The return of Captain Marvel?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

It's clear at this point that there have been plenty of changes to larger DC continuity to go with Rebirth - Superman's fusion, Wonder Woman's realization of her true past, Batman maybe missing some memories, Ted Kord having suddenly been Blue Beetle again, Eobward Thawne transforming into his Pre-Flashpoint self, the return of Hypertime, etc. So this page of the new issue of Superwoman feels notable:



Superman showing up with trunks doesn't contradict anything given the changes to history. And if the rest of the page is up-to-date in terms of revised continuity...it feels notable that that's a decidedly pre-52 looking Captain Marvel there, especially since it'd be odd for 'Shazam', only briefly a member of the Justice League, to be hanging in a kid's bedroom alongside his own uncle and Superman.

[SanityOrMadness]

1) There is ZERO chance of them going back to the "Captain Marvel" name at this point, even if they otherwise moved closer to Billy's classic look & characterisation. It's a legal/trademark thing - they can't sell "Captain Marvel" toys, they can't make a "Captain Marvel" movie, they can't even publish a "Captain Marvel" comic. The compromises they made to work around that (including selling toys as Shazam even when the character was Captain Marvel!) were never exactly great for them, and with the movie coming up and WB taking more of an interest...not going to happen.

2) Even on the look...I wouldn't take a background detail from a fill-in artist on a D-list book as gospel of anything at the best of times. Right now, when DC can't quite agree with itself on what the history is? Not more so...

[Jim Kelly]

Haven't they been using Captain Marvel for the Earth 5 hero? I know they can't use Captain Marvel as a trademark, but they can still use it as a character name in the comics.

DC ought to do a *wink wink* this guy was called Captain Marvel first.

Whenever Marvel Studios gets their CAPTAIN MARVEL move out, DC Entertainment should be very helpful to all the media who will want to do stories on the history of Captain Marvel--as we see so much about Wonder Woman right now--and let them have access to all the Fawcett and DC material in their vaults.

[The Darknight Detective]

Haven't they been using Captain Marvel for the Earth 5 hero? I know they can't use Captain Marvel as a trademark, but they can still use it as a character name in the comics.

They were able to use it on the old television show, too.

[Buried Alien]

They were able to use it on the old television show, too.

Yeah...the blanket ban on DC using the Captain Marvel name is relatively recent and mostly self-imposed. There's nothing stopping them from using the name (as long as it's not a book title or name for merchandise related to the character) in stories, but DC just sort of gave up on even that allowance (and I wish DC hadn't).

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[The Darknight Detective]

Yeah...the blanket ban on DC using the Captain Marvel name is relatively recent and mostly self-imposed. There's nothing stopping them from using the name (as long as it's not a book title or name for merchandise related to the character) in stories, but DC just sort of gave up on even that allowance (and I wish DC hadn't).

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

What are the rules regarding the name, anyway? Could they call him Marvelous or Generalissimo Marvel instead?

[Buried Alien]

What are the rules regarding the name, anyway? Could they call him Marvelous or Generalissimo Marvel instead?

I do wonder if they could get away with that.

One fan fiction writer who wrote a SHAZAM/ISIS story based on the continuity of the 1970s TV shows did come up with the clever idea that Captain Marvel's original, mortal persona before he was granted the Power of SHAZAM was that of a particularly valorous and stalwart captain named Marvellus in the ancient Roman army. Captain Marvellus was fused with different people over the centuries, and to two different Billy Batsons (the 1940s film serial version and the 1970s TV series version) during the 20th Century.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Frontier]

I could write it off as just a nice nod from the artist, but given how Billy has just dropped off the face of the Earth...

[The Darknight Detective]

I do wonder if they could get away with that.

One fan fiction writer who wrote a SHAZAM/ISIS story based on the continuity of the 1970s TV shows did come up with the clever idea that Captain Marvel's original, mortal persona before he was granted the Power of SHAZAM was that of a particularly valorous and stalwart captain named Marvellus in the ancient Roman army. Captain Marvellus was fused with different people over the centuries, and to two different Billy Batsons (the 1940s film serial version and the 1970s TV series version) during the 20th Century.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

How about Wonder Man? Couldn't DC sue Marvel over that and, if not, why? I understand not being able to use Captain Marvel, but DC should be able to use another form of Marvel instead.

[SanityOrMadness]

Yeah...the blanket ban on DC using the Captain Marvel name is relatively recent and mostly self-imposed. There's nothing stopping them from using the name (as long as it's not a book title or name for merchandise related to the character) in stories, but DC just sort of gave up on even that allowance (and I wish DC hadn't).

Well, it's like I said - there's no corporate synergy to calling a character by a name they can't use for toys, movies, etc.

What are the rules regarding the name, anyway? Could they call him Marvelous or Generalissimo Marvel instead?

Well, presuming you mean "in a comic, not on a cover"... sure. You can't trademark a character name per se, but you (i.e., Marvel in this instance) can restrict the ability of someone (i.e. DC) to USE a trademark you own. Trademarks are all about advertisment, basically. (As opposed to copyright, which is about the *content*. So Marvel could call a character "Batman", but they could not do anything to resemble Bruce Wayne, nor could they put it on the cover or solicit of a comic.)

Still, I think DC would find it very hard to publish a comic with "Marvel" in the title. Even if it didn't clash with Marvel's "Captain Marvel" trademark, it would clash with their "Marvel" trademark! (This is why Marvelman became Miracleman for the US reprints of the Alan Moore stuff. )

[Citizen Kane]

There is zero chance for the Captain Marvel name to return to Shazam. Besides, the current consensus appears to prefer Shazam over the alternative.

[Lee Stone]

Yeah...the blanket ban on DC using the Captain Marvel name is relatively recent and mostly self-imposed. There's nothing stopping them from using the name (as long as it's not a book title or name for merchandise related to the character) in stories, but DC just sort of gave up on even that allowance (and I wish DC hadn't).

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

It's probably cosmic karma for how they got him in the first place...

[DragonPiece]

Just a easter egg. New 52 Shazam was one of the more successful stories.

[Jim Kelly]

It's probably cosmic karma for how they got him in the first place...

Well yes, but there are many spokes on that karmic wheel.

After they settled with National (DC), Fawcett still owned Captain Marvel and the trademark. They just couldn't use it, because they agreed not to publish any Captain Marvel comics. It's too bad that Fawcett and National didn't think to act together to prevent other companies from stealing the furniture. You had various versions of Captain Marvel being published in the world--like Marvelman in the U.K.--that they could probably have stomped out if the two American publishers really tried to defend the trademark with their legal might. And that laxity left the door open for the Marvel Comics Group.

When DC published SHAZAM! in the 1970s it was under a licensing agreement with Fawcett. DC didn't own the Marvels and they could have lost those licensing rights (I think they did lose the rights to some of the other Fawcett characters for a bit), which probably explains why the Marvel Family were off in their own universe and had limited contact with the rest of the DC characters.

Eventually DC bought the characters outright from Fawcett. But you can see that they didn't automatically acquire the characters from Fawcett as a consequence of the lawsuit, although that's what eventually happened some thirty years later. And Fawcett got money from DC for the right.

[Lee Stone]

Well yes, but there are many spokes on that karmic wheel.

After they settled with National (DC), Fawcett still owned Captain Marvel and the trademark. They just couldn't use it, because they agreed not to publish any Captain Marvel comics. It's too bad that Fawcett and National didn't think to act together to prevent other companies from stealing the furniture. You had various versions of Captain Marvel being published in the world--like Marvelman in the U.K.--that they could probably have stomped out if the two American publishers really tried to defend the trademark with their legal might. And that laxity left the door open for the Marvel Comics Group.

When DC published SHAZAM! in the 1970s it was under a licensing agreement with Fawcett. DC didn't own the Marvels and they could have lost those licensing rights (I think they did lose the rights to some of the other Fawcett characters for a bit), which probably explains why the Marvel Family were off in their own universe and had limited contact with the rest of the DC characters.

Eventually DC bought the characters outright from Fawcett. But you can see that they didn't automatically acquire the characters from Fawcett as a consequence of the lawsuit, although that's what eventually happened some thirty years later. And Fawcett got money from DC for the right.

True. However... there's no denying that Captain Marvel was a bit more popular than Superman for a while in the Golden Age. And even though the only similarities were black hair, super-strength and flight (which are commonplace these days), the more real copyright violation of Fox's Wonder Man put them on a witch-hunt and gave them grounds to sue Fawcett over Captain Marvel. Which in turn led Fawcett to cease publication due to a combination of court costs and the declining sales of superhero comics.
And when DC did start publishing Shazam years later, and having him interact with Superman, their differences only became more pronounced.