• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

some clocks for sale in the Marketplace section

Started by ajaxvoodoo-migration,

27 posts in this topic

goldust40

goldust40

Posted
Posted
Hi everyone, I have some comic book themed clocks I've designed and thought you might like to have one. .....Here is the link to the marketplace post... please let me know what you think...

the clocks for sale

I have to say nearly all the cover choices are inspired, and the design (particularly liked the EC clock, the Startling 49 and the Cap 74) is excellent. The Suspense 3 is also beautiful, although the content of it may be a bit much for some. Good work! I recommend Weird Mysteries 4, Hit 5 and Wonderworld 3. However, those really are nifty enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darthdiesel

Darthdiesel

Posted
Posted

MMM...manga boobs.... cloud9.gif

 

 

How accurately do these keep time? Do they chime every hour on the hour? Or are they quiet? Battery operated? 2 AA, 4 AAA, 1 9 volt or 1 C cell? what are the clock's arms made of? aluminum strips?? is there a cover to the clock face that protects the artwork? Are there 'ticks' to mark out the numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArnoldTBlumberg

ArnoldTBlumberg

Posted
Posted

I don't see it that way, I see it as pointing out quite correctly that if that material *is* copyrighted and trademarked, as I believe most if not all of it is, then he's illegally selling items he has no right to sell. So why is the person who points this out always the bad guy these days? We're supposed to be fine with everyone creating and selling illicit merchandise for their own profit?

 

I swear, kids today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darthdiesel

Darthdiesel

Posted
Posted
I don't see it that way, I see it as pointing out quite correctly that if that material *is* copyrighted and trademarked, as I believe most if not all of it is, then he's illegally selling items he has no right to sell. So why is the person who points this out always the bad guy these days? We're supposed to be fine with everyone creating and selling illicit merchandise for their own profit?

 

I swear, kids today...

 

All the clock needs is an illegally downloaded mp3 from Kazaa or Napster to play as a 'chime' and the pilfery would be complete!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSchoolTerry

OldSchoolTerry

Posted
Posted

Listen, you young whippersnapper, I was collecting comics when they were 1 cent apiece, and carved out of blocks of wood!!...... insane.gif

 

I don't condone copyright and/or trademark infringement in any way shape or form, Arnold. I was merely stating that you ruined that industrious individual's day by pointing out his illicit activity.... 27_laughing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chromium

chromium

Posted
Posted
You have the wood-carved comics? WOW!

 

*sits at your feet to hear stories of the Old Time*

 

Hee hee. I gotcha, sorry I ruined his day smile.gif.

 

Arnold

 

You are, of course, aware that there are plenty of wood-carved comics around...

Belgium's Frans Masereel made a series of woodcuts at the end of WW1 called 'Passionate Journey' that are considered masterpieces of sequential art... thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave_Hennen

Dave_Hennen

Posted
Posted

I think some of that stuff is old enough to be in the public domain. From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the copyright holder has to periodically renew the copyright by using the material publicly and claiming the copyright or the material becomes public domain after some period, 17 years sticks in my mind.

 

Which is my some old songs are used in commercials and old comic characters make cameo appearances or get reprinted as backup stories so that the copyright is maintained.

 

Those clocks are pretty cool by the way cloud9.gif

 

Dave H

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garthgantu

garthgantu

Posted
Posted
I think some of that stuff is old enough to be in the public domain. From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the copyright holder has to periodically renew the copyright by using the material publicly and claiming the copyright or the material becomes public domain after some period, 17 years sticks in my mind.

 

Which is my some old songs are used in commercials and old comic characters make cameo appearances or get reprinted as backup stories so that the copyright is maintained.

 

Those clocks are pretty cool by the way cloud9.gif

 

Dave H

 

Good call, Dave. I believe the standard period is 27 years, or 29..? Disney recently got this overturned for certain characters of theirs. Yes, I'd guess that at least half of the images on those clocks are now in the public domain. Even the EC and Charlton Comics logos may be public domain at this point.

 

Further, this is one of those gigs where people generally just go for it until they receive the 'cease and desist' letter(s). He could probably sell these for years without even seeing such a letter. And really, who's it hurting? Marvel? Do they offer clocks like these? Are they losing sales on other merchandise because of a handful of clocks with a couple of their copyrighted images on them?

 

Not saying this is entirely legal or even completely ethical in the strictest sense, but I do think the clocks are very cool and aren't really hurting anyone, ultimately. Oh, unless you count the child laborers in third world countries where these clocks would 'normally' be made, thus enabling Marvel et al. to garner the highest possible margins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArnoldTBlumberg

ArnoldTBlumberg

Posted
Posted

A good portion of this is certainly *not* in the public domain, and those year ranges are inaccurate. The logos are also not only a copyright issue but an issue of trademark as well.

