User talk:Crimsoncrusader

Welcome Crimsoncrusader to Public Domain Super Heroes. Thanks for your excellent sidekick contributions. I hope you enjoy your time here and keep those contributions coming.--Madmikeyd 00:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Sam
Uncle Sam does indeed appear in the American Spirit sketch. So do The Shield and Captain America (shadowed), who are neither Public Domain nor Project Superpowers characters. But ok, I'll go with it.--Madmikeyd 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mini-series Catagories
My initial intent was for the "Project Superpowers" category to be all-inclusive of the PS universe. As the line grows, characters may get regulated to different titles (similar to Marvel having "X-Men characters" and "Spider-Man characters"), so I can see the argument for both ways. I'm inclined to leave it.--Madmikeyd 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome tool
Hi, Crimsoncrusader! I saw the message that you left on User talk:Wikia, and I'm a little confused. Did you think that User:Wikia vandalized something? -- Danny (talk ) 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you for double checking my work here. I'll try to be more mindful of the links and whatnot. I love this site and the idea behind it, and people like you make great. I, too, am looking at using some of these characters, and this site serves as an excellent reference.

Again, thanks.

--Raydog 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What of this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darna

Is she good for the taking in all countries except the Philippines?

Hello to a fellow editor
Hello, Crimson Crusader! I started on a project like this, but expanded it to all comics rather than just PD. I was hoping you'd come take a look and perhaps contribute if you like what you see. The site is at: http://popfiction.wetpaint.com Now, looking up Darna, I don't think she is PD, as Phillipine law allows for a copyright term of 50 years following the death of the author, and US law extends a term of 95 years for foreign works even if that work was not properly protected under US law. So, Darna would become PD in 2042 for the earliest works. However, as a clear derivation from Wonder Woman, it's unlikely the original author's claim to her would stand up in a US court...This is the maddening thing about PD, the details.

For instance, Uncle Sam and The Ray, et al. from Quality ARE PD. DC claims they own them, but the original works were never copyright renewed, so the characters are not owned. The confusion comes in about Plastic Man and Blackhawk, who did have some works renewed but not all, mostly early 1950's material. Also, Plas and Blackhawk are trademarked by DC, which is a different animal. Tarzan is PD as well, but trademarked by ERB Inc., people have used him, been sued, and there's no definitive answer as to wether he's in the clear.

A number of characters people beleive are copright protected, well, aren't. Sub-Mariner, isn't, as the first use was Motion Pictures Funnies Weekly, which is PD. Marvel Comics #1 was not renewed for copyright, which puts Namor, The Human Torch, The Angel and anyone else in that book initially, into PD. Note that Torch was renewed by Carl Burgos, but wether he has an existing estate is a question. Oh, yes, and the Nedor heroes were renewed and are under copyright, question is, to whom, and who exactly still cares? Might be the Pine family, might be CBS or AG Bertelsman or nobody. So, far, Dynamite and Project Superpowers has escaped any complications.

Hope to see you at Pop Fiction! http://popfiction.wetpaint.com - Fantasium 66.252.244.193 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, do you have any proof to back up those claims (especially the ones pertaining to Timely/Marvel and Nedor characters)? --Strannik01 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Moon Girl
MAD Magazine is all that remains of E.C., and Moon Girl hasn't seen a new publication in about 60 years. Admittedly, I've never read an explicit statement that she is in the public domain, but I believe it to be a pretty safe bet.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36164.html

--AdamRavencroft 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Determination
Although I like this page, a lot! I think there's some confusion here about how copyright status and ownership works. There's no such thing as a copyrighted "character" in and of itself. Copyright, in the US, comes from protection of WORKS, or in most of these cases, stories. The way the law works for stories published before 1964 is, that the pubisher would have to register the work, then renew that registration 28 years later. If they don't, the characters in that work become public domain as they appear in THAT work only!

Take Moon Girl...She was first published in either Happy Houlihans #7 or Moon Girl #1, both out in 1947 and both published by EC Comics. I looked up copyright renewals for both 1974 and 1975 in the Catalog of Copyright Entries as found here: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html

Since it does not appear to have been renewed, and was published by a corporation (EC), it can fairly safely be assumed that both books are in public domain. Therefore, Moon Girl is a "public domain character". However, let's say Max Gaines didn't renew number #1 of Moon Girl, but did renew number 2. You cannot use any elements unique to number 2, but you can use Moon girl herself as number 2 is a derivitive work of number 1. Searching public domain is not easy. This gets confusing.

There is also a controversy regarding the Quality Characters. (Doll Man, Uncle Sam, The Ray, etc.) becuase they were bought in the mid 1950's by DC Comics. All well and good for DC, however, when the renewals came up, they did not renew the works, making those characters public domain. Don Markstein at Toonopedia beleives DC owns these characters, but Bill Black at AC thinks they do not. Go figure. the Nedor characters (Black Terror, Fighting Yank and Doc Strange, etc.) WERE renewed, but no one has challenged Dynamite, ABC, I mage or anyone else who's used them, so either the ownership died with the demise of Pine Comics, or the Pines family still owns them or has sold them, and no owner has noticed the use. To early to tell. Most of those characters were actually created by Ben Sangor Studio, and bought by Pines Comics, so its possible Sangor owns them as well.

Happy Hunting! Pop by my wiki http://popfiction.wetpaint.com/ ---Fantasium 66.252.243.208 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
I see that several images you've uploaded have come from www.internationalhero.co.uk Same cropping, same image size, same yellowing, even same file names. That's my site, and you didn't ask. Yes, the characters might be public domain, but I put a lot of work into tracking down information and images for my site, and for you to come in and help yourself so you can build up another site, without even having the good grace to ask if it was okay, is incredibly rude. Please stop doing it. Not all your image additions have come from my site, so you are clearly capable of finding images without simply purloining them from other people. 86.136.186.218 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have apologized and now gained permission to use images from the US Golden Age sections of www.internationalhero.co.uk. - Crimsoncrusader

Note on Quality Characters
Noticed you're working in Quality characters recently. Great! One thing I didn'tmake clear before, Plastic Man and Blackhawk ARE public domain. Yes, DC claims them, and may have "bought" them in 1956, but, the copyrights on most early works (issues) by Quality, including Military Comics and Police Comics were allowed to lapse. Also, The Spirit by Eisner should be public domain. This gets confusing...Quality published The Spirit in comics, and Everett Arnold arranged the comic strip (really a free comic) to be published in newspapers. Neither the syndicate nor Arnold nor Eisner ever renewed the copyright as far as I can tell, so Spirit should be PD. Eisner makes the claim (probably true) that he and Arnold had a reversion deal that returned ownership rights to him after the Spirit stoped appearing in Quality. However, even with such an agreement, the lack of renewal makes that deal moot. -Fantasium, popfiction.wetpaint.com 72.29.150.36 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When the issue was covered at Comic Book Urban Legends Revealed, a commenter who called himself "Paul" stated at that he went to the Library of Congress and checked. According to his account, DC did renew copyright for Blackhawks and Plastic Man. As for the Spirit, I would air on the side of caution and assume that Eisner's copyright claim was legitimate. I think we can safely assume that most Quality Comics characters are in public domain because AC Comics and others reprinted the Golden Age stories they originally appeared in with nary a peep from DC Comics, but nobody tried to reprint GA Spirit stories without permission (I.W. Publishing's outright illegal reprints notwithstanding). --Strannik01 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strannik01 - I looked this up personally, using the Catalog of Copyright Renewals for both 1941 and 1942. only a few issues of Plastic Man and Blackhawk stories were renewed, and those were for about 1954 to 1956, just following Arnold's death, when his widow was handling Quality. You can find this information here: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html


 * Police Comics #1, the first appearance of Plas, WAS NOT renewed, meaning that while certain stories are protected, Plastic Man as a character is not. If Plastic Man was renewed and somehow I missed it, then Phantom Lady, The Human Bomb and The Mouthpeice, all debuting in Police #1, are owned by DC, which is not the case. The reason no one reprints Plastic Man or Blackhawk is that they ARE trademarked by DC. The trademark itself is questionable, as no one in the general public associates those characters exclusively with DC.


