FANDOM


A message from Tom Christopher

Moved from Ace Harlem wiki entry page

hello. i'm writing this as a personal letter to the owner of this site and posting this way because there's not an easy of contacting you. i'm the guy who wrote the original 'all negro ' article years ago. everything known about the book is in that article. you took all your graphics from my site. there is constant interest in this material, i get daily traffic on my website, i was talking to PBS' history detectives show about the comic last month, as well as the estate of the publisher who has asked me to act as unofficial agent, and i can tell you, sir, that the copyrights to all characters are with the estate. this was noted at the site you took the pictures from, and when presented with this your response is 'prove it to me'

look, i'm not trying to bullshit you and i'm not trying to bully you. i like your site and i'm glad that you and your friends enjoy old comics enough to do this stuff. i'm a collector as well as a pro, all the stuff on my site is an outgrowth of my various types of collections, so please, don't misunderstand me, i appreciate what you're doing,. but the 'all negro" characters simply aren't public domain, and to imply that they are is unfair both to anyone who reads this as fact (and who might foolishly devote time and money to develop them) and to the creators of this work (who indeed have known for generations the importance of this work).

so do with it what you will. i'm just telling you the facts

yrs,

tom christopher

http://www.tomchristopher.com

Listen Tom it sounds like you don't understand US copyright law please read below. Also the images were taken from this site which has the comic available for download because it is public domain. I cropped the images from the pages using Photoshop.

From my talk page - 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. 22:50, January 24, 2011 (UTC)


Has anyone else ever noticed that neither of the links posted show the title not being renewed? All-Negro Comics doesn't even appear on either of those sites? Cebr1979 (talk) 23:14, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Cebr1979 if the book had been renewed it would have been listed one of those sites. Those are renewal records they only show books that were renewed not the one that weren't. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:43, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, that's nowhere near accurate at all. The first one shows numerous titles that were both renewed and not renewed (hence many titles specifically saying "Not Renewed" after them) and the second link specifically states it is only for works dated after 1978 (rendering it useless for something that would have needed to be renewed in 1975).Cebr1979 (talk) 18:41, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

I would find it hard to believe that the issue in question was renewed but, am trying to find something better in the way of links to prove so.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:44, March 17, 2014 (UTC)

You're right Cebr1979. Not sure what I thinking earlier, but the link to the renewal records for periodicals in 1975 might be the proof we need instead. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 02:11, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that page as well, that and the one for 1974 as it could have been renewed in either of those years. And, it does not show up. Even with the page of "first renewals", what you are looking for is evidence it has been renewed, which there is none. We're trying to prove a negative which is always difficult, but in this case, "absence of evidence" has to be considered "evidence of absence". A good case in good faith has been made that using a couple of different reputable sites, all indications are the title is in public domain. At this point, it is not being rude or out of line to request the person contending that it's not  PD to offer equally compelling counter evidence beyond hearsay or a verbal claim.74.202.227.130 17:17, March 22, 2014 (UTC)Ed Love

I agree. Here is the 1974 renewal records as well. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:54, March 23, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.