plot.
Sounds like they're copyrighting and trademarking all the very marketable characters - Mary Shazam the movie (female super powered heroines are super popular properties), Hoppy the Shazam Bunny? Anyone remember Rocket Racoon & Groot?
-
I didn'know that:
In the United States, as a result of successive changes in the law, works first published between 1924 and 1978 are protected for a period of 95 years after this first publication, i.e., until 2073 at the most and 2019 at the least. However, in most countries of the world, the Berne Convention applies with a protection of 50 or 70 years after the death of the author; that is to say until 2049 at the most for works by authors who died in 1978, and at least 1975 for authors who died in 1924.
-
So what does this mean?
-
I am not a lawyer, and I am riffing from memory, so...
The simple rule is that works published in the States in 1925 or earlier are in the PD. No exception.
Works published between 1926 and 1978 without the copyright symbol are PD.
Works published between 1926 and 1963 with a notice, but not renewed, are also PD.
I have seen many claims that most works published prior 1963 are in the PD.... Can't say for sure on that.
-
Can the letter be posted somewhere? Seems like they admit that some of the books are PD, which could be great!
Hello gang,
DCM has been informed by Warner Brothers (current owners of Fawcett copyrights) legal representation that several Fawcett books on DCM are in fact not in the public domain and must come down. We have reached out and confirmed the email as authentic and they have been civil in their dealings with DCM and CB+. WB is within their rights to ask us to remove these books.
The books they have asked us to remove are:
Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150;
Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119;
Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2;
Fawcett's Funny Animals nos. 31-79;
Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15;
The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89;
Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28;
Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132;
Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155;
Wow Comics nos. 36-69.
And any foreign editions containing reprints of copyrighted material from the listed issues.
We have removed the books as requested as well as any compilations with them in it. If you notice any we have missed (particularly foreign editions) please call our attention to them as quickly as possible so we can correct the situation.
We will add bold notes in their sections about their changes in status and stress which cannot be uploaded again by anyone trying to be helpful and filling missing holes in the collection.
-Staff DCM
-
The current Saturday Evening Post has the following article, which in fact I would not worry about
copyright repercussions, for as their enlightened attitude seems to be leaning towards the idea
that any presentation is better than none. If no eyes are permitted to view your past work, why
in the world would they want to see your current fare. Generally piracy is being looked upon as
advertising. Why in the world would DC comics (Warner), not want free advertising. They cannot
seem to utilize all the resources they claim. Very interesting article.
-
It is a confusination :o Most of the Fawcett Captain Marvels are up on another site which I could mention, or would I get sued? I was looking for other sources for The Monster Society of Evil that might have been used for the limited edition hardcover collection put out in Britain (I think) a few years ago. Search took me to Gwandanaland listings and this other place. Looks like it has a lot of the same scans as DCM used to have, even to the GM files and fiches.
Have a better New Year folks!
-
Gwandanaland published a Monster Society of Evil collection back in the day.
Once it was learned the final chapter was NOT public doman, they withdrew it from sale.
Since all of the other issues in the series are, in fact, still public domain, Gwandanaland had a contest in which someone write a new final chapter.
That's the version of Monster Society of Evil they currently offer for sale, with all of the originally published chapters except for the newly written final chapter.