A Furious Bill Willingham Releases 'Fables' Into The Public Domain 3 3

[Cat]

https://screenrant.com/fables-public-domain-willingham-statement-wolf-among-us/

After being sick of the way he's constantly being mistreated and underpaid by DC, Bill Willingham has hit the nuclear option: he's officially released Fables into the public domain, meaning anyone and everyone can release their own Fables comics, action figures, statues, you name it. 

This is unprecedented. 

[themagicrobot]

Did DC remember to renew Super Hombre because if that is now in the public domain………

[PopKulture]

On 9/15/2023 at 1:05 PM, Cat said:

https://screenrant.com/fables-public-domain-willingham-statement-wolf-among-us/

After being sick of the way he's constantly being mistreated and underpaid by DC, Bill Willingham has hit the nuclear option: he's officially released Fables into the public domain, meaning anyone and everyone can release their own Fables comics, action figures, statues, you name it. 

This is unprecedented. 

Does he have the legal authority to do so? Or is it just a gesture of defiance? I'm sure it's for the grimy wheels of justice to be determined...  

[flchris]

Article is updated with a statement from DC claiming they own the cooyrights (allegedly, anyway).

Edited September 16, 2023 by flchris

[VintageComics]

On 9/15/2023 at 2:05 PM, Cat said:

This is unprecedented. 

There's a lot of that going on lately. Weird, right? 

[s-man]

"I Can Give It Away to Whoever I Want"

It's whomever 

[Cat]

On 9/16/2023 at 11:22 AM, flchris said:

Article is updated with a statement from DC claiming they own the cooyrights (allegedly, anyway).

Interesting. If you read the Wikipedia entry for Vertigo, it's first paragraph lists Fables as an example of a creator-owned book. 

Interesting because Fables has always been known as being creator owned. Even though I don't think much of Willingham, I do think he's about to be screwed over. 

[DougC]

This is something I absolutely love.... dirty copyright/trademark talk.

After reading his statement Bill believes per his contract with DC that he retains the original ownership rights to Fables. DC has stated what precisely they "own"; IMO without seeing the contracts it is more likely they are "owners" of the license for these copyrights. In theory you can just state something you own is in the public domain but there is also paperwork that can be filed to relinquish something in a more official matter, so we will see what happens if that is filed.

My take is that they are both correct.

DC "owns" anything that they were publisher of (under contract), Bill owns the actual property. What this means is that if Fables et al is entered into public domain anyone can use Bills idea but cannot replicate or reproduce anything published by DC. So you cannot use character designs or reprint published stories, but "should" be able to publish you own version.

A more one-for-one example: I can create a brand new Miss Masque comic book, but I cannot use ABC's stories or design of MM from 1999 without infringing on their copyright.

[Yorick]

On 9/16/2023 at 6:51 AM, DougC said:

DC "owns" anything that they were publisher of (under contract), Bill owns the actual property. What this means is that if Fables et al is entered into public domain anyone can use Bills idea but cannot replicate or reproduce anything published by DC. So you cannot use character designs or reprint published stories, but "should" be able to publish you own version.

A more one-for-one example: I can create a brand new Miss Masque comic book, but I cannot use ABC's stories or design of MM from 1999 without infringing on their copyright.

If one were to obtain scans of Bills original pages of Fables (not using scans of the published pages), would they then be allowed to print that?

[shadroch]

On 9/16/2023 at 6:51 AM, DougC said:

This is something I absolutely love.... dirty copyright/trademark talk.

After reading his statement Bill believes per his contract with DC that he retains the original ownership rights to Fables. DC has stated what precisely they "own"; IMO without seeing the contracts it is more likely they are "owners" of the license for these copyrights. In theory you can just state something you own is in the public domain but there is also paperwork that can be filed to relinquish something in a more official matter, so we will see what happens if that is filed.

My take is that they are both correct.

DC "owns" anything that they were publisher of (under contract), Bill owns the actual property. What this means is that if Fables et al is entered into public domain anyone can use Bills idea but cannot replicate or reproduce anything published by DC. So you cannot use character designs or reprint published stories, but "should" be able to publish you own version.

A more one-for-one example: I can create a brand new Miss Masque comic book, but I cannot use ABC's stories or design of MM from 1999 without infringing on their copyright.

You might create a new Miss Masque story, but I suspect DC would attempt to stop its distribution.  A company like Time Warner can put a lot of pressure on distributors. 

[DougC]

On 9/16/2023 at 11:59 AM, Yorick said:

If one were to obtain scans of Bills original pages of Fables (not using scans of the published pages), would they then be allowed to print that?

It would heavily depend on the contract language of exactly what was licensed, but I would assume it would indeed infringe. Those original designs were likely key development points of the eventual DC published work (even if rough) and to an average person will be argued to cause significant confusion or brand conflation.

On 9/16/2023 at 12:14 PM, shadroch said:

You might create a new Miss Masque story, but I suspect DC would attempt to stop its distribution.  A company like Time Warner can put a lot of pressure on distributors. 

Well there is a difference in what is "technically" legal and what a company will try and sue you into oblivion for. Blue Beetle is a great example of this, Dan Garret (Fox) is fully in the public domain. If you try and publish stories DC is still going to make it as difficult as possible, though some have succeeded (Scarab from Dynamite)

In the same arena, I am greatly looking forward to 2024 and the Steamboat Willie version of Micky Mouse entering public domain and Disney going on a suing spree for anyone daring to use it.

