• 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.

Fawcett/DC dispute 1948 ????

Started by Mushroom,

59 posts in this topic

esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted
OK. Here is the 1951 opinion (the first one).

 

You are one SICK basturd Scott. Really sick. Did you not think I had access to these same decisions? But noooooooooo, rather than spare these poor souls the horror and headaches of having to read through this technical copyright analysis, even when comments about Superman's love interests are referenced, you had to subject them to the enticement of reading this stuff! You are a heartless lawyer. On behalf of all lawyers, I apologize to you all.

 

grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timulty

Timulty

Posted
Posted

Okay, correct me if I am wrong Mark.

1) Fawcett ripped off story line etc from Superman Newpaper strips.

2) Because the strips appeared to be improperly or infrequently copyrighted

3) First decision was that Fawcett didn't violate copyright because First judge deemed copyright abandoned.

4) Second decision reversed First decision because there was enough of an attempt to keep the copyright, that it actually never was "abandoned".

5) Fawcett must have been pretty damn stupid to rip off those strips.

 

From what I read, I didn't see anywhere were they said The Captain Marvel Character was a copyright infringement.

 

Is this correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer

Posted
Posted
OK. Here is the 1951 opinion (the first one).

 

You are one SICK basturd Scott. Really sick. Did you not think I had access to these same decisions? But noooooooooo, rather than spare these poor souls the horror and headaches of having to read through this technical copyright analysis, even when comments about Superman's love interests are referenced, you had to subject them to the enticement of reading this stuff! You are a heartless lawyer. On behalf of all lawyers, I apologize to you all.

 

grin.gif

 

These legal texts are painful to read, like an instant sleeping pill. sleeping.gifgrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esquirecomics

esquirecomics

Posted
Posted
Okay, correct me if I am wrong Mark.

1) Fawcett ripped off story line etc from Superman Newpaper strips.

2) Because the strips appeared to be improperly or infrequently copyrighted

3) First decision was that Fawcett didn't violate copyright because First judge deemed copyright abandoned.

4) Second decision reversed First decision because there was enough of an attempt to keep the copyright, that it actually never was "abandoned".

5) Fawcett must have been pretty damn stupid to rip off those strips.

 

From what I read, I didn't see anywhere were they said The Captain Marvel Character was a copyright infringement.

 

Is this correct?

 

Basically so. That is what had me perplexed. I may need to re-read it again but my take on it was that DC never had a true substantive victory. Basically, yes, Fawcett ripped off Superman with Captain Marvel. And there definitely was an indication that a copyright violation could be in order IF after applying a certain copyright test the burden DC had to overcome was met. That test, however, was never applied on remand b/c the parties settled.

 

Was it stupid? Probably not. Think about it. It was reported that the settlement was $400,000 plus a promise to not publish Captain Marvel again. Whiz was published from 1940 - 1953. Captain Marvel Adventures was published from 1941-1953. Then there was The Marvel Family, Mary Marvel, Wow, Captain Marvel Jr., and so on and so on. Plus the movie serialization and merchandising.

 

Now, to be sure, $400,000 was a LOT of money in the early 1950s. According to the inflation calculator I found through google, what cost $400,000 in 1954 would cost $2,761,906.87 in 2005. The answer to your question depends on the amount of money/profit Fawcett made in the 15 or so years it utilized the chacter Captain Marvel and all his derivatives. As you might know, for many years Captain Marvel was MORE popular than Superman (and all other titles) and sold more issues. Good chance Fawcett probably made far more money than it cost to settle the suit. And, as the reports go, Fawcett was ready to leave the superheros to others by the time of settlement.

 

Then, ironically, DC later licenses the character from Fawcett and eventually purchases it outright!!!

 

Who won would depend on your point of view. Obviously, DC is still here and Fawcett is ... confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mushroom

Mushroom

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The ebay seller (his id is buck-rogers) has 2 different issues of Whiz Comics

 

Mush, where does it say where the images came from? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

and if anything ever comes of it then I expect your first born child...some myrrh, frankensence and GA..........(that's real gold). wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timulty

Timulty

Posted
Posted

I agree on that action 1 kid. At least because of the fact you don't really see them hit the market. Gerber's data was based on his auctions and surveys with dealers and collectors. There is a possibility that it is correct though and that whenever one of these copies hits a collection it stays. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case with the early Actions and Detectives in general. Due to the fact that they are progenator titles for 2 of the most famous comics characters in history. I just wish I had production numbers. It would be easier to determine if the Gerber is correct for these historic books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
action1kid

action1kid

Posted
Posted

Regardless if there all tucked away in private collections ,Im telling you Action #7 is at least a Gerber 7...... 30 years of observing conventions,the internet and every other venue you can think of including what your very owns eyes have shown you.This book is diffenatly a Gerber 7.It is scarce!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timulty

Timulty

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct on that one. It's like Police Comics 102. I have seen 2 copies in 6 monthes. I own one of them. I know where the Church copy sits. And that is it. If the census is an indication of what is out there in this issue. Say that the census represents 1/3 of all copies then that means there are only 45 copies in existence, which bolsters your assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing