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)

Was this ever agreed upon one way or another? Is it okay to make a page for the Spirit? I've gone as far as I want to (for the most part, probably do some "tweeks" here and there still) with the fantasy types and have decided to go back to comic books so was curious.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:33, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with it since as I stated above we couldn't find any renewal records for his golden age appearances. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:40, September 25, 2013 (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.

Actually, he's been used by Black Tower Comics since the 1980s and if you check their online store you'll see his book The Bat Triumphant (2009) and The Bat versus Krakos is due 201482.46.17.194 17:11, June 12, 2013 (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)

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)

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)

I just wanted to bring your attention to the message Tom Christopher left in the Ace Harlem article. I moved it to the article's talk page. I wanted to run it by you before writing a response. --Strannik01 19:35, January 24, 2011 (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 any help you can give me. --Strannik01 03:06, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Help for heroes inc wiki
I doubt that you are aware of this but the web comic heroes inc has a wiki. A wiki that I am in the process of editing I was wondering if it is possible to copy all the information in the heroes inc charecters catogory and transfer it over to the heroes inc wiki? Please respond on my talk page when able thank you for your time.--User:FossilLord 03:55, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Ditto what Strannik01 already posted. Crimsoncrusader 02:26, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

HEROES DOMAIN
I Have some questions:

1.Will More public domain golden age golden age characters appear in heroes domain anytime soon?

2.Will The heroes domain blog be updated soon?

3.Will There be a print version of heroes domain?Golden one 01:59, February 2, 2011 (UTC)allen c.trembone

Glad to see some interest in Heroes Domain. Thanks. I'll answer some of your questions as best as I can without too many spoilers.

1. Yes, I plan on including almost every public domain character into the Heroes Domain universe. Look for several Nedor heroes and several villains from multiple companies in the first issue. Look for more art and a Daredevil public service announcement mini- comic on the blog soon.

2. The blog will be updated soon. I've been doing a lot of behind the scenes work on the series, but other responsibilities have prevented me from updating as often as I would have liked.

3. Yes the print version of the first 22 page issue which is drawn and currently being lettered, colored, and prepared for print will hopefully be available this spring and will be sold online and at my booth at upcoming comic cons like Summit City and Mid-Ohio con. I also hope to have some with me at C2E2 but I will not have a booth there so people will have to find me at the con and ask for an issue.

Crimsoncrusader 20:47, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I Have more questions:

5.Will there be original characters in heroes domain?

6.Will there be a heroes domain wikia page?

7.Will there be a heroes domain RPG?Golden one 22:27, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

And here are some more answers: 5. Yes I have created many original characters for the Heroes Domain universe, but many of those charatcers will show up later in the story when its progresses beyond the 40s and 50s.

6. There is a category page but Heroes Domain does not really need its own page on this wiki beyond that sicne this site is focused on providing info on the public domain not derivitatve works. Heroes Domain would eventually need its own wiki when its further along.

7. No plans for an RPG right now. Need to focus on making more story and art for the series before I diversify into to many other projects. Crimsoncrusader 00:00, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Projects Featuring Public Domain Golden Age Characters
If I do a project of my own, featuring re-designed public domain golden age characters, should I include redesigned versions of the Fawcett and Archie/MLJ characters?Golden one 02:40, February 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Golden One, I'm guessing what your really is asking is if I use these characters in my project will DC or Archie sue me? This could happen and could not happen, but mainly a lawsuit would occur if you infringed on trademark or were using the characters in a controversial manner that would draw negative attention. The more well known the character the more likely as well. Captain Marvel and his Family or any superhero used in the Silver Age by Archie would be more likely to get you in trouble than using character who haven't been touched since the golden age or are obscure.


 * So my question is which characters would you be leaning towards and how would you be using them? Crimsoncrusader 20:26, February 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are the characters i would be leaning towards: the black hood,black jack,bob phantom,captain flag,

fireball,firefly,the fox,the hangman,inferno,mr.justice,the shield,steel sterling,the web,the wizard,bulletman,bulletgirl,commando yank,the phantom eagle,pinky,ibis the invincible,spy smasher,mr.scarlet,and captain midnight. I Would use them in my own stories with other public domain and original golden age characters.as redeigned characters.Golden one 21:37, February 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Most these should be fine, but be sure to read all the legal notes on their respective pages. Captain Midnight needs to used under a different name and any Mighty Crusader member might also want a name change just to be on the safe side. However since your re-designing the characters and using original one with them you should be ok. Crimsoncrusader 00:00, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * OK,Thank you very much for the advice,I Will re-design and rename captain midnight,


 * However,I have some questions:


 * 1.Which mighty crusader members should i give name changes?


 * 2.Which characters should be fine?Golden one 01:53, February 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1/2. Shield, Hangman, Inferno, and Web would be ones I would re-name to avoid trademark issues with DC/Archie. the other MLJ heroes should be ok.


 * Thank you,however,i have one question:which other MLJ Heroes should be ok?Golden one 23:24,

February 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * black hood,black jack,bob phantom,captain flag,

fireball,firefly,the fox,mr.justice,steel sterling,the wizard. Crimsoncrusader 14:17, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks,since the other MLJ Heroes should be ok,should i use their actual names?


 * Also,which fawcett heroes should i use?Golden one 20:57, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * All of the Fawcett Heroes you listed above should be fine. The ones to avoid would be the Marvel Family if your concerned with potential trademark lawsuits. The MLJ names should be fine for the above listed characters. 71.97.209.7 22:52, February 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Another issue with Marvel Family characters is that lots of their early Golden Age appearances are still under copyright, so you should be careful with which stories and characters you use. --Strannik01 04:54, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK,Thanks for the advice,I Will re-name captain midnight,the web,the shield,inferno,and the hangman,and use them and the other MLJ and fawcett characters in my stories,in their classic forms,just to be on the safe side,with the exception of the marvel family.Golden one 03:25, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

FIRST ISSUE OF HEROES DOMAIN
Will the first issue of heroes domain be available on indy planet?Golden one 01:56, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, if not Indyplanet then another digital comics store like graphicly or my digital comics. Crimsoncrusader 21:32, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

OK,Thank you,I have another question,however:Will the first issue of heroes domain also be available through regular mail?Golden one 23:23, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't really know yet I need to finish the book before I worry to much about how I gonna to sell it. Don't count your chickens before they hatch right? Crimsoncrusader 14:18, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

FIRST THREE PAGES OF HEROES DOMAIN
I Saw the First three pages of heroes domain on your blog,and they are totally awesome,keep up the good work!01:44, February 4, 2011 (UTC)Golden one Thank you. I hopefully will be able to post more pages soon once I get a chance. Crimsoncrusader 21:34, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

archie/mlj heroes
Will the original golden age archie/mlj heroes appear in heroes domain?Golden one 21:08, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully. Crimsoncrusader 21:24, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

more heroes domain questions
I Have some questions:

1.Which other characters will appear in the first issue of heroes domain?

A. Heroes: Blue Beetle, Owl, Bulletman, Green Lama, Black Terror, Miss Masque, Captain Future, Sparky, Bulletgirl, Owl Girl, Deacon, Hale of the Herald, and Spectro. Daredevil and the Little Wiseguys appear in a second feature.

Villains: Captain Nazi, Rodent, Wolf Carson, Nazi Beetle, Nazi Shock Gibson, Hitler, and Gluttony (an original villain who fights Daredevil.)

2.How can i order the first issue of heroes domain through regular mail once it's published?

A. Will let you know when I know.

3.What is the release Date?

A. June 2011. Crimsoncrusader 02:28, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Golden one 21:24, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Wow,That is quite a line up,

However,I Have one more question:

Will any quality heroes appear in heroes domain after that?

Sure but I don't want to giveaway too much. Also some of those characters in issue #1 are cameos though. Crimsoncrusader 16:44, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Quality Question
If I do a project featuring the quality characters, which ones should i use?

One listed hereare diffidently in the clear. Refer to the FAQ for more help. Crimsoncrusader 02:30, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

OK,Thank you for telling me,however,

I Have one question:

Can You Please

Name the quality characters I should use?

So are you asking for recommendations then? Sorry thought you were asking about their legal status. Some good ones might be Uncle Sam (Quality),Doll Man, The Human Bomb, Ray, Human Condor, and Phantom Lady. Also, Kid Eternity, Captain Triumph, Wildfire, Firebrand, Red Bee, Raven, Spider Widow, and etc. There no list of should use really as long as their all public domain its all personal choice really. Pick what ones you like. All of the ones here are listed on this page Crimsoncrusader 16:44, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

I Am picking all of them!Golden one 22:21, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Original Villains
I Am interested in creating original villains for the public domain golden age heroes. Golden one 03:14, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Cool go for it. Were you thinking about making them open source and adding them to the site or are you just sharing a new project that you want to tackle? Crimsoncrusader 17:50, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I Am Just Sharing A New Project That I Want to tackle.

Thanks for asking.Golden one 11:58, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Heroes I Would like to see in heroes domain
Here are the following heroes i would like to see in heroes domain:

Commando yank,the wizard,the shield,the hangman,uncle sam(quality),firebrand,the woman in red,both magnos,spider widow,the spider,amazing man,the clock,black jack,the flame,lash lightning,the black hood,the web,davey,the american crusader,skyman,the spider,miss victory,samson,both ravens,david,yellowjacket,the fox,the black owl,yank and doodle,the fighting yank,and the unknown soldier.

As long as it makes sense plotwise I would like to included these guys and girls as well. Crimsoncrusader 17:50, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Another Heroes Domain Question
I Have One Question: How many chapters will the first heroes domain story arc be?Golden one 03:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

7 is the plan right now for the first arc "The Dissapearing Act." Crimsoncrusader 17:50, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Quality Heroes I Have Picked
OK,Here Are The quality heroes I Have Picked:

Captain Triumph,The Raven,G-2,Spider Widow,The Clock,The Ghost of flanders,Blue Tracer,Margo The magician,711,Bozo The Iron Man,The Unknown,The Great Defender,Ace Of Space,Destroying Demon,Destiny,the spider, magno,and the ray!Golden one 22:19, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

HERO Initiative
Hi (cc'ing User talk:Strannik01)

I was wondering if PDSH would consider something to publicize and thereby support the HERO Initiative.

I recently became a member of the HERO Initiative: ''The Hero Initiative creates a financial safety net for comic creators who may need emergency medical aid, financial support for essentials of life, and an avenue back into paying work. Since inception, the Hero Initiative has been fortunate enough to benefit over 40 creators and their families with over $400,000 worth of much-needed aid, fueled by your contributions! It's a chance for all of us to give back something to the people who have given us so much enjoyment.''

We can talk all we want about how much we value comics and, presumably, the people who created them, but we can actually do something about it directly. When I was a kid, I just assumed everyone in comics was rich, because - how could they not be! Sadly, that's not the case.

You can become a HERO member for as little as a $30 donation. I would urge anyone who isn't a member to join today and help out those in need.

Plus, you get a neato membership card!! Sadly, my member number is in the mid hundreds - there should be thousands of members.

End of preaching.

Anyway, for more info, check out http://www.heroinitiative.org/

Maybe we could put something up on the Main Page, or that floating message at the top of the page?

17:22, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be cool with having something for the Hero Initiative. Crimsoncrusader 20:17, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah,Count Me In,TooGolden one 12:53, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Fawcett Characters In Heroes Domain Question
Which other fawcett characters will appear in heroes domain?Golden one 12:52, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

As many as I can logically and legally include. Crimsoncrusader 17:51, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Graphic Novel
Will There be a heroes domain original graphic novel anytime soon?Golden one 22:26, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Once all the individual issues for the first arc are down I hope to collect them. Crimsoncrusader 17:52, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Projects featuring the quality characters
I Would like to do projects featuring all of the quality characters,with the exception of plastic man and kid eternity.Golden one 02:35, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Hale "Souvenir" Battle
Captain Battle number 2. Digital Comic Museum has a copy. Here's a pic here.

Hale makes a comment which suggest that he likes to collect souvenirs from his adventures which probably explains the nickname, but I haven't read the entire run.

Ok cool thanks. We can add it to the page then. It was the first I had heard of this so I just wanted to make sure it was correct.Crimsoncrusader 13:23, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Slide Gallery
Hi CC, Simon here. As you've probably noticed, I've been experimenting with the slide gallery function over the past few days. You might be interested in putting one on the main page to jazz things up a little. I've created a "sandbox" version in case you want to see how it might look:

Main Page With Slide Gallery

It's configured for Monobook, so it'll probably look a little different if you're using the "New Look" skin. Let me know what you think; we could have a different slide gallery every month if you like the idea. Cheers, SimonKirby 11:10, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Modern Drawings of PD Characters
If you're interested, I've been commissioning art featuring PD characters over here.
 * Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 20:36, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty cool Roybiv666. I'd be interested in adding some art to that, would you be interested me drawing a little something for you? Crimsoncrusader 23:50, May 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, didn't know you did art, let's see it! I'm operating above budget right now, but I'll let ya know.
 * Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 01:53, June 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm actually in art school right now and I also do some writing on the side as well. Here's my Deviantart page for some samples of my work. Let me know if your interested and I can work with your budget no prob. Crimsoncrusader 03:55, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Nelvana
I'm trying to find some decent images, preferably in color.
 * Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 02:00, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

This is from Super Duper Comics #3. Crimsoncrusader 23:50, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

I made some notes on the Bell Features page. I think I have it worded properly but, you may want to take a look at it. I've sent some e-mails to Corus, Nelvana Animation, and the girls re-printing the books asking for some type of documents explaining the holes in the story. I'll let you know if I get anything back.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:08, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

I think you explained the situation pretty well. Do you think some of the information would be better off in the FAQ than the Bells Features Characters Page? Let me know if you find anything else out about the situation. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 23:16, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep updating what I find (I check and double check every morning and none of the companies have e-mailed me back yet... if they ever even will). I was gonna put it in the FAQ originally actually but, then thought maybe that was somewhere maybe only an admin should be updating so put it in the Bell section instead. Wherever ou think is best is fine with me. Cebr1979 (talk) 23:20, September 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * For personal reasons (i.e. I have no life. Also, I want to print a comic using the character ;-) I'm playing with Who's Who type entries for my own characters and some updated "PD" ones here), I'm revisiting this. Without rehashing all the arguments, I was thinking about it in this way:
 * 1. If Adrian Dingle somehow owned the copyright to the Hillborough/Bell comics featuring the characters, then John Ezrin didn't and couldn/t sell them to what became Corus and the Canadian Arcives - therefore those guys wouldn't hold the copyright. Dingle's estate would hold the "moral rights", and possibly the copyrights. Yet, they have not contested Corus' claimes to ownership.


 * 2. If, however, Dingle was only an "employee" of Hillbourourh/Bell, then the "author" would be the companies and they would own the copyrights. And they went out of business in the 1950s, therefore the comics are not under copyright.


 * Thoughts?


 * Roygbiv666 (talk) 23:15, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

MLJ,Fawcett,And Quality Characters
I Would Like To Do Projects Of My Own Featuring The MLJ,Fawcett,And Quality Characters.Golden one 01:25, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Crimson! Do you happen to know if MLJ characters who appeared in the late 50's would still be PD? I'm specifically wondering about the Fly and Fly-Girl? Thanks in advance. Cebr1979 (talk) 21:33, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

License
I think this image could not be in this wiki, it is the symbol of CC-BY-NC-SA

File:Kaballa 2010 804.png. Hyju 17:16, June 19, 2011 (UTC) other images that do not agree with the proposal of the Wiki:
 * File:Kaballa 755.jpg
 * File:HEROIS GOLDEN AGE 2 013-1.jpg
 * File:HEROIS GOLDEN AGE 2 011-5.jpg
 * File:Cabala 2010 haiti CC 999.png

Where can I discuss these images? Hyju 16:12, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

The Penguin
No, not the Batman villain ;-) There was a Canadian "White" called "Wow" Comics, which featured a character called the Penguin. See ComicVine or International Hero for info. A reproduction of Wow is here, along with many others. If you click on the link immediately below the cover called "Copyright/Source", it takes you to a page that says the comic is "© Nelvana Limited. Reproduced with the permission of Nelvana Limited."

However, I asked the question of whether it's PD on Golden Age Comics. Looks like there's no substantiating evidence that there is a valid current copyright holder. What are your thoughts?

22:39, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

What I Would Like To Do
Here's What I Would Like To Do,

Projects Featuring Several Of The Characters On The Public Domain Super

Heroes Wikia,Including The Fawcett,MLJ,And Quality Characters.Golden one 10:51, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Heroes Domain release date
When will heroes domain#1 finally be available online?Golden one 19:29, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Another heroes domain question
Will The First Issue Of Heroes Domain Be Available on indy planet soon?Golden one 01:58, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is there a way that one or more of you could put in exactly when each character actually lapsed, at least the year would be helpful, you have when they were first created/published, but no indication of when each one lapsed into the p.d.jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 04:48, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

28 years after they were published or immediately in the case of works published without a copyright notice, its in the FAQ. However it might be useful to add more information about when and how each character fell into the public domain on their page so we'll have to work on it. Crimsoncrusader 15:13, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hi, Simon here. I've posted a few ideas on the Forum page, if you find time, could you look it over and tell me what you think? Ciao, SimonKirby 09:02, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Portal Page Experiment
OK, here's my first shot at structuring a Portal Page. I'll do some more fine tuning tomorrow, particularly on the Main Categories section (put them in rows, try to figure out a way to integrate thumbnails into the text). I designed it in monobook, so it probably won't look the same in the default setting.

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to create a new category specifically for Superheroes, ie differentiating between super-powered beings and "regular" non-powered heroes. We also need to separate superheroes from villains, otherwise chaarcters such as Nazi Shock Gibson might be listed under the proposed "Electrical Heroes" category.

For more convenient group discussion, please post your thoughts and advice on the Forum Page. SimonKirby 11:43, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

BTW: What do you think of the idea of starting a youtube channel for public domain superhero serials (eg "Spy smasher")? Might be worth considering SimonKirby 11:43, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Portal looks good so far I'd go ahead and start on other when you get the chance and I agree we will need a Super Villains portal as well. As for the youtube channel, not a bad idea since it would be a good place to host any public domain serial. Crimsoncrusader 19:25, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pulp Heroes Portal
Here's the basic design for the Pulp Heroes Portal. I was thinking we could use a different color scheme for each one, as the wiki has become much more diverse over the past year or so. I also experimented with blinking text here, and plan to add more "special effects" as we proceed. Let me know if you think we're ready to add these first two portals to the front page.

I noticed that we don't have many entries under the Pulp Characters category. I'd like to add a few more to the list, but I'm not sure of the copyright status. Project Gutenberg has a number of Robert E. Howard novellas and short stories listed as public domain. Do you think it can be trusted as a reliable source for PD material? Ciao, SimonKirby 06:07, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

Color scheme variation is good, but only use special effects only if they aid in navigation or enhance the page we don't want to go over the top. I'll try and add the portals to the front page soon I just need to figure out how to add them into the layout of the page. As for Project Gutenberg, they tend to be pretty reliable but make sure it says its public domain in the United States there is an Australian Project Gutenberg that includes books that are not public domain here. For example I noticed you included, on the pulp portal, a character from Edgar Rice Burroughs' Venus Series which I do not believe is public domain in the States but is in Australia and Canada. Crimsoncrusader 15:24, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Super Patriot Portal
Next, here's the Super Patriot portal, home base for the "stars and stripes" brigade. Includes a youtube video for chapter 1 of Republic's Captain America serial (1944). Ciao, SimonKirby 11:41, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good SimonKirby keep up the good work. I've been thinking we should eventually make a mythology, film, and also a literature portal. Crimsoncrusader 15:26, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Let's create some original golden age super heroes and villains.
I Have an Idea,Let's create some Original golden age super heroes and villains.Golden one 19:56, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to pass on this Golden One. I have a policy when creating characters to try and use as many characters published from the original time period as I can and reserve new characters for modern age stories. Crimsoncrusader 15:29, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Goldenagecomics.co.uk.
Hello I am the owner of goldenagecomics.co.uk, I would like permission to use your profiles on goldenagecomics.co.uk. Is that ok? I will give full create to the author. Please advise.

Janus

Hey Janus good to hear from you. I have no problem with the idea. Crimsoncrusader 15:24, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Captain ROC Page
You should email me before you deleted my page. That is just rude. You should email me before you deleted my page. By the way, all the characters on your page belong to Public Domain Super Heroes so you should not say "(All Characters), Artwork, and Content Copyright Jacob Minick 2010." - Captain ROC

Count Orlok
I would think that Count Orlok, being an illegal copyright infringement on Count Dracula (a situation similar to Wonder Man (Fox)) that we could have an entry on him? 02:36, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

The film Nosferatu was made before 1923 so its PD in the United States so we could totally have a Count Orlok article on the site. Crimsoncrusader 04:39, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can you give me some advice?
Hi, I need some advice about an old comic character, so I thought I'd talk to the experts. Do you know whether Sally the Sleuth is in the public domain? I believe she first appeared in Spicy Detective Stories in 1934, although she was revived again during the 1940s. Another character with the same name turned up in the early 1950s, but apparently that series was canceled by 1953. I can't find any evidence of copyright renewal after that time. However, there were some reprints in the 80s and 90s, does that mean that the character isn't public domain now? Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Angieholbrook 09:41, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes the original Sally the Sleuth would be in public domain since their is no record for renewal for Spicy Detective Stories. The re-prints were of public domain material so it does not remove the character from the public domain. For example, all the re-prints of the novel Dracula, Frankenstein, or Alice in Wonderland does not mean those works are removed from the public domain right? As for worries of any trademarks, they have to be renewed every five years so reprints in the 90s and 80s would have already expired. 19:24, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Character Questions
Hi,Crimson Crusader,I Have Some Questions:

1.Should I Use Only The Original Golden Age MLJ Heroes In Any Projects I Do?

2.Also,If I Use The Fawcett And Quality Heroes In Any Projects I Do,Should I Exclude Madam Fatal,The Blackhawks,Kid Eternity,Plastic Man,And The Marvel Family?

Sorry To Bother YouGolden one 02:24, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Good day sir.

My name is Jonathan and I work over at the DC wiki. Im a huge golden age contributor and a even bigger fan of public domain characters. Would love to get together and talk some stuff over about this wiki if you have the time. You can ussually find me over in the DC Wiki Chat majority of the time. Was hoping there would be a Chat box here but don't see one. I have access to pretty much every golden age and obscure comic ever printed and I think I can be of great help here.

I look forward to getting the chance to talk to you and helping out on the wiki.

Cheers.

Knightreaver

Regarding the posting of Animal Man, I noticed the character's name appears as "Animal Man" in the heading of the edit but in the article it says "Animal-Man".

I didn't read anything pertaining which citation to use if the character is available, as naturally DC has the character Buddy Baker AKA Animal Man.

So I am curious if he gets used for any purposes he should be listed as either "Animal Man" or "Animal-Man". I know it is a trivial detail but would like to know.

-Thanks

Cloak5000 00:19, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the information I gave for the horned hood, ghost and doctor death
Hi Crimsoncrusader

Sorry that my input turned out to be wrong, I got it from http://blaklion.best.vwh.net/gav_fawcett.html

They were right about the other Death Battalion members, so I assumed that they were right about these three as well

I'll try to be more wary of my sources next time

Green Lama character not public domain
I want to identify myself as the owner of the Green Lama character, as executor of the estate of Kendell Foster Crossen (and his daughter)--by way of explaining why I made the changes I did to Green Lama. People should not be misinformed about the status of the Green Lama. As I wrote, only the original comics are public domain. I hope you all found my changes acceptable. I don't mind having the character featured as long as this distinction is made clear. I wanted to write to the admin crimsoncrusader but could not find any contact info. {C contributions/50.36.24.62|50.36.24.62]] 14:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)Kendra Crossen Burroughs, mehery at gmail

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.I have double checked the copyright records and confirmed the renewal status for Double Detective Magazines where Green Lama's literary appearances occurred. Our goal is to keep people informed about the copyright status of these characters and clear up misconceptions, so the changes to the page seemed appropriate. However, I did adjust the formatting to match the rest of the website by moving the content into the Notes section of the page instead of the character biography. Crimsoncrusader 00:19, April 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Crimson - Regarding Green Lama, it may be helpful to research Green Lama more carefully before making changes one way or the other. With all due respect to Ms. Burroughs, there is no way that "the comics are public domain but the pulp stories are not"...it doesn't work like that. If the pulp stories came out first, were registered and renewed and refer to the same character, the comic books ARE owned by the copyright holder, whether it is the Crossen family or someone else. If the pulp stories are PD or the "Green Lama" is a different character than in comics, then the comics may in fact be PD, which means any modern use of the stories is good to go. This wiki has been down the road of "copyright holder claims" before, like with Carbanaro, or DC or Eisner, All-Negro, etc, etc, etc. - KJR 64.222.94.115 12:04, July 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * KJR - You are totally incorrect. There is no dispute that the comics are public domain, even if the pulps are. Nobody can claim ownership of those comics, period. They are a totally seperate entity than the pulp stories, regardless of what similarities there are in the characters used. Remember that characters can not be copyrighted, only pictures and stories involving them. The fact that the comics are derviative of the pulp does NOT entitle the owner of the pulp to the NEW ideas and expressions in the comic. This is why, for example, the Fleicher Superman cartoons are public domain, while Superman is not. It is also why George Lucas can not claim ownership of Star Wars fan films, even though they use his characters. George sponsors contests, with the stipulation that he can show the entries, but he could not just download a fan film from the Internet and make it a special feature on the next BluRay edition of Phantom Menace. While a fan is technically violating copyright by putting a Darth Vader in his film, George would be violating copyright by trying to assume control of a film that he did not make. Maybe if George sued, he could ask to be rewarded custody of the fan film's copyright in a settlement, but I don't think a judge could make that award without the case ending up in the Supreme Court. Bottom line is, you only own what you make, unless it's a work for hire, and each individual work is subject to the copyright laws of its day. Another example: If you carve a statue and someone else takes a picture of it...then they own the picture, not you. Every individual artwork is its own entity. Owning the rights to a piece of art does NOT entitle you to the rights of all derivative work, or the guys who made Superman should own just about every superhero ever made. And by the way, there are substantial differences between the pulp Green Lama and the comics version. For example, the version used in Project Super Powers has almost nothing to do with the pulp version, except the name, the color of his clothes and the connection to Tibet. Take away the name, he's a totally different character. The Green Jet version is definitely its own character. But again, just because someone owns the pulp stories, doesn't mean that they get to ignore the copyright registration laws of the time, with any work that is arguably derivative. Freeuniverse (talk) 20:32, July 18, 2012 (UTC)Freeuniverse


 * Freeuniverse - I am a huge advocate of the public domain and tend to take a very wide view of it. However, I also detest "arguements on the internet" to which tend to turn into he said/she said with little resolution, so please, please be 100% sure before telling me I am "totally incorrect". I urged caution, simply caution, before assuming that Ms. Burroughs claims of ownership are either correct or incorrect and posting them as fact. I come here to be helpful, and then only reluctantly, because once upon a time I was told there was "NO WAY" Captian Marvel was public domain, nor the Quality characters, etc, etc, et all. If you find my comments helpful then fine, if not, ingore them.


 * That having been said, if the comics are derivative of the pulp, and the pulps do in fact belong to the Crossen Estate, either by contractual release or by reclaimation, then the comics themselves, being deriviative of those pulps, are the property of the Crossen family. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone) Derivative works are not entitled to copyright protection in and of themselves. In your example, a Star Wars fan film would be derivative, and while Lucas would not own it, the maker of the fan film couldn't do anything with it, and Lucas could indeed use the "new ideas" within that film to create new Star Wars works.


