Hi, welcome to Public Domain Super Heroes! Thanks for your edit to the Yankee Longago page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Peteparker (Talk) 03:29, April 29, 2009

Plastic Man and the Black Hawks

I definitely see your point about Plastic Man, but I do have some research to back up the claim of his copyright status. Police Comics #1 (1941) was never renewed which featured Plastic Man's first appearance. DC renewed only some issues of Plastic Man's self titled series from the early fifties. Cash Gorman and The Copyright Office Records show that these early appearances were never renewed. However, if Plastic Man is trademarked by DC (which I believe he is), there are restrictions on how he could be used and possibly it would not matter if he was in the Public Domain. A similar situation that is shared by Tarzan and the Marvel Family, the works on in the public domain , but the characters are still trademarked. I agree with you though it is probably better to air on the side of cation until we gain more evidence. - Crimsoncrusader

  • Thank you for bringing both websites (documents?) to my attention. In light of what I read, I still think we can't safely assume that Plastic Man is in public domain (or at least not 100%), so... I guess we're in agreement. --Strannik01 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Literary characters

The only literary characters that have been added thus far are characters that also appear in superhero comics. I don't intend to add any other, and as far as I know no one else has added any other. However, I agree in that there is a risk in getting a cluttered wiki. I'll try to be careful when adding more characters.

--Ifrippe 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Sounds good --Strannik01 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

cant get my password

hi Stannik-

I have an acct. as "flameape". i edited the text for ROCKET BOY just now- forgot i wasn't logged in, then came to realize that i forgot my password. OY! anyway, i haven't received my password via automated email- can you:

1. attribute the edit on rocket boy to flameape?

2. send me my password?

much appreciated.

I am also making my own artistic takes on various PDSH's. you can see them on my blog- http://flameape.org - just hit the public domain superheroes tag on the tag cloud on left sidebar. I'm about to publish many more including, nightmare & sleepy, 13, vulcan, destroying demon and more.

Thanks and keep it up! -- Greg Giordano, aka, "flameape" 05:28, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

flameape@gmail.com

  • Greg - thank you for sharing your work (no, seriously, it's actually kind of neat). Unfortunately, I can't help you with the password - you'll have to contact Wikia admins for that, since they the ones who actually have password information information (lest you forget, the user accounts are universal for all Wikia Entertainment member wikis rather than one wiki in particular). If I were you, I would your junkmail folder (if you haven't already) - the password reminder e-mail may have wound up there. --Strannik01 08:17, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S. I looked at this wiki's user list and you aren't on it, so no, there is definitely nothing I (or any other admins) can do to help you --Strannik01 16:04, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Rogers Rangers deletion- sloppy SLOPPY research skills!

Rogers Rangers come from Kid Eternity #6 which is definitely beyond question in the public domain, in fact it is openly and legally available for download as a zip file around the place. To delete a historical figure entry for Rogers Rangers, who appeared in a comic and were instrumental in it in fact, is terrible research skills, and undermines the wiki credibility.

Also as an actual comic book writer and artist, damaging the wiki entries like that makes the wiki way less useful as a research tool to me.

  • At the risk of pointing out the obvious, this is a wiki about public domain comic book characters. As per current policies, we allow original characters that appeared in Golden Age comic books, open source characters and literary characters that appeared in comic books. We put those restrictions, because, like all other wikis under the Wikia Entertainment umbrella, we aim to create resource that's focused on a certain specific topic - in this case, comic book public domain characters. While putting in, say, historical figures, might be useful to your research, it will diverge from this wiki's focus. That and it isn't terribly helpful. All historic figures are, by definition, in public domain. I don't see what makes Roger's Rangers special enough or different enough to deserve their own entry.

That said, I am willing to put the matter up to a vote. --Strannik01 22:29, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with there being a Rogers Rangers page if they appeared in Kid Eternity #6, but maybe we can just add them to the list of Kid Eternity summons on the Kid's page and link the Wikipedia article. But like Strannik01 I'm also OK with voting. Crimsoncrusader 00:36, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

help: cabala is public domain and no

I don't know if the program will translate right I wanted to post on cabalasimilar as it is this passage of the captain atom: "While the first appearance of Captain Atom and all of his Silver Acts Appearances plows public domain, any appearances after 1977 of Captain Atom produced by Charlton, DC, or AC Comics plows NOT. " or be... that up to 2009 everything that I did on cabalais of public domain and everything that I do starting from 2010 be not the articles here can be edited ... then you should have explained to me and edited with me in that sense.


talk to me

  • Well, that's what you should have said in the first place, mate. I am not sure if this sort of thing fits under wiki rules, but I have no objection to you adding an article with this disclaimer attached. --Strannik01 14:59, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Also, please format the title properly and use proper wiki article format.

"Also, please format the title properly and use proper wiki article format."

wiki can be edited then you were able to for in the format that can be since I don't know as

  • Use any of the other articles as an example. Every article should include the description of the character, the character's appearances and any legal notes that may apply. You should also include proper categories. --Strannik01 14:59, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

don't I have permission for speaking with Crimsoncrusader?

because?

  • I don't understand what you're saying here. --Strannik01 14:59, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

thanks

what this?


"See Cabala for the current version.

To see all changes to this page since your last visit, click here

No edit summary was given

Please visit and edit often..." --Miguel Rude March 20, 2010 (UTC)

  • I changed the title to fit with proper Public Domain Super Heroes wiki format. Crimsoncrusader reformatted the rest of the article. It's all good. --Strannik01 03:14, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

this is very good

thank you very mutch!

then I send the cover of the bio47 N° 2 --Miguel Rude March 20, 2010 (UTC)

see brazilian profile of cabala:

http://hqquadrinhos.blogspot.com/2010/03/cabala-by-miguel-rude-leandro-silva.html


thanks!

Magno

I recently created a disambiguation page for Magno. You might want to update your story to link directly to Magno (Ace), rather than Magno.

Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 14:49, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up. Will do. (Incidentally, thanks for doing all those disambiguation pages. They make this wiki much easier to navigate) --Strannik01 15:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Creating a Community

Hi "Stranik." I'm not certain if you are one of the administrators on this site, but based on your volume of contributions to this site, I'm going to assume that you have an interest in this, whether you are an administrator or not. My name is Jason, and I am the creator of the Free Universe site (universe.1free.ws). My site is not meant to compete with this one, but to serve as a compliment. While this site tries to preserve PD information about Golden Age characters, my site seeks to expand on that information and stake out additional IP territory on behalf of the public domain.

One of the other major reasons why I created my site, was that I was very frustrated that this wiki did not provide an easy way to communicate with the community that is interested in these characters. I felt I had no way to ask questions or make suggestions. I have only recently come to find these "talk pages" and I'm still getting used to them. They are, quite frankly, a little hard to follow, and I'm not sure that many people even know about them. So, part of my purpose in creating my new site, was to create a forum, where people like us could communicate, debate issues and answer questions for newbies. Unfortunately, my site has yet to gain any real fallowing and nobody has registered on the forums.

So, I have proposed an idea to crimsoncrusader, the most prolific admin on this site, and he likes my idea, but he'd like me to shop it around to see how others felt. My idea is that I would be willing to change the graphics on my existing forum to make it a joint PDSH wiki / Free Universe forum, if you guys would be willing to link to that forum on this site and make it an official meeting spot. I'd also be happy to make any admins on this site, admins on the forums. I really think everyone on this site could benefit from an improved means of communication. I think it would go a long way towards encouraging more people to get involved in our efforts. It might also help establish a community that is ready and willing to create new freely licensed characters. I just think it would be a big benefit. Let me know what you think, if you get a chance.

  • First of all, I am an admin, along with Crimsoncrusader and MadMikeyD. I have no objection to your proposal. I am not sure how much good it will do, but I think the idea is, at the very least, worth a try. I am sure my fellow admins wouldn't mind linking to your forum or your site. I should note (for the sake of full disclosure) that I, personally, have no interest in creating freely licensed characters, but I certainly wouldn't discourage others to do that if that's what they want.
On a slightly related note - I am not sure if you already registered, but it would make communications much easier if you did. And, once you do, please take the time to sign your posts. That way, I (and other users) will be able to identify you without having to cross-reference your IP address. Thank you much. --Strannik01 03:02, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the coding on my userpage. I'm kinda new to wiki-editing.Yzz, Master of DOOM 21:59, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Category removal...

Shouldn't we keep the "Characters" tag on pages like War Nurse and Frankenstein (Prize)? Yzz, Master of DOOM 16:10, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • I figured that now that we have separate tags for all media, having general "Characters" tag serves no purpose. If I had the time and the patience, I would delete the generic tags (such as [[Category:Heroes]]) from the character pages and leave the more specific tags ([[Category: Pulp Heroes]]). I would keep the generic tags as category tags to put together the more specific tags. Am I making any sense? --Strannik01 16:50, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
* Ah, okay. Sounds good.Yzz, Master of DOOM 16:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Since the main page says "For a complete list of featured characters: [[Category:Characters]]", should we continue removing the Characters category articles or stop? Yzz, Master of DOOM 15:27, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
*I think we can continue removing [[Category:Characters]]. People who click on this will be able to look at all the characters - it's just that now, the list will be broken down by category (which will hopefully make the browsing easier). --Strannik01 17:22, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

No Gentlemen thieves?

Dude there are no gentlemen thieves here, even though there are quite a few and Arsene Lupin has long slipped into the public domain. Otherwise, keep up the good work. The Clock 10:30, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

We just haven't made a page for them yet. Every public domain character is not on the wiki there are too may to even count. I would highly suggest adding some pages for gentlemen thieves yourself. Crimsoncrusader 21:21, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wonder Man

Regarding the addition to the entry about Eisner's testimony, technically it is an alleged transcript. Maybe we should cite the original site as source.

Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 14:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's fair --Strannik01 17:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION ABOUT DOROTHY GALE.

IF I CHAGED THE MIDDLE NAME, OR ADDED ONE FOR HER, AND CALLED THE TITLE OF THE PAGE BY HER CALL SIGN "TWISTED", WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED DERIVITIVE, OR OPEN SOURCE??

  • If the character in based on original Dorothy Gale in any way, shape or form, it is considered derivitive. So, no, cosmetic changes such as adding an oridingal call sign don't count. Now, if you wanted to contribute an original open source character, that would be a different story. --Strannik01 20:51, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Lovely. Days of relative inactivity end with kneejerk chastising a new contributor for violating completely unpublished rules about, once again, what this site SHOULD BE ABOUT. I suppose Wonder Man should be removed, too. He was shown in court to be derived from Superman, after all. Maybe there can be another exciting (and unending) vote about whether there should be another exception to the unpublished rules.
      • Oh, Christ on a stick... Dear anon - as I explained to Target-Defiant, I was referred to modern-day characters derived from existing public domain characters, not derivative characters in general (otherwise, we would have to delete more than just Wonder Man). The rule is not unpublished - it's on the main page. If you want to put the matter to a vote, I wouldn't object, and I am sure neither would the other admins. But if you do bring the matter to a vote, do it while you're signed on, please. Thank you much. --Strannik01 23:41, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

