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

[joe_collector]

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 ?

 

No, they didn't sell out, but Disney is being their usual selves:

 

1) Disney is repeatedly strong-arming other Peter Pan licenses who own valid agreements with the hospital, and acting like they own Peter Pan, when they really only have animation rights.

 

2) Disney had a live-action Peter Pan movie in the works, but tried to get it for free (even though they only have animation rights) and refused to pay the hospital a cent. I guess their PR guys and lawyers told them to back off, and rather than pay those sick kids a dime, they're likely shelving the movie and all related items.

 

3) Disney tries to market the Peter Pan name like they own a million licenses, and steadfastly refuses to give any proceeds to the hospital. I believe some big-name lawyers jumped in pro bono awhile back, which is why Peter Pan clothing, dolls, etc. aren't on retail shelves anymore.

 

It's pretty sick really, when you think of all the good things the hospital does, the sick kids laying in the beds, and Eisner jet setting around the world, burning money, and looking for any way to screw the hospital out of receiving a cent.

[fantastic_four]

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

 

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

 

If you mean about the business behind the art world, yes, I can be that naive...I typically could care less. I'm interested in copyright as it relates to art, not business, so my characterization was taken from how they sold the bill to the public when it went into effect.

 

We all appreciate your insightful commentary about the politics behind the change , but we could do without the egotism.

[garthgantu]

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 ?

 

No, they didn't sell out, but Disney is being their usual selves:

 

While I don't have the details at my fingertips, I know that a similar legal battle is being (or has been? It may all be settled by now) fought over the rights to the Winnie the Pooh characters. Disney appears to have fudged the numbers on sales of videos, merchandise, etc. to avoid paying A.A. Milne's estate tens of millions of dollars in royalties.

[garthgantu]

Back to the subject at hand...

 

FF I like your thinking on this... if the LoC in fact disposes of "dead" copyrights and the related materials as you posit, which comic book publishers ceased publication roughly 28 years ago? The second Atlas (publisher of "Planet of Vampires" etc.) ? Others? The copies of those books that are in the LoC might be due for 'disposal' soon if the copyright owners aren't renewing them..?

[minutekev@50]

Speaking of which can you view the LOC's comic collection in Washington? I once heard it was the largest in the free world.

 

[minutekev@50]

Here's what I found on the LOC's website.

 

Special Collections in the Library of Congress

Comic Book Collection

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For more than sixty years, the Library of Congress has acquired comic books through copyright deposit. The current collection of 6,000 titles, probably the largest in the United States, contains approximately one hundred thousand pieces and is growing by about two hundred issues each month. Represented in the collection is the entire range of comic-book subject matter: western, science fiction, detective, adventure, war, romance, horror, and humor. Although scattered issues date from the late 1930s, the holdings are most comprehensive from 1950 to the present. Action Comics, Archie, Detective Comics, Tarzan, and Wonder Woman are among those with fairly complete runs. A record of the holdings, by title, is maintained in the Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room. Because of the rapid deterioration of the paper and the value of older issues, full access to the comic book collection is restricted to readers engaged in serious research.

 

 

[garthgantu]

Here's what I found on the LOC's website.

 

Special Collections in the Library of Congress

Comic Book Collection

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For more than sixty years, the Library of Congress has acquired comic books through copyright deposit. The current collection of 6,000 titles, probably the largest in the United States, contains approximately one hundred thousand pieces

Hard to imagine how that could make it the largest collection in the US... I'm sure there are collections that dwarf this, both in number of titles and total number of books. Still, it does sound like viewing this 'collection' would be like Aladdin entering the treasure trove of the forty thieves...

 

 

Represented in the collection is the entire range of comic-book subject matter: western, science fiction, detective, adventure, war, romance, horror, and humor.

Hehe - what about "superhero" ?? How could they forget to list that? Obviously that category is well represented in the LoC's collection...

 

 

[fantastic_four]

FF I like your thinking on this... if the LoC in fact disposes of "dead" copyrights and the related materials as you posit, which comic book publishers ceased publication roughly 28 years ago? The second Atlas (publisher of "Planet of Vampires" etc.) ? Others? The copies of those books that are in the LoC might be due for 'disposal' soon if the copyright owners aren't renewing them..?

 

It was every 28 years until 1978...after that it became 75 years for companies and the life of the author plus 20 years for individuals with no renewal possible. The site I linked to earlier says that the change applies retroactively to older copyrights, although I think it didn't apply back in 1978; I'm not sure when it became retroactive.

 

I'm sure Marvel and DC were renewing their copyrights every 28 years, so all of their books would still be in the collection. However, if "Spark Publications" was out of business, their books might have been tossed and this would explain why the LoC's collection isn't a more complete one. One thing to remember is a good percentage of the copyright items the LoC holds are probably junk--corporate training manuals and [!@#%^&^] like that which do nothing but eat up space once the copyright is gone and they're no longer useful. They can't hold onto all that junk indefinitely.

[garthgantu]

 

It was every 28 years until 1978...after that it became 75 years for companies and the life of the author plus 20 years for individuals with no renewal possible.

 

Just to tie this all back to Disney - and Sonny Bono! - here's a recent story about how this copyright extension has been further expanded in the legal sense, with much help from Disney's lawyers and lobbyists... largely because the 75-year protection was about to run out for Mickey Mouse...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75612,00.html

[fantastic_four]

Wonder why you can't renew anymore? Why should Disney lose Mickey Mouse?

[joe_collector]

Just to tie this all back to Disney - and Sonny Bono! - here's a recent story about how this copyright extension has been further expanded in the legal sense, with much help from Disney's lawyers and lobbyists... largely because the 75-year protection was about to run out for Mickey Mouse

 

Yeah, I've read that one and it's really the start of a lifetime exemption for large corporations who have the money to spend on Senators. Many "artists" lost their copyright in the intervening years, and it's highly amusing it only became an issue when the first Mickey Mouse cartoons came up to the chopping block.

 

We tend to forget the real reason for copyright protection. It was designed as an exclusive right for a SET period of time, in EXCHANGE for free use by the people afterwards. It also forces companies to innovate, release new products, and better our way of life, rather than getting fat off of "in perpetuity" copyright exemptions.

 

If that last part never comes about (and it likely won't as long as Disney can buy Senators), then we really have no copyright law as we have all come to know it, and it really serves no purpose.

[ecfanman]

I don't know how many books got out of the Library of Congress or when they would "clean house", but I've got a copy of More Fun 69, cover dated July 1941, with a LOC stamp saying it was filed on May 27, 1941. There's also a large stamp saying "FILE" and a smaller one saying "NIGHT DEPOSIT".

 

Got it on eBay a couple of years ago. Probably a VG-, with some tape on the cover. Didn't pay anything extra for the LOC stamp, although I thought it was kind of neat. Always wanted a Dr. Fate cover.

[telerites]

Bumpage of this old thread, instead of starting a new one.  I picked up a Library of Congress stamped book and recently had it graded in my last submission.  For some reason, I thought CGC noted this on the label.  I could have sworn I have seen slabbed books with the notation.  I had listed it as such in the pedigree field on the submission form but I guess it is not noted.  Still cool regardless to have the stamped copy.

I know I can ask CGC but this gives me a chance to see if some might have a slabbed book with the notation and if not, post pictures/scans of any LoC stamped books you have - raw or slabbed.

Here is the one, I just got back