Digital Comic Museum
DCM Download Site => What you can upload => Topic started by: KnightRandom on April 04, 2010, 09:56:05 AM
-
The FAQs you've posted say that we're not uploading any post-1959 books to this site, but I've already noticed a certain amount of Silver Age books in the Charlton section, such as the nurse romance books and later issues of Space Adventures. In fact from all the scans I've been able to find Charlton didn't put a proper copyright notation on a single one of its comics until 1968 and some of the comics that did come out that year. This includes all the "Action Heroes" books, with only one exception, Charlton Premiere #3 featuring Sinistro the Boy Fiend. I don't know if there are any other actually public domain Silver Age books--the grounds for letting in ACG's later stuff are tenuous at best as far as I can tell--but could we allow at least some of the Silver Age Charlton books? As far as the Action Heroes go we already do have a lot of stuff that DC long believed itself to own and some stuff (the renewed Fawcett and Nedor comics) that it may in fact own. At the very least it would be nice to have comics like the early issues of Ghostly Tales and the truly bizarre Reptisaurus.
-
Personally I think 60s books are not old enough and the cutoff date should be Jan-1960 but thats up to the people that run the site. 60s books are so much more easier to find than 50s paper.
-
Right now, the rules are staying the same (primarily Golden Age books) for the sake of consistency while we all get our footing. The current date was also partly chosen for convenience of research, not necessarily an absolute definition.
However, behind the scenes, we've been kicking around what will eventually be permissible and the standards on which to judge that while making it clear what's permissible and how thorough the research was (because, especially with a scan, you can't simply trust a single bad notice.
I've been looking at various candidates looking for bad copyrights as late as 1988, so may be some interesting stuff coming, once we're all feeling free to move in that direction.
-
SA books should not be on the site gang. At least not yet!
If you spot any please send Aussie a Private Message about them. (click the word balloon beneath her avatar)
The policy is being reviewed for possible future inclusions but for now it's still nothing post Dec 1959.
Thanks,
-Yoc
-
But wouldn't it make sense for any title that continued past December 1959 Already hosted here that has issues in the public domain starting January 1960 and beyond to have those issues here? The "continuity of publishing" and all that stuff.
-
It's a complicated issue that both GAC and DCM have wrestled with for ages Denny.
GAC will share them DCM is still undecided. It's not a cut and dry question at all.
Besides legalities there's also the possible misleading impression that ALL SA books might be welcome once you start sharing any.
-Yoc
-
But wouldn't it make sense for any title that continued past December 1959 Already hosted here that has issues in the public domain starting January 1960 and beyond to have those issues here? The "continuity of publishing" and all that stuff.
With the Charlton titles yes, especially as most would be PD, but the same rules do not apply to all the other publishers, and even some individual Charlton comics are not PD. Initially I never checked the status on any of the 1960's comics and would like a chance to get set up and check what we have before opening any floodgates. If John C agrees the Silver age Charlton's are OK we will at least continue the series we have so we can host a complete set.
-
It would be nice to know if anything from Prize was ever renewed. Their whole run is probably pd nice to include Cool Cat and a few romance that went past 1960 if OK.
-
No Narf the Prize comics are not OK, we have already had problems with even some GA Prize comics not being PD because they were owned by the artist rather than the publisher so we will not be uploading any new titles done by Prize till they are all checked and noted in the section which ones are safe. There is not big rush, we have not sorted out what we have yet, the future can wait a bit longer.
-
It's a complicated issue that both GAC and DCM have wrestled with for ages Denny.
GAC will share them DCM is still undecided. It's not a cut and dry question at all.
Besides legalities there's also the possible misleading impression that ALL SA books might be welcome once you start sharing any.
-Yoc
I see your point. :)
-
People,
As I have next to zero interest in the SA books I'm asking you to contact Aussie if you find anything you know doesn't belong on the site post Dec 1959. Aussie will be taking the point on this topic.
-Yoc
-
Just want to say I agree with Fett, nothing from January 1960 on. This site is for golden age comics and I like it that way.,
I don't even like the "remixes" that take the repring from an IW or Super comic that was published in the 60's and putting the cover of the original GA comic it was reprinted in the front of the archive and naming it as the GA book instead of as the 1960's reprint it actually is.
Keep this up and I may actually get rid of that newbie status after all. :) But then I posted this and said I ony had 2 posts. Does that have anything to do with the fact I changed my password? Or did I miss something and post counts restarted as fresh on here?
-
I think the "remixes" are likely to stay; I have no problem with them as long as they're clearly marked. I understand your objection; I just think it's unlikely to change at this point.
Which reminds me: Anybody have a scan of the IFC of Phantom Lady 23 they can share? ;D
-
Just want to say I agree with Fett, nothing from January 1960 on. This site is for golden age comics and I like it that way.,
I don't even like the "remixes" that take the repring from an IW or Super comic that was published in the 60's and putting the cover of the original GA comic it was reprinted in the front of the archive and naming it as the GA book instead of as the 1960's reprint it actually is.
Keep this up and I may actually get rid of that newbie status after all. :) But then I posted this and said I ony had 2 posts. Does that have anything to do with the fact I changed my password? Or did I miss something and post counts restarted as fresh on here?
We started again, thought it a bit unfair some seemed to have an advantage over the "newer" members, when really we are only a new site. It never really encouraged people to post anyway till the system was used in a manner we never intended it to be. Hence we got rid of both the ranks and the old post counts, unfortunately we did not do it from day one.
-
We started again, thought it a bit unfair some seemed to have an advantage over the "newer" members, when really we are only a new site. It never really encouraged people to post anyway till the system was used in a manner we never intended it to be. Hence we got rid of both the ranks and the old post counts, unfortunately we did not do it from day one.
I like that it was done. I know it has always bugged me to be listed as a newbie after a few months on any site, not just gac or here. I've always felt that moving up from newbie status should also include things like amount of visits, length of time a member and not just posts. Some one could just do XX amount of worthless posts to move up when only posts are counted, yet only be on a site a few days and be "ranked" higher than a long time user. That has bugged me since the first time I logged onto a web forum that did levels and posted them for all to see.
So Thank You to the admin team.
-
Some one could just do XX amount of worthless posts to move up when only posts are counted, yet only be on a site a few days and be "ranked" higher than a long time user.
Kind of like this one you mean ?-LOL ;)
-Nigel
-
There are many SA books I'd like to see but I think this site should just be concerned with GA comics. Once you open the door to SA, it may start blurring the lines to eventually hosting all PD comics no matter the year.
Just my 1¢ (not as valuable as Jims!)
-
If there was a site like DCM that carried Public Domain Silver Age comics, I don't think DCM hosting post-GA books would be an issue for anyone.
-
If there was a site like DCM that carried Public Domain Silver Age comics, I don't think DCM hosting post-GA books would be an issue for anyone.
For the small amount of silver age comics that are PD it would not be worth setting up a site for only them. They will likely not even get a seperate section. After we have the GA comics sorted we will look at how far we can stretch the titles and publishers we have. Much later we will look at new publishers who might be PD. Main focus is always going to be golden age, and that is what most of the PD comics are, pre 1960's.
-
If there was a site like DCM that carried Public Domain Silver Age comics, I don't think DCM hosting post-GA books would be an issue for anyone.
For the small amount of silver age comics that are PD it would not be worth setting up a site for only them. They will likely not even get a seperate section. After we have the GA comics sorted we will look at how far we can stretch the titles and publishers we have. Much later we will look at new publishers who might be PD. Main focus is always going to be golden age, and that is what most of the PD comics are, pre 1960's.
Perhaps my phrasing was awkward, so to clarify: If there was a site that hosted SA PD comics, DCM wouldn't have to worry about hosting post-GA books or spending time discussing the possibility of hosting SA.
I don't see any reason why someone who was interested in doing so couldn't set-up a site for PD SA comics, OR, more importantly, shouldn't set-up a site just because the selection would be significantly smaller compared to the selection of GA books that are PD. How many files were hosted on such a site would also depend on what "start date" was used. If someone choose 1950 as the year they considered the Silver Age to have started, then the selection they'ld have would be larger compared to what they'ld have if they only stuck to anything DCM didn't host. There's no good reason there shouldn't be something of an overlap between DCM & a SA site, since some comic fans might not care about GA comics. Since DCM promotes itself as a GA site, some collectors/fans might not bother even checking this place out. Basically, DCM & a SA site would be focused on different "target audiences", so having certain files on both sites is simply a good idea.
As far as whether or not setting-up a site would be "worth it", there's plenty of options out there where the cost of setting-up such a site would be "$0.00".
-
Sounds like a great idea bchat. :D When you get it up and running let me know so I can upload my SA Charlton scans. ;)
-
Sounds like a great idea bchat. :D When you get it up and running let me know so I can upload my SA Charlton scans. ;)
Well, I don't remember making the offer to spearhead such a project, I was just pointing-out how anyone could set-up something without any costs (after they do a little online research). I would like to see ALL Public Domain material made easily available to everyone, and quite honestly, I'm surprised that someone "out there" hasn't already started a PD SA comic file-sharing site. On the other hand, I don't personally have a great deal of interest in the majority of PD SA comics beyond a few of the superhero books that were published. Would you really want to go to a site that's run by someone who doesn't really care that much about what he's doing? I know I wouldn't, because that "lack of interest" would be apparent, and suggestions from visitors on how to make the site work better would fall on deaf ears.
-
I think Fett was just throwing some sarcasm your way, bchat. :D I agree about lack of interest. It goes with anything. If you don't care about something it will show. Take this site for instance. You can tell that the admins here truly care not just about GA comics, but about this site. They always on, take feedback and are on top of things.
-
I think Fett was just throwing some sarcasm your way, bchat. :D
Oh I got that, I'm not a humorless kind of guy ... I swear!
I agree about lack of interest. It goes with anything. If you don't care about something it will show. Take this site for instance. You can tell that the admins here truly care not just about GA comics, but about this site. They always on, take feedback and are on top of things.
Having people that are passionate about the subject matter is what a site needs in order to be the best it can be and not appear to simply be a "fan site". Yeah, it's obvious that "The Admins" care about the site a great deal and work hard to make it the best that they can.
I'ld still like to see a site hosting the PD material that DCM doesn't, BUT I'm pretty sure I'm not the guy to do that. I'm kind of lazy, not much on self-promotion, and my interest, when it comes to comics, is mostly superheroes. That said, were I to start-up such a site on my own, there's a chance that a time would come when I would simply get tired of dealing with it, I wouldn't do much to promote the site (I never promote my own blog, so I can't imagine I'ld be any more agressive about promoting a website), and I wouldn't agressively acquire scans (either through searching the net or buying books on my own) that were outside the superhero genre (romance, humor & crime would suffer the most from this). On the other hand, I like playing with HTML and fiddling with graphics, so having a website does interest me in a small way, but not enough to take this particular torch and run with it.
So, I point-out that it's kind of easy to set-up something without spending money with the idea that someone who has thought about creating such a site goes "Well, heck, if it's easy, I'LL do it!" Such a site may not be organized as neatly as DCM, but somebody could get pretty close, or at least have something that wasn't too much of a hassle to navigate through, if they were a little creative and planned ahead a little bit.
-
I put the Silver Age Sidestreet on GAC. Odd SA is may main comic passion. Some of the Dell books probably are not PD but also probably abandoned. I would expand it if someone wants to confirm PD status.
-
Sorry it was "mostly" sarcasm but I wouldn't mind seeing a Silver Age site, and you did sound more interested than most. ;)
-
Sorry it was "mostly" sarcasm but I wouldn't mind seeing a Silver Age site, and you did sound more interested than most. ;)
Well, I have looked into what it would take to start-up a comic-related site of my own without spending a single penny (besides being lazy, I'm fairly cheap, too, yet focused when I want to be), but haven't been all that serious about starting-up anything as of yet. Since there are now multiple options for freely storing files online, it really opens-up the door as to what I could ... if I ever figure-out WHAT, exactly, I'ld want to do (I have one idea, but that won't happen anytime soon for various reasons). I wouldn't bother to start-up a "PD Silver Age" site myself unless I really had a solid plan going-in, which I simply don't have at this point.
-
A lot depends on what you consider Golden Age or Silver Age years to be: I have seen it be Golden Age up to 1950, Atomic from 1950-56 (always thought atomic was first before that) and silver from 1956 until the late 60's early 70's.
I have seen different years checking different places.
I also thought I had seen it written some where on the old GAC that everything 1961 and on at least had one automatic copyright renewal. Since it was Aussie I thought who wrote that (and I could be very, very wrong) I wonder it Aussie remembers posting that or maybe saying it in a chat. Aussie, Can you let me know if it is just my pain pill fogged mind imagining this or did I actually see it?
Thats the problem with a lot of things the last 12-14 years now, depending on how I have reacted to the mixture of chemicals prescribed to me my memory goes from the great it used to always be to the "huh what was that comic I just looked at the text list 2 seconds ago?" At least these pills aren't like the lower level pain pills like darvocet I had to settle for before the pain clinics summer, which used to give me violent dreams it would take a few minutes to come out of.
-
A lot depends on what you consider Golden Age or Silver Age years to be: I have seen it be Golden Age up to 1950, Atomic from 1950-56 (always thought atomic was first before that) and silver from 1956 until the late 60's early 70's.
I have seen different years checking different places.
I also thought I had seen it written some where on the old GAC that everything 1961 and on at least had one automatic copyright renewal. Since it was Aussie I thought who wrote that (and I could be very, very wrong) I wonder it Aussie remembers posting that or maybe saying it in a chat. Aussie, Can you let me know if it is just my pain pill fogged mind imagining this or did I actually see it?
Thats the problem with a lot of things the last 12-14 years now, depending on how I have reacted to the mixture of chemicals prescribed to me my memory goes from the great it used to always be to the "huh what was that comic I just looked at the text list 2 seconds ago?" At least these pills aren't like the lower level pain pills like darvocet I had to settle for before the pain clinics summer, which used to give me violent dreams it would take a few minutes to come out of.
No it was a few years later when the need to renew the copyright was removed. I always considered 1954/55 the end of the golden age of comics, anything pre code I would consider GA. I allowed anything PD up to 1959 to mainly keep it GA themed and because the copyright records of the 60's were going to be too much work, there were too many questions about the PD status. It is far easier to stick with 1959 or earlier.
-
A correct registration is still needed for the automatic renewal until fairly recently. And most stuff did have a correct registration even if it doesn't look like it- the THUNDER Agents being a case in point. (I'm still not convinced they were ever correctly registered. But my opinion isn't what pertains; it's the Judge's opinion.)
-
A correct registration is still needed for the automatic renewal until fairly recently. And most stuff did have a correct registration even if it doesn't look like it- the THUNDER Agents being a case in point. (I'm still not convinced they were ever correctly registered. But my opinion isn't what pertains; it's the Judge's opinion.)
I don't know much about the THUNDER Agents, so I went to the net's best source for incorrect information, and saw this on Wikipedia:
In 1984, David M. Singer's Deluxe Comics began publishing a new series, Wally Wood's T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents, featuring some of the best artists of the era, including George Pérez, Dave Cockrum, Keith Giffen, Murphy Anderson, Steve Ditko, Rich Buckler, and Jerry Ordway. Singer claimed the group was in the public domain. A lawsuit by Carbonaro claimed otherwise. The lawsuit was eventually settled in US District Court in favor of Singer. stating Carbonaro failed to prove ownership of any copyrights or trademark in the characters, nor for that matter any protected rights at all by anyone. The characters were allowed to fall into the public domain. Deluxe announced its court victory in Comics Buyer's Guide, and in Wally Wood's T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #3 (November 1985). Deluxe Comics closed its doors in 1986, when several major distributors failed to pay sizeable past-due invoices.
and
In the early 2000s, DC Comics planned to release a new T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents series under license from Carbonaro. Work for about two issues of a new series was completed, but Carbonaro put a stop to it as it made radical alternations to the characters. DC failed to create a series in line with the original series and tone, but began publishing reprints of the original Tower series in their hardcover DC Archive Editions format in a total of six volumes.
Now, if I believe any of the above, it would seem that THUNDER Agents were considered Public Domain when Deluxe was publishing their series, but Carbonaro ... regained the rights? ... pretended to regain the rights? ... when DC tried to do something about 20 years later. If the books didn't carry a proper Copyright Notice in 1965, they should be (as I understand it) Public Domain. So how is Carbonaro claiming ownership now?