KAY. I HAVE A FEW PUBLIC DOMAIN/OPEN SORCE CHARACTERS IVE CREATED. IS THERE A SPECIFIC WAY (OTHER THAN THE CAPPS LOCK THING) THAT I SHOULD DO SO?TARGET-DEFIANT. 15:57, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • Look at any of the existing pages. Generally, you should include a the picture of the character, the info box with the image of the character, his or her first appearance, creator and publisher, the listing of appearances (if any - there being any rule requiring the characters to actually be published) and a disclaimer where you explicitly relinquish copyright and make the character open source. See other pages with open source characters for details on how such disclaimer should be written.--Strannik01 23:41, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Sure, you can start one if you like. I'd even be wiling to link to it in the sidebar. As far as the rules, you do have a point. While most of them aren't "unwritten," I don't think anybody took the trouble of putting them in one place. So, for future reference, here is the summary:
  • This wiki is for public domain characters from all comic books, comic strips, pulp magazines, books, movies, serials and television programs. Open source characters are allowed. Radio characers are not allowed (see wiki FAQ). Real people are all in public domain by definition - you can include fictionalized depictions of real people from public domain works (in other words, biographical stories don't count). Generally speaking, we tend to stick to characters that can be considered super-heroes or adventurers under any definition of the term, as well as their sidekicks and supporting characters. Don't submit copyrighted characters. Don't relinquish rights for characters you do not own. Characters with disputed copyright status are allowed so long as the article clearly indicates that the rights in dispute and so long as you explain why you believe the character is in public domain (the more legal evidence you provide, the better). The wiki entries should be about the characters as they were originally depicted in the original source material (though we allow speculation so long as it's clearly labeled as such). The articles should be written in in-universe perspective, though you can insert publishing and other real world information if appropriate. All images in the wiki must be work-appropriate. Spamming is not allowed, neither is vandalism. If a contributor persistently fails to follow the rules, he or she will be banned. If you want to advertise your webcomic/company/website/etc, message any of the admins and we'll be happy to add a link on the sidebar or on the main page - as appropriate.
I think that should about cover it. --Strannik01 23:41, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
DOROTHY'S TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT ARE BOTH PUBLIC DOMAIN. SHE HAS A RICH MAGICAL HISTORY, THEREFORE THOSE TWO THINGS COMBINED MAKE HER PERFECT FOR AN ADVENTURER, OR HERO. DERIVITIVES OF MAGIC CHARACTERS, WHOS TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT ARE IN P.D. SHOULD EITHER GO HERE, OR SOMEONE WITH ADMIN RIGHTS SHOULD CREATE A SPECIAL, NEW SECTION FOR THEM, AND LINK IT HERE. IM NEW TO THE SITE, SO I DON'T THINK I SHOULD CREATE IT PER-SAY, BUT I WOULD HELP CONTRIBUTE TO IT, AND ADMIN IT IF YA WANT.TARGET-DEFIANT. 06:09, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

LEGAL FACTS, SUPPORTED BY MULTIPLE FEDERAL LAWS.

ONCE A TRADEMARK LAPSES INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, BY FEDERAL LAW, IT CANNOT BE RENEWED, OR BOUGHT. PERIOD. IT IS THEN FOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND/OR CHILD TO PUBLISH LEGALLY, BOTH THE TRADEMARK, AND THE COPYRIGHT. IN MARVELS CASE THEY DIDN'T PAY MONEY FOR P.D. HEROES. THEY STOLE THE NAMES, AS THEY TRADEMARKED THEM, AND LIED TO THE PATENT OFFICE CLAIMING THERE WERE NEVER ANY OTHERS WITH THOSE NAMES. YET WONDER-MAN, DR.DOOM, DAREDEVIL. HELL-CAT, E.C.T. WERE ALL CREATED WELL BEFORE TIMELY EVEN BECAME MARVEL. -DECADES BEFORE. ONCE SOMETHING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A NAME IS CREATED IN THE SAME MEDIUM, IT CAN NOT BE LEGALLY DUPLICATED EXACTLY. U CAN MAKE A DERIVATIVE NAME THAT MEANS THE SAME THING, BUT NOT UTILIZE NAMES THAT LAPSED, AND CLAIM SOLE OWNERSHIP. WHICH IS WHAT DC AND MARVEL REGULARLY DO. STAN'S DAREDEVIL MAY BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT, BUT HE STILL UNJUSTLY, TRADEMARKED HIS VERSION, WITH MARVEL, UNDER A NAME THAT HAD LAPSED DECADES EARLIER. YOU CAN NOT HAVE TWO DAREDEVILS, JUST LIKE U CANT HAVE TWO CHARACTERS NAMED BATMAN. THE EARLIEST VERSION WITH THE NAME WINS BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THAT VERSION IS LAPSED AS U, & THIS SITE CLAIM, -THEN EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO THE TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT. ALSO HOW DID MARVEL MAKE TRADEMARKS POPULAR, WHEN SAID TRADEMARKS PRE-DATE THE COMPANY BY ALMOST TWO FACTUAL DECADES?? -THEY CANT LEGALLY TRADEMARK THEM. THEY ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN. MARVEL CAN USE THE NAMES SURE, & THEY CAN MAKE MONEY OFF OF THEM. BUT SO FACTUALLY CAN EVERYONE ELSE. NO ONE MAY TRADEMARK OR COPYRIGHT A P.D.CHARACTER LEGALLY. THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS THAT BACK THIS UP, WHERE ALL FICTION IS CONCERNED. ENGLAND AND EUROPE HAVE SOME OF THE SAME LAWS AS WELL..THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF "PUBLIC DOMAIN".jasontodd3@live.com 22:07, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
SPEAKING OF ACTUAL, FACTUAL, FEDERAL LAWS, ALL OF THE ONES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTERS, -ESPECIALLY ONES BOTH MARVEL AND DC CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF,
SHOULD BE LINKED TO EACH AND EVERY PROFILE, LIKE BLUE BEETLE, AND DAREDEVIL, SO THAT THE WORLD CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT MARVEL AND DC ARE DOING AGAINST FEDERAL LAWS, BY THREATENING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PUBLISH NAMES ON THE COVERS, OF WHAT HAS FACTUALLY LAPSED INTO P.D.jasontodd3@live.com 03:48, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • As others on this wiki have tried to explain to you, trademark and copyright are not the same thing. Copyrights can fall into public domains. Trademarks can't. Once a company stopped using them, they can be claimed by anyone (see the Captain Marvel trademark situation). By the time Marvel trademarked their versions of Daredevil and Wonder Man, the originals were long since out of print (Dr. Doom, for the record, was never trademarked. Neither was Hellcat. Just because a character appeared in a comic book does not mean he or she automatically becomes trademarked. In order to secure a trademark, one has to actually publish a comic containing a trademark in it's title and/or advertising materials. So, no, you do not know what you're talking about. I have looked at your website, and, quite frankly, nothing I've seen there convinces me that you are in any position to throw around any legal weight.
And, as others have noted, kindly STOP WITH THE BLOODY ALL-CAPS. It's hard to read and it makes it even harder for anyone to take you seriously. I really don't think it's too much to ask. --Strannik01 04:28, November 30, 2010 (UTC) k., fine, capps lock off...-
we at M.K.U.I.I., are in the same medium. a website is a form of factual publication, and has been decided so in multiple already decided court cases. we have a right to bring federal laws concerning confusion in the same marketplace, and trademark disputes to light in court before a judge and joury. also if specific trademarks can be renewed as u claim,-then public domain copyrights arent public domain where the specific medium of comics are concerned. -the covers sell the end product, just as much as the interior art and writing. if no one can put the name of the liv gleason daredevil on a cover,- or as the title of a film, it could be stated marvel is monopolizing the name of two factualy different, yet confusingly identical entities by the same name, in the same medium. as both had hadicapps at one time, and both had the same spelling of the same name. this keeps public citizens from wanting to spend the effort to utilize public domain characters. and is against current federal laws in the comic book/literary fiction medium. the laws im citing are federal. any admin on this site should automatically know of them, or at least have researched them. and they should have been reseached, and re-researched, before the main admin of this part of wiki,- started this p.d. part of wiki. they should also be clearly linked to from the various character profiles.jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 06:07, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Category:TITLE Characters

Do you see any value in having categories for the characters appearing in a given comic, ex. Category:Wonder Comics Characters, Category:Target Comics Characters, etc.? Or is it overkill. A lot of the Golden Age comics were anthologies, featuring various characters.

Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 23:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that's overkill. During the Golden Age, titles constantly got renamed and altered - keeping track of it all would be a headache (for example, how many versions of Black Cat Comics are there?) I think publisher categories do decent enough job most of the time. The only exception I would be willing to make is for characters that appeared in A-1 titles. --Strannik01 00:13, January 3, 2011 (UTC)


Other Public Domain Properties

I was reading "Stupid Comics" on Mister Kitty (.org) yesterday, and in one story they mentioned an element they were looking for called "Ernium" This got me to thinking that, besides the regular elements, and Adamantium, what else is there? Wikipedia has a list of fictional elements, some of which will be in the public domain, others may be trademark and copyright.

Also it's great that there are two fictional countries here on this site, but there are probably others. Again Wikipedia provides examples, and common sense would dictate that if a property is old enough that it would be in the Public Domain.

I would take the time to be bold and help edit, but I've got a lot of things to do (including holding up two jobs and starting my own business). If however, you have a specific task and don't have the time, or for some reason would like someone else to undertake it, drop me a line on my talk page. The Clock 05:25, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yep there are numerous fictional countries and elements such as the elements Alkahest and Cavorite and fictional countries such as Lemuria and Mu. Thanks for the offer of help we appreciate all we can get. Crimsoncrusader 03:05, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for that But I already know I was wondering if i can transfer all of the pages to heroes inc wiki in one go It will be hard enough with the authors revision but A base is needed for the articles. Thank you again for All the work you have put into this wiki please respond on my talk page.--FossilLord 04:20, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

And heres the link. http://heroes-inc.wikia.com/wiki/Heroes,_inc._Wiki --FossilLord 04:53, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

WONDER-MAN 1

It should also be noted,-that wonder-man did not have every original power of superman. he lacked the same speed, and x-ray vision, and a few years later superman could fly, not just leap.

  • And, as I said in my editing note, that is irrelevant. At the time of the lawsuit, Superman did not have x-ray vision and could not fly. Their powers were, if not outright identical, very, very similar. --Strannik01 01:39, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

WONDER MAN WAS NO WHERE NEAR THE SPEEDS CLARK RAN IN HIS ONLY APPEARANCE.

  • No idea how you can possibly support it, since the comic never gave their actual speeds in terms of miles per hour. They both seem pretty fast, and that's good enough for me. Why is it even important to you, anyway. The lawsuit was settled in National's favor. That's a historical fact. --Strannik01 01:39, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
This is important for legal reasons.
No, it's not. The character is in public domain - whether or not he infringes on another character's copyright is no longer relevant. --Strannik01 02:42, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
a ring gave him the powers through magic, hes not an alien. clark has the speed of near sound, in action one, faster than a locomotive. it is never established through the wonder-man appearence, what his speed is.
Yes it was. As per Page 5, panel 2, it was at least a hundred yards per bound. Kindly reread the original story--Strannik01 02:42, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
also by today's laws a power set cant be copyrighted, or it constitutes a monopoly on the medium.
They can't anymore. But, at the time of the ruling, Superman was unique enough for the power set to be copyrightable. And, once again - Wonder Man is in public domain. The court's decision is no longer relevant.
i will prove the wonder-man and captain marvel victories by dc false victories.
See above. --Strannik01 02:42, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
in court. i will also prove that marvel may not own a trademark on characters they didint create.
Yeah... Good luck with that. And yes, I do mean it sarcastically. --Strannik01 02:42, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
unless you can prove outright, that wonder-man was in fact the same exact speed as clark, at the time of his appearence, there is no reason to leave that edit i made out. he is not a speedster. at no time within the book is it established that he is.
Your note was irrelevant. Regardless of the merits of the case, the court decided in National's favor. Now that Wonder Man is in public domain, he can be published by anyone regardless of what the court decided. The note arguing about the merits of the case serves no useful purpose. --Strannik01 02:42, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
It serves to establish the fact that it was never outright stated, anywhere in the wonder-man comic that he was as fast, or faster than a locomotive, or superman. fact. the hundred yards per bound had to do with leaping ability, not running speed. obviously its you who needs to re-read the context. also trademarks may not legally be associated with lapsed characters. this is a current federal law. as the trademarks constitute a block to make money with these lapsed characters, which promotes greed, monopoly, and rewards companies who let them lapse before re-publishing them in the first place. also: it seems to be only you, who regularly chooses to clash with me. could it be a personal problem you have with me?? my lawyer might like to hear about it. do not edit my edits. petition someone else to do so. and ill take it up with them. there is no mention of how fast wonder-man is in the comic. period. therefore no one can just assume that the author intended him to be as fast as superman. fact.jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 03:06, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Your insistence on arguing about which character is faster persistently misses the point - it has nothing to do with whether or not the character can be used. I said it before, and I will say it as often as it takes for it to finally sink in - the ruling over whether or not Wonder Man violated the Superman copyright is no longer legally relevant. The character is in public domain. His existence in no way threatens DC's ability to make profits off Superman. Anyone can use Wonder Man any way they want. Now, Marvel does have a trademark on the name "Wonder Man" for the time being, but there are ways around it. You can sue Marvel all you want, but personally, I don't see how your case has any legal merit. Pursue it at your own peril. --Strannik01 03:21, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
the reason you don't see the merit, is you are obviously oblivious to the actual american federal laws. such laws indicate that "trademarks" may not legally be associated with lapsed characters names. as in: once a character lapses, it may not have a trademark. period. the trademark is an infringement on anyone who wants to advertise the name wonder-man on the cover, with a "lapsed" character. again, the speed of wonder-man, was never exactly, or clearly defined as bieng the same as supermans. because of this, the original ruleing is unjust, and therefore invalid, which means that wonder-man's original publishers never had an oppertunity to re-publish, after an apeal of a verdict, that was invalid to begin with. that, combined with the fact that his powers were magic based, means that if persued, the case must be brought back to trial in todays time. and would make any marvel trademark invallid anyway. as the character only lapsed, due to negligence of the court, to explore all aspects of the case.jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT 03:44, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

such laws indicate that "trademarks" may not legally be associated with lapsed characters names.

Precisely - which is why Marvel's trademark is associated with their version of the character. The fact that their version of the character has absolutely nothing to do with Fox's version of Wonder Man is irrelevant. All Marvel has to prove is that you are trying to publish a comic book that has the same title as something it published as recently as two years ago, which creates market confusion which, is, in fact, the violation of Marvel's trademark.
And, once again, for what feels like a hundredth time - Wonder Man is in public domain. As such, he cannot, by definition, violate DC's Superman copyright. --Strannik01 03:51, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
and, once again, the lawsuit was invalid. therefore there is legally a question as to whether he would then be public domain, as the judge failed to consider wonder-mans speed, and the fact that he was magic based, not alien. therefore how can a character lapse, if he was not published only because of an "illegal court rule??" just because the case was never re-tried, doth not mean it wont be. ( because it will be.) also no, wonder-man was not owned or commissioned to be created by marvel. they may only own characters, or trademarks they can legally prove "they created", or have actually purchased..they did neither. wonder-man is not theirs. the version they have will be renamed. same with daredevil.04:23, January 27, 2011 (UTC)jasontodd3@live.com/TARGET-DEFIANT

how can a character lapse

Wonder Comics #1 was not renewed 20 years after it was initially released. Therefore, Wonder Man is in public domain. It's as simple as that.

also no, wonder-man was not owned or commissioned to be created by marvel. they may only own characters, or trademarks they can legally prove "they created", or have actually purchased..they did neither. wonder-man is not theirs. the version they have will be renamed. same with daredevil.

There is not a single word in this statement that in any way corresponds to reality. In fact, it is so far divorced from reality that I am almost ready to believe you are a visitor from an alternate universe where copyright and trademark laws evolved along a radically different path and corporate intellectual property law as we know it doesn't exist. Thankfully, your exercise in legal folly is not my problem, and, so long as you keep your theorizing out of the wiki articles, it can stay that way. --Strannik01 04:34, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Strannik01 here Target-Defiant. This argument does not make sense. Marvel created Simon Williams (a.k.a. Wonder Man) just like they created Matthew Murdock (a.k.a. Daredevil) they just used existing names for their superhero identities whose trademarks had lapsed which meant they were up for grabs. Heck their not alone other companies have done the same. Example, Dynamite Entertainment has trademarks on several public domain character names now such as Black Terror thanks to their mini-series for Project Superpowers. As for Wonderman's speed, I would say the Golden age Superman and him are about equal, and really saying otherwise is just nitpicking. As for the legal disputes let it rest buddy you'd be wasting money their no longer relevant they happened decades ago I'd suggest if you want to present your own side these issues do so on your own site. The point of the wiki is to provide info on public domain characters not to try and overturn court decisions. Crimsoncrusader 17:00, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
For whatever it may be worth, I agree with Crimsoncrusader and Strannik01 here - whether you agree with the law or the decision, the character is public domain. Also, your arguments are so poorly presented so as to make rational discourse difficult, if not impossible.
Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 17:56, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Powers

Value in a Flying Characters category? I was looking for a list of them ...

Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 17:51, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. I think there should probably be separate categories for characters who fly using some method of mechanical propulsion (jetpacks, power suits, etc) and characters who have flying as super-power, but that's just a suggestion. --Strannik01 18:35, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Something like this?
Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 00:17, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I mean, like I said earlier - I think there is a difference between flight as a "built-in" power and flight as something that is achieved through technology, but I don't think there is anything wrong with putting both kinds of flight under the same category--Strannik01 01:20, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

HERO Initiative

Hi (cc'ing User talk:Crimsoncrusader)

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?

I am not sure how to do floating messages, but, sure, we can put something on the main page. --Strannik01 03:33, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 17:22, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Slide Gallery

Hi Strannik, 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)

  • Like Madmikeyed said, this is a pretty cool feature. I am just not sure how to integrate into into main page. Madmikeyed did the coding for it, and I am not sure how to insert it without breaking the coding up. --Strannik01 20:41, 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)

Quality characters

I Would Like To Do A Project Of My Own At Some Point Featuring The Quality Characters.Golden one 01:31, June 15, 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?

Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 11:52, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

  • We might be walking on shaky ground on this one - but then, this wiki already includes T.H.U.N.D.E.R Agents, who are even more of a dubious case. I'd say go ahead, include it and put it in "disputed characters" category. --Strannik01 16:45, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
Yay! I'll do that as well as cite the dubious nature of the sources, etc.
Roygbiv666 Sig 001.png 21:56, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Fawcett Horror Library

Would it help if my name was removed from the article? I genuinely believe that the Horror Library contains some excellent public domain material for writers, artists and enthusiasts. The supernatural characters appearing in the stories (Dr. Death, Countess Siroon, The Fleshless Ones etc) would make excellent villains for any comic strip with a paranormal flavor. I think it would be a good idea if artists and writers could have direct access to the original stories themselves.

For this reason, I'd like to suggest that we have articles on the various resource sites, such as Digital Comic Museum and Golden Age Comics. I believe that download sites would be of interest to PDSH's users, along with blogs featuring golden age comic art. We could also have articles on comic history projects such as Markstein's Toonopedia. All of these would be of value to aspiring artists and illustrators. In my humble opinion, we should include as much information as possible. At least a few PDSH users need to know where to look for inspiration, and articles on resource sites would come in handy for all of us.

I have a few more suggestions to make, but I'll post them to the Forum Page. In the meantime, I'll leave the final decision up to you guys; as always, I'm fine with whatever you decide on this subject.

Cheers, SimonKirby 07:16, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry I didn't reply earlier - real-life concerns kind of crept up on me. To address your comments.
  1. Fawcett Horror Library does contain great materials, but it doesn't contain anything that can't be downloaded for free at Digital Comics Museum and Golden Age Comics. Yes, having them all under one cover is useful, but it's not really the only way to access them. And, again - I am not opposed to linking to the book within individual articles (thats what the Links heading is for)
  2. We already have links to the aforementioned sites at the top bar (under "Resources" and "See Also" tabs). I would not be adverse to creating a page that lists all the resources in one place, complete with the explanation of what each resource actually contains, but I see no value in creatng separate article for every single resource site. Besides, putting them all on one page has an advantage of being concise and easier to navigate.

Strannik01 14:58, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Strannik01 says in this case. Link the library to the characters pages and make one page for resources. Crimsoncrusader 18:42, October 14, 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 characters 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)

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)

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)

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,


Copyright Questions By Travis Legge

Hello.

I basically have some questions regarding the status of some of the characters that do not even appear as disputed (like Captain Marvel, for example).

Phantom Lady appears as a Public Domain character without any dispute. Now, that character was created by Quality, then they closed and it was sold to Fox features (which basically changed her costume from yellow to blue and not much else), and then they disappeared as well. Now the character is used by DC comics.

Now, in the early 70s Paragon Publications began publishing its own revival of Phantom Lady, on the belief that the character had lapsed into the public domain. But DC Comics threatened legal action and they changed their version to "Nightveil" a brand new character which basically the same costume. However, AC Comics, as well as other minor publishers such as Verotik, have nonetheless published reprints of the original Quality and Fox stories without any legal action from DC Comics. Does that mean that only the comics of Phantom Lady from the Golden Age are in Public Domain, but writing new stories featuring the character would not be in the public domain? (Sort of how you can publish old books that are in the public domain.)

I really like this whole public domain superheroes and comics, but more in the lines of writing new stuff than of doing reprints of what was already published a long time ago. And while I do consider that this webpage has a lot of good information both on characters and on legal issues, I'm still reluctant to do anything since legal precedents appear widely in the USA and other countries about several characters. Like the legal battle of DC Comics that "ended" Whiz Comic's Captain Marvel, or how Disney actually won the legal action filed against them from Japan when they claimed that the Lion King was a copy of Kimba the White Lion or how Finding Nemo was a copy of the french children's book "Pierrot: Le Poison Clown". Are people only safe publishing characters like the Golden Age Blue Beetle or the Daredevil (while using them inside the story as not as a title character) only if they have a dream-team of lawyers?