 * Even if Ms. Burroughs has specifically placed the Green Lama comics into public domain by affirmation, the pulp stories on which they are based cannot be used as the basis for new works as they remain derivative of the pulp stories. Saying Project Superpowers merely took the basic color scheme, name and connection to Tibet to create a new and different character would be like saying if I made a character in a blue suit with a red cape, called him Muscleman, made him the last son of a dead world and gave him powers far beyond mortal men, then I'd be in the clear if I changed his secret name to Howard Lipschitz. Nonsense, the character would still be, essentially, Superman.


 * In regards to what has come to light and the Green Lama character, if I were to want to use a similar character for a story, I would note that the character was originally "White Lama", based on Theo Bernard, what you have left is a character who got magic powers in Tibet, with a cape, who calls himself Jethro and who recites "Om Mani Padme Hum"...take away the Jethro name, that character is probably usable, not as a PD character, but as a new expression of tradtional ideas, which Ms. Burroughs most certainly does not own. I wish you the best in creating new comics. -KJR 64.222.94.115 03:22, July 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * KJR - I appologize, that did come off a bit combative, and that was not my intention. I just got my hackles up, because I feel like there is a tremendous amount of misinformation circulated about Copyright law on the Internet. People speaking in a tone of authority about absolute nonsense. It makes me want to bang my head against a wall sometimes.


 * Let me say that I still must respectfully disagree with your assertions. Anderson vs. Stallone is interesting, and I don't agree with the judge's decision that the non-infringing parts of a work found to be derivative are not protectable, but thinking about it, I realize he is not the first judge to decide that. However, I still don't see any evidence that a copyright holder is entitled to the copyright of derivative works made by someone else (in the Stallone case, as I predicted, it was only as part of a settlement). Yes, the law says that derivative works are the exclusive privelidge of the copyright holder...meaning that if anyone else creates unauthorized derivative works, those works are infringements, and therefore, not entitled to a seperate copyright. But I don't see where it says that copyright holders assume the copyright of infringing works. Take for example the case of the film Nosferatu or the comic character, Wonder Man (Fox). Nosferatu was found to be an infringement of Dracula, and therefore, its copyright was rejected and it became public domain. The exclusive copyright of the film was not transfered to the Stoker family. Nor was the exclusive copyright to Wonder Man transfered to DC.


 * Of course, this is all a slightly different argument than what we are talking about with Green Lama. In this case, the comics were not renewed. Even if the Crossen family had licensed Green Lama stories to the comic company, and the comic stories were nearly identical to the pulp stories (which they weren't), they are still two different works (two different forms of expression), that needed to be registered seperately. If the Crossen family owned the rights to the comics, then it was their responsibility to renew the comics. But nobody renewed the comics, and now they are public domain, period. Granted, if the comics were almost identical to the original pulp stories, it would be pretty hard to create derivative works, without infrining on the pulp stories that are still under copyright. But, take the character Falstaff for example. He was a villain who appeared in the Green Lama comic, but not in the pulp stories. Because he was not in the pulp stories, and the comics are public domain, the Crossen family can not claim exclusive copyright on the Falstaff story. If one of the comic stories was based directly on one of the copyrighted pulp stories, except that Green Lama doesn't look quite the same way he was described in the pulp story, then it would be impossible to make a derivative story, but you could use the art from the comic, since it bares no substantial similarities to the pulp story. This is why with a television series, like Bonanza, the first episodes may be under copyright, but later espidoes are in the public domain. Even though they are derivative of those first episodes, the copyright holder was still obligated to renew copyright on each individual work (each individual episode).


 * As far as Muscleman, there are a lot of companies getting away with almost that very thing. It's subjective and is based on how substantial the similarities are between characters. You're right, using the name, color scheme, tibet and magic, is probably enough to constitute a substantial similarity. I'm not arguing that Dynamite is in the clear. I'm just saying that they're overall interpretation was pretty different than any pulp story, and changing the name or any of those other elements, makes him almost a totally different character, like you said. Freeuniverse (talk) 20:26, July 19, 2012 (UTC)Freeuniverse


 * Just a brief note. I don't think I did say that changing an element makes a different character. I do beleive the pulp and comic versions of Green Lama are substantially the same character, the same as the Golden and Silver age Supermen would be. That said, it wouldn't take a lot with Green Lama to create a perfectly servicable stand-in. - KJR 66.87.2.142 21:24, July 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I think there is a substantial difference though. The guy that Dyanmite used had a different costume, and was based on a character that could fly and shoot beams out of his hands, thanks to a special vitamin. I don't think that was in the pulp. I think he had a different supporting cast as well. If you changed the name, the only similarity would be that they are both guys who studied mysticism in tibet (hardly unique), and wore a green hood. That hardly meets the law's requirement of a "well defined character." Maybe change it to a red hood, and that character resembles the pulp Green Lama about as much as Amazing Man or the Flame. But that's my opinion. You're right, wouldn't be hard to make up a stand in, if it were necessary. But, if what Ms. Burroughs says is true, it might defeat the purpose of using the character at all. Guys like me, who are interested in Public Domain characters, I think we're mostly interested in paying homage to the past by bringing once-beloved characters back to life, or revitalizing good characters who never really got a chance to shine. For me, using a substitute would not be nearly as interesting as using a classic character. I have about a billion character ideas that I will never have time to introduce into stories, but I still take the time to reintroduce characters from the past, because I like the idea of being part of their legacy...hopefully someone in the future will continue the legacy of my characters 100 years down the line...

Trademark of Green Lama and other characters
Hey I noticed Kendall's message regarding Green Lama and took the liberty of looking into the registered trademark at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The only registered trademark on file for Green Lama belongs to Super Power Heroes, LLC which is Dynamite Entertainment. They also have trademarks on Black Terror, The Scarab, The Arrow, Pyroman, and The Owl, and have had them since 2007/08. So I assume this may put these other characters into dispute as well.TimStrange 00:44, April 17, 2012 (UTC)TimStrange

Thanks Tim we should probably add a disclaimer about the trademarks to those characters pages. Crimsoncrusader 00:49, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Dynamite had no right to register that trademark and I will challenge it. 50.36.24.62 22:05, April 19, 2012 (UTC)Kendra

Actually, unless you published a Green Lama comic within the last 5 years, they do have a right to assume the trademark, for that purpose. There are a number of cases in which copyright and trademark are owned by different people. Take Captain Marvel for example. Oldest stories about a character with that name are owned by DC, but Marvel owns the trademark. There is also a new comic about a character called Joe Palooka, but it is not based on the copyrighted Joe Palooka character. You might have a case against them for copyright infringment, but if they beat you to the punch on the comic book trademark, they were smart. However, it looks like Dynamite has given up on Project Super Powers, so the trademark may soon expire anyway. Freeuniverse (talk) 20:39, July 18, 2012 (UTC)Freeuniverse

The Crossen Estate HAS issued Green Lama books in the past five years, but this is where IP gets tricky. Trademarks exists not to enrich the author of works, but to ensure the public is not confused regarding origin of a product. So, yes, Dynamite is entitled to register trademarks regarding Green Lama and other BRANDS of comic books, but to enforce them, the range would be quite narrow as to what was protected. The case could be made that only their specific logo is "trademarked", for instance. Or, if a property were to be in public domain, the trademark covering that product would have to be more closely delinated, such as "Wazoo Comics' Green Lama" versus "Ken Crossen's Green Lama". See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar_Corp._v._Twentieth_Century_Fox_Film_Corp.) This sort of thing just happened with "Avengers", which in Europe had to be titled "Marvel's the Avengers" to avoid confusion with the "BBC's Avengers". (John Steed and Emma Peel) The "Hawkeye" action figure, for instance, is labled "Marvel's Hawkeye", due to Last of the Mohicians, which is untrademarkable.

Were this not the case, I could simply trademark "Santa Claus" or "The Easter Bunny", which of course, I cannot do. If the product is under copyright, then I would be the sole source which could legally issue a product under a brand name, and so therefore, DC can release "Batman Brand" magazines and trademark them. The reverse applies with say, "Plastic Man". Since Plastic Man is PD, while DC has trademarked the name for the purpose of producing "Plastic Man" brand magazines, they cannot be considered the sole source of such products. I could make and sell "Wahzoo Comics' Plastic Man Comics" and be legally safe. DC would STILL own the exclusive right to produce "DC Comics' Plastic Man Comics". 64.222.94.115 03:44, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, but I disagree with the notion that a copyright holder has exclusive rights to a trademark. Again, characters can not be copyrighted, only the works in which they appear. You also can't copyright a phrase with less than 3 words. You can't copyright the name Batman. If I create a character by that name, and he is a baseball player, I don't think that is an infrigement of DC's rights. Also, I have heard of several instances in which a company holding the copyrights to an IP has lost the trademark to another entity, which then licenses the name back. As I said, someone is currently producing Joe Palooka comics, and has registered the name, even though Joe Palooka still appears to be under copyright. Freeuniverse (talk) 21:30, July 19, 2012 (UTC)Freeuniverse

Re:Son of Tarzan
I thought I was in the public domain, I scored some images whose license is incorrect.Hyju 02:11, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Required Log In
I've noticed that the last several edits have been made by unidentified wiki guests, and now it appears that the Mars (God) article has been deleted. Any idea of why the article was deleted? I'm beginning to think that maybe we need to restrict editing access to wiki contributors who actually log on, so we have an idea of whether we are dealing with a trusted contributor or some random vandal. I know that I've forgotten to log on a few times, but it really only takes a second, and I don't think a serious contributor will mind. The wiki has grown big enough to be a very important information resource, and I'd hate to see the many hours that you, me and others have out into it, messed up by someone who doesn't care enough to log in.

I agree with you, but is there a way to restrict editing to members for the entire wiki and not just page by page because if we had to go through every page it might be time consuming? Crimsoncrusader 02:21, May 24, 2012 (UTC) to

Well, that I don't know...I assumed there was some kind of setting, but I've never been a wiki admin. Can a non-admin do this to the pages they create? I'd be more than happy to restrict the pages I create, as I create them, but I don't know if that's an option for me. - Freeuniverse

Questions
Hi,crimson crusader,

I have some questions to ask you:

1.If I Decide to use captain marvel,and the green lama in any stories i write and draw,should i re-name them to avoid legal problems with DC Comics and the crossen estate?

2.If I decide to commission you for some artwork,how can i contact you?

Golden one (talk) 21:59, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Green Lama Status
The topics on the status (trademark/copyright) of the comics/trades etc. is interesting - perhaps it should be copied or moved into the Talk page of the entry for posterity? Roygbiv666 (talk) 01:56, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Holy Trademark, Cat-Man!
Hey guys, I've been using your site now for a long time, working with these public domain characters has been fantastic and I think it's great that you guys have this wiki going. My big question for you guys is this: With Dynamite Entertainment trademarking tons of public domain characters, what does that mean exactlly? Does that mean if I wrote a book about Cat-Man I would have to call it "Nine Lives" instead of "Cat-Man"? Kind of like the Shazam and Capt. Marvel situation? Does this mean I can still film a web series involving these characters? I don't mean to throw so many questions at you guys, I just wanted to know because all of a sudden all these characters are off the table. Please help a writer out. Thanks!

50.142.140.46 11:54, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

For the most part it sounds like you have a good grasp of things. In a nutshell though when using a public domain character who think is trademarked make sure your version cannot be confused for the trademarked one. Trademarks are all about brand protection so that if consumers see a product they know its officially endorsed by the company and not a knock-off. The Shazam/Captain Marvel situation echoes this quite well. DC makes sure on its products that no one will confuse Billy Batson with Marvel's Kree warrior. Please also read the FAQ if you have not yet to help get a better idea of things.

p.s. - I also like the idea of a Nine Lives Comics for Cat-man its a good title. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 17:28, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It was me (Red Rube) who made the edit on the Ocotpus. I saw the word exposing and figured you meant explosion. Hope that was okay? I forgot that I had an account and just edited it from the library computer that I was on. I thank you guys very much for this site. It is definitely a wealth of information. Keep up the good work. Red Rube (talk) 19:06, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help, I appreciate it. This is a really cool Wiki!

Thomas Harris (talk) 02:33, August 17, 2012 (UTC)Thomas Harris

Adding the Charlton characters
Any thoughts on adding The Question, Blue Beetle (Ted Kord) or any of the other Charlton characters? They were published with incorrect copyright noticed, and hence, were PD the day they came out. Most of the original books carry the copyright notice "International Copyright Secured", rather than the required "Copyright Charlton Comics".

Probably while be adding those characters soon. I have just been kinda busy as of late. Hopefully will get to them this week. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:24, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

I thought Dan Garret (one T) was the only PD Blue Beetle - is that not the case? (Frevoli (talk) 14:20, August 22, 2012 (UTC))

Yes, Ted Kord's first appearance did not have a proper copyright notice putting him into the public domain, but because of DC's trademarks and copyright claims it would be next to impossible to use him. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 19:09, August 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. You cannot use trademark to control a copyright free character. See the Dastar decision of the Supreme Court. - KJ Ryan 66.87.4.176 09:16, August 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that but that doesn't mean they won't take you to court over it and legal fees are expensive. So you might be like Fawcett and win the lawsuit against DC but have the legal fees drive you into bankruptcy. However, I'll still add the page people just need to be aware of the risk involved. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 17:19, August 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there anywhere you can download the Captain Atom and Blue Beetle comics? I'd like to see the copyright statements myself. I think some of these "improper copyright notices" are kind of questionable. Freeuniverse (talk)Freeuniverse
 * Is there anywhere you can download the Captain Atom and Blue Beetle comics? I'd like to see the copyright statements myself. I think some of these "improper copyright notices" are kind of questionable. Freeuniverse (talk)Freeuniverse

Here:
 * Blue Beetle
 * Captain Atom Crimsoncrusader (talk) 05:00, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Crimson - You are aware, if they wanted to, DC or Marvel Comics could sue you over a ham sandwich, complete with legal fees. The question is, do you want the wiki to be "public-domain super-heroes" or "characters you can use without getting sued"? The latter is kind of a collection of blank pages. Did you know there's been lawsuits with Marvel and DC with people who CREATED certain characters themsevles? Like Gary Freidrich and Ghost Rider or Marv Wolfman and Nova (Richard Rider). While I'm at it, Nightcrawler was created by Dave Cockrum for DC's LEGION, not X-Men, and so cannot be a Marvel "work-made-for-hire" character. Marvel only owns him because they make a claim to, its more likely the Cockrum Estate owns him. - KJR 66.87.4.143 08:01, September 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nightcrawler as a Legion Character (Pre-X-Men)66.87.4.143 08:12, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

KJR - I'm fine with the pages being here and more than familiar with with Wolfman and Friedrich's legal situations with Marvel, though the Nightcrawler thing is interesting and I was not aware of that. I merely was giving ample warning that there is higher risk when using these characters compared to lesser known or more obscure ones found on the wiki. But like I said I'm fine with any Charlton characters who are PD being added to the wiki. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:38, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Legacy of the Masque
Hello,

I was wondering if you could help spread the word about my webseries Legacy of the Masque, which draws heavily from several public domain superheroes as a portion of its backstory.

"Diana Bowman, granddaughter of Golden Age superhero Miss Masque, discovers the truth of her family heritage upon inheriting her grandmother's worldly possessions. Seeing how awful the world is, and inspired by her grandmother's youthful crusades, Diana adopts the identity of the Masque and begins patrolling the city as a vigilante hero. With the assistance of a retired superhero from the 1940's the Masque begins a series of adventures fighting crime and standing for justice.

Written and directed by Travis Legge"

More info is up on our Facebook Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/whoisthemasque

Our cast can be seen at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2186881/

Arc 1 of Legacy of the Masque is available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Masque-Arc-1/dp/B008WGHDBS

Thanks,

Travis Legge

OK. I will.

Thanks for deleting the Category:Goddess Characters page I created by mistake. I also created Template:Category redirect and Template:Cmbox in an attempt to fix that too: you can probably delete those too.  Maya vini  07:32, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Dynamite: Too Hot To Handle?
Hey all, I had a quick question regarding one of the new characters that I found on the site: Johnny Dynamite. I was wondering, is Johnny Dynamite actually public domain, because I have been reading online that a Max Allan Collins bought the character and all his comic issues in 1987 and then had a limited run of comics in the mid 90's. So, what I'm digging at here is, is Johnny Dynamite still a public domain character or not? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Yes, Johnny Dynamite's first appearance as well as the subsequent appearances from the 1950s were not renewed when their copyright was due 28 years after publication allowing them to fall into the public domain. All of the new books put out by Max Allan Collins in 1994 and 2003 are owned by him (they are derivative works), but the original books are public domain and there copyright status is not effected. Unfortunately for Mr. Collins, he tried to buy the rights to a character in 1987 when the rights had expired in 1981. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 16:48, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for clearing that up for me. :)

Re: The Weeper

Yep, you are right. I confused him with a Plasticman villain called "Sadly-Sadly" which had the power to make people cry and want to help him (by giving over their money and property because of his pathetic look on his face). It's even more "Anti-Joker" than the Weeper and it's an innate ability and not caused by tear-gas. This, in my observation, may have carried over to the "Brave and Bold" cartoon episode, influencing the depiction of the Weeper there (since it seems he had no powers to make people cry other than tear-gas in the comic books from reading the web). It also makes somme sort of homage-sense, in that Plasticman's own villain has a similar schtick, so they stuck in Weeper for a double-homage (since the story is loosely based on an Earth-S crossover shown in the Joker #2 series). Sadly-Sadly made his debut in Plasticman #20 and is even shown on the cover.

BioHunter-Silver (talk) 21:51, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am still learning this Wiki-code thing
Yep, still learning!

BioHunter-Silver 22:03, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

No problem if you have any questions feel free to ask me or the other admins/users. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:40, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Hi CrimsonCrusader!

I just made a page for "Midge, the Doll Girl' but, mistakenly entered the characters real name (Martha Roberts) as the title. Is there a way to fix this?

Thanks in advance,

Carter.

Yes we just need to move the page to the new title. I'll go ahead and fix it for you Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:24, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

I joined and am looking to add some characters
I just joined, and there are a number of characters I'd like to add, mostly French Characters and Pre-Dracula Vampires (those 2 overlap some). I'm gonna have to go over the guidelines first. I do have a Question. If a for example 19th Century French work is Public Domain, but the only available English Translation isn't, should that be something I make a Legal Note of?MithrandirOlorin (talk) 12:21, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'd make a note of it. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:36, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You're welcome for the edit. It was just one where it said Flamebird instead of Firebird. I tried to sign in, but I forgot my username and passowrd. I'll have to see if I can find which email address I signed up with.75.146.216.126 08:29, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

That cool, but just let you know its an automated message even though I do appreciate the edits. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:14, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Category Intersections
Any chance we can have the Special:CategoryIntersection feature added? It will be useful for finding and discovering characters that are in two categories. You or some other admin, may need to request it via http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contact. CodeAndReload (talk) 02:35, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 05:04, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

my own versions of the characters featured on the public domain superheroes wikia
If I Create my own versions of the heroes and villains featured on the public domain superheroes wikia,should i change the names of some of the characters to avoid legal problems?,if so,why?Wild dude (talk) 02:21, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

The only cases where you would need to change the names of the characters would be to avoid trademark infringement. So characters like Blue Beetle, Captain Marvel, Daredevil, etc. would need to have their names changed. You can read more about trademark in our FAQ. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:59, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yes,I See your point,in addition to blue beetle,captain marvel,and daredevil,which other characters would need to have their names changed to avoid trademark infringement?Wild dude (talk) 20:20, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Some others would be Doc Strange, Dr. Doom, Tygra, Black Panther, Yellowjacket, and Ghost Rider. I'm not listing them all here though because its a long list. Basically if a major comic book company already has a character named the same as a public domain one you want to use its best just to change the name to be on the safe side and save yourself potential hassle. Dynamite Entertainment did that with Project Superpowers renaming Blue Beetle to Big Blue and so on. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 05:19, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Wow,cool,but what about the green lama,cat-man,kitten,silver streak,the ghost(levgleason),the claw,and the other fox,nedor,ace,quality,and fawcett characters,and also,the MLJ heroes?,thanks for your help.Wild dude (talk) 21:09, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

I want to clarify first off that trademark infringement shouldn't be a problem if your referencing the character's name in the interior of a story (take the whole Marvel and DC Captain Marvel trademark fiasco as an example), but if you plan on publishing comics bearing the character's name on the cover, making packaging for products with the character's name prominently on it, or are making a film with the character's name as the title that is where you'd run into a problem.

As I've said to others who have asked this question, trademark is all about making sure no one confuses one person's product for a another company's product. For example, Thor is public domain since he originated in Norse myth and anyone can publish a comic with him. However, if you published a comic called simply Thor or made a film by the same name Marvel would say you are infringing on their trademark. So instead you should rename your product so no one would confuse it for Marvel's version of Thor and avoid trademark infringement in the first place.

To answer your other questions though:
 * Most of the Quality, Fawcett, Charlton, and MLJ heroes are claimed by DC or Archie respectively so you might want to air on the side of caution. However characters from these companies that have not been used by DC or Archie should be fine.
 * Ace comics would require re-naming for Raven and the Unknown Soldier. Also, Dr. Nemesis due to his prominence in the X-Men books for the last couple of years.
 * For Fox you mainly need to worry about Wonder Man and Phantom Lady and of course Blue Beetle who we already mentioned.
 * Nedor would be characters trademarked by Dynamite Entertainment like Black Terror and of course again Wonder Man due to Marvel's character. Look at Dynamite's Project Superpowers line and you'll see which names their trying to trademark.
 * Cat-Man would also need a name change since DC has a Cat-Man which is why Dynamite called their version Man-Cat.
 * Kitten, Claw, and Ghost should be fine since they are very generic names that would be difficult to trademark. They're just too commonplace no single company comes to mind when you hear them instead most would think of the noun itself.
 * I don't think there are any registered trademarks out there for Silver Streak though Dynamite did put a trademark symbol next to his logo on the cover of Death Defying Devil #2, but that maybe for the logo itself and not the character.

Hopefully that helps. I'm going to create a Trademarked Name Category soon to help people know what characters will require re-naming. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 05:51, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I might call the category "Potentially Trademarked Name." Trademarks are funny things in that the trademark may or may not have legal weight depending on public perception, it only lasts 5 years, and may only be applicable to certain products, under certain conditions. The category itself should contain links for further information and a statement making it clear that it is okay to use the names of characters within a work, just not on covers or ads. This is tricky, because we can't be totally sure which characters really have trademarked names. Unique names of popular Marvel and DC characters that are consistently produced as toys or as a title feature of a comic. Even registering a name, the way Dynamite did, does not necessarily mean that the public has formed an association between the name and Dynamite's product (though wikis stating that the name IS owned by Dynamite gives them a stronger position), so it's not really a done deal for them. Daredevil and Captain Marvel on the other hand, are a done deal. So, it's a little tricky.Freeuniverse (talk) 00:45, May 18, 2013 (UTC)Freeuniverse

Completely agrees with what you said above Freeuniverse. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 06:45, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Cebr's Comments
"First off I wanted to thank you, Cebr1979, for all your hard work and contributions, but can I ask you to hold off on adding anymore international comic book characters published after 1923 or whose creators aren't anonymous."

First off, I would like to ask you to please re-instate all of the pages you have deleted so that I can get the info I've compiled off of them. Once I've done so (sometime tomorrow as I'm in meetings all day today), you can go ahead and delete whatever you want.

There isn't much point in thanking me for all of the hard work and contributions I've done if you're simply going to delete it all as I'm sleeping without even talking to me first.

Sorry I didn't discuss it with you first, but as an admin of this wiki its my job to make sure all contributions follow our policies. The most important of those being the copyright status of the works in question. I spent several days reading up on the characters, creators, and copyright laws in the countries of origins of the pages before coming to the decision I made, but I felt it was a necessary one.

That being said though let me know what information your missing and I'll copy it over to the Canadian Comic Book Database Wiki. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 06:23, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Mexico
http://www.olivares.com.mx/En/Knowledge/Articles/CopyrightArticles/OwnershipofRightsinMexicanCopyrightLaw

Here's the "gist:"

Article 12. Works published by corporations shall be of their property for ten years, once this period expires, anyone shall have the right to publish them. AKA: So long as a character was created before 1948, we're in the clear to have them on this site.
 * Before 1948:

The author keeps the rights but, can transfer them to a third party if they so choose. '''AKA: We'd have to go find each and every Mexican comic book author from 1948 to 1996 and ask if the public domain could have their creations. Be my guest but, I'm not coming with you. Lol'''
 * After 1948:

The author keeps the rights and, if passed away, the author's heirs do. '''AKA: I never liked 1996 anyways. ;-)'''
 * After 1996:

If a character appeared before 1948, we're good! If after, we should probably stay away from them.

I'll keep looking into the UK. Cebr1979 (talk) 03:43, May 21, 2013 (UTC)Carter.

Good work and thanks for sharing your findings. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 06:20, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Nice work Cebr! At first, I thought this would be a major boon, but it seems I can't find a single Mexican hero character that actually meets this criteria. Adelita and El Monje Negro might be candidates, but they seem to have been owned by their creator who didn't die until 1989. Unfortunately, almost all of the Spanish language books on Comic Book Plus are from Spain or Chile, and the few from Mexico are from 1950 or later. Freeuniverse (talk) 07:04, May 21, 2013 (UTC)Freeuniverse

Ya, I can't seem to find any that debuted before 1950, either... Maybe that's why they changed it in 1948? Cebr1979 (talk) 01:17, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

OMG. Thank you. ;-) Cebr1979 (talk) 04:32, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome I thought that would be best place for the information. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:34, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I think the Captain Tootsie page can go back up. While ads do belong to the advertiser and not the publisher they are appearing in, the copyright would have long since expired anyhow and the fact that no one seems to know when the first ad was printed would make it a moot point anyways.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:50, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

I have put the page back up now since things have cooled down. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 05:30, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Namor
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html

Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 (first appearance of Sub-Mariner) NOT-RENEWED

So... Would Namor (and others like Princess Fen) be public domain then? At least this one appearance? Seems to big to be true? What are your thoughts on this? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:53, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I've been aware of this for sometime. The answer is maybe since while its true that this issue wasn't renewed, Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 was in fact an unpublished work. So it falls under different set of copyright laws than published works might still be under copyright (check out what the Digital Copyright Slider says about this.)

Second I have been trying to find an original scan of the artwork, not retouched images from Marvel re-prints, to use for the page's image but since there are approximately eight copies in the existence no one has scanned such a rare book.

However on a related note if you look I believe Marvel Comics #1 was also not renewed. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 05:47, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

You are correct on that (along with a lot of other Timely/Marvel comics)! So... should I start making profiles? ;-) I was gonna move onto making the pulp characters section better after the Canadian and OS sections had been expanded but... would rather do this, to be honest! Cebr1979 (talk) 05:48, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I say it would be fine to add characters who appeared in Marvel Comics #1 but be sure to find an image from that issue to use for their pages. What other Timely/Marvel comics did you find that were not renewed?Crimsoncrusader (talk) 14:43, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Most of the romance comics: Nellie the Nurse, Midge, Midge's boyfriend, etc... but I think those are more for the Funnies page. I'll have more time to go through it in detail this coming week. Today and tomorrow are still really busy for me.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:24, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Here's the first bio I made for the Marvel characters: The Human Torch. I'll leave it for now for you to review before making any others. It looks like the Human Torch comics were renewed but, not until 1977 and they should have been renewed in the 28th year (1969). This would make other characters like Toro also in the public domain but, I thought I'd run that past you first before making too many bios.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:37, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I made a page for Nellie the Nurse 'cause I figured a nurse was a type of hero (and we have other nurses here as well). Models and typists, however, I don't think fit the bill so I won't bother making pages for Millie and Tessie. Cebr1979 (talk) 16:38, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Although, should I do one for Patsy Walker? Nothing in her un-renewed appearances have anything to do with super-heroics but, she is known more today for her Hellcat persona (which is obviously not public domian and I would be sure to mention that). This may simply be more the place someone may come to look for her? Cebr1979 (talk) 16:53, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response, I had a very busy week. I'm ok with Nellie and Patsy having pages here and Millie and Tessie having ones on the Funnies wikia. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:44, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

No prob! I wasn't around all weekend myself.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:52, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

MLJ's Black Hand
Hi, Jacob.

I notice that you don't have Black Hand listed on the site. He was a (the) major villain of MLJ's Captain Flag.

If you go to this website  http://www.mightycrusaders.net/handbook/villains.htm you can see material on many of the MLJ vilains. Be careful, though, because there is at least one that I see that has a wrong photo of the of the villain represented. Also be careful because many of the villains there are silver age and under copyright.

If you scroll down to the Black Hand write up you can copy and paste (and edit as you see fit) onto PDSH. It is okay -- I wrote it. My real name is John Packer. You can ask Rik Offenberger who runs the site if you'd like and he will verify.

I did some of the hero profiles for the site also, specifically Captain Flag, Kalthar, and Roy, the Super Boy. These can be found here: http://www.mightycrusaders.net/handbook.htm.

The Captain Flag and Kalthar profiles on the International Superheroes site (http://internationalhero.co.uk/a/archiecom.htm) are also mine. They are were pretty much picked up from Rik's site.

Feel free to use any or all of what I've written.

If you need more information on me, here is my LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=115237694&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile.

I really enjoy your site.Red Rube (talk) 05:46, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I'll be sure to add him to the site. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 06:04, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
An interesting read about the public domain and copyright for the "world's most popular song." I'd be interested in seeing how this unfolds: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-all-filmmaker-aims-568355Cebr1979 (talk) 22:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

1983
Hey, quick question for you: Do you happen to know of a PD character... A male, from the 40's (I think) but, his stories were set in the future (which was actually 1983)? I can't remember his name and I'd like to use him for something. Searching "1983" has gotten me nowhere, haha. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:45, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

There are a few heroes with adventures set in the near future. I think the one you're probably thinking of is Power Nelson, who according to my notes had his adventures originally set in 1982.184.35.10.99 02:47, June 27, 2013 (UTC)Ed Love

Thank you very much!Cebr1979 (talk) 03:10, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Collaborations
Hello I was wondering if this wiki can Collaborate with the Golden Age Comics Wiki.

It will cover every superhero and every pubilcation of the Golden Age. Characters from DC and Marvel (formely Timely) as well as characters from all other Golden Age publications such as Fawcett. Which include characters such as Shazam (formely Captain Marvel). None of the Comic Databases include entire info of such publications or characters during the time nor does it cover all of the Golden Age of Comic Books (which we plan to do in the future since the wiki is very young).

Thanks

Link:http://goldenagecomics.wikia.com/wiki/Golden_Age_Comics_Wiki

QuestionRules 17:47, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Just need to know how I can add some Open Source Character to the site. I've done 2 in the past but have forgotten how to do so. Cgrant1991Cgrant1991 (talk) 20:03, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Corey, it looks like we're taking a break from open source characters for a while. Cebr1979 (talk) 21:56, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

It's all cool. You were right. I thought I say that on some other open source characters which is the only reason I added it. I probably mistook them from the Public domain. Whatever the case the character I put on here are for Open Source. I've been creating character since before I was in school. The ones I know I truely won't be able to do anything with I've decided to make Open Source so that other may use them. So whatever has to be done to make that happen I will comply.

Cgrant1991 (talk) 04:18, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

International Radio
Hi Crimson, I was wondering if you happened to know anything about international radio copyright laws? Specifically (you guessed it - haha) Canadian radio? I'm gonna start looking it up later this week but, thought maybe you might know something that could give me a head start? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:34, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

I don't off hand. I've been looking for some good definitive sources about US radio copyright but have not found much let alone ones about international law. Good luck with your search though. I hope you fair better than I have. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:02, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Tijuana Bibles
I know of quite a few Tijuana Bibles are most definitely in the public domain but, can remember reading your comments about the site not accepting pornography (it was in reference to Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" series) and was curious if these were okay or not. I agree with not accepting something like "Lost Girls" and, Tijuana Bibles were most definitely considered porn back in the day but, by today's standards, simply show breasts and sex (granted: a lot of it) but, are somewhat considered an art form by men and women alike now and the lead characters were usually reporters or detectives or whatever. Just curious on your thoughts as to these. I can take them or leave them, it's up to you and I'm okay whatever you decide.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:42, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not have pornographic content on the site regardless of its copyright status. It's a moral issue for me and I'd be uncomfortable running a site that features such content. I hope you can understand. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:22, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yep! That's fine with me! If I hear of any that are little more PG than X, I'll ask again (and send examples).Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Street & Smith
Do you happen to know if GA S&S characters are in the PD? We seem to have so few of their characters here, I was just wondering if there was a reason for it or if I could start adding them? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:39, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Every Street & Smith Comic I've checked has been renewed. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:56, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

When something is renewed, do you happen to know how much time that adds before it becomes PD? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:22, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

^^An additional 28 years.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:43, October 24, 2013 (UTC) Actually it might have been longer than 28 years (although it looks like 28 years was the original length of a second renewal). I found this which say's 47?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

The Nedor characters were actually why I brought this up 'cause... If renewal did only add an extra 28 years, would they not be free and clear PD by now? I don't relly know how the law works after it was ammended (maybe the length was extended even more) but, thought you'd know more than me.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:16, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

This might be a helpful resource for your questions about the duration of US copyright. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 05:09, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check that out later today!Cebr1979 (talk) 17:47, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Fatman the Human Flying Saucer
Hi there! Do you know of this character? Multiple sites keep saying he is in the public domain but, I can't find any reason for that to be true? I'd love it if he was, though, so was wondering if you knew something I don't. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:12, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

He's not public domain. Fatman was published in 1967 when copyright renewal was automatic and with a proper copyright notice.So those sites hope since, while the content is still under copyright, the company that published him (Lightning Comics) is defunct and there was no transfer of copyright so nobody has the legal authority to sue for infringement. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:30, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too (but, damn, was really hoping for a different answer - lol)!Cebr1979 (talk) 04:40, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Yellow Beetle
Sorry about that! I knew that outfit looked familiar but, didn't quite match the Blue Circle so just shrugged it off and thought another cover-only had been found. Once you said Black Hood, I was like, "Duh!" and face palmed. LolCebr1979 (talk) 04:25, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

I thought it looked familiar as well and checked if its was indeed Black Hood. No worries though we all make mistakes. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:33, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Deleting
Sorry for all the work I created for you in deleting all those pages but, I thought it was a good way of condensing the OS characters (which would appease some frequent site visitors).Cebr1979 (talk) 04:27, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll get to them as soon as I can. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 23:54, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that it took so long,but I had some time this morning so I finally deleted all the pages that were candidates for speedy deletion. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 14:44, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Golden Age Magazine
Dear Wikian Fellow,

I´m thinking of publishing a golden age magazine using public domain heroes.Am I entitled to do so?

Ravenlad

Yes they are copyright-free so you may do whatever you like with them. Be sure to read our FAQ to learn more. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 23:54, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
For your help with the personification characters! I was gonna just put them all up and then go back to the comic appearances (less time consuming to toggle back and forth between here and the grand comics database site all at once) but, you saved me that work! :-)Cebr1979 (talk) 21:59, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm working on getting comic book art for each page as well. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 22:03, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

Horse Characters
Would you say this category is strictly for horses, or do you think donkeys and mules should be added to it as well? Just thought I'd ask first.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:36, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Donkey and Mules aren't horses. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:53, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Mules are. And donkeys are what help make mules.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

They're hybrids. Just like a liger isn't a lion or a tiger its a liger. I'd say if you want to create a umbrella category make it an Equine Characters Category. The term equine refers to any member of this genus, Equus, including horses, zebras, and donkeys.Crimsoncrusader ( talk ) 03:09, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I don't really like the tone of your original response (especially since it was wrong). I'm just going to add them and change the description of the category (creates less confusion for everyone involved) and next time not bother wasting my time asking.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:37, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

P.S. In English literature, animals don't get capitalised.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:32, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my initial response came off rude, but your decision to put horses in the same category as mules and donkeys would be the same as putting spider in the insect category. The science is wrong and quick Google search would be all that would be required to fact check.

On another note I capitalized the name in article because all of our the titles of articles are capitalized. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 14:08, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

That's not the same thing. I only put spiders as insects because others were putting characters like Wiggles the Wonderworm in a category for "Talking Animals" and figured it must simply be a way of condensing. Mules actually are horses (at least half anyways). Regardless, what's done is done.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:16, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything just giving my opinion like you asked in the first place. Its okay if we disagree on it since it really isn't a big deal. Anyways let's just move on and get back to creating pages. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 14:22, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Supporting vs. Guest
Hi, Crimson! I wanted to ask, what would you consider a "supporting character?" As I'm sure you've noticed (LOL), I've been adding a lot of L. Frank Baum's characters and, at times, have been unable to decide which ones would constitute a "Supporting Character" versus say, a mere guest? I think I've (FINALLY - haha) gotten the understanding down between a Protagonist and a Hero but, should every none-protagonist/hero be automatically included in "supporting," or no? That's my question. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:40, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Cool! That's exactly how I've been doing it!Cebr1979 (talk) 08:43, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Wasp Woman
I don't understand the copyright notes on this one. It says it had a copyright notice, but didn't register it. So what? That just means it's not a registered copyright. And isn't the 1987 renewal date moot as the rules changed prior to that? Just curious. Roygbiv666 (talk) 11:56, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

It was released in 1959 so it still needed to have its copyright renewed 28 years later. 1964 is the cutoff year where anything published past that had its copyright renewed automatically. I'll try and reword the notes so they are eaiser to understand. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 13:48, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Articles with no Images
Do you know of a way to search for articles that don't have images or would I just have to stumble upon them as I go? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:43, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

I thought there was, but I can't find anything yet. I'll let you know if I find something. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 03:54, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that would be great! Thanks!Cebr1979 (talk) 04:10, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

I had some time to go looking around (lol) and I don't think there is a way to search for articles based on if they don't have a photo. However, if we added  to each one without a photo, we could search for that photo and it would tell us each profile that it is in. How does that sound?Cebr1979 (talk) 17:31, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:20, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

science fiction
works of authors E. E. Doc Smith and Stanley G. Weinbaum are in the public domain?Hyju (talk) 17:56, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yes some of their works are public domain and can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg. Here are links:
 * Works of E. E. Doc Smith
 * Works of Stanley G. Weinbaum

Crimsoncrusader (talk) 22:44, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd put The Red Peri, which is a Space Pirate. Hyju (talk) 00:03, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

The issue of Astounding Stories that it was originally serialized in was renewed. I need to check the contributions to periodicals to see if the story's copyright was renewed separately. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:20, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Copyright
Hi

I was looking at the Copyright Act (Canada), and it states: [http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-6.html#h-6 6. The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.]

In the case of, for example, Nelvana of the Northern Lights, the "author" would likely be Adrian Dingle, who died in 1974. That would start the 50-year clock ticking January 1, 1975, ending in January 2025, or 12 years from now.

I take that to mean that, in Canada anyway, Nelvana is not PD. How would it apply in the USA/other countries?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 12:47, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Go read the User talk:Cebr1979 page under Hi guys. We already discussed this there and provided link and an explanation of the laws. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 15:47, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yep. The only creator-owned GA Canadian character that I've run across thus far is Dizzy Don (and, by default, his supporting cast like Super Soozie or whatever his sidekick/cousin's name was).Cebr1979 (talk) 18:27, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ex-cellent.
 * Roygbiv666 (talk) 21:55, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

In universe vs. Publication history
Are you able to tell me where it say's this so I don't have to go find it? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:15, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

I've posted in the talkpage about it. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 15:42, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Bomba and Doctor Syn
these characters are in the public domain? Hyju (talk) 12:57, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Yes for Dr. Syn since he was originally from Doctor Syn: A Tale of the Romney Marsh (1915) which was published before 1923 making it public domain in the United States.

No for Bomba the Jungle Boy since he was a DC character created in 1967 which is after the copyright laws changed making renewal automatic. He will remain under copyright until his 95th year after his first appearance was published. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 23:51, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

understand, had not seen the article by Dr. Syn.Hyju (talk) 01:31, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Photos
I'm afraid I don't really understand this infatuation with constantly providing profile photos of characters from their comic book appearances..? Sure, I agree their PD comic appearances should be listed (and thank you, again, for helping provide that info to the profiles I create) but, you were one of the people who spear-headed the campaign to have this wiki expand beyond the scope of just comics (which was voted and won by a landslide)... Why would we not then acknowledge the original medium of which the character was published? If originally published in a comic, absolutely! In the case of Aladdin or Pocahontas, I've returned them to their traditional photos. It just makes more sense when (if) you really think about it.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:56, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Since the wikia is called Public Domain Superheroes and was originally founded to be a resource for comic book creators and fans wanting to know more about public domain comics, we concentrated on the comic book versions of historical and literary characters whenever we could including using images from their PD comic appearances as their profile picture. That is where the preference stemmed from originally, but that being said though I have no problem having other public domain images being used for characters who originated outside of comics, but if possible we should include some comic images on the page as well like we have with Aladdin and Mother Nature. Thanks. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 23:44, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Who is "we?" You won the battle yet, seem to be the only one backtracking...Cebr1979 (talk) 02:56, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Like I said though I'm fine with using non-comic images for the profiles of characters who origianted outside of comics. It was merely a peference not a hard rule. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 14:03, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian indians
Peri, I-Juca-Pirama and Ubirajara are brazilian indians, I think it should be in the category Native Americans, but were withdrawn. Hyju (talk) 16:26, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were making a page called "Brazilian Indians" as a sub-category for both "Brazilian Characters" and "Native Americans?"Cebr1979 (talk) 17:23, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them being in the Native American category, but I'm guessing the user felt they did not belong there because they are from South America and not North America. I'm not sure what category they would go instead if you did not include them in that category, but I'm open to suggestions. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:02, September 7, 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a Brazilian Indian Category with the subcategories of Brazilian Characters and Native Americans. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:16, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Hyju (talk) 13:24, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

The Radio Man or An Earth Man on Venus
this novel is in the public domain?, adapting the comic is in DCM and CBP sites. Hyju (talk) 11:47, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

The comic adaption was not renewed but the magazine the novel  original was serialized in, Argosy, was renewed. However I believe that it would be considered a contribution to the periodical so I will need to check those records to see if the original story is still under copyright. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:18, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * understand. Hyju (talk) 13:25, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer
Say I were to start some of those characters (Wonderland and such is getting boring), what would the rule about a character like "N-word" Jim be? It isn't really possible to do them without him and I know *that word* is still used when naming him throughout the web, in libraries, universities, etc... BUT... Thoughts?Cebr1979 (talk) 00:30, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia titled their page for him as Jim (Huckleberry Finn) so we could use that instead and avoid the N-word. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! Cebr1979 (talk) 00:53, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

I made a bio for him today. I did include an explanation as to the controversy of the word int he notes section. I thought it was important not to simply ignore it (everyone knows it happened), especially after finding some info explaining that it really isn't part of his story at all. I thought future creators (and general site passers-by) should know that. Feel free to check it out.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:52, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:48, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

Mary Marvel
The photo for her page must be the wrong size or something because it isn't showing up when doing a search (she the "Read More" section of Spider Widow to see what I mean) so I re-sized it but, can't add it because the page is blocked. If you wouldn't mind when you have a minute please, here it is:. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:53, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

No problem I went ahead and switched out the old photo for the new one. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:07, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:33, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Nursery Rhymes
I'm gonna move the Three Little Pigs & Humpty Dumpty over to this site because they aren't really "funny" (two of the pigs get eaten and die and humpty dumpty "has a great fall" and can't get put back together again) and I think it makes more sense to have all of the Fables characters together on one site. Others, like the Three Bears and Baa, Baa, Black Sheep I'll leave where they are, though.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:50, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the same thing so go right ahead. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:52, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, cool - thanks!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:55, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

Mary Poppins
Do you know anything about her PD status? I know that movie obviously isn't but, I can't find anything on who (if anyone) owns the books. She's appeared in many comics over the years but, maybe those appearances were unauthorised? Thanks in advance if you do!Cebr1979 (talk) 03:54, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Just found it, thanks anyways though! Cebr1979 (talk) 03:56, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Eerie #12
Can I ask where you found that comic online? I'll see if they have photos for the other characters because I am having a heck of a time finding PD photos of some of them (Van Helsing in particular)!

Also, please check the Peter page, it needs to be deleted. Sorry about that. That restoration act is a pain in the butt!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:40, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Found it!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:49, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I was just going to post the link but you beat me to it. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:51, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

I have a bad habit of asking first, looking later. Or sometimes doing first and asking later. hahaCebr1979 (talk) 03:01, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Glad you were able to find the book. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 03:07, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Protagonists
I'm getting all the lead characters in the protagonists category so I can start getting the supporting characters put up with bios. I don't think there is much point in putting them up now if they will just blend in with the stars. Should take a couple weeks realistically but, I think it'll be worth it once it's done.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:56, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 21:20, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

I finished this today. I think I'm gonna go through the villains as well and just make sure they're all categorized correctly (a lot of categories were missed on the heroes, not just the protagonist but, I think that just has to do with the profile being around longer than the category). The villains section is considerably smaller than the heroes, though, so it shouldn't take as long.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:35, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Actually some of these pages have been around longer than the categories we have now so it would be a good idea to check things out to see if anything is missing. Do you think since we have a protagonists category should we have an antagonist category as well or would it be redundant? I think it might be good idea as in some stories the antagonist is not evil merely and can be defined as an opponent, competitor, or rival to the hero or represent a major threat or obstacle to the main character by their very existence, without necessarily deliberately targeting him or her. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:44, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

That did pop into my head, actually. I do think it's a good idea. Especially once we start with the supporting characters because I think a lot of antagonists who weren't totally evil probably "graduated" to some sort of recurring character.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:54, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

This guy
Should prob be blocked. I'll make a genuine Jane Porter page right now but, if you check his original entry for her...

Thanks for the heads up. I've blocked their IP address. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:41, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

This guy should too. His edits to the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot pages were pretty gross. I've already un-done them but, to prevent a next time. Cebr1979 (talk) 18:18, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked his IP Address. Thanks. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 21:00, November 5, 2013 (UTC) This guy should too. I already fixed his edit to the Comic Book Characters page.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:19, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I blocked his IP address. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:14, December 12, 2013 (UTC)

This IP/user needs  to be watched for vandalizing: Atlas (Mythology) page. CodeAndReload (talk) 05:42, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked his IP address thanks for bringing it to my attention. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 19:39, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

This guy too. His edits to the Medusa page were senseless.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:19, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked his IP address thanks again for bringing it to my attention. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:47, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

And this guy.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:03, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Australia
I've been looking into their PD laws and there's is mostly based on the creator's life + XX years.

However, I know of some that had no writer/artist credited which means they are okay so I'm going to put them up.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:56, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

And when I say "Unknown Creator" I'm only going for the ones that never had any creators listed on their first appearances. The ones that I'm unsure of, I'm by-passing.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:53, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

That should be fine. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:08, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Stardust Figurine Kickstarter Update
I just stumbled upon this which appears to be from the same person that held the Kickstarter for these figures. Thought I should give it a mention if you're looking to update the main page.

Thanks I will update that. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:45, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Your Nelvana Comments
One day, Crimson, I will learn to talk like you rather than just getting annoyed and mad all the time... Well said. ;-) Cebr1979 (talk) 04:33, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad what I said came out well. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:44, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to give you guys the heads-up that Dark Horse has started publishing a Brain Boy series http://www.darkhorse.com/Comics/24-004/Brain-Boy-1-Ariel-Olivetti-cover, different background and personality, but same identity and powers and retooled versions of the same villains. I'm not sure precisely how this affects said character's copyright status, but I didn't see a note in the entry. Didn't know if I should put one there.

Jesse Toldness (talk) 14:09, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't affect the copyright status of the character. Just like any of us Dark Horse is free to use public domain characters however they wish. However Dark Horse may try and register a trademark for the Brain Boy name so it may prevent others from publishing a comic of the same name. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:56, October 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk:Nelvana of the Northern Lights - a good response. Honestly, I'm still confused but I'll have a closer look at the link for Cdn copyright.
 * Roygbiv666 (talk) 23:36, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sorry to keep bugging you on this. My interest has now moved to more practical matters: I started putting together my own "Who's Who/Marvel Handbook" type of entries for my original characters (see Dreadhelm and Grim Reaper for examples), and some updates to public domain ones, including Nelvana. I realized that I had enough to do a Print-On-Demand comic, and want to make sure I don't violate any copyrights.

My concern is that we can take all the data already assembled and highlight different information to come to a different conclusion:

"The Great Canadian Comic Books" was reprinted in Alter Ego 71. In discussing material from Bell Features, the authors note: ''John Ezrin bought what stocks of comics Bell Features still owned. He bought the Bell archives (which is perhaps too dignified a word for the wooden crates in which original comic art, photo negatives, and printing plates were stored). And he bought the rights to reproduce any of the old comic books in later years, in case anyone ever wanted to see them again.'' ''And by the time two young acquaintances of George Henderson’s went to call on Ezrin in late 1970, Ezrin was thinking quite specifically about “finding a good home” for what was left of the Canadian Whites ... So he sold them.''

One could easily pick out these elements: "John Ezrin ... bought the rights to reproduce any of the old comic books in later years" (i.e. the copyrights, be definition, the right to copy). Then he sold the copyrights to the authors, who, in turn, 'shared' rights with the archives. That seems a legit interpretation that gibes with the copyright claim.

What do you think? If Ezrin bought the copyrights, then they transcend the death of the company, and just transfer to Ezrin, then to Corus/Archives.

Frustratingly, I cannot for the life of me find an email address for Corus. Roygbiv666 (talk) 23:58, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

The Reign of the Superman
This illustrated short story published in fanzine Science Fiction: The Advance Guard of Future Civilization # 3 (January 1933) is in the public domain? Hyju (talk) 16:40, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yes we could find no renewal for the story and already have a page for it here. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:48, October 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Hyju (talk) 01:48, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me
...but I'm a little confused. Is there now a rule against attaching categories to image files? I've seen no mention of the subject in the Forum, and it doesn't seem to have been an issue in the past. Cheers, SimonKirby (talk) 07:25, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

There is not a rule against attaching categories to files, but we haven't really been doing much with adding categories to them. If we were to start using categories for files I would prefer something like the other comic wikis use like the Marvel Wikia rather than using the same categories as our pages use. An example would be how they categorized this. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:01, October 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, this is the situation. A few nights ago, I attached categories to all of my open source images, along with the Fawcett horror illustrations I've uploaded to this wiki. The next day, I discovered that the categories had been removed from all of the tagged files, including a number of the Fawcett pics (Shanri, Siroon, Shopkeeper, Avarice etc). No explanation was given for the deletions, despite my following the normal protocols employed for image-tagging on this wiki.


 * Clearly, we allow the tagging of horror-based graphics, and as we have a category for open source characters, relevant images should be categorized as such. They should also be tagged according to whatever genre they belong to (eg, horror, science fiction, patriotic, etc). In light of there being no rule against tagging image files, I will re-apply the categories to the illustrations in question. If this user objects to the categorizing of image files, then perhaps we should discuss the matter further on the forum so that all sides can present their arguments.


 * With respect to all parties concerned; cheers, SimonKirby (talk) 10:41, October 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * I did so give you an explanation, I answered you right here.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:58, October 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually Cebr, you only offered an explanation after I made inquiries of the administration. However, that's beside the point now; Crusader has already stated that there is no rule against categorizing images. If you believe the current policy is in error or should be modified, I'd suggest that you start a discussion on the Forum so that all interested parties may share their views on the subject.


 * In response to your comments on Mikey's talk page, I'd like to point out the following:


 * 1. This is not specifically about open-source images: you also removed categories from several public domain image files (those relating to Fawcett Horror characters, to be precise). I honestly believe that all horror-based graphics should be tagged as such, if only for user convenience. For example, if somebody is looking for a public domain horror character, they should be able to go directly to Category Horror Characters and view relevant images in the media gallery (as opposed to sorting through individual articles until they find something they're interested in).


 * 2. In some cases, you also removed permission notices from a number of images. This was a serious departure from official policy, as every file on this site requires a permission notice. I'll assume this was a typographical error on your part, as you generally seem to be quite scrupulous about such matters.


 * 3. I disagree that the categories section was "one big cluttered mess". Having a media gallery at the bottom of a category page does not make it difficult to use; as previously mentioned, it allows people to examine visual material without having to visit dozens of articles beforehand. There are good reasons why media galleries were incorporated into the original software (especially in our case, considering that comics are primarily graphic in nature).


 * With respect, SimonKirby (talk) 00:25, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

For someone not wanting a "war of words," you sure do enjoy coming back... again. And again. And again. hahahaCebr1979 (talk) 00:28, October 20, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with points that both of you have brought up in this disscussion and I believe the best compromise would be to go ahead and categorize the images but use separate categories for images than the ones we use for pages. For example maybe use a Horror Character Images category rather than the Horror Characters category. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:29, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

^^ I really like that idea.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:40, October 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Crimson Crusader


 * Naturally, I will follow any instructions you give on this issue, but I want to state for the record that I believe that it would be far more convenient to keep characters and images together on the same category page. Users should be able to access both text and illustrations from a single point, rather than flipping between two different categories. That's my opinion on the subject, but as previously mentioned, I'll follow your lead in this matter.


 * Cheers, SimonKirby (talk) 09:00, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

It is only somewhat tangentially related, but can we get the Category Displays changed to Category Exhibition Mode? That'd make all of the categories into image galleries, instead of a small gallery and a list of links. CodeAndReload (talk) 02:04, October 22, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation guys. As for the Category Exhibition mode let me take a look into it. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:59, October 23, 2013 (UTC)

Blue Beetle (Ted Kord)
I was gonna make a page for him, everything I've looked at tells me he is PD but... Thought I'd check first to see if there's something missing 'cause I thought it odd no one had made a page for him before? Do you know, is he PD for sure?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:19, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

We haven't added a page for him yet but from my research his appearances in the Captain Atom series, including his first appearance, and the 1967 Blue Beetle series did not have proper copyright notices placing them into the public domain upon publication just like what happen with film Night of the Living Dead. I've gone ahead and added him now.Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:52, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, I just didn't realise you had created the page just now, I assumed a "Ted Kord" page had always been here that you started adding chategories to so I re-named it.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:00, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm was thinking of sticking with their civilian names for the pages, just like DC Database, since anyone who searches for Blue Beetle will be brought to the disambiguation page and find the version they are looking for. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:04, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:53, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Conan the Barbarian
I was surfing online about pd characters and some people seem to thing Conan the barbarian is public domain now with his trademark being owned only. i searched this site, my go to spot for public domain character info and there was no entry for him. is that because he is not public domain or because no one has gotten around to making a page.

Yes we just haven't added a page for him yet. From my research, I believe the following Conan stories are public domain in the United States: Crimsoncrusader (talk) 03:04, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * The Phoenix on the Sword (1932)
 * The Pool of the Black One (1933)
 * Black Colossus (1933)
 * The Scarlet Citadel (1933)
 * The Tower of the Elephant (1933)
 * The Slithering Shadow (1933)
 * Rogues in the House (1934)
 * The Devil in Iron (1934)
 * Gods of the North (1934)(Note originally a Conan story but character was renamed)
 * Shadows in the Moonlight (1934)
 * The People of the Black Circle (1934)
 * A Witch Shall be Born (1934)
 * The Hour of the Dragon (1935)
 * Beyond the Black River (1935)
 * Jewels of Gwahlur (1935)
 * Shadows in Zamboula (1935)
 * Red Nails (1936)

Almuric
Almuric by Robert. E. Howard is in the public domain?, added characters Literary Agent Howard, Otis Adelbert Kline, some say that the story may have been terminated or written by Kline. Hyju (talk) 01:49, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

I believe the copyright to Almuric was renewed, but I'll look into it. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 03:06, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * last year, had an RPG set in Almuric, funded by Kickstarter: Swords of Almuric.Hyju (talk) 18:43, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any renewal records for Weird Tales issues where it was originally serialized or as a contribution to periodicals so Almuric does seem to be PD from what I have researched. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 21:10, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * researching images of Weird Tales, I found this on Wikisource: (© Copyright Renewed: Mrs. PM Kuykendall (E) 14Nov66; 398456.):The Project Gutenberg eBook of U.S. Copyright Renewals, 1966 July - December.Hyju (talk) 00:19, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I spoke too soon. Good thing you caught that I was checking the renewal records for 1967 which would be 28 years after Alumric was published in 1939, but they renewed it a year early. Always good to double check as we all make mistakes. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 06:25, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Dan Dunn
Dan Dunn is in the public domain? Hyju (talk) 12:46, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

I believe so since I can find no renewal for his first appearance in Detective Dan, Secret Op. 48 or his appearances in The Funnies, Famous Funnies, Crackajack Funnies, Red Ryder, or Mammoth Comics. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 00:35, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Dell Comics from 1964-on...
I know Dell was terrible at renewing their issues (luckily for us) but, do you happen to know if they were good at printing proper copyright notices from 1964-1977. There is a character I would love to add but, he debuted in '65 and I can't find a copy of his appearances online (although they are extremely rare - only 10,000 existed originally). Do you think the odds of his copyright notice being correct are pretty good or should I keep looking? The character in question is Lobo. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:07, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Unless his first appearance had a proper copyright notice (I still don't know, I can't find anything at all), I would think, at best, he's an orphan work. Are those (like the aforementioned Fatman) okay to add? Perhaps create an orphan works category and add a section to the FAQ as well as properly notate each characters respective pages accurately?Cebr1979 (talk) 02:11, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, we have an Orphan Works category already? It doesn't look used in awhile, though, so I'llwait for you to answer.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:14, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I think since we have the Nedor characters who are Orphan Works it would be hypocritical to not add the Dell characters as well. I agree though we need to add a section to the FAQ explaining Orphan Works and I also think it would be a good idea to get admin approval before adding any Orphan Works to the wikia to prevent users from adding copyrighted protected characters by mistake. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 19:13, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

That works for me. I'll wait for you to update the FAQ and then send you a list of who I'd like to add (aside from Lobo & Fatman). There's only 4 others as of now. Thanks so much!216.13.187.114 19:55, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

^^That was me, just didn't realise I wasn't logged in.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:57, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Cool sounds like a plan. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 20:06, October 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry to eavesdrop and butt in, but ... have you tried contacting the guy who put up scans of Lobo #1 and Lobo #2 to maybe scan the indicia page, or confirm one doesn't exist?


 * Roygbiv666 (talk) 15:36, November 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, #2 has an indicia that says copyright 1966 Dell.
 * Roygbiv666 (talk) 15:50, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Roygbiv666, we were actually talking about the books being an orphan work which you can read more about in the FAQ and read additionally read about why the post 1964 comics are considered orphan works in this topic here. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 03:42, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Maciste
Maciste character epics Italian (peplum) is in the public domain? Hyju (talk) 18:38, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes any appearnace of Maciste before 1923 should be public domain in the United States. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 19:15, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

New Wiki
Hi, CC, Simon here again. Just thought I'd let you know I've started a kind of "sister" wiki for open source characters; you're very welcome to take a look 'round if you feel so inclined. Here's the link:

Open Source Superheroes

Hope to see you soon. Take care, SimonKirby (talk) 11:16, October 25, 2013 (UTC).

Looks cool SimonKirby. Feel free to add the open source characters we have here to your wikia as well. Good luck with your project. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 19:17, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Female characters
Hi CC, Simon here again. I notice that we're now uploading "cheesecake" images of female characters in various states of undress (examples: Blue Fairy, Miss Fury, The Baroness. Does that mean that "lingerie pics" of PD characters like Sally the Sleuth or Lady Luck are now acceptable on this wiki? Cheers, SimonKirby (talk) 01:43, October 30, 2013 (UTC).

I added those images. Were they ever not acceptable? Obviously nudity shouldn't be here but, if they were scantily clad in their appearances, what's the difference than the many guys running around in their undies? Again, if the girls were in the midst of having sex, sure, different story but... in the case of the Miss Fury image, that's a cat fight (no pun intended) which has been a part of woman in fiction for as long as woman have been in fiction, the Baroness is simply waiting to have clothes put on her by the reader, and the Blue Fairy is just... the Blue Fairy. The world's come a long way since 1889 and 1941. I don't think a nighty on a fully grown woman is a big deal. That's just my opinion, though.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:52, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing sexually explicit or pornographic for the images on the site. I'd also like to avoid having lingerie pics for the characters, but the examples listed above already on the wiki sound fine due to the context of the images. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:07, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome
This is my first time on a wiki or such, so please forgive any missteps I make getting used to it. I really like the site and want to contribute, which is why I joined. After some stumbling and bumbling I posted my first Open Source character, which is The Hydrant. Hope I did it correctly, or at least mostly. I intend to do 30, as that seems to be the magic number.

--Rob AKA Sir Rigere

Sir Rigere (talk) 14:24, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome and we'll try to help you where we can. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 21:23, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

ERB
only Tarzan and John Carter are in the public domain?Hyju (talk) 12:32, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

No all his work published before 1923 would be public domain in the United States. You can download some of those books at Project Gutenberg here. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:32, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

Dear Crusader
Hi, Simon here. In light of recent events, I'd like clarification on a number of issues, namely the following:

1. Is PDSH still a collaborative project in which all good-faith users have an equal right to edit the mainspace?

2. Has this user been granted special permission to decide what is appropriate content for the wiki?

3. Do we still employ discussion and consensus before altering established policy (as was standard practice in the past), or do the wishes of a single editor outweigh those of the community in general?

Please bear in mind that I've been editing PDSH since 2009, have made significant contributions (such as the slide gallery on the front page, the portal templates and numerous articles on horror/supernatural characters), and have always sought consensus before implementing any significant change to the wiki. That is, after all, the kind of common courtesy one anticipates on a group project such as this.

Cheers, SimonKirby (talk) 05:26, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

Not CC but, you're actually talking to me and you know it:

1. Yes. See my response to you on my talk page about that edit that has you miffed.

2. No. Again, see my response to you on my talk page about that edit that has you miffed (I also explained it to you when I did the edit, unfortunately I just couln't remember where the discussion I quoted could be found but, yu still found it so...).

3. We still talk about lots. These forums you adore don't really get used much, though. It's mostly done on talk pages now.

You do seek consensus. And in creating this article, you went against what you sought. So I moved it somewhere relevant. I could've just marked it for deletion and been done with it. I didn't, though. You put work into something so I left it... in a better place.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:45, November 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually Cebr, consensus was reached on this matter over two years ago; Crusader stated quite plainly that we should have more articles on comics companies with work in the public domain. Fawcett horror comics is about a comics company and its PD output; it was therefore well within the consensus reached within the discussion.


 * Regarding the issue you raised on your talk page: you said that "resource" articles are not permitted as per Crusader's decision. Well and good, but if you take a closer look at the discussion, you'll see that "resources" refers to sites such as Digital Comics Museum and Comic Book Plus. As mentioned above, the article in question is about a comic book company, not a download site. Perhaps you should go back and reread the discussion more carefully.


 * "I moved it somewhere relevant."


 * No, you didn't. You moved a mainspace article into the category section, despite the fact that it was completely in-scope for the wiki and conformed to a consensus reached a long time ago. If you believed the article was in the wrong place you should have raised the subject on the talk page, consulted the administration, or started a new thread on the Forum. That's how we've always done things here.


 * "Moved to a place that makes more sense as profile pages are for character profiles."


 * This wiki is more than just a collection of profile pages. We also have articles on fictional locations, continuities, teams, universes and publishers. If you're unaware of this, then perhaps you should spend more time familiarizing yourself with the wiki and its established policies. SimonKirby (talk) 01:29, November 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * As I have said in the forum back in 2011, I have zero problem having pages about the comic book companies whose comics are now PD on the wikia, but I don't know if we need a separate page for Fawcett's horror line unless it was actually a separate imprint like Vertigo or Wildstorm would be in the present to DC. It seems to me it would be information that would be better placed on the Fawcett page instead because I don't think it is necessary to create a separate page for every genre that each company produced. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:41, November 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, CrimsonCrusader is much more articulate than I am. Thank you for that, CC.
 * "It seems to me it would be information that would be better placed on the Fawcett page..."
 * Exactly why I categorized it with the Fawcett Comics section. I really have to wonder why "this user" (because apparently names can't be used??? - LOL) insists on creating these "extras" without taking the time/care to categorize them properly (case in point: wasteful and unfinished pages he creates like: this one which hasn't even been created or this one which hasn't been categorized anywhere.) They're just cases of creating something for the sake of creating something without being thorough or caring about finishing a project one has started. Has laziness ever been discussed at the forums, Simon? Cebr1979 (talk) 06:00, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly why I categorized it with the Fawcett Comics section. I really have to wonder why "this user" (because apparently names can't be used??? - LOL) insists on creating these "extras" without taking the time/care to categorize them properly (case in point: wasteful and unfinished pages he creates like: this one which hasn't even been created or this one which hasn't been categorized anywhere.) They're just cases of creating something for the sake of creating something without being thorough or caring about finishing a project one has started. Has laziness ever been discussed at the forums, Simon? Cebr1979 (talk) 06:00, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly why I categorized it with the Fawcett Comics section. I really have to wonder why "this user" (because apparently names can't be used??? - LOL) insists on creating these "extras" without taking the time/care to categorize them properly (case in point: wasteful and unfinished pages he creates like: this one which hasn't even been created or this one which hasn't been categorized anywhere.) They're just cases of creating something for the sake of creating something without being thorough or caring about finishing a project one has started. Has laziness ever been discussed at the forums, Simon? Cebr1979 (talk) 06:00, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you're both frustrated with the others methods and I do appreciate you coming to me with your concerns.

In response to your comments Cebr1979, I'm going to try and clean up the pages you mentioned. Also I agree that you had some valid arguments and took the best action that you saw fit, but try to not insult other users even if they disagree with you.

Also SimonKirby, I know your eager to contribute content but there is truth in what Cerb1979 is saying about finishing what you have started. Try to complete a page as best as you can before moving on to the next one. If you need help just ask me or one of the other users we'll be happy to help you complete it.

Thanks guys, I appreciate your hard work and cooperation. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:48, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

Archie/MLJ Characters
Over on the DC Database, we're looking at probably removing all our Archie/MLJ related pages, both issues and characters. We feel it doesn't fit within the scope of what we cover. We wanted to off you guys the chance to use any or all of it that applies to what you cover here before we remove it. Here is a link to our discussion if it is helpful - . Let us know what you guys think. Thanks. Kyletheobald (talk) 19:37, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

We be grateful to add all of the golden age MLJ character pages to our wikia. Thanks for the heads up Kyletheobald and I've posted in the discussion page on the DC wikia as well. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:43, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Vito Delsante
These characters can go back up. They had bios months ago but, weren't PD then so came down (my bad). However, he released them this morning. Thanks in advance. Happy New Year!

Sorry for the delay. I hope you had a Happy Holidays as well. I'll try and put those pages back up soon. I'm also working on formatting all the imported MLJ character pages given to us by the DC Database, but I'm hoping that won't take too long and I can do this next. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 19:42, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

No prob, if there's anything I can do to help with those MLJ characters, let me know! Cebr1979 (talk) 22:46, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! He used a slightly different licence this time so I'm going through and updating them and checking one by one to see if there is an additional creator (I don't think so because none of them have an artist but, I'll double check first and put the creator credit category up).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:10, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for your patience. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:22, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

First Appearance Copyright
Have a look at this discussion and this link. Does this first appearance thing sound familiar?

The relevent section I mean is:


 * In summary, under the 1909 Act, fictional characters are copyrightable if they are original components of larger copyrighted works with sufficiently delineated traits and characteristics. This is true so long as the larger work is covered under a valid copyright. Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 50 (1988). But what happens when that is no longer the case? Federal copyright protection extends to a fictional character only so long as the preexisting work containing the character's origin is in fact copyrighted.(14) When a work containing the original appearance of a character enters the public domain, that character is inextricably pulled along. Silverman v. CBS, Inc., at 50. So while new copyrightable works including the character are still being created, the character in those works is no longer protected by a copyright once the original work enters the public domain. Id. at 50.

Do you read this to mean that, if say, Captain Underpants #1-10 are under copyright, but #11-20 are not, the character is not PD?

Or, if #1-10 are PD, the character is?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 20:19, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Yes a court just ruled that this the case with Sherlock Holmes which would set legal precedence for other fictional characters in the public domain whose have stories that are still protected by copyright as well. You can read more about it here. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 21:02, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents
Hello.

I was browsing through your very excellent database of public domain superheroes, when I came across the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents. While I know that back in the '80s David Singer attempted to steal the Agents away from their rightful owner John Carbonaro by claiming that they were PD characters, John went to court and resoundingly won his case against Singer. Proving beyond all legal doubt that he (Carbonaro) legally owned the Agents, and that were not, and never had been in the Public Domain. Since John's passing some years ago, the ownership of the Agents have passed to his heirs, and then the Agents have been licensed by first DC and now by IDW. So I would strongly urge you to remove them from your database as you might give someone the false idea that they are PD characters, and thus open yourself up to a lawsuit.

Robert J. Sodaro

(rjsodaro@optonline.net)

69.118.129.222 17:19, March 16, 2014 (UTC)



Robert thanks for your concern, but we've actually already answered this question several times about the copyright status of T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents. I'll re-post what has already been said for your convenience. Tower Comics never registered its titles with the US copyright office, nor did it include a correct copyright notice on their books. The copyright notice on the first issue was not in the proper location of the book which under copyright law at the time of it's publication had to be "either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number or under the title heading." Secondly, it was hidden in the artwork, which goes against the part of the law that stipulates that "The notice should be permanently legible to an ordinary user of the work under normal conditions of use and should not be concealed from view upon reasonable examination." According to US copyright law, all works published between 1923-1977 that did not comply with copyright law became public domain upon publication. So, because the first issue had an incorrect notice, the characters fell into the public domain.

As for the above mention lawsuit, the judge decided that the original THUNDER Agents were, in fact PD. Carbonaro lost his case, but tried again by filing another lawsuit in which, this time, he named several large distributors as co-defendants. Those distributors, in turn, stopped carrying Deluxe Comics' "THUNDER Agents", causing Deluxe to go out of business. So in 1986 Singer was unable to continue paying his lawyer and was forced to settle out-of-court and accept Carbonaro terms including that the Singer was forbidden to dispute publicly that T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents belonged to Carbonaro, and the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents stories that Singer published belonged to Carbonaro as well. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:37, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

If the information to be found on this very wikia (here) is correct, then the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents are NOT in the public domain. If the 1st issue (aka: their first appearance) had a proper copyright renewal, then they (as characters) are copyrighted. That was just reinforced by the Sherlock Holmes case a few months back, which we have all discussed now more than once. Anything from issue #2-on wouldn't be copyrighted and thus, could be re-printed but, the characters names would need to be changed (just like the Shadow page freeuniverse had such a problem with being here that got deleted). I can't find issue #1 on either Comic Book Plus or Digital Comics Musem and, thus,  haven't been able to double check yet to see if issue #1 had a proper copyright notice but, if it did (which has already been discussed and agreed upon here), then they (as a team) are not PD (nor are any single characters that debuted in that issue - which would be all of the ones with pages on this wikia except Lightning). Does anyone have a scan of T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents #1, page 1? Cebr1979 (talk) 03:55, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

If you notice the dates on when the original discussion took place happened before we discovered more information about US copyright law most importantly that legibility and placement are factor in a proper copyright notice. You can read more about T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents situation in earlier post to this very talk page. I've uploaded the first page of the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents to the wikia and you'll see there is no notice on the first page and if you look at the cover you'll notice that the copyright notice is hidden in the artwork. Also by being on the cover, it is placed in the wrong part of the book and becoming invalid. You can read this document from the US copyright office if you want more information about copyright notices. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 14:36, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to read anything about copyright notices, Crimson, I know it. I wanted to know if the first issue of had a proper one (which I made very clear, I'm not sure how you missed that). Where have you uploaded the first page? Cebr1979 (talk) 19:14, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I found it. I think we should add it to the FAQ page so it will always be there to prevent future messages,Cebr1979 (talk) 19:14, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry was just explaining why the notice on the cover was improper and providing sources for that information in addtion to providing the requested image. Was not my intention to imply your information on copyright notices was lacking. Go ahead and add it to the FAQ if you haven't already. Hopefully it will cut down on the repeated questioning about the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:48, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Mercury Man character is not public domain
I need you to remove or reclassify one of your pages. The character "Mercury Man" is not in the public domain. A friend and I purchased the rights to the character from Charlton in 1987 and the following year we reprinted his two stories from Space Adventures, including a copyright notice. We owned MercuryMan.com from roughly 1998 until this month, when we sold the character rights and domain name at auction to Spiderwood Studios. The website contained our copyright notice for more than 10 years until it was revised by the new owner a few weeks ago.

Thank you for your attention. Please confirm receipt of this letter.

Craig Fuqua

Plano TX

Craig thanks for bringing this to our attention, but his first appearance in Space Adventures #44 has improper copyright notice which according to copyright law any works that have an improper or missing copyright notice publish between 1923-1977 became public domain upon publication. Also even if that notice were correct, there is also the matter of no record of renewal with the copyright office for any issue of Space Adventures which was required 28 years after first publication for works published between 1923-1964. So sadly when you purchased the rights to the character in 1987 the copyright had already lapsed. I can add a disclaimer to the page which would present the information you have told me here, but even if you might not agree with it all of the paper work seems to point to Mercury Man being public domain. Thankfully for you though any derivative works that you have created featuring Mercury Man would be copyright protected, but the original version is public domain and free for anyone to use. I've provided links below to back up the information I have given here so feel free to look them over.

Links:
 * Copyright Office Records for Space Adventures
 * Explanation of Copyright Notices from the Copyright Office
 * Improper copyright notice for Space Adventures #44

Your assertion that the copyright notice was improper or expired is your personal opinion, not a matter of legal record. Your source is yourself, and it doesn't matter if anyone else agrees unless that person is a judge. Please remove all statements that the character is in the public domain.

Your assertion that the copyright notice was proper or not expired is your personal opinion, not a matter of legal record. Your source is yourself, and it doesn't matter if anyone else agrees unless that person is a judge (and a judge won't agree with you because similar cases have been taken to judges and people like you with false copyraight claims to public domain works have lost). Please stop acting like you own the internet and can dictate what gets posted where. You got scammed, paid for a character that didn't need to be paid for, and have to live with that. Peace.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:38, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenant Jon Jarl of the Space Patrol
these stories are in the public domain? were published in Captain Marvel Adventures. Hyju (talk) 20:55, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Not according to my research of the copyright renewal records. Jon Jarl appeared in issues 66-150 which had their copyright renewed. 00:30, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Konar the Barbarian
"The Barbarian (Konar the Barbarian) — Feature Funnies #15-18 (December 1938-March 1939), Quality Comics. Story by Robert M. Hyatt, art by Edward Cronin. The first documented use of a barbarian character in American comic books is in an illustrated text serial running in these four issues."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lurid-Little-Nightmare-Makers-Volume/dp/0692211330 .Hyju (talk) 13:57, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Cool we defiantly need a page for him if we don't have one already. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:50, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Skull (MLJ)
Hi, Crimson! Do you happen to know anything about this? Thanks in advance!Cebr1979 (talk) 03:03, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Black Hood from the pulp is indeed the same character as in the comic. He even wears the same costume. At least one of the stories has been reprinted a couple of times from Gunnison's pulp reprint line. If you can track down a copy and like the pulps, it's an enjoyable story. 184.35.16.42 22:13, August 8, 2014 (UTC) Edward Lee Love

Cool thanks for letting us know. I've yet to read the pulp version so I did not know if that was the case. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 03:44, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

To do a little followup, the same pulp story that Gunnison has twice reprinted is also available on Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38466. You have to search "Hooded Detective" under the "search book catalog" option in case the link does not work.74.177.135.77 20:05, September 1, 2014 (UTC)Edward Lee Love

Thanks for sharing the link. I'm looking foward to reading it later. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:20, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

New Open Source Characters
Hey man! There's been quite an influx of new ones over the past two days. I've messaged the two creators and asked them to stop for the time being because they don't yet know how to properly format new pages, etc... I know those characters seem to upset some people (especially with how many have been added) but, I've started cleaning them up and condensing some (members of one team can all share one page - they don't need individual entries for each member). I've marked one for deletion (it's just a copy of Marvel's Doctor Doom with a new name) and may do so with others once I look at them more closely. I have a busy weekend ahead of me so, if I don't get to them all tonight (which I know I won't), I will finish them on Monday. Have a great weekend!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:17, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Cool Cerbr1979 sounds like you have the situation under control. Good work. If you need help let me know. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 18:19, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ya... I said I'd do them last Monday after my busy weekend but... my busy weekend lasted longer than I thought and then I had some other stuff come up like work and school and laundry and my mom called and my friend needed her dog walked and there was an eclipse of planetary proportions in another galaxy and... Oh, hell, truth time: I just forgot. haha Your response reminded me and they're all done now. Cheers! ;-) Cebr1979 (talk) 20:36, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the original layout for the character named Doctor Oblivion. I marked it for deletion because I feel it's just a copy of Marvel's Doctor Doom, his Doombots, and Latveria but, in talking to Corey about it, he say's that's the point; that it was meant as an hommage... Personally, and what I did say to Corey, is that I still think it's just too similar but, I'll leave it in your hands to either delete or reinstate.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:43, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, man! Please see additional comments here. Also, hope you have a very merry holiday season and a happy new year to you and yours!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:51, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Pages for Deletion
this one.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:39, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

Hey! You can ignore this, the "Candidates for deletion" category wasn't working the other day (or maybe I was typing "Pages for deletion" - not sure now after seeing my title here haha) but, seems to be back now so I placed the page there for you. Thanks anyways! Cheers!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:35, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Prop Powers/Bowers
Hi Crimson! Where have you been, it seems like it's been forever! I'm sure you'll turn up, though, and, when you do, I was wondering if you knew anything about those two characters? Was Prop Bowers merely a re-printed and (mildly) re-named Prop Powers? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks in advance! Cebr1979 (talk) 07:03, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Can I use these characters?
Hi CrimsonCrusader, I have a question about the use of certain characters.

Some Quality Comics characters are well-known at DC like Plastic Man and Phantom Lady while others are left in relative obscurity. I was thinking of using certain characters in a project, for example Midnight and his talking monkey Gabby. I know DC used versions of Midnight in 1998 and 2002 but is he hands-off? Are only his Golden Age appearances public domain, like Billy Batson/Shazam?

Another character I wonder about is not on this wiki but is sold by Black Coat Press, namely Aurore Lescure by Theo Varlet. Is she public domain? There's also a 1930s costumed catburglar Zero the Silent in British pulp magazine Adventure. The first installment was "The Human Fly". Thank you for any help with this!

P.S. Marvel has a Midnight (Jeff Wilde) and DC has a new female villain so you'd think using Midnight would be safe but then again...

Matt shade (talk) 14:35, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

This should answer your questions.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:14, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Cebr1979. Maybe I'm an idiot but I have read that page but I'm still unsure about the question of Midnight and some other Quality characters like Bozo the robot. (Others, like the Ray and Phantom Lady, would be fun but seems almost as risky as Plastic Man so I think I'll err on the side of caution there.)

Can I call him "Midnight" and use Gabby, Doc Wackey and Sniffer Snoop? (Gabby and Doc were depicted in a panel in DC's Secret Origins #28 in 1998.) How do I check what's trademarked by DC? Sorry for being such a pain. Matt shade (talk) 04:08, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

All of your questions are answered in the FAQ. You can call him "Midnight" but, if DC owns the trademark, you can't do it in the title or on the cover of your work. DC would only own their version of a public domain character, the fact that he did or did not show up in one panel or 500 issues doesn't change the fact that he's public domain and anyone can use him. To check what's trademarked, you just google "us trademark office" and go to their website.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:46, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It wouldn't be in the title or on the cover, there would be an umbrella title (like Project Superpowers was). I'm checking the trademark but can't find anything. Phantom Lady was easy to find. Funny, Malibu's Midnight Blue (their revised take on Centaur's Blue Lady) was abandoned in 1994, you'd think Marvel would own her. Matt shade (talk) 09:30, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Marvel does own the Midnight Blue version of Blue Lady because they own the copyright... on their version! Not the version that went PD. That will always be PD. Trademark and Copyright are not the same thing. Trademarks have to be used once every 5 years to be renewed. So, you can't use Malibu's Midnight Blue but, you can create an all-new character and name him or her Midnight Blue.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:36, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on using Midnight Blue, though maybe Blue Lady and other Centaur characters (I had some real fun ideas for the outlandish ones like Detective Eye), but it's funny it says abandoned 1994, when Marvel bought Malibu. Same with Mighty Man (Feb 1993-Oct 1994). Matt shade (talk) 08:54, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that I get Marvel not bothering getting the trademark for Mighty Man (settling for the copyright since it was PD) but Midnight Blue was Malibu. Then again Is suppose "Midnight Blue" is a bit generic like "Magenta" and "Indigo". Matt shade (talk) 09:13, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

A piece of cautionary advice would be to really review the differences between trademark and copyright because when you say things like "settling for the copyright because it was PD" I really don't think you get it quite yet. That just doesn't make any sense but I don't think the FAQ or myself can do more to explain it.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:23, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I re-read what you wrote in a different context and I take that back. I think you are getting it, I think you may just be spending too much focus on Marvel when talking about Malibu. We don't know that Marvel ever planned on using those characters. They only bought Malibu to get their hands on the Ultraverse characters and then, pretty quickly, they found out about something that caused those characters to never be seen again. So, when they didn't trademark a character name like Midnight Blue, they might not have ever cared that the character of Midnight Blue existed.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:37, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

I was about to post this: "You're right, I'm messing up here so let me clarify more: I mean that I assume they could get the trademark on Midnight Blue since she's not Blue Lady. Blue Lady and Mighty Man were PD before Malibu hence it makes sense for Marvel to settle for copyright on Malibu's Mighty Man.

BUT "Midnight Blue" is like a supervillainess named "Hotrod Red". Copyright the character, sure, but why bother trademarking the name? It's hotrod red."

It was good advice to look at copyright vs. trademark, though. Matt shade (talk) 09:42, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Aurore Lescure is PD (French book 1930) so I might write up an article but not sure about Zero the Silent (1931), England might have different rules. Matt shade (talk) 09:44, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

It also depends what country you live in (or, more accurately, plan on publishing in). If you're in the US, you need to follow both the French and American laws. Off the top of my head, I don't know French laws but, if they are the same as Canada (life of the author + 50 years), and you live in the US, you still need to wait an additional 45 years before you can use that work. For example, CS Lewis works became PD in Canada last year but, not Britain yet (life of author + 70 years so that'll take another 19 years) and the US will be another 44.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:01, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I live in Sweden and was thinking of self-publishing. Guess I'll hold on the Lescure and Zero articles until I've double-checked then. Matt shade (talk) 12:01, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Sweden has no public domain. Even if those characters (or any others) have lapsed into the public domain in their respective countries, they wouldn't be in Sweden.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:10, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to be life of author + 70 years here in Sweden so I suppose most American characters are out of the question. I was going to use Avanti Planetaros too (Danish film 1914), guess I'll e-mail them and ask. Matt shade (talk) 12:48, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

If you're going off the wikipedia chart, wikipedia charts never tell the whole story. This law is extremely important information to know and gives everything in Sweden perpetual copyrights depending on how you want to use them. This article only tells one of the many little laws your country has. Even when a copyright does expire, Sweden doesn't have a public domain to enter. It just sort of goes idle.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:59, February 3, 2015 (UTC)