DC Using Public Domain IP's: Wasted Opportunity or Waste of Time?

[Ascended]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that DC (and Marvel) doesn't use public domain characters more often? Why is this? Is there a legal/marketing/rights issue I'm not aware of?

We have DC original adaptations like Frankenstein agent of SHADE, Uncle Sam & The Freedom Fighters, and of course things like Atlantis and the Greek gods get plenty of use as part of other (DC exclusive) characters' settings. And every Christmas Santa Claus shows up in one book or another, and Dracula usually shows up somewhere during Halloween. Even Sherlock Holmes makes the occasional appearance.

So why don't we see more public domain figures brought into the DCU and/or used more often? I mean, look at Grant Morrison's Klaus; is anyone going to seriously tell me that *a* version of Santa (or some other public domain figure like Paul Bunyan or whoever) couldn't fit in with the JLA?

Is this sort of thing a good idea? Would it be a benefit to DC if they took a couple public domain figures and really tried to push them and build a DCU mythology for them, in the same way Marvel has built a unique franchise around Thor and Boom! has around Klaus? Or would it be a waste of time that DC would be better off dedicating to their own original concepts and characters? If it's a waste of time, why is that? Many public domain IP's are deeply entrenched in our cultural awareness, while a brand new hero is going to have to build a rep from the ground up and will struggle with sales even if the quality is fantastic (such as with Naomi). Likewise if it's a good idea, why?

Thoughts?

[Fairyprincess]

I think dc should use some of those PD British super hero's that Alan Moore turned up in the last LOEG. Dc doesn't do UK hero's as much as marvel...

[Agent Z]

Two of DC's most famous franchises use public domain characters. Frankenstein doesn't get much use but that is more due to him being a c-lister or lower. All in all, I think DC just doesn't want to be known as the company that mostly relies on public domain stuff like Disney.

There are some mythologies I'd like to see used more like Akan and Filipino mythologies.

[MRP]

Because the most profitable part of comic publishing in the current market (and since the 70s at least if we're being honest where licensing and merchadising earned Marvel and DC more money than publishing comics did) is merchandising, and since they are public domain there is no money to be made licensing them out for merchandise. In the modern market, there is also no money to be made from exploiting them in other media like movies and tv, so why use public domain characters with limited revenues streams over company owned characters that can be exploited and merchandised to create multiple revenue streams?

Also some public domain characters may still have active trademarks associated with them limiting the ability to use them in ways that generate revenue. Public domain only applies to copyrights, not trademarks.

Public domain laws also vary country by country, so selling them in the international market can be challenging, as it may be legal in one country to use a character, but illegal in another country because it hasn't reached public domain there.

So there are any number of issues that make using public domain characters less appealing for a for-profit company that already has it's own body of IP.

-M

[witchboy]

I don't think there's any great demand for this. And if they did it and it were successful, they'd have a hit on their hands with a character they didn't own.

[Jim Kelly]

A company can still own their version of a public domain character. Back in the day Universal owned its version of their monsters and other companies had to negotiate with them to use those iterations. I don't know if that's still true--but Universal probably wanted to reboot their monster universe because they owned those IPs, even if they don't own the original concepts.

When Roy Thomas did Dracula with Dick Giordano--which was a kind of continuation from the Marvel Dracula that Roy had worked on--they had to change the look of the character, because Marvel owns the TOMB OF DRACULA version.

DC's versions of Rima, Beowulf, Robin Hood, the Three Musketeers, the Spawn of Frankenstein are their properties. You can't use the exact same version of those characters--because the copyrights are extant--and some of the trademarks probably are also (but you have to keep using a trademark for it to remain active--which is how Marvel could pick up the Captain Marvel trademark after Fawcett had abandoned it).

[Ascended]

Two of DC's most famous franchises use public domain characters. Frankenstein doesn't get much use but that is more due to him being a c-lister or lower. All in all, I think DC just doesn't want to be known as the company that mostly relies on public domain stuff like Disney.

I'm not suggesting DC *rely* on public domain. Gods no! I'm just surprised that they don't use it a little more. Public domain basically gives you an emotional connection to the audience for free. Everyone knows Santa, Frankenstein's monster, etc. We like those guys already so there's no need to sell us on them.

I've never really looked into public domain law, and was curious if there was a reason for this.

Because the most profitable part of comic publishing in the current market (and since the 70s at least if we're being honest where licensing and merchadising earned Marvel and DC more money than publishing comics did) is merchandising, and since they are public domain there is no money to be made licensing them out for merchandise. In the modern market, there is also no money to be made from exploiting them in other media like movies and tv, so why use public domain characters with limited revenues streams over company owned characters that can be exploited and merchandised to create multiple revenue streams?

