Comics UK

ISPYSHHHGUY wrote:The 50s EAGLE is never 'out of print' on illegal disc...which seems very odd, especially regarding the banning of the Dan Dare-related imagery on this very forum.

Yes, that surprises me. I'd have thought the Dan Dare Corporation would be down on them like a ton of bricks!

- Phil R.

Is there much post-war UK or US comic art that's genuinely out of copyright?

ISPYSHHHGUY wrote: The 50s EAGLE is never 'out of print' on illegal disc...which seems very odd, especially regarding the banning of the Dan Dare-related imagery on this very forum.

I know, I know - I'm not around enough to pay attention etc. But what were the specifics of that episode, if you don't mind my asking?

A businessman bought the rights to the DAN DARE character from EAGLE [1950s original] and all it's trademarked likenesses a few years back, Twoheadedboy---they paid a fair amount [a quarter of a Million if I remember---maybe more!]

Whoever shells out that kind of cash will obviously look after their interests, but the person complained about 'fair use' examples of EAGLE and DAN DARE when discovered on this forum, and I remember Al saying he recieved stern messages demanding an end to this 'misuse'.

I thought it was over-reacting on the new rights' holders' part myself----surely there's nothing wrong in bringing attention examples of classic comic art and characters to a newer generation of fans, who could discover them here-------and it's astonishing how these mass-produced EAGLE comics on disc are allowed to multiply like the proverbial rabbits [and have been for ages].

It's difficult to believe the EAGLE copyright holder doesn't know about these dodgy discs, maybe he has been advised by lawyers that it's too hard to 'plug?'-----if one bootlegger is shut down, another simply reappears with digital copies of the same material....difficult to enforce effectively, I do agree......

suebutcher wrote:Is there much post-war UK or US comic art that's genuinely out of copyright?

I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK copyright generally persists for 70 years after the creator's death (or 70 years after first publication where the author is unknown) - so technically I'd guess that all post-war work should still be covered.

In the case of an obscure character published by a long-defunct publisher such as Gerald Swan, however, I doubt if anybody would care very much (unless, of course, it suddenly became a 'hot property' in the way that Mick Anglo's Marvelman did).

ISPYSHHHGUY wrote: Whoever shells out that kind of cash will obviously look after their interests, but the person complained about 'fair use' examples of EAGLE and DAN DARE when discovered on this forum, and I remember Al saying he recieved stern messages demanding an end to this 'misuse'.

Cheers for that - seems a bit petty, surely if this "businessman" was truly a "businessman" he'd appreciate a bit of exposure, which could lead to some nice royalties? I'll never understand those people

suebutcher wrote:Is there much post-war UK or US comic art that's genuinely out of copyright?

Art is not copyrightable, only publication of the art is copyrightable. Copyright is a publisher's protection, generally nothing to do with the person drawing the illustration (unless he or she is also the publisher).

You or I or anyone can buy original artwork (preferrably from the artist or their estate) and hang it on our wall or show it to friends and are not breaching copyright. If we then put it on this forum or our own blog or in a fanzine or on a disc and sell it to the public, we are breaching copyright.

As copyright is a publisher's protection, and lasts for 70 years, all a publisher has to do is print a picture or story featuring a particular character today, and it is protected for 70 years starting from today.

The individual illustrator's right to copyright protection is signed over to the publisher upon reciept of the agreed payment for that specific purpose.

So technically, EVERY comics blog out there is breaching copyright, even though there's no monetary gain.

Hmmm... Copyright and censorship are both the most nonsensical laws I know of. If we followed those laws TO THE LETTER, if someone bought a DVD, it'd be ONLY the person who bought that DVD who would be legally able to watch it. No friends or family allowed in the room at that time.

It's a sticky one, that's for sure.

TwoHeadedBoy wrote:So technically, EVERY comics blog out there is breaching copyright.

Technically, yes, though MOST copyright holders are grown-up and phlegmatic about it, MOST of the time. If they're not losing money, they generally don't mind and sometimes even support it tacitly or otherwise recognising that it's a form of promotion.

NP wrote:As copyright is a publisher's protection, and lasts for 70 years, all a publisher has to do is print a picture or story featuring a particular character today, and it is protected for 70 years starting from today.

If that's true then how do characters like Sherlock Holmes ever come out of copyright? (Unless it's because 'proper' writers like Conan Doyle weren't expected to sign over all their rights to the publisher?) I'm not trying to be awkward here - it's just that this whole area genuinely confuses me.

- Phil R.

Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright. However, it is also trademarked, meaning that it can't be used on, for example, book titles but can be used in the book text.

starscape wrote:Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright. However, it is also trademarked, meaning that it can't be used on, for example, book titles but can be used in the book text.

...,Which is, presumably, why DC can publish Captain Marvel stories but not a 'Captain Marvel' comic!

As far as I can tell Winnie the Pooh should be out of copyright in about twelve years as well - in spite of the fact that Disney bought the rights from A. A. Milne's heirs. I wonder how that compares to the situation with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck - or Dennis the Menace and Desperate Dan for that matter?

- Phil R.

starscape wrote:Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright. However, it is also trademarked, meaning that it can't be used on, for example, book titles but can be used in the book text.

Do you mean that the name can't be used at all in a book title, or just without first obtaining permission from the trademark holder? Either way, is this a recent ruling? I've just picked out a couple of books from one of my bookcases, Sherlock Holmes Detected by Ian McQueen, and The Ultimate Sherlock Holmes Encyclopedia by Jack Tracy, and apart from the usual statements about the author's copyright, and the standard restrictions imposed by the publisher, nowhere is there any mention of a blanket restriction on the use of the name Sherlock Holmes being placed on any future author.

AA Milne's books don't come out of copyright until 2026, 70 years after his death, and E H Shepard's illustrations come out of copyright in 2046. On the other hand, the trademarks held by Disney may well prevent republication.

It's all highly complex, and I'm slowly trying to make sense of it.

Yes, Copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the original creator, so they can continue to profit from it throughout their life. Copyrights held by a company do not 'expire', and are passed on to a company which buys up that company. For instance, Sexton Blake is still copyrighted, despite the fact Harry Blyth died in 1898. Of course, some companies just 'disappear' leaving things in a sort of limbo (for instance, loads of the short-run comics of the late 40's).
Also, a company (in the case of comics and books, the publisher) does not automatically become the owner of the copyright, though in UK and US comics this is the norm (see Superman... or Sexton Blake!). The BBC owns Doctor Who, but the Terry Nation Estate owns The Daleks, for instance.

If there's more than one creator working on something, then the copyright 'waits' until the last of them has died. I believe that in the case of films "the creators" are the scriptwriter, director, set designer, costume designer and soundtrack composer.