-
As JohnC is so fond of saying, bchat,
Anybody can CLAIM ownership of anything. Seems that the courts (if one can believe Wikipedia [GRIN]) stated otherwise in 1985. Perhaps there are other factors in the CD TA non-start.
(|:{>
-
Well, it's the Carbonaro estate now, he passed away a few years ago. I know there's a description of the situation in the Thunder Agents Companion of a few years ago, which is itself a expanded reprint of a issue of Comic Book Artist.
If I understand it correctly, Carbonaro was able to show a chain of ownership and demonstrate that at least the first Tower issue was copyrighted. (I know issue #1 has a copyright notice on the front cover.) Beyond that, I don't know other than I know wikipedia is either incorrect or Carbonaro was able to convince a LOT of people that he had triumphed in court. I believe his estate owns the rights to the Deluxe issues now.
The first few issues of the Deluxe revival were interesting; certainly quite a bit better than Carbonaro's own efforts in my opinion.
Off on a total tangent: I recall reading somewhere that there were stories from the Tower era that were only printed overseas; has anybody else ever heard of those or seen them?
-
Well, it's the Carbonaro estate now, he passed away a few years ago. I know there's a description of the situation in the Thunder Agents Companion of a few years ago, which is itself a expanded reprint of a issue of Comic Book Artist.
If I understand it correctly, Carbonaro was able to show a chain of ownership and demonstrate that at least the first Tower issue was copyrighted. (I know issue #1 has a copyright notice on the front cover.) Beyond that, I don't know other than I know wikipedia is either incorrect or Carbonaro was able to convince a LOT of people that he had triumphed in court. I believe his estate owns the rights to the Deluxe issues now.
Thanks for the info. The ownership issue makes for an interesting story on its own.
The Copyright on the first issue's cover is easy to miss, but that's all Carbonaro would need to claim ownership of "the characters". Everything published after that could be considered nothing more than a derivative work, whether those successive issues were Public Domain or not.
-
Here's the THUNDER story as far as I've been able to piece it together from (scans of) the original books and (the database of) Copyright Office records...
The interiors of the Tower THUNDER Agents comics have no copyright notices.
The first issues of each series DO have obscured, hard-to-read copyright notices on the covers. That's technically permissible (today), as book-form works may print it on "either side of the front or back cover." However, there are two problems.
First, they're obscure and hard to read, as mentioned. With the exception of UNDERSEA Agent, which has the notice where you'd actually find it, the rest hide the notice within the art, in dark colors. "The notice should be permanently legible to an ordinary user of the work under normal conditions of use and should not be concealed from view upon reasonable examination." (NoMan #1 is another outlier: It has a hand-written notice hidden in the art that I can't read.)
Second, for periodicals, the rule as of 1965 was, that the notice must be "either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading." That's not the cover, which makes these notices invalid. There's good reason for that, too: A cover notice often claims copyright FOR the cover as a separate work.
This last has changed in the intervening years. Front and back covers, inside and out, are currently valid places for a copyright notice. However, they got it wrong on publication, and you can't get things back from the public domain.
So those were the '60s. The original books, hands down, have no copyrights. If Tower owned the copyright to anything in the entire series, it's the cover to UNDERSEA Agent #1.
Enter John Carbonaro (whose pasta sauce I love...), who "buys the rights." Like everybody in the comic book industry, he had absolutely no idea what that means or what he bought, and assumed it involved exclusive rights to "characters," which really isn't a legally-defined concept. His partner Singer actually did the research and determined that, no, there were no copyrights to own, so he split off.
Now, Carbonaro's interpretation of the copyright law is wrong, but understandable. By 1980, the law had changed to allow copyright notices more globally, as I mention above. As a complete novice, he naturally applied current law to old works and got the wrong answer.
Anyway, when Singer tried to publish his own series, Carbonaro tried to sue, but learned that you don't have the right to sue without a copyright registration. Therefore, he registered those books with (bad) copyright notices. If you look at the Library of Congress records, you'll see that THUNDER Agents #1 is registered, but not until September of 1984. The rest of the registrations (minus NoMan #1, which I guess means that scribble wasn't a copyright notice after all) come in December.
From here, what I know only comes from secondary sources. Allegedly, Carbonaro brought Singer to court, and the judge ruled from the bench (i.e., without bothering to go to trial) that the original books were in the public domain, and Carbonaro had no case. Singer's announcement then caused a flurry of THUNDER appearances through the '80s, because, hey, public domain.
The case also caused Carbonaro to license the Agents to several small companies, hoping that the license agreements would bolster the view that he owned the properties.
Some time after that...I don't understand it at all, but Carbonaro apparently claimed that he petitioned the courts to "give him back" the copyrights, and allegedly succeeded because nobody contested it. But that's complete nonsense, since there's (as I said) no provision for retrieving the copyright of a public domain work. Otherwise, I'm sure somebody would have "re-copyrighted" the works of Shakespeare, by now.
However, since then, it looks like most of the industry has just played ball with Carbonaro, rather than worry about needing to fend off lawsuits from what seems to amount to an overly-posessive nut. Now that he's passed away, though, we'll see what happens. I can't imagine that his estate will be quite as obsessed with the characters.
-
A correct registration is still needed for the automatic renewal until fairly recently.
This is something that confuses me, Eric, and I've gone back and forth with Ed Love on the topic a few times. Do you have a reference for this?
As far as anybody's been able to find, you can't sue without a registration, but so far, the only suggestion that registration is "required" by the Copyright Office are ambiguously-phrased updates to the law that mention it being "no longer" required, implying that it was previously.
If there's somewhere that says this, that's a serious game-changer. For example, Atlas/Seaboard books don't have any registrations, and their initial copyright terms would have otherwise expired quite some time ago.
-
Standard disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer, and so on:
Items published through 1963 copyrighted and not renewed are public domain.
Items published through 1977 and not copyrighted are public domain.
Items past 1977 until March 1, 1989 MAY be public domain under specific conditions.
Items past March 1, 1989 are NOT public domain even if the creator wants them to be.
For more information:
http://librarycopyright.net/digitalslider/
-
Ah, OK, Eric. I see the disconnect. There are three parts to copyright.
First, there's the notice. "Copyright 1965 XYZ Corporation." Without this, prior to (March of) 1989, if you didn't have this, you didn't have a copyright. The exceptions and conditions are that you could fix the notice if you catch it within a period that grew over time to five years. However, with small press publishers producing disposable entertainment, I don't find this particularly likely.
Second, there's the renewal. Prior to 1992, if your first copyright term had expired (meaning you had published prior to 1964) and you didn't renew the copyright, then the work went into the public domain. And, obviously, if the work wasn't under copyright, the copyright can't be renewed.
Third and last, there's the registration, which requires filling out a form, paying a fee, and depositing copies of your work with the Library of Congress for reference. This was optional as far as I could find, except (as I mentioned) for vague, ambiguous language in recent versions of the law which imply that the option is new. Regardless, registration gives you the right to sue over infringement during the registration period.
I suspect (and correct me if I'm wrong, here) that you're confusing the notice with the registration. Automatically renewing a book with no notice would be creating a new copyright, which isn't acceptable. However, I haven't seen any part of the code requiring registration for renewal...but it could just be that I haven't seen that piece, since I've never read any version from end to end, let alone every version.
Incidentally, this might be helpful to somebody. It's a compiled version of each version of copyright law, so that you can find what the situation was at a particular point of publication or renewal:
http://law.copyrightdata.com/
-
Thank you got clearing that up for me Aussie. Wonder if I read it some where else, incorrectly remembered the date or if it came from too many pain pills.
Fett, you fund it, I will make the time to run it as long as I can find some decent mod's to take care of the message end and some copyright expert to keep it legit. :)
Every one else, interesting reading. Thank you.
-
So would Atlas Seabold books be safe for another site to carry even though they carried a copyright notice but did not register?
-
Fett, you fund it, I will make the time to run it as long as I can find some decent mod's to take care of the message end and some copyright expert to keep it legit. :)
Unscanned GA comics keeping me busy atm. As soon as we're done I'll get right on that. ;)
-
So would Atlas Seabold books be safe for another site to carry even though they carried a copyright notice but did not register?
Only for a very loose definition of "safe." They're still under copyright, so doing so would still be infringing. However, to stop you, the owner (whoever that may be) would need to register, and wouldn't be allowed to collect damages for the period when it wasn't registered.
Personally? I wouldn't clear it. Any day, the owner COULD register it, and, with market research in hand, claim that you've spoiled a million-dollar reprint sale or something along those lines that would be on damages going forward.
That's how I read it, at least, and I again emphasize that my legal training comes from having an occasional dinner with a friend who does contract law, to wit, none. It's also possible that Eric is right, registration is needed for renewal, and I just haven't seen it.
Does anybody know who would own the Atlas/Seaboard books at this time? I remember once hearing that heirs were difficult to find, but that may have just been generic uninformed rumor. (Since it was short-lived and since hasn't done anything, I'm wondering if the current owner might be willing to sell it cheap, for subsequent release into the public domain.)
-
The question here is at what point did registering the book (rather than just having a correct copyright notice) stop being mandatory? I know for a very long time registration was required; it didn't matter if you had the correct notice or not if you didn't follow through.
-
I actually agreed with that until just a few days ago, actually. I couldn't find a single statement one way or another in the law, but you do occasionally get things like the statement on joining the Berne treaty mentioning eliminating "formalities" like required registration and the 1976 law stating (for the first time) that registration MAY be made during the copyright term, which imply that, some time previously, registration was mandatory.
However, no matter how far I go back, I can't find anything that says registration secures your copyright. At most, registration gave (and still gives) you documentation when you sue for damages.
In fact, the 1909 law (which I looked at just now to see what it had to say) has S9, "That any person...may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright..." and S10, "That such person may obtain registration of his claim to copyright..." So the earliest version of the Copyright Act explicitly makes registration optional for documentation purposes, rather than a stipulation for copyright.
As of 1965 (now that I know the key word "secure" is useful here!), the law says very much the same thing, just with better punctuation and as S10 and S11. Same with 1973 (relevant to Seaboard). S411 of the 1978 law says outright that, "no action for infringement of the copyright in any work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made," which does appear to be the primary use.
I'm still looking to see if I can find a mention of registration with respect to renewal, but that doesn't look promising, either. In the 1909 version, S23 says that the copyright owner can be a person, an anonymous person, or an employer. Renewal is available to those who "duly registered therein within one year prior to the expiration of the original term of copyright." Said renewal can be made by the author (or, presumably, the employer, though that's absent from the text), the widow/widower, children, executor, or next of kin, in that order of availability. Lastly, if no renewal is filed, then the copyright expires at the end of the first term.
That said, I could be wrong. I haven't authenticated the text of the laws at the site I'm reading, nor am I sure there aren't other clauses that override it. So if anybody has better information (or even, y'know, "worse" information that we don't already have), I'm absolutely all ears.
For example, on another page on the same site I've been using:
http://chart.copyrightdata.com
Under the question, "Was the work registered in the name of the true owner?" the "No" answer says, "Prior to 1978, accurate registration was required to secure a copyright after publication. Furthermore, filing was required to be prompt." B-but...WHERE? Where was it required!? If it's not in the law text, then that's not right, is it?
-
So it seems that in whichever text you follow there must have been a registration to allow damage suits. So the owners of Seabold copyrights could issue a cease and desist but not sue for damages? Did Charlton ever register even after proper notice posting?
-
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.
-
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."
(|:{>
-
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...
-
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.”
-
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.)
-
So Undersea Agents, Fight the Enemy and the Tippy books should be pd?
-
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.)
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...?
-
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.
-
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.
-
My guess is they don't have a list just sent stuff out not keeping track.
-
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.
-
So does anyone know what's going on with Roger Boughton? Is he still dead?
-
So does anyone know what's going on with Roger Boughton? Is he still dead?
If he was I doubt he will be coming back to life. As far as I know it was just a rumour he was dead, never officially confirmed. Does anyone have any of those Dark Horse Herbie, Nemesis or Magicman archives? If so what does the copyright notice say?