 * As for The Spirit and Eisner's claim, The Spirit Section would have had to have been renewed as part of the newspapers it appeared in for copyright as a work to be validated, and it is almost certain that did not happen. While I have great respect for Eisner, he does not own the character that I can tell. 72.29.154.125 07:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alan Moore's Favorite
Did you know that Herbie Popnecker is Alan Moore's favorite superhero?

Yes, We should add this to his page in the notes section. It is a fun fact. - Crimsoncrusader

Category: Dynamite Entertainment
Do you know how to correct the spelling of the Dynamite Entertainment category? I know that it's (at least) linked from Dracula and S. Holmes.

Thanks for the help.

Guidelines
Have someone on this wiki written some kind of guideline for what to include on this wiki? For example, do you consider these additions in line with the "vision" for this wiki:


 * I’ve added the category the lost girls, complete with its three protagonists. The reason for this is primarily because it later on made Allan Moore write another shared universe – the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen – and thus has some kind of connection to the super-heroic world.


 * I’ve also added the category the House of Mouse. It is, most definitely, not a super-heroic world, but it is full of characters in the public domain. Some of these characters – like Hercules – have already been added in other categories, but there might be other public domain characters that might be of interest.

--Ifrippe 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I totally agree with it. --Ifrippe 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of The Week
On the front page there is a header called "Collaboration of The Week." Is the intention to make each character entry look more akin to how they look on sites like Wikipedia? If so, is there are guideline for how they should look.

If there isn’t a pre-made guideline, is it okay if I give Boy King a Wikipedia:ish look, that you could comment on?

--Ifrippe 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging characters
Don’t you think it would be better (as in easier to find characters when the wiki grows) if we merge characters that are just a different version on an established character, and instead have the deviant information under for each relevant publisher? The characters that I primarily think of are Flame, Frankenstein, Phantom Lady, Samson and Uncle Sam.

--Ifrippe 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Only problem with that is some of the details of the characters get change with different versions. For example The Flame(1) could control fire and got his powers from magic. The Flame (2) was a scientist and did not control fire. I know that when dealing with PD characters you have to be specific. --Rivalmoon 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Main page
Hi! I was just looking at the wiki, and I was wondering why there's that big blank space at the top of the main page. Did you mean to do that? -- Danny (talk ) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Sometimes these things seem to have a mind of their own...--Madmikeyd 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
These are my first few pages of any type. I just wanted to thank you for your help in making them look better. I have a bit of trouble with the infoboxes.

--Rivalmoon 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem - Crimsoncrusader

Questionable Status
My concern is that we add characters like the Shield, the Web, the Fly or whoever and someone uses them saying they were on our site so they must be public domain, then gets sued. I know the majority of MLJ books are PD (including early Archie stuff), but I don't know the ins and outs of what characters are protected to what degrees. I trust your judgement, however (probably more than mine). If you reasonably believe lower-profile characters to be PD I'll go with it.

As far as I know those characters are NOT public domain and were trademarked in a deal with DC which did the Impact comics with them and are relaunching them now. --Rivalmoon 04:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

--With regards to not only the MLJ Characters, but characters in general, here are a few rules of thumb:

1.) Trademarking does NOT grant copyright protection. Trademarking a PD character only protects it to the degree of its "distinctive likeness" for marketing purposes. For example, if I publish Santa Claus Comics #1, that does not mean you cannot use the character of Santa, it means you may not create a title with the same name and you may not "pass off" your comic as my company's work. Trademark only lasts as long as as one uses a character for product identity, but does not run out. Trademarks are rather specific. "Superman" is a trademark of DC Comics, "Man with Red Cape", probably is not.

2.) Copyright only exists where a creator or rightsholder has met the legal requirements for such protection. Today, that's easy, create a fixed work, such as a story or drawing, you own it. Back before the 1970's, there were renewals, publishing notices, etc. Either a company or creator maintained these, or they didn't. It really doesn't matter who bought what, or who's using what character in which book, specific characters are protected or they aren't. What I've found using records from Guttenberg Project (Catalog of Copyright Renewals) or the US Copyright Office or other databases is, that DC was meticulous about renewal, Marvel is tough to pin down, Facwett is hit and miss with some Captain Marvel stuff protected, some not, Gleason is in PD, MLJ is PD on early work, Nedor is protected but may not exist as a rightsholder, and other companies just may not care about 1940's work, like Avon. Quality was initally protected, but most of it was allowed to lapse, despite the DC "purchase".

3.) While lapsed works are PD, including all characters and plot details, works based on these are not. While Mary Shelly's novel Frankenstein is PD, the Universal Studios Frankstein film, including what everyone "knows" Frankenstein's Monster looks like, is protected. The latter are "derivative works" and are protected as a unique expression of the creator. Also, this means that if I want to use Lev Gleason's Daredevil as seen in in a comic printed by him, that's ok, but I may not use anything unique to Dynamite's Project Superpowers, unless I use it as a "transformative work", such as in an encyclopeida or as humor or in a review.

4.) In Trademark, there's such as thing as "genericide", meaning that once unique tradenames, used by the general public as a regular word or term for a product, is no longer a a legitimate trademark. Aluminum Foil , Kerosene and Asprin are examples of former trademarks, Google and Kleenex are dangerously close. "Genericide" might exist in relation to Copyright as well in some form, as "stock characters" or "stock plots" have no protection. This means that I may use a "butler" or "evil clown" in my story, but not specifically "Alfred Pennyworth" or "The Joker". DC snuffed out a few supers in the 1940's as violations of the Superman Copyright, as they were super-strong , flying crimefighters with capes. Today, the general public, when thinking about what a "superhero" is, think of super-strong, flying guys in capes. So, are most supers "violations" of a "unique expression", or are they generic "stock characters"? Most likely, the latter, in my layman's opinion.

72.29.150.139 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)FantasiumPrime http://popfiction.wetpaint.com

Hey there. I was wondering how you found out that Kismet is now in the public domain. I was wondering if there's any particular source - I'd be very interested to hear! Please message me on my wall - thanks : )

Hey Crimsoncrusader - thanks for getting back to me. I'd be interested in hearing more about your ambition in the comicbook world. Do you have an email address I could contact you on?

why not open up a section where people can add ongoing interp of these characters. Leave the original bio that you have where people can't change it, but then open it up for interp.

Hey CC - I understand about the email address. I essentially wanted to talk to you about a new venture of bringing some of these characters back into the foreground. Given your experience, it would be good to have your input, possibly even your help. If it's something that might interest you, let me know.

Avenger
Hello,

The Avenger has been one of favortite PD characters since my teenage years.

I contacted AC publisher Bill Black (?) and asked about the Avenger being a PD character and that I was writing a project about the character and would there be any problem doing this since I didnt know where to turn or who to ask.

Mr. Black came back and told me that the Avenger character wasnt in public domain and I couldnt use the character. He wouldnt respond to my follow up questions as to why I couldnt use the character. I abandoned the project.

Can anyone tell why I couldnt use the original?? I couldnt find anything to indicate that the AC publisher had rights to the character.

Please let me know.

I really enjoy your sight and all the work that has been put into it.