Also some public domain characters may still have active trademarks associated with them limiting the ability to use them in ways that generate revenue. Public domain only applies to copyrights, not trademarks.

Public domain laws also vary country by country, so selling them in the international market can be challenging, as it may be legal in one country to use a character, but illegal in another country because it hasn't reached public domain there.

So there are any number of issues that make using public domain characters less appealing for a for-profit company that already has it's own body of IP.

-M

This is what I was hoping to see. Thanks man. I hadn't even considered international rights. I focus more on local business, and public domain isn't something I've ever really looked at. This never crossed my mind, good call.

But even here, okay, some characters might not be public domain in a certain country yet and therefore DC would be unable to use them there. The details might be messy with a particular character. Sure, but this is still just narrowing down the options, not removing them completely. And obviously these public adaptations can do well (as Thor and Klaus both prove). It all makes for extra paper work initially but I still don't get why DC has never set out to use this to greater effect. Or is it perhaps just that they've tried and the market didn't respond? They *did* give Frankie a couple chances, after all.

I don't think there's any great demand for this. And if they did it and it were successful, they'd have a hit on their hands with a character they didn't own.

They could still own a unique version of that public domain character. DC owns Frankie, agent of SHADE. No one else can use him. BOOM! owns Klaus (or Morrison; however BOOM! handles ownership rights). Marvel owns their version of Thor. It just has to be a unique take on the character/concept. I think.

[Zero Hunter]

They did use that idea over at Vertigo with the Fables and Jack of Tales series. Every character in those books was public domain characters. DC probably figures we already used them so well there so there is no need to bring any of that over into the main DCU.

[H-E-D]

Personally I think the idea of putting Santa Claus on the Justice League as a regular is a bold idea whose time has come.

[Ascended]

Personally I think the idea of putting Santa Claus on the Justice League as a regular is a bold idea whose time has come.

Ha! I'm not sure if we're ready for that, but I would definitely be interested in seeing what they'd do with it!

An adjusted and unique build around the Santa mythos could make for a fascinating new addition, and Morrison has proved that there's more than enough there to work with.

And if I'm being honest, I think it *might* make for a powerful claim too. DC has always had the most well known and recognized characters compared to Marvel. Marvel has sold better but the likes of Clark, Bruce, and Diana are known around the whole world, to a level that Marvel still hasn't actually matched despite the success of the MCU.

But that gap is closing. And WB's questionable track record with larger media adaptations isn't something DC can put their faith in (at least not until the movies improve consistently).

It'd be (perhaps) a pretty big statement to have a public domain character like Santa join the League. I mean, it's Santa Claus right? One of the most well known figures on the planet. DC saying that the League is worthy of having him in their ranks is like standing up and announcing that their OG creations like Superman and Batman are just as big, just as culturally important and relevant. It'd be a interesting way for DC to stake their claim and establish that they still matter in a post-MCU world.

Man, I can see how the networks would react to that. I'd love to see Fox News throw a fit about how un-American it is. I want this to happen now, just so I can watch that! lol

[jetengine]

Santa on the league could be interesting. Though I'd maintain him being a fairly peaceful guy who's abilities lend more to transportation and reserve status.

[Jackalope89]

Santa on the league could be interesting. Though I'd maintain him being a fairly peaceful guy who's abilities lend more to transportation and reserve status.

I thought Lobo killed Santa though.

Was about to post pics, but they are kind of graphic.

But anyway, if done right, public domain characters, if done right, can become mainstays. Hippolyta, Queen of the Amazons in the 12 Labors of Heracles, is Wonder Woman's mother for instance.

Wouldn't mind seeing a redemption story for Heracles tied into the Wonder Woman mythos though. The very person that was the root cause of the Amazons going to Themyscira, working to gain their forgiveness.

[Electricmastro]

Not just mythological characters or characters from old novels, but also the characters DC obtained from Fawcett Comics and Quality Comics, such as Golden Arrow and Wildfire.

[Ascended]

I thought Lobo killed Santa though.

Bah, you can't kill Santa!

For DC, I'd actually handle him the same way they handle Uncle Sam. He's the physical embodiment of the holiday spirit; he can "die" but he's never really dead until people stop believing in the holiday itself.

[Electricmastro]

Bah, you can't kill Santa!

For DC, I'd actually handle him the same way they handle Uncle Sam. He's the physical embodiment of the holiday spirit; he can "die" but he's never really dead until people stop believing in the holiday itself.

And is pretty much friends with Superman too!