Silver Age Charlton?

[KnightRandom]

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.

[fett]

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.

[John C]

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.

[Yoc]

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

[DennyWilson]

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.

[Yoc]

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

[aussie500]

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.

[narfstar]

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.

[aussie500]

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.

[DennyWilson]

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.

[Yoc]

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

[bbbrown]

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?

[OtherEric]

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? 

[aussie500]

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.

[bbbrown]

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.