  • Travis,
If Strannik doesn’t mind, I’ll respond here at his talk page.
Taking Phantom Lady as an example, she was “created” by Eisner and Iger Studios and published through some agreement with Quality Comics. Fox then took over the strip and continued it, and DC “bought” Quality in the mid-1950’s. However, here is what isn’t clear at all. Did Quality actually buy Phantom Lady? Or, did they lease it? Does that contract stand up today? What exactly did DC buy in the mid-1950’s? Trademarks or all assets of Quality (Busy Arnold) What is clear is that no one bothered to renew the copyright to the first Phantom Lady stories, so they passed into public domain.
AC began utilizing public domain reprints in the early 1970s, and Paragon is basically the same company. Both were run by a Florida attorney named Bill Black. DC apparently called up Black and told him they felt they owned Phantom Lady, but no one knows what was said, except Black himself. In any case, public domain is public domain and that means that Phantom Lady can be used by everyone, for any purpose.
The main thing that makes people believe that you can reprint old stories, but not make new ones, is the Fleisher Superman Cartoons of the 1940’s. Superman remains under control of DC, and the cartoons are clearly derived from the comics, so, legally, they can’t be sold. Strangely, the law makes no distinction and DC should have been able to sue over those cartoon, but probably didn’t think it would be worth the hassle. So, those are out today.
Phantom Lady and most other characters from the 1940s, who are in public domain are a different story. If the copyright was not extended, there is no copyright, Period. Bill Black and AC have tried to lock up certain characters by “trademarking” them, but this has little legal effect. Further, Dynamite has actually gone so far as to list copyrights for some public characters, but that would only be effective as far as their versions go, the characters underlying are still public domain and usable.
Now, all this being said, anyone can sue anyone over anything. There is no hard and fast rule that immunizes you from being sued. The next questions are 1. Is it likely? And , 2. Would they win? In the case of Phantom Lady, probably not.
Now, lets say you sat down and created Potato Man, the Incredible Spud. DC could sue you on Wednesday, claiming he looks like a character they made up in 1956 and Marvel could sue you on Thursday, claiming Potato Man was similar to a character in a Howard the Duck story in 1977. Are they likely to, probably not? Would they win? Who knows? That’s the risk you take writing stories.
Does DC have a “Scarecrow” character? Yes. Does Marvel? Yes. Does DC have a character called Rampage? You bet. Does Marvel? Um-hmm. Does the Transformers? Indeed they do. DC owns Wonder Woman, Marvel has a Wonder Man. So, why aren’t all these companies suing each other? They don’t feel like it. Given how many people have used Phantom Lady, you’re probably safe. Best case, go ask a lawyer. 66.87.0.186 08:53, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

  • Some misconceptions there. The Fleisher Superman cartoons are public domain and CAN be legally reproduced and sold. The issues come in packaging. What cannot be done is to produce NEW artwork of the character and logos to be placed on the box. However, one can get around that as long as all artwork on the packaging comes from the public domain source.
Thus, while DC can flex their muscles against AC for producing NEW comics with with new art of the character and logos of a character they believe they own via trademark, they cannot do a thing against reprinting the original comics.
The other thing is that trademarks only cover the covers and promotion and advertising. It does not cover content (that's copyright). Thus, the two companies can own characters with the same names. The problems come into play when they try to give them their own titles. This is why event though Marvel allowed Starlin to kill Captain Marvel, that name has always been attached to a character and will always resurface in its own title or figure prominently in other titles every couple of years. It doesn't really matter if the current Captain Marvel title succeeds or fails, once the first issue shipped it achieved its primary objective: to keep the trademark alive. Likewise, DC will probably always keep A Blue Beetle and Captain Atom being published or pushed somewhere considering their quasi-public domain status. If they are smart.
Trademarks are also a little grayer than copyrights in that one of the primary concerns is not whether it's copying from a protected source but whether it can be confused with product from another company, imply endorsement by said company, or making money off of a trademark they built (such as Hardback Cafe gets sued from Hard Rock Cafe as both sell food and the first is banking on the name recognition of the second). Superheroes are now so ubiquitous and by so many companies, it takes far more than just similar names, content, and costumes to justify a lawsuit than it did in the 1940s. And, one can never really be sure what the judge is going to decide.
There is no record of any transferral of copyrights from Quality to DC. Although DC did renew a few post-1950 Quality comics that were published pre-DC, such as Doll Man, a comic DC never actually published.
What I find interesting is that over the last couple of years, DC seems to be recognizing their tentative hold on the Quality and Fawcett characters. They've been giving them complete makeovers, in origins and costumes and could be construed as abandoning the original trademarks. The new characters based on the Quality ones have little resemblance to the originals. Even the Fawcett Captain Marvel is now going by Shazam and has had his costume "updated", in exactly the way that one would expect someone to alter a public domain character in order to secure the rights to the version they are publishing (for example look at the redesigns of the prominent players in Dynamite's SUPERPOWERS, the tweaks in costumes and names uniquely distinguish them from anyone else choosing to make use of the same public domain characters while being similar enough to still recognize them). Putting out a faithful rendition of the Fox, Ajax, or Quality Phantom Lady isn't going to be confused for the character DC is actually publishing as Phantom Lady today. Just don't call her that on the cover.
Ed Love184.35.11.34 14:47, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
    • I was just going to link Travis to our FAQ, but your explanations will work just as well --Strannik01 (talk) 16:24, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
    • Well done gentlemen. I couldn't have put it better myself. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:07, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
Let me make a few addendums here.

While I HIGHLY value this site for informational purposes, one thing that has always bothered me about it, is that a good deal of the information about PD status is speculative, and the site, in my humble opinion, should never be definitive with legal issues.

I never said the Superman cartoons are not PD. What I said was, they are derivative. Derivative works means they were achieved by basing themselves off the original comic book work. A Superman cartoon, is by definition, based off Superman and therefore cannot be sold without DC’s permission. DC, however, has never appeared to care.

This is true of ANY characters DC actually does own, or can make the claim to own. In the case of Phantom Lady and other Quality (Busy Arnold) characters, the claim from DC is dubious, based on what we do know. I noted there was no record of transferal of copyrights from Quality to DC, which in fact, would have been from Everett Arnold to National Periodicals, Inc, or Harry Donnenfeld, but we simply do not know the nature of the agreement those parties had and cannot say definitely what they contain.

