View Poll Results: Should "Action Comics #1" have entered the public domain after 56 years?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • The limit for old copyrights should have stayed at 56 years.

    15 35.71%
  • Raising the limit to 75 years was okay, but they should have stopped there.

    10 23.81%
  • Raising the limit to 95 years was okay, but I hope they stop there.

    1 2.38%
  • Other (please explain!)

    16 38.10%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55
  1. #31
    Legendary Member daBronzeBomma's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Usually at the End of Time
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorendiac View Post
    I'm not following that. I'm pretty fond of capitalism, myself, but that doesn't mean I think corporate-owned copyrights and patents should be allowed to last forever as some sort of sacred imperative.

    In other words, my definition of "being pro-capitalism" does not include saying: "Big corporations are absolutely trustworthy and we should always tailor our laws to make things as profitable for them as humanly possible!"
    Who said anything about copyrights lasting forever? I certainly didn't. I said Superman (and other fictional entities with a clear point of origin like Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, etc) should not enter the public domain.

    Personally, copyrights should be constantly renewable for large blocks of time for a fee. If at the time of renewal, the copyright holders choose not to pay the fee, they lose the copyright and the franchise. Alternatively, DC/Warner and Marvel/Disney should have the right to sell any one of its franchises if they so choose (which, of course, they never will voluntarily).

    Either way, this whole conversation is moot.

    Corporations like Warner and Disney may not be making a lot of public noise about changing the copyright laws right now simply because ... they don't have to. This is one of those things that gets handled behind the scenes and with as minimal fanfare as possible. That copyright extension will happen, because there are way "Sexier" issues for congress to appear to care about, and both Warner and Marvel have a HUGE stake in making sure the extension happens. And keeps happening. So they will line their congressperson's pockets accordingly, and since the American general public does not give two bits about this kind of stuff, corporation will hold onto their toys.

    When Art battles Business, Business crushes Art. Every single time.

  2. #32
    Incredible Member Lorendiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Kid View Post
    Furthermore, only Action Comics #1 would go into the public domain. Not the trademark or other hallmarks of the character. I think that's fair. It's been, what, about 75 years since it came out right?
    1938 to 2015 -- it's been 77 years (maybe a couple of months less, if that matters) since "Action Comics #1" hit the newsstands. If the changes which Congress made in the 1970s had been left alone -- setting a cap of 75 years of copyright protection on the old stuff -- then the full contents of "Action Comics #1" would already be in the public domain right now. (In the USA, at least).

  3. #33
    Astonishing Member The Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daBronzeBomma View Post
    Who said anything about copyrights lasting forever? I certainly didn't. I said Superman (and other fictional entities with a clear point of origin like Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, etc) should not enter the public domain.

    Personally, copyrights should be constantly renewable for large blocks of time for a fee. If at the time of renewal, the copyright holders choose not to pay the fee, they lose the copyright and the franchise. Alternatively, DC/Warner and Marvel/Disney should have the right to sell any one of its franchises if they so choose (which, of course, they never will voluntarily).

    Either way, this whole conversation is moot.

    Corporations like Warner and Disney may not be making a lot of public noise about changing the copyright laws right now simply because ... they don't have to. This is one of those things that gets handled behind the scenes and with as minimal fanfare as possible. That copyright extension will happen, because there are way "Sexier" issues for congress to appear to care about, and both Warner and Marvel have a HUGE stake in making sure the extension happens. And keeps happening. So they will line their congressperson's pockets accordingly, and since the American general public does not give two bits about this kind of stuff, corporation will hold onto their toys.

    When Art battles Business, Business crushes Art. Every single time.
    Of course it is moot but the question is should it. Business crushes just about everything so yes you are right.

  4. #34
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    I think copyrights should ONLY belong to the originator of a work and exist only for that person's lifetime plus a nominal period of say 5 years to prevent someon being able to . So Jerry and Joe would hold the rights to Superman - not their heirs and not DC/Warner- and when Joe and Jerry died the work would all fall into public domain in one fell swoop.

    It's a pipedream, I know but I'm just not a fan of locking up ideas in perpetuity because an artificial immortal entity like a corporation or an estate takes the rights. Can you imagine a world where all of our folktales, myths, and great works of literature had been copyrighted. The Olympus Corp controlling all rights to any use of Hercules, Zeus, Pegasus, etc. The Shakespeare Estate suing the creators of West Side Story for infringing on Romeo & Juliet.

  5. #35
    Incredible Member Lorendiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daBronzeBomma View Post
    I like capitalism well enough, so my answer is Action Comics #1 should NEVER enter the public domain, so long as DC Comics exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorendiac View Post
    I'm not following that. I'm pretty fond of capitalism, myself, but that doesn't mean I think corporate-owned copyrights and patents should be allowed to last forever as some sort of sacred imperative.
    Quote Originally Posted by daBronzeBomma View Post
    Who said anything about copyrights lasting forever? I certainly didn't. I said Superman (and other fictional entities with a clear point of origin like Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, etc) should not enter the public domain.

    Personally, copyrights should be constantly renewable for large blocks of time for a fee. If at the time of renewal, the copyright holders choose not to pay the fee, they lose the copyright and the franchise. Alternatively, DC/Warner and Marvel/Disney should have the right to sell any one of its franchises if they so choose (which, of course, they never will voluntarily).
    Now I'm very confused.

    To answer your question: I thought you were talking about modern copyrights lasting forever. To me, "the Superman copyright should last forever" and "Superman should never enter the public domain" are two statements that mean exactly the same thing!

    If your position is that DC/Warner should have the option of paying to "renew the Superman copyright" at regular intervals, over and over again, with the copyright never being legally mandated to finally die of old age after a hard-and-fast time limit has been reached, then for all practical purposes isn't that the same as "the copyrights on Superman and other popular 20th Century creations ought to be allowed to last forever"?

    You seem to feel there's a distinction between "Superman should not enter the public domain" and "copyrights should last forever," since you claim you favor the first of those ideas, but don't endorse the second one, but I'm unable to see the distinction.

  6. #36
    Legendary Member daBronzeBomma's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Usually at the End of Time
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorendiac View Post
    Now I'm very confused.

    To answer your question: I thought you were talking about modern copyrights lasting forever. To me, "the Superman copyright should last forever" and "Superman should never enter the public domain" are two statements that mean exactly the same thing!

    If your position is that DC/Warner should have the option of paying to "renew the Superman copyright" at regular intervals, over and over again, with the copyright never being legally mandated to finally die of old age after a hard-and-fast time limit has been reached, then for all practical purposes isn't that the same as "the copyrights on Superman and other popular 20th Century creations ought to be allowed to last forever"?

    You seem to feel there's a distinction between "Superman should not enter the public domain" and "copyrights should last forever," since you claim you favor the first of those ideas, but don't endorse the second one, but I'm unable to see the distinction.
    Maybe I should rephrase what I mean: "Conditional Renewal"

    Corporations should be able to renew their copyrights indefinitely on any and all franchises, provided they continue to meet some conditions. My own conditions would be simple.

    #1) Consistently pay the block renewal fee, which would vary from each time block and be adjusted for inflation along the way. If they can't pay, then they lose the exclusive rights

    #2) During said time block, at least a minimal amount of good-faith effort has to be made to promote said franchise. That means consistently putting out product. They can't hold exclusive rights and shelve the franchise to do nothing with it.

    DC should be able to exclusively hold onto Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and the rest of the DCU, provided they continue to meet both of the previous two conditions. Otherwise, next time around, they lose the copyright.

    It'll never come to even that much. Warner and Disney will own Congress on this issue, and Congress has very little incentive to push back at all.

  7. #37
    Incredible Member Lorendiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    922

    Default

    I just now checked up on this thread for the first time in months. I see that by the time the voting stopped, nearly half of us (including yours truly!) favored the idea that the lifespan of "old copyrights" (such as Golden Age comic books) should have been left at 56 years. That was far and away the most popular opinion.

    On the other hand, the least popular option was the suggestion that the current rules for "old copyrights" (a maximum of 95 years) are the right way to handle things! One fan embraced that position; everyone else gave it the cold shoulder!

    Does anyone else care to cast a vote to show where you think the "magic number" should be for the maximum length of a U.S. copyright on old comic books (and other material)?

  8. #38
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    I've no legal opinion on this. I'm sure there are good reasons in law why the different limits have been set. For example, it's good that drug companies don't get to hold the rights on life-saving medicines and charge unreasonable prices for them.

    On the other hand, I feel like artists and entertainment companies should get to hold the rights to their product forever. If I have a piece of land and I hand it down to my daughter and she hands it down to her son and so on, then I don't see why that land should ever go out of the family. Or even if I want to give my land to a stranger, that should be on me. Why would I lose my rights to my land and naming who ought to get it after I die?

    To me creative product is like that. My grandparents had to prove their land. They got it for free, but if they didn't work it then they would have to forfeit it, but once they gained title then they held title for good. So I can see if a product isn't worked, then it falls into the public domain and someone can pick it up and use it. But so long as the product is being worked, then the people who have title should get to keep title.

    It bothers me that John Carter and Tarzan can be taken away from the Burroughs family. When you know the story of Edgar Rice Burroughs and what creating John Carter and then Tarzan meant to his family, it seems criminal that that should ever be taken away--especially since the family has a continuitng interest in these properties. A man who has creative talent, and not much else to make his fortune, only has that to pass on to his family. Many artists break their back working to build up a legacy they can pass on--and I think that's what was so important to Jerry Siegel as he grew older. He wanted to establish his legacy for future generations of his family.

    If a Donald Trump can give his fortune to his kids and they to their kids--then why shouldn't Jerry Siegel be able to give his creative fortune to his kids and they to their kids?

    It's not a legal argument, but that's my feeling. However, in the case of Superman--except as it affects the Siegel and Shuster families--i don't think copyright should matter anyhow. Superman is a trademark item and as long as DC uses that trademark, I don't think they should lose it. We can pass around scans of the original comics as fair use, but DC retains the trademark on all those images--or they should, in my opinion. So their interest in Superman should never expire, unless they no longer want to do anything with Superman (either by reproducing old Superman product or creating new Superman product).

    So as far as DC is concerned, I feel like the copyright law is immaterial and trademark overrides that. Nobody should be able to use Superman without the consent of DC, given they are the trademark holder.

  9. #39
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I've no legal opinion on this. I'm sure there are good reasons in law why the different limits have been set. For example, it's good that drug companies don't get to hold the rights on life-saving medicines and charge unreasonable prices for them.

    On the other hand, I feel like artists and entertainment companies should get to hold the rights to their product forever. If I have a piece of land and I hand it down to my daughter and she hands it down to her son and so on, then I don't see why that land should ever go out of the family. Or even if I want to give my land to a stranger, that should be on me. Why would I lose my rights to my land and naming who ought to get it after I die?

    To me creative product is like that. My grandparents had to prove their land. They got it for free, but if they didn't work it then they would have to forfeit it, but once they gained title then they held title for good. So I can see if a product isn't worked, then it falls into the public domain and someone can pick it up and use it. But so long as the product is being worked, then the people who have title should get to keep title.
    To me the difference is that only one group can use the land at any given time. If you and I each want to build a house that occupies the majority of the land then only one of us can do so. On the other hand both of us can use Character X at the same time without infringing on each other's use.

    To make a limited analogy- look at a chair. Someone takes a bunch of materials and designs a really comfortable chair. They build their design. If people come along and take the chair- then the builder has lost something. If a bunch of people come along and copy the design of the chair- the question is what has the builder lost. He still has the chair he designed and built. He has the ability to make another chair if he is given the material. All that has been taken from him is the ability to charge others for the use of his design.