[VintageComics]

On 9/16/2023 at 1:14 PM, shadroch said:

You might create a new Miss Masque story, but I suspect DC would attempt to stop its distribution.  A company like Time Warner can put a lot of pressure on distributors. 

So, are you saying that a company would / could circumvent legal limitations to try to protect their IP by applying pressure on parties that have nothing to do with the IP?

[wardevil0]

On 9/17/2023 at 11:56 PM, VintageComics said:

So, are you saying that a company would / could circumvent legal limitations to try to protect their IP by applying pressure on parties that have nothing to do with the IP?

Marvel destroyed Defiant in the 90s by suing Jim Shooter over Plasm / Warriors of Plasm / Plasmer.  The courts decided Defiant's property was distinct and did not violate, but Marvel kept up litigation until Defiant ran out of money.  

[Lazyboy]

On 9/15/2023 at 8:22 PM, flchris said:

Article is updated with a statement from DC claiming they own the cooyrights (allegedly, anyway).

Shocking.

[VintageComics]

On 9/19/2023 at 5:38 AM, wardevil0 said:

On 9/17/2023 at 11:56 PM, VintageComics said:

So, are you saying that a company would / could circumvent legal limitations to try to protect their IP by applying pressure on parties that have nothing to do with the IP?

Marvel destroyed Defiant in the 90s by suing Jim Shooter over Plasm / Warriors of Plasm / Plasmer.  The courts decided Defiant's property was distinct and did not violate, but Marvel kept up litigation until Defiant ran out of money.  

That was exactly my point. 

I've been branded a "conspiracy theorist" by a small group of people here who incessantly notify on my posts even though there is nothing wrong with my posts, bringing extra attention to moderation even though others can openly talk about the same things I get notified on, so I was connecting the dots in a way that made sure I was....not going to get booted again.

It's nice to always uncover a new CONSPIRACY that proves it wasn't just a theory. 

I agree that Big Money uses it's $$$ to play CYA and never get caught. Just making sure everyone else got the point too because it's a very important one to understand because of you don't see the big picture, you're not playing on a level playing field and have no shot at actually winning even if you're in the right. 

In much the same way, If he's in the right, I can see this creator getting stonewalled by Big Corporation even if it's his right to do what he wants with the product.  

Edited September 19, 2023 by VintageComics

[Lazyboy]

On 9/19/2023 at 6:37 PM, VintageComics said:

That was exactly my point. 

I've been branded a "conspiracy theorist" by a small group of people here who incessantly notify on my posts even though there is nothing wrong with my posts, bringing extra attention to moderation even though others can openly talk about the same things I get notified on, so I was connecting the dots in a way that made sure I was....not going to get booted again.

It's nice to always uncover a new CONSPIRACY that proves it wasn't just a theory. 

I agree that Big Money uses it's $$$ to play CYA and never get caught. Just making sure everyone else got the point too because it's a very important one to understand because of you don't see the big picture, you're not playing on a level playing field and have no shot at actually winning even if you're in the right. 

In much the same way, If he's in the right, I can see this creator getting stonewalled by Big Corporation even if it's his right to do what he wants with the product.  

When has anyone ever argued or even suggested that entities with too much power never abuse it?

BTW, unprecedented events happen regularly, whether you are aware of them or not.

[VintageComics]

On 9/19/2023 at 7:50 PM, Lazyboy said:

When has anyone ever argued or even suggested that entities with too much power never abuse it?

Pretty much everyone who has a vested interest in the topic, who always argue it and have argued it for years.

Specifically, on here there is a small, distinct few people who do it regularly. They can be spotted because they usually come out of the woodwork to oppose me but are previously nowhere to be seen, usually move goalposts or post things off topic or come out as a group to pick on someone they disagree with and derail the discussion, shifting the focus from the message to the messenger. 

At least that's how it was until fairly recently.

On 9/19/2023 at 7:50 PM, Lazyboy said:

BTW, unprecedented events happen regularly, whether you are aware of them or not.

Yup. Well aware. 

But in THIS case, his point about Defiant being starved by Marvel's legal team parallels the discussion perfectly. 

DC did something similar to Fawcett 70 years ago. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by VintageComics

[Buzzetta]

IBTL

I may or may not have been pressured to post this by Jim Lee, DC, and Warner Discovery.

[jaybuck43]

On 9/19/2023 at 8:08 PM, Buzzetta said:

IBTL

I may or may not have been pressured to post this by Jim Lee, DC, and Warner Discovery.

Before this gets locked.  There is no question that Bill is credited as the creator of the book.  However, the IP rights would exist with whoever the rights holder is.  Thus, it would depend on his contract.  My contract for instance states that any IP I create while working for my employer is the rights of said employer, while I must receive credit as the creator/originator of that work.  So absent seeing the contract, no clue who's right here.  But as others have said... what company in their right mind would be willing to take Bill's word for it when you have Warner Brothers Discovery (a $28 billion company) ready to file suit.  

[mrwoogieman]

And just today, Bill Willingham declared bankruptcy: