Superman in Public Domain

[Comicopolis]

2012 sorry posting and wrangling a grandkid do not mix..

 

wrangling - is that allowed in the US?

[Fedoraman]

2012 sorry posting and wrangling a grandkid do not mix..

 

wrangling - is that allowed in the US?

 

It's similar to Wrasslin' so long as the WWE doesn't find out or they will drag your butt to court faster than a DC lawyer

[binarysunrise]

[stevescu1]

There are some Superman products already in the public domain. The 1940s cartoons are, and I believe the radio shows are as well. That is because the copyrights were never renewed when the first came up. This is why you see so many different DVDs for sale of those cartoons when you go to Walmart. They can't use the Superman logo, but have no problem putting Superman on the cover, with the S shield. When/if Superman falls into public domain, I imagine the S shield will be the tactic that Warner Bros uses to try and stop others from using Superman, as they can claim it is a logo that falls under trademark law instead of copyright law. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I don't think it will really matter much overall.

 

Superman is in the public domain in a lot of countries already, and you don't see him popping up in Japanese works for example. Popeye recently went into the public domain in the UK, but I haven't seen really any original British Popeye stuff coming out.

[fantastic_four]

Quick question for people familiar with copyright laws. I've seen the year 2033 repeated over and over again as the year that Superman enters the public domain. Action Comics #1 was published June 30, 1938, plus 95 years of copyright protection, brings us to 2033.

 

However, I read one article that mentions that copyright protection ends January of the following year - which would make it January 1, 2034.

 

Any idea which date is accurate?

 

Copyrights are for specific works of art. A copyright extends for the life of the author plus seventy years, or if it's published by a company, it's 95 total years from the date of publication. Copyright would only apply to specific comics, so it does apply to Action comics #1, but it doesn't apply to Superman as a character. Trademark law should cover that and there is no limit on those, you can renew them every decade or two indefinitely.

 

I can't see how the Siegels winning back the rights to Superman has any effect on the length of copyrights or trademarks whatsoever. It wasn't the Siegels who printed and distributed Action #1, it was DC Comics, so DC owns the copyright on the comic, and that copyright expires in 1938 plus 95 years. I can't imagine what would extend that other than the law itself being changed. It has been changed a few times...in the 1970s they made it the life of the author plus 50 years or 75 total years for companies and in the 1990s Sonny Bono got that changed to the life of the author plus 75 years or 95 total years for companies.

[fantastic_four]

There are some Superman products already in the public domain. The 1940s cartoons are, and I believe the radio shows are as well. That is because the copyrights were never renewed when the first came up. This is why you see so many different DVDs for sale of those cartoons when you go to Walmart.

 

You can't renew a copyright, you renew trademarks, and a trademark wouldn't apply to a specific work of art such as a cartoon or a radio show. You don't even have to file a copyright if you can otherwise prove you were the first creator of a work of art; filing with the copyright office just makes it easier to prove your case, it's an official record that you believed you were the first creator of that work on that date you filed. It can still be overturned if someone else proved they created the same work at an earlier date.

 

I can't imagine that whoever is producing those DVDs you're referring to isn't doing it without DC's permission given the number of lawyers Warner Brothers has. Do you remember the name of one you think was produced without permission?

[AtlasFan]

Souldnt Batman be coming up soon too?

[binarysunrise]

I can't imagine that whoever is producing those DVDs you're referring to isn't doing it without DC's permission given the number of lawyers Warner Brothers has. Do you remember the name of one you think was produced without permission?

 

He's talking about the Fleischer cartoons from the 1940s. These went into the public domain back in the 60's-70's, so that's why any company can put out cheap copies of them. I'm still not sure about the details, but NTA (or Famous, or Paramount, or whoever had them at that time) had poor copyright management, and did not renew many of the copyrights when they needed to. (as opposed to the Fleischer Popeye films, which were under stricter control by King Features at the time)

[binarysunrise]

You can't renew a copyright

 

Not quite right. For example, when S&S sold Superman to DC, the terms of the law were that DC could profit off of their creation for 56 years (an initial 28 year term, after which DC could and did renew the copyright for another 28 year term)

[binarysunrise]

Copyright would only apply to specific comics, so it does apply to Action comics #1, but it doesn't apply to Superman as a character.

 

I'd counter this with facts from the recent Superman lawsuit. The Siegel estate is trying to legally wrest their share of the Superman copyright away from DC, as is allowed when the latest copyright extension was passed. One of the recent rulings, in which the judge sided with the Siegels, gave them "many aspects of the Superman copyright, including the basis of the Superman character, his costume, his alter-ego reporter Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Daily Planet newspaper, and the Clark/Superman and Lois love triangle storyline." So we're talking not just about Action Comics #1 itself, but the contents within.

[fantastic_four]

You can't renew a copyright

 

Not quite right. For example, when S&S sold Superman to DC, the terms of the law were that DC could profit off of their creation for 56 years (an initial 28 year term, after which DC could and did renew the copyright for another 28 year term)

 

The US Copyright Office web site disagrees. Length of a copyright and inability to renew them: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration

 

How a copyright differs from patents and trademarks: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent

[binarysunrise]

You can't renew a copyright

 

Not quite right. For example, when S&S sold Superman to DC, the terms of the law were that DC could profit off of their creation for 56 years (an initial 28 year term, after which DC could and did renew the copyright for another 28 year term)

 

The US Copyright Office web site disagrees. Length of a copyright and inability to renew them: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration

 

How a copyright differs from patents and trademarks: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#patent

 

Well, using your website:

 

"As to works published or registered prior to January 1, 1978, renewal registration is optional after 28 years"

 

 

[Larryw7]

I can't imagine that whoever is producing those DVDs you're referring to isn't doing it without DC's permission given the number of lawyers Warner Brothers has. Do you remember the name of one you think was produced without permission?