So, I believe, and I am not a lawyer, you absolutely CAN call Phantom Lady by that name on a cover, or any other packaging you like without violating any Trademark DC holds. A court would likely look at a publishing house churning out 100’s of titles per month (like DC), issuing a single issue three years prior, and conclude that the action was intended as a trademark trick, rather than a bonfire attempt to establish product identity for an ongoing DC Comics brand. There lays the difference.

I have pointed out here, several times, that in the case of a PD work, I.e., copyright-free, one CANNOT use trademark to protect that work in any way whatsoever. This is covered under the US Supreme Court decision Dastar vs. 20 th Century Fox. The court said, and I quote, “this would allow the creation of a mutant copyright of indefinite duration, and this they may not do.” So, while DC attempts to re-assert trademark over a title by bringing back characters periodically, it has little legal effect following Dastar.

KJR 66.87.4.155 18:27, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

The information concerning the Fleischer Superman cartoons I got from the Library of Congress itself. They used to have a display that covered some of the intricacies of copyrights, especially when going from one source to another. Such as a novel being made into a script for a play and then a movie. The original copyright owners let the rights to the book slide, but the play people renewed the rights to the script. Because the script while derivative is so close to the book, for all intents and purposes they now owned the rights to the story, the movie people had to pay the owners of the play and not the original creators! Tail wagging the dog, so to speak. The Superman cartoons are opposite that. When we say they are public domain, in this case we are talking about the literal meaning of the term "copyright", the right to make copies. Thus, you don't need DC's permission to make, sell and distribute copies because DC gave up that right when they failed to renew. The derivative aspect does extend protection in that you cannot create NEW works based on Superman from the cartoon (although presumably, the villain and robots would be up for grabs). The intellectual property of Superman is still protected. The specific physical product is not. This is why you are required to renew every issue, every story, not just the first. Part of the recent ongoing battle between lawyers concerning Superman was the lawyer trying to do an end-run around the issue, claiming that DC abandoned their rights when they failed to renew some of the newspaper strips. That argument rightly failed, but it shows that when it comes to copyright and trademark law, just being in the right doesn't prevent you from being challenged. You cannot use the lack of copyright of one product to do a run around the rest of the rights. But, they cannot use the trademarks and copyrights of other products to claim ownership of the one that isn't. Publishers make use of this aspect all the time when you see stuff with Tarzan, John Carter, Sherlock Holmes etc. Much of those works are public domain, but there's also some that's not and some of that is regional.

At this point, it doesn't really matter about what the agreement with DC and Quality was concerning most of the Quality characters. The stories were not renewed. Unless you have deep pockets and you wish to challenge their right to renew the post 1950 copyrights of Doll Man or you're interested in the few post 1950 titles that Claire Arnold renewed.

Reading the synopsis of that lawsuit, other than giving me a headache trying to parse lawyer-speak, I don't see the connection to what the thing had to do with trademarks at all, thus why the decision even has that quote. The whole case seemed to be in actuality about copyrights and not trademarks. In fact, the defendents seemed to take special pains to make sure they didn't infringe on any trademarks. Instead, it's similar to the Superman case. Original book and rights are not public domain. But, a derivative film IS. Someone makes a new film under a new title through editing of the public domain film, removing all references to the book. Does support what I was saying about the Fleischer Superman cartoons though. DC cannot use their ownership of the copyrights and trademarks of the character in the comics to block the use of derivative material that fell into public domain Ed Love.74.177.183.78 13:50, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Open Source Characters

Hello,

I've got a question about the Open Source chars. I wasn't sure, but as long as the statement that ends with 'all rights reversed' is applied, are all of them free to interpret as someone sees fit for artwork, etc.?

Thanks for your time.

Heroes

Dear Strannik01,

As a devoted reader of golden age comics, I´ve always dreamt of creating my own magazine with reprints of golden age strips.Is that possible ?

Since most characters are in the public domain, will I face any lawsuit If I publish a comic book using these old forgotten heroes?

All my best,

Elias

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)

New Wiki

Hi, Strannik01, 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) 11:25, October 25, 2013 (UTC).


Hi. I have a question. Is Betty Boop in the public domain? More specifically is her first, named, as-a-human-and-not-and-anthropomorphic-poodle appearance public domain? I heard recently the original estate failed to keep about 5 cartoons from lapsing.  [the source].


Gabriel Ramirez (talk) 17:53, April 14, 2014 (UTC)

Open Source dispute

I've been adding a few of my open source characters to the wiki, but another user has removed them from the Open Source category claiming that they are not, somehow, sufficiently open source. They are licensed CC-BY-SA, which in the general usage is well within the realm of what is considered "open source.". When I asked by what determination or Wiki policy they are not open source, I was referred to an offsite article about Jenny Everywhere that doesn't answer my question and, presumably, does not represent the policy of this wiki. Since you are an administrator, would you please weigh in on this discussion on my talk page ? I think the dispute is a bit silly, but since it's happening perhaps we need an official statement on the matter, too. Illuminarch (talk) 17:14, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Strannik hasn't been here in years now. The only admin that is still active is CrimsonCrusader (but I haven't seen him on here in months either?). I'm not going to argue with you, though. If you want them in that category, put them back there then. That's just the way it's been ever since the open source characters were almost deleted from here altogether. I've been trying to keep them below the radar of setting that talk off again.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:51, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to stir up conflict, either, but rather hoped to avoid one. My point is that your definition of open source is contrary to the general understanding of the term. If nothing is open source unless it includes a paragraph more or less identical to the Jenny Everywhere one, then nothing except Jenny Everywhere and those few characters posted in that category are open source, including all of the Creative Commons, OGL games, GNU, Apache, etc... But in any case, I did not realize that open source characters in general were a point of contention on this wiki. I assumed that since they had their own linked category, there were no major objections to their inclusion. If that's the case, I'll just delete the articles entirely. Illuminarch (talk) 18:02, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

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