Vince

Vince, there is no reason you cannot use the Magazine Enterprise Avenger to my knowledge. This because all of his Golden Age comics fell into the public domain when the company went failed to renew the comics in their 28th year which meant the characters fell into the public domain. Here http://www.geocities.com/cash_gorman/copyright1.html and Here http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html are research to support this. Also you can download Avenger's comics at Golden Age Comic Downloads. I hope this will help you and good luck with your project. - Crimsoncrusader

Vince- Bill Black maintains that Vin Sullivan (the owner) personally granted him the right to use all of Magazine Enterprises' characters for his AC Comics imprint. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Black's assertion, however, the lack of renewal on any comic means that the characters in it are public domain. Mr. Black also maintains he holds the trademark on all Magazine Ent's characters, including the Avenger. However, the Supereme Court said that Trademark cannot be used to limit use on PD material, so that trademark may not be enforcable. That's what Mr. Black meant when he said Avenger can't be used. --66.252.249.155 07:21, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Cameos or Full Appearances?
Hi Crimson. You seem to be the go-to person for questions so...Regarding characters at multiple companies, if a hero has made a brief cameo in, say, a DC book, is that enough reason to add a DC Characters category to their page? For instance, The Clock, Commando Yank, and Bozo the Iron Man all had cameos/references in Starman. They haven't officially appeared in any new DC stories though as far as I know. Thoughts? Rajah1 02:29, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Stories
Is it okay to put one paragraph story summaries of a character's Golden Age appearances in their bios? Is that too much info?
 * [[Image:Roygbiv666.jpg|25px|link=User talk:Roygbiv666]] 20:30, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

If it was a significant story such as how they met their sidekick or how they got their powers I could see a paragraph being OK, but for less significant stories maybe a sentence or two would suffice. - Crimsoncrusader

FAQ
MUCH better than mine, thank you for putting that up. I was just sick of a blank FAQ and filled it in as best I could. ````

No problem, thanks for filling in the rest of the FAQ. You did a good job. - Crimsoncrusader

THANX!!

 * Hey, thanks very much for adding the categories and infoboxes, CC. Have followed your advice and added the extra information. Ciao, SimonKirby 01:52, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

No problem SimonKirby, Madmikeyd and I were happy to help. - Crimsoncrusader

Open Source
Is it possible for anyone to add an Open Source Character? Cause I have a couples of characters that I wouldn't mind opening up for public use. If I can, let me know.

User:SoundersSecretKeeper

Thanks
Thanks for the answer. I have to do a little more work on them but I think I can get them on the sight some time in the near future.

User:SoundersSecretKeeper

Sounds Good. - Crimsoncrusader

Imprints and sub-categories
I received this message from Ifrippe. You're a better "catagorizer," so what's your opinion? I defer to your judgement.--Madmikeyd 19:29, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Original Message: To make the main characters page less cluttered, is it okay if I remove all imprints (provided that they have I link it the companies main page)?

For example, is it okay to remove the imprints Tem and Helnit, since they are already linked under Holyoke?

Here is how I see it. We should include all of them because they categorize different things. For example, Project Superpowers is one series and Black Terror is another monthly series while Dynamite is a publisher category. Tem and Helnit are imprint categories. It is like if you made a Wolverine page, he would fit in the Marvel, mutant, Avenger, and X-Men categories. You would not exclude one of these categories from his page. - Crimsoncrusader

RE: Dr Death & The Beyond
Hey CC. I’d like to add some more detailed information about the "universe" Dr. Death inhabits (Wikipedia has some additional info in their Haunted article). Would a description of the Beyond and some of its recurring characters be considered relevant enough to include in the Dr. Death article? Ciao, SimonKirby 08:49, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I would encourage you to create a page for the Beyond and categorize it as a location. - Crimsoncrusader

"Scoop" Newsletter
I just wanted to pass this on. You might have already seen this. We got mentioned in the Savvy Sites section of Gemstone's "Scoop" newsletter this week:

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=34&s=268&ai=87280 --Madmikeyd 21:43, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Raven's real name.
Hi, CC. When I clicked the link on Raven’s page to International Superheroes, they listed the character’s name as Danny Dartin. This made me curious, and I downloaded Sure-Fire Comics #1 and #3, and Lightning Comics v1 #4, v2 #1, and v2 #5 from the Golden Age Comics site. In all five of these the Raven’s real name is spelled Danny Dartin. Is it spelled Dartkin in Four Favorites? They don’t have any Raven issues on that site, so I don’t know. ````

I'm wondering that myself because every online source I can find spells it Dartkin. However if the comic spells it Dartin then let's change it to that. - Crimsoncrusader

n

The page has been change both here and on the Project Superpowers wiki to reflect the correct spelling. - Crimsoncrusder

Almost complete?
Do you believe this Wiki is nearing its completion?

--AdamRavencroft 22:37, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

No, there are many characters to still add especially villains and supporting cast members. I honestly do not think we will ever complete the wiki. So many characters so little time. - Crimsoncrusader

Good point. It took decades to create all these characters, and it might take just as long to discover them all.

Do the same copyright laws apply in Britain? I've noticed there are a lot of Golden Age British superheroes:

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/40.htm

just to name a few. --AdamRavencroft 22:59, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

British copyright law is different from US copyright law here's a page about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom - Crimsoncrusader

Writing Style
Should we be writing these articles from the real world perspective, in-universe, or both? I would think both would be ideal.
 * [[Image:Roygbiv666.jpg|25px|link=User talk:Roygbiv666]] 01:39, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly in-universe, with real world perspective where appropriate. --Strannik01 02:41, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Include real world perspective in the notes and in- universe in the main section. - Crimsoncrusader

American Folklore Characters articles
I am writing because I am not sure the articles about characters from American folklore that JEREMYSIDESHOW has been making fit our guidelines. I thought we decided that we weren't going to include mythological characters unless they appeared in public domain comics. None of the articles JEREMYSIDESHOW posted qualify. --Strannik01 01:30, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I agree if the characters have appeared in comics then its fine, but if they've not then there is no point to add them to our wiki. However Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, and John Henry have made numerous comic appearances so I'm ok with those characters being on the wiki and have edited the pages to reflect this.- Crimsoncrusader


 * Fair enough --Strannik01 17:57, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Solar
Howdy. I've been vaguely familiar with the character Doctor Solar, Man of the Atom. I know he appeared during the Silver Age in Gold Key Comics. I don't know if he appeared in any other comic company during that time. The character later appeared in Valiant/Acclaim comics during the 1980's &1990's.

This character actually is a lot more like Dr. Manhattan from the Watchmen than any other but that's another issue.

The question I have is this: Is Dr. Solar as he appeared during the Silver Age in any of the Gold Key comics considered Public Domain? Also, is Dr. Solar another re-tooling of Capt. Atom? The only relevant info I could find is an explanation of his powers, which is great, but I don't have any other 4-1-1. Thanks for your help. Phantom of Doom 17:23, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * " Is Dr. Solar as he appeared during the Silver Age in any of the Gold Key comics considered Public Domain?"


 * No. All of Dr Solar's original appearances are still under copyright. --Strannik01 17:46, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Who owns the copyrights to Dr. Solar's Silver Age appearances? � � �


 * Dark Horse is currently using Doctor Solar and are releasing a comic for free comic book day and will begin a new series in the summer of 2010. You can see the free comic book day info here. - :

Dr. Solar (Part deux)
OK. That is well and good and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I've still not received an actual answer regarding who actually owns the character and whether or not he is Public Domain.

Does anyone know for a fact if Dark Horse bought the rights to Dr. Solar? Please forgive me for being so annoying about this topic. Not being rude by any means, please don't think it.

Again, I know Gold Key initially published the character during the Silver Age, don't know if any other companies like Dell picked it up, seems like I may have seen Dr. Solar in a Dell comic. I do know for a fact that Valiant/Acclaim did a brief run during the 1990's. However I believe Valiant went under, changed to Acclaim but Acclaim focused mainly on video games only did a few comics like Turok.

Having said all this I've done some reading up on Dr. Solar, and he is more similar to Dr. Manhattan than Capt.Atom, even his whole transformation from a human into an energy being, affecting other humans with his radioactivity, even the symbol on his forehead! However is it possible Dr. Solar was a re-tooling of Capt. Atom?

Who acquired the Dr. Solar copyrights? Even though Dark Horse is publishing a new series, it doesn't necessarily mean they own the copyrights, does it?

Not trying to be a pest, I am just very curious about this character and I've not been able to find much info about the character at all.

Thank you for providing the link to the Dark Horse site. Phantom of Doom 00:05, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Random House currently owns the copyright (because it acquired Western Publishing, the previous owner, back in late 90s) Strannik01 03:50, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the US copyright office showing renewal. - Crimsoncrusader 04:28, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank You! Phantom of Doom 05:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Editing or deleting articles
Is here a way to edit an article name or delete it altogether? I'm trying to seperate the "13 and Jinx" article into 2 sperate articles but I'm having some trouble. Thanks!

Best thing to do would be to rename the original article 13 or Jinx and then create a new article named for the other character. Crimsoncrusader 00:01, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Miguel Rude's Question
dear as we say in the brazil: "your page is a discovery" I liked your idea a lot : of catalog and collection and search & research. I thought about putting my free character UP TO 2009, after 2010 the one that I made the people could not use. but I see that I wandered for not knowing of the rules and I wandered for not knowing to "edit of the way wikia"

Glad you have enjoyed the site and feel free to add your character to the site. If you need any help with anything feel free to ask. Crimsoncrusader 03:07, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

This Is Very Good
thank you very mutch!

then I send the cover of the bio47 N° 2

Cool I'll add it to the page. Crimsoncrusader 03:32, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

laws and permissions
if us artists of the Brazil we made an encounter between cabal and black terror or Boy King & Giant us Brazilian we would have permission? is there some law without your country that doesn't leave that to happen?

i wait for answers

thanks.


 * They are public domain. Use them any way you like. No permission is necussary. Strannik01 03:44, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep since their public domain in the United States, their country of origin, then they should be fine for you to use in Brazil. Crimsoncrusader 04:10, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

thank you very much for the answers then await future innovations

excelsior!

Free Universe and Creating a Comunity
Hi there Crimson. I really love what all of your guys are doing here on this wiki. It's amazing. I am the guy who created the "Free Universe" site (universe.1free.ws). I realize this may seem like a competing site, but actually it was intended to be complimentary. I wanted to be able to do something slightly different than what you were doing here. Here you are preserving the characters as they were. I felt that there was an impending threat of people claiming intuitive revision of characters on their own, and I wanted to stake out some revision territory that I could donate to the public domain. After all, there are only so many ways you can revise Black Terror or Captain Battle, before people run out of ways to distinguish their versions. With my site, there is at least one revision you can always use. You may have already understod all that, but I thought I'd explain. A lot of the information on my character profiles, comes from scrutinizing the comics and focusing on a character, a little more than the mass number of profiles on these sites. But I've also filled in the holes in a few places. I saw that you based the "White Killer" profile here on my profile, because you listed his real name as "Tom" Fredericks. The first name of that character was one of those holes that I filled in. He didn't have a first name. But, it's okay, because I intend that data...that "idea" to be public domain. But of course, you probably don't want people making up stuff like that on this site, which is why I built my own. You are free to use any of my made up information, but if you're trying to keep it true to only the original source, my info is sometimes a little "tainted" with made up stuff. But trust me, if White Killer showed up in the next billion dollar Batman movie with the name Tom, I would just laugh (oh, and by the way, he was called "White Terror" on the comic's cover, so that wasn't made up).

Anyway, there is another major reason why I built my own site....I REALLY wanted to communicate with people like you. When I first came to this wiki, I was EXTREMELY frustrated that I didn't know how to contact anyone, to ask questions or share ideas. I am still only just getting used to this whole "wiki" thing, and I have only recently discovered these "talk" pages as a means of communication. And frankly....I find the talk pages a little disjointed and hard to follow.

That is why I created a forum on my site. I think it's a much easier way for people like us to communicate, exchange ideas and answer questions for people who don't know much about copyright and trademark laws. Unfortunately, my newly created forums are deserted. I've been trying to promote my site, but nobody has joined the forums. I think they would be EXTREMELY useful in our endeavors. So here is what I am proposing:

If you would be willing to put a link to my forums on this site, I'd be happy to make it a joint PDSH wiki / Free Universe forum, and add any administrators here, to the administration of the forum. This would give us a place to talk about a whole range of issues and possibly foster a new community of creators who are willing to provide new characters to the ranks of the freely licensed. it would also allow us to put questions out there to a whole community instead of just one person like I'm doing now. Would you consider this a worthy pursuit?


 * First, I'd like to say I also enjoyed your sit*e and look forward to seeing it grow. Second, thank you for giving me this info about the White Killer page. I don't have the comic so I could not check which info was from Free Universe and what was Golden Age. Also, we'll try and keep any free universe info on your site or on a separate page so readers know where the information comes from. And yes the talk page can be sometimes hard to follow, but I'm glad you found a way to communicate with us. Finally, I agree that creating a joint forum would be a beneficial and I would be happy to be a forum admin. I would ask the other admins though and see what they think. Crimsoncrusader 21:46, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap!
So, I just found out that apparently the THUNDER Agents are public domain after all. The whole convoluted story is in this post by John Colag, who seems to generally know his copyright law. (Short version: the copyright notice on THUNDER Agents #1 was not legible enough and in the wrong place, and John Carbonaro was full of it.)

I knew it! Nice find KnightRandom. I will re-enstate the Thunder Agents page and we can begin work on adding other Tower characters. We need to be sure and add this info to the respective pages. Crimsoncrusader 05:24, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents
Hi, I'm one of Wikia's Community Support team. We had an email about the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents article, saying that the characters are not in the public domain. Reading around, it seems this is a controversial question, but Wikipedia concludes that the second lawsuit was settled "with Singer acknowledging Carbonaro’s registered copyrights and trademark." So maybe the articles shouldn't be in this wiki?

This is looking a great project by the way, nice work! -- sannse (talk) 02:23, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be interested in why the e-mail claimed it was protected under copyright. My guess is the sender did not reasearch copyright law very thoroughly. 1923-1977 all publications had to include a proper copyright notice which had to be clearly visible, correctly written, and in the proper location. Only the first issue had a notice, but it was not clearly visible nor in the correct place on the book so the book became public domain on publication.

Crimsoncrusader 04:29, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

The sender's view, as I understand it, is that the lawsuit settled the disagreements on the copyright status, and that Singer's later account isn't accurate. But I don't know all the details, just what I've read after getting the mail. I'm happy in this case just to pass on the comments, and leave the decision on the articles to you - this seems to be an argument on the facts rather than an actual copyright complaint -- sannse (talk) 18:09, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

According to DC Comics, John Carbonaro owned the rights to the THUNDER Agents, since they purchased them from his estate and plan on putting out a new THUNDER Agents comic this year. I do believe I would trust DC Comics to know if they were PD characters. THey wouldn't waste the money on characters they could use anyway.

Carbonaro bought the characters from the legal owners after the demise of Tower Comics.

Actually DC has been known to spend money buying characters that are public domain a lot. All most all of the Quality, Fawcett, and Charlton characters they claim to own never had proper copyrights to begin with either failing to be renewed 28 years after their publications or having improper copyright notices. Plus, the characters they are licensing from Archie are almost all public domain except for those who originated after the Golden Age. I invite you to explore our site more and read the FAQ to learn more about why these characters are in the public domain.

As for the THUNDER AGENTS while Carbonaro believed he bought the copyrights he did not because Tower Comics never included a proper copyright notice on their books. Any work published between 1923-1977 that did not include a proper copyright notice was made public domain upon publication. However, Carbonaro's estate does own the rights to the subsequent books produced after he "acquired" the characters. 00:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey man,

Just wanted to say thanks for the welcome! AlgeaX 14:46, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, welcome messages are auto-generated, so CrimsonCrusader didn't actually welcome you - though I'm sure he appreciates your comment :) --Strannik01 14:08, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hey man thanks for the hand on the Frankenstein's Monster page. I was wondering if you could tell me how to make infoboxes? -- AlgeaX 23:31, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I would just go to an existing page with and infobox and when in the editing mode hit the source button and copy the infobox format from there and save it into a Word document so you could access it any time you wanted to make a page. 00:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Cheers dude -- AlgeaX 20:37, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Message from David M. Singer
David M. Singer is an acquaintance of mine and since he's not saavy on how to post messages on these kinds of forums, he asked me to post the following message for him:

“I have recently posted comments regarding the copyright status of the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents as public domain characters. My comments were incorrect. I must make the following clarification: John Carbonaro and David Singer, Singer Publishing Company, Inc. and Deluxe Comics, have reached a final settlement in the lawsuit between the parties (entitled John Carbonaro, et. al. v. David Singer, et. al., 84 Civ. 8737 (S.D.N.Y.)). Singer acknowledges Carbonaro’s registered copyrights and trademark in the “T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents®” and has consented to be permanently enjoined from utilizing any of the “T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents” characters, stories or artwork or Carbonaro’s trademark. Under the settlement, Carbonaro will receive, among other things, an assignment of all rights to “Wally Woods T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents,” previously published by Singer."

Thank you for bring this our attention. Our research has shown that there is sufficient backing with in the copyright law to prove that first issue of T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents is public domain because while there is a copyright notice it is incorrectly placed. Also every issue from #2-20 does not have any notice anywhere in the book making those public domain as well. However, I will remove links to Mr. Singer's original post and add a note about the trademark status and Singer's “Wally Woods T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents.” Crimsoncrusader 22:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be better to retain the old links and preface them with a note that the information is contested? that way we keep all the info and note there's disagreement?
 * Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 20:33, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Open Source locations/universe?
I was wondering if it would be okay to add open source locations and/or universes in a manner similar to Marvel's or DC's multiverses. For universes I would try to build a history & assign some pd characters to them (noting any particular quirks for these particular versions).Yzz, Master of DOOM 02:04, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be really cool go ahead and add any locations you would like. Look forward to seeing them later. Crimsoncrusader 04:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, though, that you can't make stuff up for existing comic book public domain characters. With Golden Age and Silver Age PD characters, we aim to keep our articles as historically accurate as possible --Strannik01 04:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about changing the actual character pages, just listing changes from the original character for a particular universe. For example, on Earth-Z there is a version of the Super-American who is a borderline fascist. On the Earth-Z page, I would provide a link to the real, unaltered Super-American entry, with a note under the link explaining that on Earth-Z he's a fascist. Sounds good?Yzz, Master of DOOM 14:49, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what would be the point of making this sort of thing open source, but what you're describing isn't against the rules, so knock yourself out. --Strannik01 15:32, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

License
What is the license used in open source characters? I'm part of Wikipedia and would like to post some images on the Wikimedia Commons.Hyju 17:34, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see why not. Post away. --Strannik01 00:56, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the images themselves have been declared public domain by their creators. As for the license, its on each character's respective page. Crimsoncrusader 22:52, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

there could be a warning in the pages of images. Example:.Hyju 00:39, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hello/Open Source
Hi CC! Love this wiki! Was checking out the Open Source Category. The required paragraph reads "all rights reversed". Shouldn't that be "all rights reserved"? Would've changed it myself, but for all I know it could be the former!:)CadmiumX99 19:31, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd ask MadMikeyD since he was the first one to add Open Source Characters to the wiki. I have never added any. Crimsoncrusader 20:00, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * When Strannik01 had changed "reversed" to "reserved" (becuase I had used one of the other open-source licenses on the wiki as a template), he later reverted it, saying: " I has just been informed by a reliable source that it really was supposed to say "reversed." Sorry about that. My bad. " So... As an aside, if you use any of the stuff I made, could please tell me about it? I'm curious as to which directions others may take the material toward.
 * Please make sure to voice your opinion on the wiki policy vote.Yzz, Master of DOOM 22:48, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * CadmiumX99: Here is the deal. "All rights reserved" signifies that you reserve all rights to the material. But if you write "all rights reversed," the opposite happens - you signify that you renounced any and all exclusive rights to the material and released it into public domain as an open-source character/concept --Strannik01 00:12, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Strannik! Sounds logical to me, glad I asked! Would something like "all rights renounced" be less confusing?CadmiumX99 07:20, June 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * "All rights reversed" is a legal concept. "all rights renounced" would be more of a legal statement, but either one should work. --Strannik01 07:25, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Outcome Wiki policy vote
Well, Crimsoncrusader, it seems that most of the members have voted, and the vote is in your favor. I am not sure that letting the vote go on will make much of difference. Personally, I still think that putting pulp and literary characters (that don't have Golden Age comic book counterparts) is a good idea, but since the vote has gone in your favor, the ball is in your court. --Strannik01 15:27, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

The Spirit?
is "the spirit" public domain? because I have a college book project due in a week that may be published and he's in there.--FossilLord 03:28, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no record of renewal for the Spirit Sections, The Spirit Quality Comics series, or the stories featured in Smash or Police. However, only the original Golden Age content would be public domain and there is a good chance that DC or the Eisner heirs will sue if they discover unauthorized use of the Spirit regardless of his legal status. Crimsoncrusader 03:46, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you may be able to get away with reprinting original Golden Age material, but that's a big if. Of course, personally, I am opposed to using the Spirit at all on moral grounds, since the character was one of the very few instances when the comic book creator kept the ownership of his property, and I want to respect that.. But that's just me. And, as Crimsoncrusader rightfully noted, you probably wouldn't get away with creating original Spirit material without getting sued by Eisner's heirs. --Strannik01 04:13, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The world i am working on is kind of pulp fiction and i was thinking of combining him with the clock but i'll just focus on the clock. I needed a character to "inspire" my other heroes.--FossilLord 00:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * You could always use Midnight ;) --Strannik01 02:13, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strannik01's right Midnight would be a great choice since he was created to replace the Spirit during the war. Crimsoncrusader 02:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I got an A but its not being printed as and i quote "Superheros are childish" and the guys favorite movie is watchmen, also midnight is a good idea for version 2.0--FossilLord 02:23, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Spammer alert.
User:Wayne39hodge added spam to the front page (for "universal translation service" or somesuch). I already removed it but just FYI.--Yzz, Master of DOOM 14:39, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked his IP address and account. Thanks for the heads up. --Strannik01 15:29, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Yzz good looking out. Crimsoncrusader 01:06, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Bat
Do you know if this character is in The Public Domain? I've looked around and the only place that seems to have info on this character is the Golden Age Hero Directory.Here is a link to his picture.

The Bat's copyright situation is complicated. First he's a British comic book character so he falls under UK Copyright law which is different than US Copyright law. According to UK law published work becomes public domain 70 years after the death of the author even if the work was produced as work for hire. Bat's creator was George McQueen, his publisher was Cartoon Art Productions, and supposedly made his first appearance in 1949. I do not know if McQueen is still alive, but the character hasn't been used in 61 years meaning it could be an orphan work. Most likely there would be no obstacles in using the character, but you take the risk of legal actions if it isn't abandoned. Here's more info on the character. Crimsoncrusader 02:27, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks man.

THE BAT (2) IS P.D. MOONSTONE IS UTILIZING IT, AS HAS DYNAMITE.

THE ORIGINAL BAT IS QUESTIONABLE.TARGET-DEFIANT. 06:24, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Determination of PD status and inclusion
Hi Crimson - I used to communicate with you here regarding which characters were or were not PD, and got discouraged because you seemed overly cautious at the time. (Plastic Man, Blackhawks, etc) I now see Plas has a page and you all are creating notes regarding which books were renewed, which is good. I hope to see Captain Marvel and co. here soon, as well as some others. Some of the Charlton stuff has the same issues as T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents, incorrect or missing copyright notices. I don't want anyone to get into trouble, but I also don't like big corporations locking up characters they didn't create and don't own. Did you know, for instance that CBS, NOT DC, created Jimmy Olsen? The research does take time to get clear, of course, and requires hard work. I wish you the best. --KRyan

This aught to blow your mind, as far as who created what -- http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/389/

We're working on getting more characters who are public domain, but who are being claimed by big companies incorrectly. Of course we've been trying to include sufficient warning to the risks involved with creating a new work featuring this character, but if someone doesn't shed light on the situation then we deprive the world of great characters and creative potential. More Charlton on the way and just finished a major bit of research on the status of of nearly every Marvel Family character so look for those in the future. Interesting Olsen was created by CBS, but radio copyright is complicated. The recording weren't renewed but the scripts can still be protected by copyright such as Green Hornet. Will have to read the article in detail later, but thanks for passing on the link. Crimsoncrusader 04:38, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I OWN M.K.U.I.I./MYTHOLOGY KINGDOM INK/INC, AN LLP COMICS COMPANY.

WE INTEND TO USE DOROTHY GALE, A PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTER, AND GIVE HER THE POWERS OVER THE VERY WINDS THAT BROUGHT HER TO OZ..TARGET-DEFIANT. 18:01, October 21, 2010 (UTC) ODIN AND ZEUS CREATED OZ IN OUR NINE FICTIONAL UNIVERSES. OZMA GIVES DOROTHY MULTIPLE TORNADO POWERS, LIKE RED TORNADO POSSESSES. I AM FREELY ENTERING MY VERSION INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

QUESTION: DERIVITIVE CHARACTERS FOR OPEN SOURCE/PUBLIC DOMAIN
DOROTHY'S TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT ARE BOTH PUBLIC DOMAIN. SHE HAS A RICH MAGICAL HISTORY, THEREFORE THOSE TWO THINGS COMBINED MAKE HER PERFECT FOR AN ADVENTURER, OR HERO. DERIVITIVES OF MAGIC CHARACTERS,OR ANY PD DERIVITIVES,, WHOS TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT ARE IN P.D. SHOULD EITHER GO HERE, OR SOMEONE WITH ADMIN RIGHTS SHOULD CREATE A SPECIAL, NEW SECTION FOR THEM, AND LINK IT HERE. IM NEW TO THE SITE, SO I DON'T THINK I SHOULD CREATE IT PER-SAY, BUT I WOULD HELP CONTRIBUTE TO IT, AND ADMIN IT IF YA WANTTARGET-DEFIANT. 06:22, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

AS OF NON MONOPOLIZATION OF THE COMIC BOOK INDUSTRY, ANY DERIVITIVE THAT IS CHANGED ENOUGH FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE, IS LEGAL FOR OTHERS TO CREATE BY FEDERAL LAWS.

AS SUCH, ANY COMPANY CAN HAVE A BATMAN, OR SUPERMAN, THEY JUST CANT CALL IT BATMAN OR SUPERMAN. AND ANY COMPANY LIKE MINE WHO WISHES TO ENTER SOME OF THOSE DERIVITIVES INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO HERE. EXCELSIOR IS A DERIVITIVE OF SUPERMAN, AND IS LISTED AS OPEN SOURCE HERE. INVINCIBLE IS EXACTLY LIKE SUPERBOY, THERES ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE.(EXCEPT HIS CREATORS ARENT LISTING HIM AS P.D.) I HAVE TWELVE DERIVITIVE CHARACTERS TO PUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.TARGET-DEFIANT. 06:40, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION ABOUT DOROTHY GALE. Edit
IF I CHANGED THE MIDDLE NAME, OR ADDED ONE FOR HER, AND CALLED THE TITLE OF THE PAGE BY HER M.K.U.I.I. CALL SIGN "TWISTED", WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED DERIVATIVE, OR OPEN SOURCE?? KAY. I HAVE A FEW PUBLIC DOMAIN/OPEN SORCE CHARACTERS IVE CREATED. IS THERE A SPECIFIC WAY (OTHER THAN THE CAPPS LOCK THING) THAT I SHOULD DO SO?TARGET-DEFIANT. 15:57, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the character in based on original Dorothy Gale in any way, shape or form, it is considered derivative. So, no, cosmetic changes such as adding an original call sign don't count. Now, if you wanted to contribute an original open source character, that would be a different story. --Strannik01 20:51, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lovely. Days of relative inactivity end with kneejerk chastising a new contributor for violating completely unpublished rules about, once again, what this site SHOULD BE ABOUT. I suppose Wonder Man should be removed, too. He was shown in court to be derived from Superman, after all. Maybe there can be another exciting (and unending) vote about whether there should be another exception to the unpublished rules.

BY THE BY,-IF SAID RULES ARE UNPUBLISHED...HOW AM I, OR ANY OTHER "NEWB" SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THEM??-ALSO: DERIVATIVE CHARACTERS FROM KNOWN PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED HERE, IF THE AUTHOR OF SAID CHARACTERS WANTS TO FREELY ENTER THEM INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. IS THERE A WIKIA SPECIFICALLY CREATED FOR THIS ALREADY,- OR CAN YOU, OR I, OR BOTH START ONE?TARGET-DEFIANT. 16:02, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

the kismet article mentions he fought a character called the rocketeer...if so,-this means that version of "the rocketeer", is in the public domain.TARGET-DEFIANT. 18:08, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Okay let me clarify and answer some questions.

Target Defiant - You can create a page for a open source character or release a character you have created into the public domain. Look at some of the pages of open sourced characters to see how you should create such a page.

Also, let me explain the difference between open sourced and derivative works. A derivative work is a new concept created from another pre-existing idea and is copyrighted to the creator of said idea. An open sourced work is one that is free licensed by the creator for others to use and change how they see fit as long as they include the required statement about the character's open source status.

Another thing the Rocketeer who fought Kismet is a completely unrelated character to the modern character and was created years before him. And the rules are on the front page about not adding characters based on public domain ones, but are under copyright to the the site. Hope this helps let me know if you need anything else. 19:57, October 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * ty. so my version of dorothy gale would be derrivitive, but-both the trademark, and the copyright lapsed eons ago...and my derivitive would be considered a public domain super hero, as she wears armor, & fights crime utilizing wind powers given to her by ozma. since i have radicaly changed this version, and given her a hero name "twisted", i see no reason she shouldint be included here. also, image comics invinceable is a derivitive of superman yet dc does not own him-you said a derivitive work is owned by the creator of the original work its derivitive of? (which is not legally the case, otherwise there would be wayyyy more lawsuits) -clarify please?...shouldent derrivitive super-characters created by those who wish them to be in the public domain be listed here, or can we create a new wikia branch for them?TARGET-DEFIANT. 20:46, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with including Twisted here after all we have Cabala who was realeased into the public domain by her creators. And I'm a big Invinicble fan, but he is not a derivitive of Superman he is simply following the classic superhero archetype established by Superman. Remeber you cannot copyright ideas only the expression of them. Crimsoncrusader 02:12, October 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Chrimson - just to be clear, I deleted Target's original article of his character because I felt that it didn't belong here for the same reason as, for example, any of the later-day versions of Golden Age Daredevil. As the main page says, we try to stick to original depictions of the characters. I am not sure making a derivative character open source trumps that. --Strannik01 02:22, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THAT,-IS THAT THE DOROTHY GALE TRADEMARK, AND COPYRIGHT ARE BOTH EXPIRED, & IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. THEREFORE SHE IS ABSOLUTELY A CHARACTER THAT COULD BE FREELY UTILIZED AS A SUPER HERO, AND/OR A NOIR CHARACTER. IT ALREADY HAS AWESOME STARTING POINTS/BACK STORIES FOR NEW CREATORS, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF THIS PART OF WIKIA.TARGET-DEFIANT. 05:51, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is stopping you from using the character any way you see fit. However, this wiki is a source of information for writers. This wiki exists as a resource to inform the readers about original public domain characters (and open source characters). As you yourself readily acknowledge, your character isn't original. --Strannik01 06:02, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * ACTUALY MY VERSION OF THE CHARACTER IS ORIGINAL. SHES BEEN AROUND FOR A HUNDRED YEARS AND NO ONES DONE A TAKE ON HER LIKE THIS. AT BEST SHES A DERIVITIVE OF SEVERAL CHARACTERS COMBINED, WHICH MAKES HER AN "AMALGAM", OR NEW WORK BASED LOOSELY OFF OF OLD WORKS.TARGET-DEFIANT. 06:15, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Strannik & CC, I think that an Open Source alteration of PD character deserves representation. As a matter of fact MadMikeyD made his Outworlder series OS, so there is no reason why we can't add OS alterations to PD characters. If nothing else, we could make a Open Source Variations page and have alternate origins/histories/etc.Yzz, Master of DOOM 00:15, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * ITS BEEN A COUPLE WEEKS SINCE THE LAST POST. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WETHER OR NOT WE CAN FOR SURE CREATE THE OPEN SOURCE VARIATIONS PAGE/PAGES, WITHOUT OTHER MEMBERS DELETING THEM. AND IF WE CAN I WOULD LIKE ONE OF YOU TO CREATE THE FIRST ONE, FOR A TEMPLATE.TARGET-DEFIANT. 23:00, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * ALSO -IS THERE A MAX LIMIT AS TO HOW MANY P.D. CHARACTERS I CAN ENTER ON THIS SITE PER YEAR??jasontodd3@live.com 22:28, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

There is no max limit and I'll help you create the Open Source Variations page when I get a chance. Crimsoncrusader 18:42, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

TY. I REALIZE EVERYONE IS BUSY WITH THE HOLIDAYS, AND WORK, AND EVERYTHING. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET GOING ON THE OPEN SOURCE VARIATION'S PAGE/PAGES'/ENTRIES AS SOON AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. ALSO, MYTHOLOGY KINGDOM ONLINE DOT COM,/M.K.U.I.I. IS LOOKING FOR CREATIVE WRITERS TO HELP WITH ACTUAL ONGOING SERIES OF COMIC BOOKS, SOME OF WHICH WILL UTILIZE PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTERS IN NEW STORY ARCS. WE HAVE FINANCIAL BACKING, AND CATER TO CREATORS RIGHTS ON NEW NON P.D. OR OPEN SOURCE CHARACTERS AS WELL.

WE ARE ALSO WILLING TO GO TO COURT MULTIPLE TIMES FOR THE TRADEMARKS OF P.D. CHARACTERS TO BE RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, SO THAT EVERYONE MAY MAKE CAPITAL ON THEM THROUGH MULTI-MEDIA.jasontodd3@live.com 18:10, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Your second paragraph puzzles me. In order to secure trademarks, you need properly register them. Unless you intent to register trademarks that conflict with existing trademarks, I don't see why you'd need to go to court.
 * If you must create "open source variations" pages (which I still have reservations about, but that's neither here nor there), you can start as soon as you like. Just be sure to follow the proper format and attach proper disclaimers.


 * Third of all, saying "we cater to creators rights" means nothing. Please explain what rights the creators will have if they work for you and what rights you will keep for yourself. Otherwise, any writer who works for you would be working with hypotheticals. --Strannik01 19:11, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * OUR F.A.Q. PAGE AT THE ABOVE LISTED SITE STATES WHAT WE DO WITH CREATORS.
 * CREATORS OWN THIER OWN TRADEMARKS COPYRIGHTS, WE TAKE TWENTY PERCENT OF THE NET, AND DONATE HALF OF THAT TO CHARITY. THE CREATOR GETS EIGHTY PERCENT NET.
 * AS FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN TRADEMARKS, MARVEL AND DC CANT/CAN NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP LEGALLY IF THEY HAVE TRULY LAPSED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. IN CASES LIKE DAREDEVIL, THE NAME WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A HANDICAPPED HERO, WHO LAPSED DECADES BEFORE TIMELY BECAME MARVEL, AND STAN LEE TRADEMARKED THE NAME. WHICH IS ILLEAGAL.
 * I INTEND TO PROVE THIS IN COURT. IN THE CASES LIKE PLASTIC-MAN, NO ONE CAN LEGALLY RE-TRADEMARK A COPYRIGHT THAT LAPSED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. DC SHOULD HAVE PUBLISHED ALL THE CARACTERS THEY BOUGHT WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEM, INSTEAD OF DECADES LATER. THEY MAY NOT CLAIM ANY OWNERSHIP WHAT SO EVER. IT IS THE RIGHT OF ANY AMERICAN TO PUBLISH THE TRADEMARKS, & COPYRIGHTS AND MAKE MONEY. I WILL PROVE THIS.jasontodd3@live.com 20:19, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll lose and prove you don't know what you're talking about. When DC and Marvel filed for their trademarks, they were dead. They have spent a lot of money and time to create something worth protecting. There is nothing wrong with that.
 * When you publish, your trademarks become protected, too. If you can't sell without stepping on the trademarks they made popular, you're trying to use the reputation they built. No court will support that.
 * Furthermore, you'll make valid projects like this look bad, like the Blackmask guy did. See http://new.teleread.com/copy-right/conde-nast-lawyer-calls-blackmask-publisher-a-rogue/
 * Also, you can't "trademark a copyright." It makes no sense. Copyright protects a work. Trademark protects a brand.
 * Also also, society invented lowercase for a reason. All-caps is hard to read.
 * So where's the page on Dorothy?
 * ONCE A TRADEMARK LAPSES INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, BY FEDERAL LAW, IT CANNOT BE RENEWED, OR BOUGHT. PERIOD. IT IS THEN FOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND/OR CHILD TO PUBLISH LEGALLY. IN MARVELS CASE THEY DIDINT PAY MONEY FOR P.D. HEROES. THEY STOLE THE NAMES, AS THEY TRADEMARKED THEM, AND LIED TO THE PATENT OFFICE CLAIMING THERE WERE NEVER ANY OTHERS WITH THOSE NAMES. YET WONDER-MAN, DR.DOOM, DAREDEVIL. HELL-CAT, E.C.T. WERE ALL CREATED WELL BEFORE TIMELY EVEN BECAME MARVEL. -DECADES BEFORE. ONCE SOMETHING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A NAME IS CREATED IN THE SAME MEDIUM, IT CAN NOT BE LEGALLY DUPLICATED EXACTLY. U CAN MAKE A DRIVITIVE NAME THAT MEANS THE SAME THING, BUT NOT UTILIZE NAMES THAT LAPSED, AND CLAIM SOLE OWNERSHIP. STANS DAREDEVIL MAY BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT, BUT HE STILL UNJUSTLY, TRADEMARKED HIS VERSION, WITH MARVEL, UNDER A NAME THAT HAD LAPSED DECADES EARLIER. YOU CAN NOT HAVE TWO DAREDEVILS, JUST LIKE U CANT HAVE TWO CHARACTERS NAMED BATMAN. THE EARLIEST VERSION WITH THE NAME WINS BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THAT VERSION IS LAPSED AS U, & THIS SITE CLAIM, THEN EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO THE TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT. ALSO HOW DID MARVEL MAKE TRADEMARKS POPULAR, WHEN SAID TRADEMARKS PRE-DATE THE COMPANY BY ALMOST TWO FACTUAL DECADES?? THEY CANT LEGALLY TRADEMARK THEM. THEY ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN. MARVEL CAN USE THE NAMES SURE, & THEY CAN MAKE MONEY OFF OF THEM. BUT SO FACTUALLY CAN EVERYONE ELSE. NO ONE MAY TRADEMARK OR COPYRIGHT A P.D.CHARCATER LEGALLY. THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS THAT BACK THIS UP, WHERE ALL FICTION IS CONCERNED. ENGLAND AND EUROPE HAVE SOME OF THE SAME LAWS AS WELL..THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF "PUBLIC DOMAIN".jasontodd3@live.com 22:07, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * SPEAKING OF ACTUAL, FACTUAL, FEDERAL LAWS, ALL OF THE ONES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTERS, -ESPECIALLY ONES BOTH MARVEL AND DC CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF,
 * SHOULD BE LINKED TO EACH AND EVERY PROFILE, LIKE BLUE BEETLE, AND DAREDEVIL, SO THAT THE WORLD CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT MARVEL AND DC ARE DOING AGAINST FEDERAL LAWS, BY THREATINING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PUBLISH WHAT HAS FACTUALLY LAPSED INTO P.D.jasontodd3@live.com 03:48, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * we at M.K.U.I.I., are in the same medium. a website is a form of factual publication, and has been decided so in multiple already decided court cases. we have a right to bring federal laws concerning confusion in the same marketplace, and trademark disputes to light in court before a judge and joury. also if specific trademarks can be renewed as u claim,-then public domain copyrights arent public domain where the specific medium of comics are concerned. -the covers sell the end product, just as much as the interior art and writing. if no one can put the name of the liv gleason daredevil on a cover,- or as the title of a film, it could be stated marvel is monopolizing the name of two factualy different, yet confusingly identical entities by the same name, in the same medium. as both had hadicapps at one time, and both had the same spelling of the same name. this keeps public citizens from wanting to spend the effort to utilize public domain characters. and is against current federal laws in the comic book/literary fiction medium. the laws im citing are federal. any admin on this site should automatically know of them, or at least have researched them. and they should have been reseached, and re-researched, before the main admin of this part of wiki,- started this p.d. part of wiki. they should also be clearly linked to from the various character profiles.jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 06:07, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * we at M.K.U.I.I., are in the same medium. a website is a form of factual publication, and has been decided so in multiple already decided court cases. we have a right to bring federal laws concerning confusion in the same marketplace, and trademark disputes to light in court before a judge and joury. also if specific trademarks can be renewed as u claim,-then public domain copyrights arent public domain where the specific medium of comics are concerned. -the covers sell the end product, just as much as the interior art and writing. if no one can put the name of the liv gleason daredevil on a cover,- or as the title of a film, it could be stated marvel is monopolizing the name of two factualy different, yet confusingly identical entities by the same name, in the same medium. as both had hadicapps at one time, and both had the same spelling of the same name. this keeps public citizens from wanting to spend the effort to utilize public domain characters. and is against current federal laws in the comic book/literary fiction medium. the laws im citing are federal. any admin on this site should automatically know of them, or at least have researched them. and they should have been reseached, and re-researched, before the main admin of this part of wiki,- started this p.d. part of wiki. they should also be clearly linked to from the various character profiles.jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 06:07, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Detective Eye
Do you happen to have any digital copies of this character's appearances? I noticed you uploaded the image, but with the new wiki layout (hate it) I have no idea how to look at the article history to see who provided the info.
 * Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 21:08, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, found it, sorry.


 * By the way Roy if you go into your preferences you can switch to the old look by selecting Monaco. Crimsoncrusader 02:13, October 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stranik01 told me the same. Change bad. ;-)
 * Roygbiv666

Adding a character
Hi there

I have enjoyed reading through the various characters on this site and I have ideas for writing some stories based on some of the open source material.

I have a character that I would like to add. I just have the style of the character and the name - everything else such as a back ground etc needs moulded.

What would be the best way to go about this? Would other users be interested in adding to the character?

Transmooky 08:31, November 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you need to make at least some bare-bones background. Don't see why others can't flash out the details. --Strannik01 08:35, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Batson fam characters
Are Captain Marvel jr., and Mary Marvel going to be entered as well? Is it legal to use them in new comic book stories, at least on the interior? also can we put images on the cover without altering the costumes dc still utilizes?? i was going ta ask this about plastic-man as well.....jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 06:16, November 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes the rest of the Marvel family that are in the public domain which includes Captain Marvel jr., and Mary Marvel will be added soon. Its legal to use them, but its very tricky since trademark-wise DC owns them they bought the trademarks when they purchased Fawcett even though the copyright lapsed. However, "trademarked public domain characters" have been used on covers before such as Blue Beetle appearing on multiple Project Superpowers covers, but with no mention of his name. DC has yet to sue Dynamite over this. The public domain animations of Superman from Fletcher studios has also been feature on multiple cheap DVDs using only the PD logo and artwork from the show to advertise it. Crimsoncrusader 15:11, November 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * TY. -the law states dc has three years to file against dynamite, or they fail to defend their claim on the blue beetle. has this amount of time lapsed yet since he was utilized for dynamite??


 * also: can we legally use the word "shazam", on the interiors..or do we have to change it to something else?


 * No they have trademarked "shazam" so I would not use it on covers. The blue beetle image appears on the covers by the way not his name. Dynamite re-named Blue Beetle Big Blue for use in Project Superpowers. The series has been out since 2008 to answer your other question. Crimsoncrusader 22:27, December 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * TY, when will mary marvel be added??jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 19:30, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Mary will probably be added this week. Crimsoncrusader 19:21, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Open Source Variations page :
e-mail me at jasontodd3@live.com, when we can create the super hero Open Source Variations page, without it being deleted. i have three characters to contribute to it., also if i create a wikia for our m.k.u.i.i. characters, (since we are utilizing public domain, and open source characters as well as our copyrighted works, would u be able to link it with this part of wikia??jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 19:39, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again - add away. I am not going to delete it. Just be sure to follow the proper format. --Strannik01 22:23, December 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah go ahead and add it I'll help you format it correctly. As for links we'll include them in the see also part of the pages. Crimsoncrusader 19:23, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Email to Wikia
Hi, I had an email to say that characters from "All-Negro Comics Inc" are not in the public domain. Please can you check and correct if necessary? Thanks, -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 18:01, December 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking over all the documentation I can't find any sign of All-Negro Comics #1 being renewed 28 years after publication (originally published in 1947 it would have had to be renewed in 1975) which was required by US copyright law to secure copyright for another 95 years which is why the characters were added in the first place.


 * Here and here are the first copyright renewals list and the US copyright office records which show no renewal on both sites. Was there any reasoning behind why these characters were still under copyright in the e-mail because everything seems to be in order with US law placing it into the public domain. Crimsoncrusader 00:36, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I've been able to gather, the estate of Orrin C. Evans, the publisher of All-Negro Comics, claimed copyrights and trademark rights for those characters as of 2003. Now, whether they have a legitimate claim or not is another question entirely. --Strannik01 04:18, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * They probably didn't know about renewal being necessary to keep their copyright back then and still think they own the characters. That's to bad for them, but at least being in the public domain will give the character much greater exposure and potential to be printed again. 05:05, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * There weren't any details, so I just passed the comment on :) It wasn't a takedown notice (I'm sure you know how that works) -- so all's good for now -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 13:05, December 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks for passing the info along. Crimsoncrusader 23:32, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

New Companion Wiki
So, I decided to start building something we talked about before - a wiki dedicated to public domain characters that don't fit our definition of "superheroes" - non-superhero funny animals, teen characters in the Archie mold, non-superhero comedy strips. It's very, very barebones right now, and I want it to have some content before we properly unveil it on this wiki. You can see it here Strannik01 17:30, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks for putting that up man. I'll be sure to come over and give you a hand with it. Crimsoncrusader 01:40, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate all the help I can get. --Strannik01 03:06, January 15, 2011 (UTC)