Is Captain Tootsie really pd?
I think the reason this character (and Voltor) haven't been added in the past, is that we really need to know where the character was first published. The ads in which this character appeared may have been published in copyright renewed comics from DC or Timely...or in magazines such as Boy's Life. I don't know if ads had to have their own separate copyright registration and renewal, or where you could look that up. Chances are, the ads are PD, and there was no renewal, but I don't know where you'd find that information to be sure. Freeuniverse (talk) 19:15, May 29, 2013 (UTC)Freeuniverse
Advertisers own their advertisements, though, not the publication the ad appears in. Advertisers pay to have that spot meaning Tootsie Roll Industries (a business which is still around today) would have asked to have their character appear wherever he appeared. Whether the comic was renewed or not wouldn't affect the ad. I'll look into it, perhaps the US is different than Canada.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:21, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be any different Phantom Rider who debuted the same year.
According to this resource, characters published between 1922 and 1964 that weren't renewed are public domain.
According to my understanding of Circular 3 put out by the Library of Congress, is that Advertisements must be registered separately than what they appear in.
A “collective work” is one in which contributions that are separate and independent works in themselves are assembled into a collective whole. Examples of collective works include periodicals (such as magazines and journals), encyclopedias, and anthologies.
A single copyright notice applicable to the collective work as a whole serves to indicate protection for all the contributions in the collective work, except for advertisements, regardless of who owns copyright in the individual contributions or whether they were published previously.
I can't find any listing in the Catalog of Copyright Entries for the advertisements or the comic books on Digital Comic Book Museum, by doing a Google Books search using the search query.
inauthor:"Library of Congress. Copyright Office" tootsie
If you would like to make yourself useful, you should go review advertising laws because that paragraph you copy and pasted proves I am right and that Captain Tootsie is most likely NOT public domain (although, like the Green Lama, his comic books would be).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:06, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following you, I'm making edits to the wiki and you happen to be the only other person doing a significant amount of changes right now.
Also works from 1943 aren't public domain, if they are advertisements that weren't renewed? The Library of Congress and Circular 3 are wrong?
You realise you just copy and pasted the word AREN'T right? Like "ARE NOT public domain even if they are advertisements that weren't renewed." Sounds like the Library of Congress and Circular 3 know what they're talking about to me. Sounds like you are merely interepreting it wrong and seeing what you want to see.
Phantom Rider is a comic book character... and a Canadian one at that (aka: different laws) but, even if he were an American one... he is NOT an advertisement.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:35, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Never thought much about the advertising before (a bit ironic since I spent 20 years working in advertising for a newspaper, but there I understood I owned nothing I created). I'd assume it would work similarly to regular copyright ie that there should be something in the ad itself that establishes it's copyrighted, in the Library of Congress, or it becomes defacto covered under the rest of the publication unless there's paperwork/legal agreement to the contrary. It wouldn't be copyrighted any longer than anything else which means the standard rules of renewal of the time should apply. Get a year of the publication for a couple of the ads, head to the Library of Congress and look under the proper year under Captain Tootsie, Tootsie Roll, or larger corporation and see what you find. If they didn't renew their comic, cannot imagine they renewed the smaller ads. 126.96.36.199 12:37, May 30, 2013 (UTC)Edward Love
As it states by the Library of Congress, though: "except for advertisements, regardless of who owns copyright in the individual contributions or whether they were published previously" and "are not public domain even if they are advertisements that weren't renewed."
I put a strikethrough, through my earlier statement and reworded it as I originally meant. The original advertisements, his origin should be public domain, at least to my understanding. I mislead you on the second part, byt phrasing the statement incorrectly. You can ignore that statement, it was a question to Cebr1979, and were both agree that the statement is wrong.
Also, if by some freak accident, an advertisement is renewed, and is in the Library of Congress Renewal cards, but not in the Catalog of Copyright Renewals (which can happen, rarely), I'll send you $5 USD via PayPal before PayPal fees are applied, for a photograph of the card or an official response for a research request, for your troubles. This is only for the first person to find a card or come up with a research request result and post it to the Wiki.
Again, dude: Seeing what you wanna see. An ad is not a "work." It specifcally say's collective works require renewal... EXCEPT ads! For someone who's spending so much time on a Library, you'd think you could look up the definition of "except."Cebr1979 (talk) 17:34, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
Correct, I read the paragraph differently. I read it as saying "The single notice on the collected work protects everything in it, except its adverisements."
If advertisements are exempt from renewal, that should be listed on the page as to why it is a disputed character.
'A single copyright notice to the collective work serves to protect all the contributions, except for advertisements.'
I have 3 things for you:
1. SEEING WHAT YOU WANNA SEE! "except for advertisements regardless of who owns copyright in the individual contributions or whether they were published previously." Remember that part? Obviously not but, nevertheless... it is there.
2. It's time to stop now.
3. Like I told you yesterday, you are really annoying. You are the one that originally copy and pasted the laws to this talk page. In the future, please don't start a debate over something you've posted unless you've taken the time to be sure you haven't read what you've posted "wrong."Cebr1979 (talk) 18:32, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
Okay guys, take a breath. I think we just have a slight misunderstanding here. I'm impartial, because I don't care very much about ad characters (frankly, they're usually kinda dumb). I think what Code and Reload posted is helpful, and here is what I understand from it:
It proves I was wrong to be concerned about what publication an ad first appears in, because it is explicitly saying that the copyright on a periodical is not extended to the ads. So, an ad is only copyrighted if the people who created it took the time to register and renew it. I think that is what Cebr is trying to point out.
However, I see nothing here that suggests that an ad is automatically granted copyright, or does not require renewal. In fact, I believe ALL work in the US (except audio recordings) require registration, and this is a reason that, for example, press release photos from old movies like The Wizard of Oz are public domain. If there is evidence that ads are granted automatic copyright, I'd like to read it. It is certainly not in anything that Code and Reload posted.
Bottom line is, we would need to know if Tootsie Roll Industries registered those ads, and if they took the time to renew them (which is unlikely, but quite possible...I'm just not sure they considered it likely that anyone would make a billion dollars on a blockbuster movie adaptation called "Captain Tootsie"). Based on a rudimentary search, it does not appear that the ads were registered. Code and Reload is offering a small reward for any further information. Like him, I doubt anyone will collect, but I do not believe it would be totally shocking if we were wrong and a registration card did exist. I'd say we're about 90% sure that Captain Tootsie IS public domain.
I have an interest in it, because I find a superhero that peddles candy to children like drugs amusing.
I'm going to be shocked if there is a card and there's no entry in the Catalog of Copyright Renewals. If so, I put much less faith in the Catalog of Copyright Renewal books.
So, an ad is only copyrighted if the people who created it took the time to register and renew it. I think that is what Cebr is trying to point out.
If he is, I misread what he wrote and I apologize, and we are in total agreement.
However, I see nothing here that suggests that an ad is automatically granted copyright, or does not require renewal.
I want to see this too, and this is how I read Cebr1979's statement below, if I read it incorrectly, again I appologize.
collective works require renewal... EXCEPT ads
I know the bounty isn't much, but it should cover one-fifth of an hour if you are paying a researcher, if it is $100/hour. Don't quote me on the $100/hr, as my memory might be fuzzy on the exact fee, it might be more. I don't know how much PayPal fees, are but I would probably make it after the fee are applied.
Ideally, a Kickstarter project to look for cards and someone who lives in Washington D.C. with time on his/her hands would be something cool, and I would back that in a heartbeat. I'd fund the heck out of that if it were cheap enough.
I really did not want to get others involved, but had to, as we weren't getting anywhere; Crimsoncrusader, I had hoped that you'd never have to mediate any disputes and have that responsibility.
Captain Tootsie in Savage Dragon
Just letting everyone know that Captain Tootsie will be appearing in Savage Dragon #241 in December.