Date stamp afficionados...Check this out... 0

[ArAich]

I was pawing through some of my CGC books when I notice my Atoman #1...The issue date is Feb. 1946 but examine the date stamp that is located in the cloud...

 

Can someone give me a logical explanation for the discrepancy???...

Supersized Scan...

 

 

[fantastic_four]

The supplementary stamp tells the tale--it's a copyright-clinching copy. The publisher sent this to the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress prior to it hitting the stands.

 

I wonder how it got out of the LoC? I assume they ditch the sample copy once the copyright expires.

[ArAich]

So does this book hold historical significance since it is the book (or character) that was approved by the LoC???...

Is this approvel process done for all new superhero characters???...

[lou_fine]

I was pawing through some of my CGC books when I notice my Atoman #1...The issue date is Feb. 1946 but examine the date stamp that is located in the cloud...

 

Can someone give me a logical explanation for the discrepancy???...

Supersized Scan...

 

 

I don't understand what the problem is here. The issue date shows February 1946 which usually means that the book must have been on sale around late November or December of 1945. This is in line with the date stamp of December 1945.

 

Books have always been available on the newsstand a couple of months prior to the actual date indicated on the cover. I believe the cover date is supposed to represent when the news dealers were to remove the books and send them back to the distributors.

 

If you check your local comic shop today, you should also find books cover dated for February 2004. Actually, can somebody confirm this for me since I haven't taken a real close look at a new comic in quite a while.

[fantastic_four]

So does this book hold historical significance since it is the book (or character) that was approved by the LoC???...

Is this approvel process done for all new superhero characters???...

 

Far as I know it's done for every single issue of every single periodical in existence. If someone rips you off by reprinting your publication, the copyright office compares the reprint to the copy you sent with the copyright registration.

 

So no, it's not special--every single comic title and issue is potentially in the LoC. Does every one get sent? Maybe not, but I would assume the vast majority do.

[Mephisto]

The supplementary stamp tells the tale--it's a copyright-clinching copy. The publisher sent this to the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress prior to it hitting the stands.

 

I wonder how it got out of the LoC? I assume they ditch the sample copy once the copyright expires.

 

No I think it's just an over due Library Comic Book. I think Araich has some serious fines to be paying.

[greggy]

So does this book hold historical significance since it is the book (or character) that was approved by the LoC???...

Is this approvel process done for all new superhero characters???...

 

Far as I know it's done for every single issue of every single periodical in existence. If someone rips you off by reprinting your publication, the copyright office compares the reprint to the copy you sent with the copyright registration.

 

So no, it's not special--every single comic title and issue is potentially in the LoC. Does every one get sent? Maybe not, but I would assume the vast majority do.

I belive that every comic printed is supposed to be sent to the Library of Congress. How this book was released is simply the most logical reason - Poor controls in the past which lead to theft.

[fantastic_four]

I belive that every comic printed is supposed to be sent to the Library of Congress.

 

You should if you want to have a decent chance of winning if you sue someone who rips you off...but I'm sure sometimes publishers forget or get lazy and don't send a title in some months. You don't actually have to register with the LoC to put a copyright notice on your original work of art, it just strengthens your position if you ever have to take action to prevent people from ripping you off.

 

As for how it got out...I just looked at that web site I linked to, and copyrights taken out by companies last 95 years from the publish date. If memory serves, copyrights have been extended a few times over the years. At one point it was the life of the author + 20 years, and Sonny Bono pushed to get copyrights extended so the heirs or benefactors of an artist could benefit from the work long after the artist's death. However, the web site says that copyrights used to only last 28 years before 1978, at which time they could be renewed.

 

Note that this book is published by "Spark Publications." Twenty-eight years from the publish date of ~1946 would be 1974. Was Spark Publications still around by 1974? I've never heard of them. Does the copyright office keep items FOREVER if a copyright expires? I bet they don't--I suspect this book was disposed of. But I could easily be wrong; I wonder if they destroy them, give them away, or whether the disposal process is even defined?

 

I don't know for sure they dispose of old stuff, but since it only costs 5 bucks or so to register a copyright, I can't see them spending too much money storing tons and tons of expired copyrights.

[Timely]

I had a Superboy #1 that had an arrival date of 12/21/1948 even though the cover date is March of 1949!

 

Timely

[Shield]

I had a Superboy #1 that had an arrival date of 12/21/1948 even though the cover date is March of 1949!

 

Timely

 

 

Which, ultimately makes me think of the farce that's in the Overstreet guide concerning Pep 22 and Jackpot #4. Pep 22 has a 12/41 cover date (on stands Oct. 1941) and Jackpot #4 was on the stands late December/January 1942. Of course the guide says both books are the same month.

[ghoulaid]

 

I don't understand what the problem is here. The issue date shows February 1946 which usually means that the book must have been on sale around late November or December of 1945. This is in line with the date stamp of December 1945.

 

Books have always been available on the newsstand a couple of months prior to the actual date indicated on the cover. I believe the cover date is supposed to represent when the news dealers were to remove the books and send them back to the distributors.

 

You are right on the money here. Comics always had arrival dates from between 2-3 months from the cover date. The cover date actually is the date that a book was to be removed from sale to make room for the newer books and to get credit for unsold copies. The Edgar Church copies (for example) are very interesting because of the arrival dates in addition to how many copies were ordered.

[JohnBull]

 

I don't understand what the problem is here. The issue date shows February 1946 which usually means that the book must have been on sale around late November or December of 1945. This is in line with the date stamp of December 1945.

 

Books have always been available on the newsstand a couple of months prior to the actual date indicated on the cover. I believe the cover date is supposed to represent when the news dealers were to remove the books and send them back to the distributors.

 

You are right on the money here. Comics always had arrival dates from between 2-3 months from the cover date. The cover date actually is the date that a book was to be removed from sale to make room for the newer books and to get credit for unsold copies. The Edgar Church copies (for example) are very interesting because of the arrival dates in addition to how many copies were ordered.

 

You really noticed this in England, because over here, newsagents always sold in the cover month. Consequently, when buying new issues in the 70's/80's, you had a choice of going to the nearest shop and picking up FF175 or going to a mart and getting FF176, 177 and 178 (for about two to three times the price).

 

I'm not familiar with new stuff either, but didn't they harmonise the dates to the real calendar about 10 years ago ? If so, how did they do that, did they just go October, October, October until they caught up ?

[joe_collector]

Sonny Bono pushed to get copyrights extended so the heirs or benefactors of an artist could benefit from the work long after the artist's death.

 

Thanks for the laugh FF, I really needed it today.

 

You really can't be that naive, can you?

[FlyingDonut]

Sonny Bono pushed to get copyrights extended so the heirs or benefactors of an artist could benefit from the work long after the artist's death.

 

Thanks for the laugh FF, I really needed it today.

 

You really can't be that naive, can you?

 

Um, this is true.

 

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act - Text of S. 505 as adopted by Congress, January 27, 1998.

 

"b) COPYRIGHTS IN THEIR RENEWAL TERM AT THE TIME OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT- Any copyright still in its renewal term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured.';"

 

[FlyingDonut]

I had a Fantastic Four 1 with a date stamp of July 28, 1961.

[ArAich]

Sonny Bono pushed to get copyrights extended so the heirs or benefactors of an artist could benefit from the work long after the artist's death.

 

Thanks for the laugh FF, I really needed it today.

 

You really can't be that naive, can you?

 

Um, this is true.

 

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act - Text of S. 505 as adopted by Congress, January 27, 1998.

 

"b) COPYRIGHTS IN THEIR RENEWAL TERM AT THE TIME OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SONNY BONO COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT- Any copyright still in its renewal term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured.';"

 

 

So...in other words....it's Bono Fide....

[joe_collector]

Thanks for the laugh FF, I really needed it today.

 

You really can't be that naive, can you?

 

Um, this is true.

 

 

Yeah, but I was referring to the laughable assertion that it was for the benefit of the poor families of the artist, so they could reap the windfall of the original work.

 

Unfortunately, the majority signed over rights to big corporations long ago. If the original copyright lapsed, the author's family would lose the $5K annual stipend (from an agreement signed in the 50's), while a company like Disney would potentially lose billions.

 

Oh yeah, this is definitely a bill for the "little people".

[FlyingDonut]

You really are a cynical [!@#%^&^], aren't you.

[joe_collector]

You really are a cynical [!@#%^&^], aren't you.

 

Not in this case, just realistic.

 

If the bill is *supposed* to benefit the artist's family, while it actually benefits corporations holding old, valuable (and extremely inexpensive) licenses, then by definition, it's a sham.

 

Go read up on the dirty deeds that Disney is pulling on that sick kid's hospital that was bequeathed the Peter Pan rights, and then tell me I'm wrong.

[JohnBull]

Go read up on the dirty deeds that Disney is pulling on that sick kid's hospital that was bequeathed the Peter Pan rights, and then tell me I'm wrong.

 

Tell me, I'm interested. Great Ormond Street is very famous here for getting the Peter Pan money. Did the Barrie estate sell out to Disney or do something stupid ?