 

As for these "who does it hurt" arguments, frequently used to justify all manner of criminal activities, they are specious in the extreme. Ultimately, it doesn't *matter* if the copyright holders would choose never to produce such a piece of merchandise. The person who does so is not providing some desperately needed service, getting this much-needed bootlegged merchandise out to the hungry masses who are kept down by the evil conglomerates. The person who does this is simply a thief who is using material he does not own in order to make a profit. Maybe the copyright holders would suffer no immediate harm, financial or otherwise, but there's a simple fact here that people always overlook. They still *own* the material for which they hold copyright and/or trademark. It's just that simple. It's *theirs* to do with as they will, not yours to appropriate and make money for yourself.

 

"Not saying this is entirely legal or even completely ethical"

 

Correction: In the case of material that is still under copyright and/or trademark, it is indeed "entirely" illegal and "completely" unethical.

 

I'm not attacking you personally garthgantu, yours is an oft-stated point of view and not at all an unexpected one these days. But with all due respect, in this area there is no room for interpretation - there is what is legal and owned, and what is illegal and stolen. Subjective opinions on the relative merits of the bootlegged merchandise and the harm it might cause are entirely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garthgantu

garthgantu

Posted
Posted

Fair enough, Arnold, and coming from someone employed at a company whose lifeblood is copyrighted printed matter, I certainly understand your stance. And I stand corrected on the copyright law duration - I believe it was 70 years, but was recently extended, via a bill that Sonny Bono pushed through shortly before his death. (*However, if a company like EC no longer exists, and no one purchased the company's intellectual property and copyrighted / trademarked materials, those would be up for grabs.) For the most part, I share your opinion. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Bill Gates' ownership of the digital rights to millions of images, including classic works of art. So technically, posting a picture of the Mona Lisa on your website would be an infringement / violation of Mr. Gates' ownership rights. That's bogus, IMHO.

 

As for these clocks, you're right, the seller should not use copyrighted / trademarked materials. But I still contend that at least half of the clocks shown are using images that have fallen into the public domain.

 

Just one other point: big corporations infringe on individuals' and other companies' copyrights, trademarks and patents every day. In many cases they do so knowingly, with the understanding that they can get away with it until the third or fourth letter from the plaintiff's attorneys arrive, or the case goes to court, or even longer. Now, that doesn't make an individual such as the clock-seller right, but it sure makes him the "little guy" in a sandbox full of bureaucratic corporate bullies.

 

And I'm still gonna buy one of those clocks wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ArnoldTBlumberg

ArnoldTBlumberg

Posted
Posted

"if a company like EC no longer exists"

 

True, the original *company* no longer exists, but that doesn't mean someone doesn't control the rights to that material. And they do.

 

And I agree with you that sometimes the situation crosses certain uncomfortable moral lines in the other direction. Gates controlling lots of stuff that he just managed to wrest control of is indeed disturbing and just as much (in my opinion anyway) an abuse of the system as someone who uses owned artwork for their own gain. But when you abuse the system by working within its rules, you can unfortunately get away with it.

 

"Now, that doesn't make an individual such as the clock-seller right, but it sure makes him the "little guy" in a sandbox full of bureaucratic corporate bullies."

 

It can be seen that way, but it's exactly that conflation of two separate issues and the "Us Vs. Big Bad Them" mentality that has allowed people to justify so much criminal activity on the Internet these days. It's a real shame.

 

And by the way, thanks so much for discussing this topic intelligently and with genuine regard for another person's opinion. Every once in a while I feel the need to weigh in on this pet peeve subject of mine, and it usually erupts in juvenile screeching. Yours is a welcome and respectable voice in this contentious area.

 

...And I didn't hear anything about you buying a clock. smile.gif

 

Arnold

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garthgantu

garthgantu

Posted
Posted

Likewise, I appreciate a sober and mature response as much as (or more than) anyone on these boards. With a few exceptions in the sarcasm category, yours are always thoughtful posts.

 

I also think there's a gray area here we haven't covered. Using the Charlton logo as an example, it seems that you could make an argument for copyrighted / trademarked material or imagery that hasn't been used for some significant period of time, even if the copyright or TM was sold to a third party. Does someone own the Charlton logo? Will it ever be used again?

 

As for the clock, I've posted in the Marketplace thread, asking the clock guy to PM me. I want to commission a custom clock, with an image of my choosing. I'll try to find one in the public domain! *On that note, do you happen to know if the Little Lulu copyright is owned by anyone? The fact that Lulu stories from the past have not been reprinted gives me hope...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing