Superman in the Public Domain Discussion Thread

[D.Z]

The copyright and early version of Superman and anything else in that issue will go into the public domain if no re-extension. The issues, the pages, and the story and expression of the ideas, facts, and concepts included. How the characters work too.

However, the trademarks of titles, names, slogans, phrases, logos and likeness all remain with DC, DC retains all those as long as they renewed.

[Ascended]

I wonder how is this supposed to work with new developments? Like, it is not a crazy idea that Lois eventually starts liking Clark. So you can't do it because it is in later Superman comics? Can you do it if she marries Clark but still doesn't know that he is Superman? Is that different enough?

I'm not sure if there is a concrete answer to this yet, really. Far as I know we've never dealt with this particular issue before, where a company is still actively, consistently using something going public domain, with active trademarks and regular new content and everything. I'm not sure if there's much legal precedent right now.

I think something like 'marriage' is too broad to be locked down. That's kind of like saying 'drives a car' can be protected by copyright. But Clark being married to Lois Lane probably steps over the line.

Them dating is probably even more murky. Technically speaking, they went on a date in Action #1 (it went poorly) and kissed in #5, and maybe that's enough to justify a legal defense for public domain versions dating. You are allowed to expand/develop public material after all. But how that squares with the actual relationships they had later on, that would still be under copyright?

I'd think a public version would likely be better off avoiding the whole hassle and either stick with the triangle for two, or have Clark date a completely different character.

Fortunately, it seems damn unlikely congress will change copyright law before next January so the Mouse will almost certainly go public (Steamboat Willie, anyway), and we'll have a decade of precedence established by the time Clark joins him.

won't it only be a few years before Jimmy does too?

Google says Jimmy has a unnamed appearance in Action #6 (November 1938) so technically you could use that I guess, but he doesn't get a name until the radio serial in 1940, so you'd basically have to wait two years once Clark goes public to properly use Jimmy.

[marhawkman]

I'm not sure if there is a concrete answer to this yet, really. Far as I know we've never dealt with this particular issue before, where a company is still actively, consistently using something going public domain, with active trademarks and regular new content and everything. I'm not sure if there's much legal precedent right now.

I think something like 'marriage' is too broad to be locked down. That's kind of like saying 'drives a car' can be protected by copyright. But Clark being married to Lois Lane probably steps over the line.

Them dating is probably even more murky. Technically speaking, they went on a date in Action #1 (it went poorly) and kissed in #5, and maybe that's enough to justify a legal defense for public domain versions dating. You are allowed to expand/develop public material after all. But how that squares with the actual relationships they had later on, that would still be under copyright?

I'd think a public version would likely be better off avoiding the whole hassle and either stick with the triangle for two, or have Clark date a completely different character.

Fortunately, it seems damn unlikely congress will change copyright law before next January so the Mouse will almost certainly go public (Steamboat Willie, anyway), and we'll have a decade of precedence established by the time Clark joins him.

Google says Jimmy has a unnamed appearance in Action #6 (November 1938) so technically you could use that I guess, but he doesn't get a name until the radio serial in 1940, so you'd basically have to wait two years once Clark goes public to properly use Jimmy.

I suspect this is why DC has been seemingly trying to re-invent DC comics in the last few years with stuff like 5G.

Stop using the public domain stuff, and use new stuff... if you can...

[Ascended]

I suspect this is why DC has been seemingly trying to re-invent DC comics in the last few years with stuff like 5G.

Stop using the public domain stuff, and use new stuff... if you can...

Maybe. But we're still ten years away from this happening, if it happens at all, and I dunno if DC thinks that far ahead.

If you're right, the irony is pretty thick. Clark, Bruce, Diana, all the OG guys who will enter the domain in the 2030's, all of them are wildly different now than they were then and don't really need to be reinvented/changed. Plus, anyone using a public version of these characters will likely want to put their own spin on things, to differentiate them from both the corporate version and anyone else using the public model.

Even the logos will have to be changed, since DC retains active trademarks on all of them. I think a public Superman could use the old triangle shield as far as copyright goes, but trademark law will still prevent them from using that in marketing or on covers.

[marhawkman]

Maybe. But we're still ten years away from this happening, if it happens at all, and I dunno if DC thinks that far ahead.

If you're right, the irony is pretty thick. Clark, Bruce, Diana, all the OG guys who will enter the domain in the 2030's, all of them are wildly different now than they were then and don't really need to be reinvented/changed. Plus, anyone using a public version of these characters will likely want to put their own spin on things, to differentiate them from both the corporate version and anyone else using the public model.

Even the logos will have to be changed, since DC retains active trademarks on all of them. I think a public Superman could use the old triangle shield as far as copyright goes, but trademark law will still prevent them from using that in marketing or on covers.

Well, ditching the main cast and making a new one isn't something you can just do overnight. But yeah, hard to be sure, just guessing.

[manwhohaseverything]

Well, ditching the main cast and making a new one isn't something you can just do overnight. But yeah, hard to be sure, just guessing.

No not really.it depends on how fast the story is told or for what medium.A movie can introduce and establish a new cast in minutes. I think it's the police shield s symbol that's gona enter public domain

[Ascended]

Well, ditching the main cast and making a new one isn't something you can just do overnight. But yeah, hard to be sure, just guessing.

I don't suggest ditching the established cast, but we gotta remember it won't be DC's cast. We'd have Lois right off, but no Jimmy or Perry, no Steve or Cat or Ron. No Kents. A public Superman story will have to fill out the supporting cast, either with fully original characters or by taking minor characters from early Action issues and expanding their role (like the nameless governor from Action #1 who never shows up again; you might turn that guy into Clark's version of James Gordon). Plus, the established characters, like Lois, will forever be under the shadow of copyright, limited by what hasn't gone public yet. Original characters, or characters in the domain who were so under-used they might as well be original, might be necessary no matter what.

[manwhohaseverything]

You could play with superman's powerset..the first explanation for superpowers was literally bugs and insects.I would expand on that.I would make supes be totally normal to look at from outside but be incredibly creepy and different from inside(hide yourself clark..pa kent advice 101).he would be like mr gadget,parasyte,..etc.Him running on electric wires and poles would be totally work with that.
Anyways point is you could get inspired.

[marhawkman]

I don't suggest ditching the established cast, but we gotta remember it won't be DC's cast. We'd have Lois right off, but no Jimmy or Perry, no Steve or Cat or Ron. No Kents. A public Superman story will have to fill out the supporting cast, either with fully original characters or by taking minor characters from early Action issues and expanding their role (like the nameless governor from Action #1 who never shows up again; you might turn that guy into Clark's version of James Gordon). Plus, the established characters, like Lois, will forever be under the shadow of copyright, limited by what hasn't gone public yet. Original characters, or characters in the domain who were so under-used they might as well be original, might be necessary no matter what.

Hunh, i meant DC ditching the parts of the Superman cast that are public domain.

I have to wonder what the end result will actually be.

[Ascended]

Hunh, i meant DC ditching the parts of the Superman cast that are public domain.

I have to wonder what the end result will actually be.

Oh. Well, who can say what DC/WB might think wise, but I don't think they'd do that. Keeping with the development and growth these characters have seen is the best way to keep them distinct from anything the domain might do. Seems to me if DC drops Lois and the other public elements, all they're doing is giving some of Clark's best stuff to the competition. It'll only hurt them, not anyone else. But given the way they squirmed with the lawsuit, who knows what they might do? Presuming, as always, that Action #1 ever makes it to the domain. Seems damn unlikely anything will stop Steamboat Willie going public, but a lot can happen in ten years.

DC has almost all the advantage here. Nearly everything people consider 'classic' or 'essential' Superman won't enter the domain for years even after Action #1 does. The decades of weird imaginary tales from the Silver Age on through to today's Elseworlds have helped build huge barriers to anything a domain story might try to do, since DC can point to all manner of crazy things (from marriage to abandoning earth) and say 'We did it first, and still own it!' Even if they can't win that fight legally, the pressure of an expensive lawsuit will stop a lot of folks from using domain Clark. The only serious options public Supes has anyway is to either retread the path DC originally carved, limiting yourself to just retelling their old stories, or push things in such a different direction it will barely be recognizable as "Superman" to the casual smuck on the street (and that'll be a challenge anyway).

The only major advantage public domain has, in my mind, is access to the raw energy of the Golden Age from back before Superman became a corporate concern. Those are the stories that launched a whole genre, there's a lot of power there, and they connected to their readers in a way modern comics rarely do. I could see fans embracing a old school, public Superman who tackles real problems while DC keeps the guy apolitical and mostly removed from the plight of the common man. There's an avenue for that to happen, where a domain story could capture the people's hearts and minds like Clark did back in 38. But even if DC's lawyers don't badger you into quitting, making a successful Superman story when you don't have access to most of his iconic elements....that's not an easy thing.

[Zero Hunter]

I suspect this is why DC has been seemingly trying to re-invent DC comics in the last few years with stuff like 5G.

Stop using the public domain stuff, and use new stuff... if you can...

All these new characters and the whole 5G thing was Didio trying to make himself a legacy. Writers were more than happy to jump on board hoping their new creations (knock offs) would get used in other media so they could get a piece of that Hollywood money. None of those new characters were created for actual storytelling reasons.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Variety: When Superman and Batman Copyrights Expire in a Decade, Will It Be Kryptonite for DC?

[Jeffrey2]

Variety: When Superman and Batman Copyrights Expire in a Decade, Will It Be Kryptonite for DC?

It may be a blessing in disguise. Imagine where AI will be in a decade. AI in particular opens up these IPs to use by smaller scale entities and not just the big studios. AI is going to transform Hollywood and one way it will do it is the "easy" exploitation of things which have gone into the public domain.

Gunn and Safran are constantly stating that they're using today's diamonds (like Superman) to create tomorrow's diamonds and maybe that's driven by this. WBD can continue to make its version of Superman or Batman, but it will be diluted by potentially many other versions and some more popular. That Gunn said he's introducing The Authority in Superman Legacy because the Superman copyright will be expiring casts a new light on the direction his DCU is going that I hadn't considered. It may explain why so many characters are being introduced in SL. It's not that the story demands it as Gunn claims, it's that the financials demand it given the IP situation. Maybe this is why there are no more rumored Superman projects, and it doesn't seem he will be a big factor in the DCU going forward. This while many projects are rumored for second-tier characters whose IPs WBD owns for decades to come.

Love the Snyder comment. Just got a notification from a podcaster about it. The Snyder boys will have their day. Still, he could not use Justice League or kryptonite or Luthor or Darkside, so it'd be a new take which is fine. It wouldn't surprise me to see Snyder try something like this. Funny they called Snyder's vision creepy - hell yes!

[Jeffrey2]

John Campea and Rob Bennett on IPs going public

[HsssH]

My fear with AI is that we'll get so much material that good stuff will get burried under lots of crap and derivative ideas.