 

He's talking about the Fleischer cartoons from the 1940s. These went into the public domain back in the 60's-70's, so that's why any company can put out cheap copies of them. I'm still not sure about the details, but NTA (or Famous, or Paramount, or whoever had them at that time) had poor copyright management, and did not renew many of the copyrights when they needed to. (as opposed to the Fleischer Popeye films, which were under stricter control by King Features at the time)

 

 

 

Yep. The Superman cartoons were even available as Super 8 home movies without the authorization of DC/Warner in the seventies. I'm sure DC would love to reclaim the copyright-and Warner Bros. did release a technically superior set of these cartoons to DVD that are much better quality than the unauthorized editions-but I doubt they'll ever get the rights back.

[fantastic_four]

One of the recent rulings, in which the judge sided with the Siegels, gave them "many aspects of the Superman copyright, including the basis of the Superman character, his costume, his alter-ego reporter Clark Kent, Lois Lane, the Daily Planet newspaper, and the Clark/Superman and Lois love triangle storyline." So we're talking not just about Action Comics #1 itself, but the contents within.

 

If your line in quotes is from an article somewhere, it's not incorrect as stated but could be misleading since it leaves out the word trademark. Superman as a character, his costume, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, etc. are trademarks. The Siegels' copyright claims could only extend to the Superman story as it is specifically told in Action #1.

[fantastic_four]

I'm sure DC would love to reclaim the copyright-and Warner Bros. did release a technically superior set of these cartoons to DVD that are much better quality than the unauthorized editions-but I doubt they'll ever get the rights back.

 

Why? The changes to copyright law in the 1970s makes it theirs regardless of whether they renewed or ever even filed in the first place, doesn't it?

[fantastic_four]

The Siegels' copyright claims could only extend to the Superman story as it is specifically told in Action #1.

 

I just realized that if the Siegels did win the copyright for the Action #1 Superman story, then the copyright changes to the life of Siegel plus 75 years. Wikipedia says Siegel died in 1996, so 75 years after that would be 2069. That would mean you can't reprint Action 1 as a whole until then, but you could reprint the non-Superman parts of it in 2033. I haven't heard anything about the Shusters suing for copyright or trademark ownership, but if they did, Wikipedia says Shuster died in 1992, so Siegel's death would mark the starting point from when the story enters the public domain.

[Larryw7]

I'm sure DC would love to reclaim the copyright-and Warner Bros. did release a technically superior set of these cartoons to DVD that are much better quality than the unauthorized editions-but I doubt they'll ever get the rights back.

 

Why? The changes to copyright law in the 1970s makes it theirs regardless of whether they renewed or ever even filed in the first place, doesn't it?

 

 

Apparently not, since there are dozens of unauthorized editions of these cartoons available from several different outfits. I would think that if DC could get the rights back, the small DVD companies would stop making them.

[fantastic_four]

Apparently not, since there are dozens of unauthorized editions of these cartoons available from several different outfits. I would think that if DC could get the rights back, the small DVD companies would stop making them.

 

Anyone remember the name of one of these cartoons? I had to study these facts about trademarks and copyrights for an e-commerce class I was teaching about a decade ago that had some content about the applicability of copyright law to web-based content, so I've been curious about it ever since. I'm curious enough to figure out how those films could have been exempt, and if I have a name of one, it's easier to find info about their copyright.

[Larryw7]

Off the top of my head, the ones I remember are "The Japoteurs", "Terror on the Midway", "The Mechanical Monsters" and "The Mummy Strikes".

 

EDIT: Had one of the titles wrong.

[binarysunrise]

If your line in quotes is from an article somewhere, it's not incorrect as stated but could be misleading since it leaves out the word trademark. Superman as a character, his costume, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, etc. are trademarks. The Siegels' copyright claims could only extend to the Superman story as it is specifically told in Action #1.

 

Well no, it was from an article, and that was what the judge had decided for them. This was over the copyrights, not the trademarks. Now, it does get into a bit of a grey area in that some of DC's trademarks are based upon the copyrights now owned by the Siegel estate.

 

Why? The changes to copyright law in the 1970s makes it theirs regardless of whether they renewed or ever even filed in the first place, doesn't it?

 

Well, DC does not own the Fleischer Superman cartoons. They are in the public domain, and can't be recaptured. If I am doing the math right, they were produced in 1940-41, and probably became public domain in 1968-9 (28 years later, when whoever owned it didn't file for a copyright extension)

 

I just realized that if the Siegels did win the copyright for the Action #1 Superman story, then the copyright changes to the life of Siegel plus 75 years. Wikipedia says Siegel died in 1996, so 75 years after that would be 2069. That would mean you can't reprint Action 1 as a whole until then, but you could reprint the non-Superman parts of it in 2033. I haven't heard anything about the Shusters suing for copyright or trademark ownership, but if they did, Wikipedia says Shuster died in 1992, so Siegel's death would mark the starting point from when the story enters the public domain.

 

Well no, that's not how it works. There's the 95 year max. It can't be reset or something, or revert to life plus 75. And as for the Shusters, they were late in filing for reclaiming the rights, so in 2013, the Shuster estate is set to reclaim the other 50% of the Superman copyright. Trademarks are a completely different thing, which DC will own.