The public domain status of the Charlton characters and more

[James Cameron]

I think DC's handeling of them is the only reason anyone knows who they are these days. Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, and The Question all carried series for years. Nightshade and Peacemaker have been faetured on and off on teams since they were aquired. Even after their solo series ended Cap and BB were mainstays in DC's falgship team book for years. If anything without DC these characters would more than likely be for the most part totaly forgotten these days.

Well the Captain Atom everyone knows these days is Nathaniel Adam not Allen Adam, and he's pretty much an entirely different character. The Blue Beetle most people know is Jaime, and Vic Sage still has recognition but has been pretty stagnant. Nightshade and Peacemaker seem to be the only ones who still appear as their original incarnations most of the time. I think if there were a chance that even a couple of these characters were PD, it would be cool to see a continuation of their original incarnations. Or DC could do a Pax Americana book...

[Captain Nostalgia]

I think DC's handeling of them is the only reason anyone knows who they are these days. Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, and The Question all carried series for years. Nightshade and Peacemaker have been faetured on and off on teams since they were aquired. Even after their solo series ended Cap and BB were mainstays in DC's falgship team book for years. If anything without DC these characters would more than likely be for the most part totaly forgotten these days.

Well you bring up a valid point that is hard to argue with at first. In the mid/late 80's you had...

Captain Atom (5 year run)
The Question (3 year run)
Blue Beetle (2 year run)
Peacemaker (Short mini series)

but that's the heyday, since then.....it's been pretty much been mini series and team cameo appearances at best.

As the other poster pointed out, they tried to permanently kill off & replace some of these characters at a time when Vic Sage was popular, largely as a result of the JLU cartoon, and Ted Kord had built quite the following as a result of the JLI.

While it is true I would probably have no idea who these characters were if DC had not have initially picked them up...as a huge fan of them I can say....

if they were released to public domain or a smaller company like Dark Horse, there is the potential that they would have their comic runs again, either through an indie company or fan content.

[twiztor]

Every bit of research I have done on the public domain status of the pre DC Charlton characters such as Captain Atom and Blue Beetle has yielded the response "probably not."

And while I agree, I'm curious about the why and how. I'm no expert on copyright law and mind you, I have no plans whatsoever to make a comic or story featuring DC characters, but I found this quote interesting:

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/839503

So if this is true-- can it seriously be assumed that someone could use DG BB and the original Allen Adam in their story without any legal response from DC? How exactly does this work and how can one find this out definitively? I understand that "it's DC, you don't want to do it either way" but I'm interested in discussing it regardless.

There are several "fan made" publications out there of old Charlton, Fawcett, and Quality comics, including some old Captain Marvel stories! And I even read somewhere that the original version of Captain Marvel is public domain, but he can't be called Captain Marvel or Billy Batson or look like him, and can't be on the cover, and his character has to be based on the character in the specific issues that are public domain and not anything else. So if it's true, then CM jr would also be PD.

Does anyone (with or without knowledge of copyright law) have any insight into this mystery?

"can it seriously be assumed that someone could use DG BB and the original Allen Adam in their story without any legal response from DC?"
short answer: No, you can not safely assume that. DC would absolutely do whatever they could to stop the characters being used.
it does SEEM as if a lot of the Charlton catalog should be in the public domain due to missing copyrights and the like. The problem is, DC "bought" these characters from Charlton, so they claim ownership. If somebody really wanted, they could try to use them, and fight DC in the courts. However, that would be a long and expensive battle, and there's every likelihood that the courts would side with DC due to the purchase and subsequent use of the characters. It would be on the infringer to prove that these characters are in the PD, and that's probably not worth the effort.

who is wearing the costume (i.e. Ted Kord vs. Dan Garrett vs. Dan Garret) is largely irrelevant in this instance.

[Kirk Brent]

Regarding copyright law and big names in general, there's no way WB Discovery and Disney aren't going to try to get the laws changed as they have in the past. Big corporations and politicians/lawmakers are in bed together and stand to profit from their partnership. Mickey Mouse might lapse but Superman will be locked up before 2034.

[Jon Clark]

Regarding copyright law and big names in general, there's no way WB Discovery and Disney aren't going to try to get the laws changed as they have in the past. Big corporations and politicians/lawmakers are in bed together and stand to profit from their partnership. Mickey Mouse might lapse but Superman will be locked up before 2034.

I'm sure that is true for Batman but I can almost see WB's past management figuring locking down the trademark for Jon Kent but not seeing the value in Clark's past stories. Not that they won't but that unless Batman's rights are in jeopardy the enthusiasm won't be that high.

[James Cameron]

Regarding copyright law and big names in general, there's no way WB Discovery and Disney aren't going to try to get the laws changed as they have in the past. Big corporations and politicians/lawmakers are in bed together and stand to profit from their partnership. Mickey Mouse might lapse but Superman will be locked up before 2034.

The way I see it is DC can own Superman, but in my opinion the Superman/Clark Kent from the early Action issues should be PD.

[Ascended]

Regarding copyright law and big names in general, there's no way WB Discovery and Disney aren't going to try to get the laws changed as they have in the past. Big corporations and politicians/lawmakers are in bed together and stand to profit from their partnership. Mickey Mouse might lapse but Superman will be locked up before 2034.

I've said the same. It's hard to imagine a giant corporation willingly letting go of anything they don't have to.

Though there *is* some reason to think that, perhaps, lobbyists won't successfully change the law again. Right now, the GOP and Disney are at odds with each other. WB is in such a state of chaos they're virtually useless. The public is far more aware of the public domain issue than they were the last time congress extended the deadline. Given the public perception of politicians, big business, and politicians lining their pockets with big business money....it's possible that the law won't successfully be changed again.

Hell, it's possible Disney won't even put up a fight over it. They'll still retain trademarks, film rights, etc., copyright on 99% of the material, and they've bought up some of the biggest IP on earth including Marvel and Star Wars. Even if Steamboat Willie did enter the public domain, Disney could likely make using it such a headache nobody will bother. And if someone *did* somehow manage to do something with the public domain material, the Mouse and his friends are no longer the company's primary source of revenue.

Plus, if Disney does want to do something about this, they're running out of time. They got about a year and a half to push an extension through, which isn't a *ton* of time, given how slowly Washington can move. With congress locked up in partisan bullsh*t, I can easily see the democrats refusing to play ball just to piss off the republicans. Which might mean that if anything is gonna happen, it'll have to wait until after midterms...assuming the republicans do in fact retake control, which is likely but not certain.

And if Disney loses the Mouse to public domain, I don't see them putting much effort into helping guys like WB retain control of IP like Superman. So if WB wants to challenge the law between now and Clark going public in a decade, they'll probably have to do it without Disney's help....and I honestly don't know if WB can lobby for that on their own.

I wouldn't bet on Steamboat Willie entering the public domain, much less Superman and Batman. But I don't think a extension of copyright law is the foregone conclusion it would've been a few years ago.

[Kirk Brent]

I've said the same. It's hard to imagine a giant corporation willingly letting go of anything they don't have to.

Though there *is* some reason to think that, perhaps, lobbyists won't successfully change the law again. Right now, the GOP and Disney are at odds with each other. WB is in such a state of chaos they're virtually useless. The public is far more aware of the public domain issue than they were the last time congress extended the deadline. Given the public perception of politicians, big business, and politicians lining their pockets with big business money....it's possible that the law won't successfully be changed again.

Hell, it's possible Disney won't even put up a fight over it. They'll still retain trademarks, film rights, etc., copyright on 99% of the material, and they've bought up some of the biggest IP on earth including Marvel and Star Wars. Even if Steamboat Willie did enter the public domain, Disney could likely make using it such a headache nobody will bother. And if someone *did* somehow manage to do something with the public domain material, the Mouse and his friends are no longer the company's primary source of revenue.

Plus, if Disney does want to do something about this, they're running out of time. They got about a year and a half to push an extension through, which isn't a *ton* of time, given how slowly Washington can move. With congress locked up in partisan bullsh*t, I can easily see the democrats refusing to play ball just to piss off the republicans. Which might mean that if anything is gonna happen, it'll have to wait until after midterms...assuming the republicans do in fact retake control, which is likely but not certain.

And if Disney loses the Mouse to public domain, I don't see them putting much effort into helping guys like WB retain control of IP like Superman. So if WB wants to challenge the law between now and Clark going public in a decade, they'll probably have to do it without Disney's help....and I honestly don't know if WB can lobby for that on their own.

I wouldn't bet on Steamboat Willie entering the public domain, much less Superman and Batman. But I don't think a extension of copyright law is the foregone conclusion it would've been a few years ago.

My guess is Disney doesn't care a wit about Mickey Mouse. They haven't done anything substantial with the character in quite a while and they probably realize their current awful public image wouldn't support a revamping of Mickey to make him either "hip" or "culturally sensitive."

Superman, at least the name and concept, seems to still have relevance for WB/Discovery. I personally think their Jon Kent revamp will ultimately fail in a few years. They'll then attempt an ethnic swap and/or a gender swap with Supergirl. When these fail, they'll return to the basics: white Clark Kent from the Midwest as Superman. If they get through this cycle by, let's say, 2028, that's plenty of time to put together a successful Superman film. If that happens, they'll fight to lock up the rights again.

As much as I love Superman, I think the best hope for preserving the character's core values and symbolism is in a homage/analogue. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Marvel do this (with Hyperion or a retooled Sentry) or an independent publisher on the comics side of things.

[Ascended]

My guess is Disney doesn't care a wit about Mickey Mouse. They haven't done anything substantial with the character in quite a while and they probably realize their current awful public image wouldn't support a revamping of Mickey to make him either "hip" or "culturally sensitive."

Oh, I think Disney cares very much about Mickey Mouse. Wall Street Journal says that in 2018, Mickey and the characters associated with the brand (Minnie, Goofy, etc) made 3 billion dollars. That might not be as much as Marvel or Star Wars (I didn't check their revenues but I assume they gross more) but it's still a huge amount of money. Disney still cares very much.

But unlike DC, who have put all their eggs in one Bat shaped basket and are utterly dependent on that one brand, Disney doesn't have to rely on the Mouse. And perhaps they think that the fight to extend copyright law isn't worth the cost. They're not coming at it from a position of strength right now, and public opinion will certainly be against them. Might be more profitable to just let it go, rather than risk a lobbying attempt in this cultural climate, with elections around the corner. Steamboat Willie bears little resemblance to the Mickey Mouse we know today anyway, and the options for adaptations are limited. Perhaps Disney figures they can let early stuff like Willie go, but plan to lobby for copyright extensions later on when a more familiar version of Mickey is on the table.

Superman, at least the name and concept, seems to still have relevance for WB/Discovery. I personally think their Jon Kent revamp will ultimately fail in a few years. They'll then attempt an ethnic swap and/or a gender swap with Supergirl. When these fail, they'll return to the basics: white Clark Kent from the Midwest as Superman. If they get through this cycle by, let's say, 2028, that's plenty of time to put together a successful Superman film. If that happens, they'll fight to lock up the rights again.

There's little/no real chance of Jon permanently replacing Clark, but it's possible he'll carve out a sustainable corner for himself just as Kara and Conner did. Time will tell. But while you never know what they might do with Kara, I don't foresee any serious effort going into her. For a minute, WB seemed to maybe see her as a potential focus but word from the new owners is that they want to push Clark and get him back on top.

Regardless of what they do or what happens with the Super brand though, I doubt WB has the juice to successfully lobby a change in copyright law without support from some other big players. They'll need Disney's help to pull it off. No Disney, no successful lobby. Maybe by the time Superman is up for the public domain Disney will be willing to get into that fight. Maybe they're willing to now, but in either case I don't see WB pulling it off alone.

As much as I love Superman, I think the best hope for preserving the character's core values and symbolism is in a homage/analogue. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Marvel do this (with Hyperion or a retooled Sentry) or an independent publisher on the comics side of things.

I suppose it depends on what "core values" you think embody Superman. The progressive social crusader of the 30's? The conservative establishment man of the 50's? I think you're going down the wrong rabbit hole here; Superman shifts with the times and always has, while still remaining recognizable. Superman doesn't need to be "preserved" because the character is going to outlast all of us. He's so embedded in the cultural consciousness there's no removing him. He'll ebb and flow with the times, as always, rise and slide in popularity, as always, and different flavors will go in and out of style, as always. But he isn't going anywhere.

[Zero Hunter]

The way I see it is DC can own Superman, but in my opinion the Superman/Clark Kent from the early Action issues should be PD.

That has always been my sticking point about something falling into PD. If something is not and has not been used in a years sure, but when something has been in active use all this time I don't think someone else should be able to profit off it.

[Digifiend]

Oh, I think Disney cares very much about Mickey Mouse. Wall Street Journal says that in 2018, Mickey and the characters associated with the brand (Minnie, Goofy, etc) made 3 billion dollars. That might not be as much as Marvel or Star Wars (I didn't check their revenues but I assume they gross more) but it's still a huge amount of money. Disney still cares very much.

Yeah, you probably just don't see Mickey much because his shows are usually on Disney Junior nowadays. So unless you have young kids, or are a fan of the Kingdom Hearts video games, you won't see Mickey. But he's very much still an active property.

[Jon Clark]

That has always been my sticking point about something falling into PD. If something is not and has not been used in a years sure, but when something has been in active use all this time I don't think someone else should be able to profit off it.

But I think the idea was to make it like patents. The inventor gets a set amount of time with a monopoly on making the product but eventually they have to compete with others to make the best version of the product. Imagine a world where Thomas Edison and his heirs had locked up perpetual patents on lightbulbs, motion picture equipment, and a ton of other things for the last 150 years.