Public Domain or Not Slider

[PeterC]

Hi all

I was just surfing for something completely different and found this slider to see if something is public domain or not (and if not, when the copyright will expire).  It's US, so it applies there only, but I thought you all would be interested.

http://librarycopyright.net/digitalslider/

The one I didn't know about was stuff published up to 1977 without a copyright notice...  This must be why some movies from the 60's are public domain... I wonder if it applies to many comics?

Peter

[narfstar]

I think it applies mostly to Chartons that I know of. I found two of my favorite authors books available on Gutenberg. There are som Kurt Vonegut Jr and Alen E. Nourse books available there. My guess is they must not have had a copyright because I do nt think the orignals are that old.

[Yoc]

Nice link, thanks Peter!

[OtherEric]

What people have turned up as usable on Gutenburg is often fun.  Most of H. Beam Piper's works are PD, for instance, just to name on of my personal favorites.

[John C]

If you look down a little further, you can see that a valid copyright notice was actually required until 1989, though from 1978 on you could file an amendment of sorts.  And yes, this explains a lot of the poorly-packaged movies you find in the dollar bins around the country.

As for comics, yeah, I can confirm that Charlton had some terribly-formed notices throughout most of the 1960s.  Oddly, they did a lot right earlier on, and worked out the bugs around 1967-1968, so I can't imagine which legal eagle decided to "help," there.  I'm sure that other companies also did this incorrectly (after all, you couldn't walk two steps without tripping over an independent publisher, back in the '80s, and not many of them had any business sense), but I'm not actually aware of any.  Someone with a decent collection of indie books (and the underground books for the decade or so before that) might find it interesting to check, though.

Oh, and the Gutenberg materials are almost always based on renewals--I think the administrators find it easier than worrying about the original copyright and whether it was corrected during the limited window.  Usually (especially for the science fiction works), there's a note at the beginning or end of the text that explains where the story was found and that the copyright on that work wasn't renewed.  For example, Nourse's "Image of the Gods" has the following:  "This etext was produced from The Counterfeit Man More Science Fiction Stories by Alan E. Nourse published in 1963. Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the U.S. copyright on this publication was renewed."

And I have to back up Eric.  Piper's work is fantastic, especially if you enjoy comic books, and it's a real shame that he ended his life.

[narfstar]

I invite everyone to try Nouse's work. He is in the juvenile fiction section and I started reading his books from the school library in seventh grade. Raiders From the Rings, Star Surgeon and Trouble on Titan are great reads. Juvenile section does not mean just for kids but fun for all ages without sex or foul language. I wish some modern writers could learn that lesson.

[DennyWilson]

You'd be surprised how many works had incorrect copyright notices!

There's also that other bug-a-boo - works with proper noticed but not properly registered!

[bakerman3]

By the way, I know this site has restrictions against posting Marvel or DC scans, but a lot of their early stuff has fallen into Public Domain because the stories were never renewed for a second 28 year term.

So, for example, a story published in 1940, but never renewed would fall into PD even though the character is protected by Trademark.

Their main characters probably have most, if not all, their early stories still protected, but stuff like "Vigilante" or "Zatara" are very likely in the PD.  That's why they can appear on Internet Archive without an issue.

DC typically renewed their copyrights simply by reprinting the stories, which automatically renewed them from what I understand, but a lot of those C and D-list characters didn't have a ton of reprints, and I would doubt that DC would spend the money on physically filing renewal forms for each and every comic and each and every story in those comics.

I know that this site concentrates on full issues only, but I would guess that a lot of DC titles such as the funny animal stuff that was never reprinted would have fallen into the Public Domain.

So my question is, if it can be proven that a specific DC or Marvel title is in fact in the PD, would it be ok to post it or is there a strict policy against DC and Marvel stuff even if they ARE in the PD?

[boox909]

So my question is, if it can be proven that a specific DC or Marvel title is in fact in the PD, would it be ok to post it or is there a strict policy against DC and Marvel stuff even if they ARE in the PD?

I would not even flirt with the issue. It simply is not worth risking the loss of the site, imho.

B.

[Astaldo711]

I agree with you boox. With the thousands of books here, I don't miss the few we could potentially host. No need for the risk.

[narfstar]

I think it better to avoid DC. There have been specific books we have found that are PD but not worth the risk.

[bchat]

I haven't done a lot of investigating into DC's books after they were acquired from The Major, but Action Comics alone has renewals starting with issue 1 to 127, which is as far as I care to look right now.  Since the renewals cover everything between the covers, I don't see how anyone can argue that the Vigilante stories are PD when the issues they appeared in have valid renewals.

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the two books produced by The Major are PD.  I haven't found evidence of the original Copyrights for issues I've looked for, and haven't come across any renewals for New/More Fun Comics 1-32 & New Adventure Comics 1-27.

[DennyWilson]

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the two books produced by The Major are PD.  I haven't found evidence of the original Copyrights for issues I've looked for, and haven't come across any renewals for New/More Fun Comics 1-32 & New Adventure Comics 1-27.

This is something worth looking into. Would be nice to see some of this material here.

Has DC even renewed the trademark for MORE FUN COMICS?

[boox909]

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the two books produced by The Major are PD.  I haven't found evidence of the original Copyrights for issues I've looked for, and haven't come across any renewals for New/More Fun Comics 1-32 & New Adventure Comics 1-27.

This is something worth looking into. Would be nice to see some of this material here.

Has DC even renewed the trademark for MORE FUN COMICS?

Ya'll can look into it, but you'll never see it on GAC! 

[DennyWilson]

Ya'll can look into it, but you'll never see it on GAC! 

I can see concern if DC has an active trademark on the "Adventure" title/logo - but if those NEW/MORE FUN issues in whole - including content are  not copyrighted/trademarked,then it should be allowed. But I think that we'd have to be 100% Certain before posting any of the material. Can we even find the material!