    My view is closer to claiming you can own any chair you build with your own hands, but you can't own the idea of a chair. If you want to have a business making chairs then it has to be based on producing the best product not on preventing others from making it. Your family fortune rises or falls on making the best use of what you created not an a monopoly that allows them to earn money in perpetuity simply because you were the first to think of something.

  10. #40
    Amazing Member CowGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Public domain will work until a major company decides to undermine anything that make the characters worthy. Day 1, I'll make a sadistic Batman and a murdered Superman that fights against the western world... ill make it until everything that makes those characters grate vanishes in shadows...

    In short... let them have those copyright forever.

  11. #41
    Extraordinary Member MRP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,206

    Default

    People are forgetting (or don't know) there is a fundamental difference between copyright and trademark.

    Even if the copyright expires and the content of Action Comics #1 goes into the public domain, DC/Warner still controls the trademarks for the name Superman, the S shield and a host of other relater material in the Superman mythos, and trademarks don't expire if they remain in use. So someone could reprint the material contained in Action #1 and base new material on that, but they couldn't sell it as Superman or Action Comics, use the look of Superman, the logo, or anything else under trademark. DC owns that in perpetuity as long as they maintain use and file the proper paperwork when needed, and actively defend the trademark against wrongful use by others.

    This is why Dynamite had to publish Tarzan comics as Lord of the Jungle-even though some of the Tarzan material had entered the public domain, the Burroughs estate still owned the trademarks on the Tarzan name, so Dynamite couldn't call their book Tarzan even though it was adapting the novels and the character in the story was named Tarzan. So if the copyright to Action expires, DC won't lose the right to produce Superman comics, it's just that other people could do it too, they just couldn't use Superman in any of the titles or marketing, couldn't use the S shield or many other aspects that are uniquely tied to Superman and are trademarked by DC/Warner. Only DC could use that stuff since they own the trademarks on it.

    So those opposing copyright expiration and entering of content into the public domain because it would cost them the DC Superman are way off base. That's not how it works. And people are already producing and selling Superman stories without calling it Superman even with Action #1 copyrights not expiring (Supreme, Mr. Majestik, Hyperion just in comics but there's stuff all over other mediums a well-hell my wife pointed out a romance novel to me several years ago that featured a protagonist who was a humanooid alien who came to earth in the 1930s and was spotted by a couple of kids form Cleveland who created a comic book based on him but who lead a quiet life helping people until he met the girl of his dreams in the early 2000s-so knockoff Superman stuff is already out there).

    The only major difference is that other publishers could reprint and sell the public domain comics, so other publishers could reprint the Superman (or other stories) form the early issues of Action w/o DC's permission in whatever format they wanted or it could be uploaded and legally available as a PDF or other format-as long as they don't violate any of the existing trademarks in their merchandising and marketing of it.

    So keeping it copyrighted for DC isn't protecting capitalism or the purity of the character, and allowing it to become public domain is not freeing the character or taking it away from DC. Copyright is just that, the ability to control/produce copies of the material. Trademarks are what prevent people from using the ideas in new content, and they do not have expiration dates as long as their use ins maintained.

    -M

  12. #42
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MRP View Post
    People are forgetting (or don't know) there is a fundamental difference between copyright and trademark.
    You zigged when I thought you were going to zag. I thought you would end up saying that trademark ensures DC has control over Superman.

    While DC can't completely stop people from using ideas akin to Superman, I think they have to aggressively stop people from doing near copies of Superman.

    It's not like copying a chair. It's like copying a very specific design of a chair. Everyone has the right to make chairs, but if I have established a company where we make chairs using a very particular design that someone in the company created then the continued existence of my company depends on keeping that design for our use and not letting other companies steal it away.

    The public isn't deprived by such a rule, as there are lots of chairs out there to buy. But if you want my specially designed chair, you have to pay me for it.

    The idea that the public ought to have several versions of Superman to choose from is ridiculous. There are endless other ideas for super-heroes--creative talents should be encouraged to create new things and not just copy what someone else created and what another company owns and already produces in great volume.

    I think this is a threat to trademark. What Dynamite is doing with Tarzan and John Carter does threaten the Burroughs trademarks. Trademarks can only be maintained as long as they are effective. Once they are weakened, then they lose their force.

  13. #43
    Extraordinary Member MRP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    You zigged when I thought you were going to zag. I thought you would end up saying that trademark ensures DC has control over Superman.

    While DC can't completely stop people from using ideas akin to Superman, I think they have to aggressively stop people from doing near copies of Superman.

    It's not like copying a chair. It's like copying a very specific design of a chair. Everyone has the right to make chairs, but if I have established a company where we make chairs using a very particular design that someone in the company created then the continued existence of my company depends on keeping that design for our use and not letting other companies steal it away.

    The public isn't deprived by such a rule, as there are lots of chairs out there to buy. But if you want my specially designed chair, you have to pay me for it.

    The idea that the public ought to have several versions of Superman to choose from is ridiculous. There are endless other ideas for super-heroes--creative talents should be encouraged to create new things and not just copy what someone else created and what another company owns and already produces in great volume.

    I think this is a threat to trademark. What Dynamite is doing with Tarzan and John Carter does threaten the Burroughs trademarks. Trademarks can only be maintained as long as they are effective. Once they are weakened, then they lose their force.
    Except DC is one of the (many people) already putting out copies of things akin to Superman and "watering down" the concept (Captain Marvel/Shazam was once determined to violate the Superman idea and had to be shut down because it would weaken the Superman concept, yet DC itself revived it 20 years later and still uses it and somehow it hasn't weakened Superman yet, the published Majestic and publish Samaritan without weakening the Superman brand, Marvel has done Sentry and Hyperion, Image had Supreme, etc. etc. none of which weakened the Superman brand or violated trademarks, and I am sure there are a host of other examples I am not thinking of off the top of my head). And when the Burroughs estate challenged Dynamite, they ended up having to settle and work out a deal with them to sanction the books eventually in a we can't beat them so join them move. There was very little actual legal support for the idea that public domain material threatened existing trademarks.

    Every super-powered do-gooder in a colorful costume is akin to Superman. Those that have the same power set maybe a little more on the nose than others, but we're going on 75 years of people riffing off of the Superman concept and DC and Superman himself are still around. What separates Superman from all the riffs is branding, and that is what trademarks protect. Copyright was to protect the works of creators, not products to be sold by publishers or anyone else.The nature of the law has changed and veered from its original intent, but trademarks have always been to protect the marketplace of goods being sold.

    The copyrights should expire eventually. How long they should last is quibbling details, but they shouldn't go on in perpetuity. Trademarks are already in place to protect the commercial interests of those involved.

    -M

  14. #44
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    As I say, I'n not a legal expert and I can't make a legal argument. If I could I'd be making more money working as a lawyer. I can only say what I feel. And I feel that it's wrong for some guy to compete with another guy in this way.

    It's like if a proprietor starts up an organic juice shop and he does all the work promoting the business and obtaining the organic products and then another vendor parks his food truck in front of the shop, slaps an organic label on his juices and generally exploits everything that the proprietor did to build his business and increase traffic to that location.

    While I'd agree that DC creating more Superman-lite heroes in 1939 and 1940 helped to weaken the distinctive features of the Superman product--they still were within their rights to do so. Just as DC creates many alternative versions of Superman now.

    Because DC does it doesn't validate other companies doing it. Hudson Bay has done a lot over the decades to exploit the original Hudson Bay blanket design. That's just good business. But that doesn't give other retailers the right to produce cheap knock-offs of Hudson Bay blankets using the same design.

  15. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cap'n_RDM View Post
    I think the creator should retain the rights until he opts to sell them himself. If said creator never sells and then passes away, the opportunity should be there for the creation to be passed along to his family.

    In regards to corporations, I don't blame them for wanting to protect this intellectual properties for as long as possible. They are the ones who invest the time and money to keep these properties alive.
    I agree with this.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •