EC Comics

[bchat]

I was just curious as to why certain EC Comics' titles are not allowed on this site.  I've looked for Copyright Renewals for a few titles, and in some cases I found nothing (specifically, Vault of Horror 12 & 13, War Against Crime 1-11 and Moon Girl 1-5).  Did I miss something that explains why these books are not considered Public Domain?

[Yoc]

The site's admin aren't interested in testing the waters on their PD status.  We run the site on a near zero budget and don't want to push our luck even if we were 'in the right.'
Better safe than sorry.

-Yoc

[bchat]

Ok, fair enough.  I was just curious as to the reasoning, and I certainly understand the desire to avoid unneccessary legal problems.  Thanks.

[JVJ]

I am absolutely certain that Gaines copyrighted the Russ Cochran b&w reprint volumes, bchat. So even if he didn't renew the comic books, the art and stories ARE under copyright and he's Cochran reprinted everything except some of the early kid and religious books.

(|:{>

[bchat]

I'm not sure I follow, Jim.  The reprints' Copyrights wouldn't affect that Copyright status of the original comics.

[JVJ]

I'm not sure I follow, Jim.  The reprints' Copyrights wouldn't affect that Copyright status of the original comics.

I don't know, bc, but I'm willing to bet that if anyone tried to reprint an EC comic, Mr. Gaines's Estate and/or Mr. Cochran would insist that you're infringing on their copyright. And I find it nearly unbelievable that Gaines didn't renew his copyrights, but then I think we discovered that there's no copyright OR trademark on Will Eisner's The Spirit until the 1966 Harvey Comics reprints. So, who knows how careless these supposedly canny comics business giants were?

(|:{>

[bchat]

I'm not sure I follow, Jim.  The reprints' Copyrights wouldn't affect that Copyright status of the original comics.

I don't know, bc, but I'm willing to bet that if anyone tried to reprint an EC comic, Mr. Gaines's Estate and/or Mr. Cochran would insist that you're infringing on their copyright. And I find it nearly unbelievable that Gaines didn't renew his copyrights, but then I think we discovered that there's no copyright OR trademark on Will Eisner's The Spirit until the 1966 Harvey Comics reprints. So, who knows how careless these supposedly canny comics business giants were?

(|:{>

Again, maybe I missed something, but I didn't find any evidence of Renewals for the titles & issue #s I mentioned.  I, too, find it hard to believe that Gaines would have failed to renew the Copyrights on these books, especially "Moon Girl", when it appears that he renewed most everything else, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a fuss made over the books if someone tried reprinting them without getting permission first, whether they needed to or not. 

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of evidence of folks misrepresenting the truth, misinforming the public and being downright dishonest about claiming ownership to something they don't actually own.  There are still people out there (on other message boards) that whole-heartedly believe that the early MLJ books are not Public Domain because they don't accept the idea that Archie didn't renew those Copyrights.  It bothers me that the only "evidence" they can provide that Archie owns these characters & stories is the fact that Archie has published or had someone else publish superhero books over the last several decades.  You point-out The Spirit, or to be more precise, "Will Eisner's The Spirit", which is how I always saw the character promoted.  The perception I had there was that the character & his stories were not Public Domain.  Then there's Lorne-Harvey Publications & AC Comics, which had me believing for a short while long ago that Black Cat's stories weren't Public Domain by slapping Copyright notices all over AC's books whenever they ran an article about the character.   In each case, a "myth of ownership" is created by people who want to claim they own something that they acutally dropped the ball with, and that "myth" is then perpetuated by people who don't care to know better.  It's dishonest & misleading, but expect nothing better from people looking to make a buck.  (Sorry, but I had to vent a little bit)

Still, I understand this site's stance on not hosting the EC books that may or may not be Public Domain and see no reason to push the issue.  I was just curious about the situation and saw no harm in asking.

[John C]

Quite a few of the rules here came not from specific worries over lawsuits so much as easing the burden on the moderators.  Generally speaking, and with a handful of exceptions, there are "orders" to reject books where any single issue has a renewal.  The idea, of course, is that if the moderators checked every issue individually, then it's likely that copyrighted issues would continuously get submitted because they're not on the site yet.

In cases like EC, I believe the issue was that there were so many titles that shifted around, it seems more difficult to determine those statuses (even though that's really not the case).  There was also talk, early on, of skipping anything that's currently in-print as a sort of professional courtesy.

In other words, EC is off-limits here basically because Serj said so, which is fine with me, since it's his site.

(Note that I don't necessarily agree with those decisions, but I also think there's plenty here that any "activism" on my part could stand to wait.)

As for people fraudulently claiming copyright, while it's a little underhanded, it's worth pointing out that there's nothing illegal about it.  If something's in the public domain, then technically we all do own it.  It just won't carry any weight if the case goes to court, because the judge will ask for proof (as should the defendant).

AC is a perfect example of that.  They backed down from publishing Phantom Lady when DC screamed, but since then, Black has said that this was only because he didn't know the law at the time, and would fight it if it happened again today.

[bchat]

In other words, EC is off-limits here basically because Serj said so, which is fine with me, since it's his site.

Again, I was just curious as to WHY the books were "off-limits" and I'm not looking to push the issue in any way.  I asked my question, got my answer and now I'm done with it.

As for people fraudulently claiming copyright, while it's a little underhanded, it's worth pointing out that there's nothing illegal about it. 

I understand that.  And I wasn't try to imply that Archie Comics is making false claims on Public Domain material because I don't think they ever have.  They have a history with those Golden Age characters and have every right to make use of that in any way they please (reprints or licensing their characters & Trademarks to DC).  Lorne-Harvey, on the other, at least years ago, DID seem to want the public to believe they owned Black Cat lock, stock and barrell.  It's one thing to be quiet and look the other way as Archie does, but it's another to be openly deceptive as L-H has been.

If something's in the public domain, then technically we all do own it. ...   AC is a perfect example of that.  They backed down from publishing Phantom Lady when DC screamed

Which is the reason why I think it's important to determine, at least for myself and to my own personal satisfaction, what IS and what ISN'T Public Domain.  From a moral standpoint, I don't want to download something that doesn't belong to everyone (Public Domain) unless the Copyright Holder is the one saying "Go ahead, take it".  At the same time, I don't want to deprive myself of solid entertainment because of some "myth of ownership".  I would hate to see or hear about a creative individual NOT taking advantage of something like Phantom Lady or The Shield or Black Cat and creating some incredible story because someone is telling them that they can't use those characters.

[John C]

Again, I was just curious as to WHY the books were "off-limits" and I'm not looking to push the issue in any way.  I asked my question, got my answer and now I'm done with it.

Oh, don't take that as dismissal of any sort.  I was trying to condense what probably equates to a year of discussion (most during that "missing year" from the crash, I believe), and the upshot is "site policy."

From a moral standpoint, I don't want to download something that doesn't belong to everyone (Public Domain) unless the Copyright Holder is the one saying "Go ahead, take it".  At the same time, I don't want to deprive myself of solid entertainment because of some "myth of ownership".  I would hate to see or hear about a creative individual NOT taking advantage of something like Phantom Lady or The Shield or Black Cat and creating some incredible story because someone is telling them that they can't use those characters.

I agree, and I've been finding myself becoming increasingly selective as to what I download from sources.  There was a point where I was going the full "arrr, matey" route, but as I started talking to people about potentially making use of properties especially somewhere down the line, I've been more careful to check renewals before making the decision.  And no, I haven't made any decisions as to how I want to start handling Nedor books.

But on the other hand, I happily downloaded what National Allied books (New Fun/More Fun, New/New Adventure) I could find, even though I'm sure DC wouldn't approve of it.

And I'm also getting tired of the "you can't use Kid Eternity/Blue Beetle/Namor/Doctor Occult/Black Cat because the character has seen print since I was born."  It's understandable, of course, because the majority of people don't need to care about the difference between copyright and trademark, and it can easily confuse them (it still confuses us, when dealing with a big-name character, since we don't know if that's sufficient standing in a lawsuit).  But it's still a nuisance to hear people bicker about it, especially when it's not their property in question and they don't have any evidence.

[John C]

Again, maybe I missed something, but I didn't find any evidence of Renewals for the titles & issue #s I mentioned.  I, too, find it hard to believe that Gaines would have failed to renew the Copyrights on these books, especially "Moon Girl", when it appears that he renewed most everything else, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a fuss made over the books if someone tried reprinting them without getting permission first, whether they needed to or not. 

I can't be sure, but I think the EC copyright statements might  have been rejected.  I'm looking at a scan of Moon Girl #1, where the indicia says, "Entire contents copyrighted 1947 by M. C. Gaines."  I don't think that's not a "well-formed statement."

However, contradicting that is that I see several renewals for books with nearly-identiical copyright statements, as this form (with many different owners listed) persisted until at least 1955, with only a few books getting it right.

[Yoc]

Hi bchat,
Thanks for bringing up the subject.  Nobody is upset here by it.
The subject is nebulous and gets bandied about here from time to time.  Do a search for 'New Fun' or 'More Fun' on the message board and see how it went.

In the end as John mentioned - some titles/publishers are easier to say no to all of them than to have to keep deleting uploads by well meaning people of books we can't host on the site.  Even if a few of them are in the public domain.

-Yoc

[bchat]

Oh, don't take that as dismissal of any sort.  I was trying to condense what probably equates to a year of discussion (most during that "missing year" from the crash, I believe), and the upshot is "site policy."

I didn't take your statement as a "dismissal" and appreciated your explanation of the site's view on the matter.

I agree, and I've been finding myself becoming increasingly selective as to what I download from sources.  There was a point where I was going the full "arrr, matey" route, but as I started talking to people about potentially making use of properties especially somewhere down the line, I've been more careful to check renewals before making the decision.  And no, I haven't made any decisions as to how I want to start handling Nedor books.

While I never quite got to the point of wearing an eye-patch and buying a parrot to sit on my shoulder, I was taking people at their word regarding the status of various Copyrights, and I should have known better since I realize that "common knowledge" is not always correct.  Doing the research on my own puts to rest any doubts I could have about certain books/titles/characters.  There were a few publishers' books I wouldn't touch until I finally got around to doing my own investigation.  There are still books I won't download because I have doubts, but that's something for me to deal with and not worth talking about further.

With Nedor, the only character I'm currently interested in dowloading appearances of is Black Terror because, from what I've gathered, his title wasn't renewed at all.  I haven't looked into everything else that company published because the interest in the characters just isn't there for me.

 But on the other hand, I happily downloaded what National Allied books (New Fun/More Fun, New/New Adventure) I could find, even though I'm sure DC wouldn't approve of it.

I have an odd stance on certain things, such as material that isn't commercially available to the public by the Copyright Holders.  There's an obvious desire by fans to get the material, but, in some cases, what options do they have?  If I read it correctly, Europe has a nice stance on live musical performances where after 10 years, the original performer can't stop anyone from taking a sound recording of a live event and selling it to the public, provided that the seller sets aside "X amount of dollars" to be paid to the original performer upon request.

And I'm also getting tired of the "you can't use Kid Eternity/Blue Beetle/Namor/Doctor Occult/Black Cat because the character has seen print since I was born."  It's understandable, of course, because the majority of people don't need to care about the difference between copyright and trademark, and it can easily confuse them (it still confuses us, when dealing with a big-name character, since we don't know if that's sufficient standing in a lawsuit).  But it's still a nuisance to hear people bicker about it, especially when it's not their property in question and they don't have any evidence.

Same here.  I've seen countless people on other message board sites "talk out their butt", to be polite, about things they don't understand fully (and I'm sure I've done my fair share of the same thing)  I'm not against people speaking their mind and stating opinions, but "You can't do that!" is not an opinion.  Even when someone is wrong, I'm ok with that too, as long as they are respectful of others who may not share their viewpoints and open to the idea that they may be in error.  Unfortunately, too often, I've seen people have their statements questioned and they go on the attack, dismissing out-of-hand anyone who is trying to set the record straight or offering a different viewpoint.

[John C]

While I never quite got to the point of wearing an eye-patch and buying a parrot to sit on my shoulder,

I had a brief period where I decided new comics weren't sufficiently entertaining (or original) to pay for.  Then I realized that I could save time along with the money and just not read them at all...

With Nedor, the only character I'm currently interested in dowloading appearances of is Black Terror because, from what I've gathered, his title wasn't renewed at all.  I haven't looked into everything else that company published because the interest in the characters just isn't there for me.

Nedor interests me peripherally, but none of the characters really do it for me.  Or rather, the characters I find interesting aren't actually in the public domain, because they're adaptations of something else.  Like the Mask is neat, but he's actually the Black Bat from the Standard Pulps, whose copyrights have been renewed.

There are other minor characters like the Scarab who are of some interest in terms of potential relationships to other characters, obviously.

Unfortunately, too often, I've seen people have their statements questioned and they go on the attack, dismissing out-of-hand anyone who is trying to set the record straight or offering a different viewpoint.

Sadly, that seems to be how discourse in general is happening, these days.  People seem to line up at random over issues, and whatever they've been told by (choose one of: Adrianna Huffington, Rupert Murdoch, Ron Paul, or Jeff Rense, generally)  on that topic is the unassailable gospel, and anybody contradicting the line of reasoning must.  Be.  Shouted at!

On the Internet, it's worse, because you have the dimwits who try to "win the discussion" by hauling out their list of logical fallacies and crying about strawmen whenever you contradict them...

I wonder if that's a natural effect of the Internet's setup.  It takes only the tiniest bit of work to arrange things so that your information all comes from highly selective sources and you can completely avoid conflicting opinions or, even better, vote them down on Digg.

Ah, "when I rule the world," right?  Oh, well.  That's my venting for the day.

[bchat]

Hmmm ...  we seem to be drifting off-topic.

I had a brief period where I decided new comics weren't sufficiently entertaining (or original) to pay for.  Then I realized that I could save time along with the money and just not read them at all...

I've found myself over the last few years just following one book on a monthly basis, and only reading a few other titles when I find a decent deal online for a sizable lot (I've acquired most of the Atlas/Seaboard titles this way).  It's hard for me to get into a monthly book when most of them appear to me to be designed for a future tpb collection.  I'm at the point right now in my life where I don't want invest that kind of time & money into figuring-out whether or not I'll like something, which is a far cry from the days when I'ld buy at least a dozen comics every week, always looking for something new to try-out.  Bascially, I don't find today's comics very reader-friendly because there's a lack of single-issue stories for long-running books.  Every story is treated as "something special", but when everything is special, nothing really is.  It would be like watching wrestling and every match was in a steel cage.  How long would it be before cage matches become boring to hardcore fans?  Not long.

Sadly, that seems to be how discourse in general is happening, these days.  People seem to line up at random over issues, and whatever they've been told by (choose one of: Adrianna Huffington, Rupert Murdoch, Ron Paul, or Jeff Rense, generally)  on that topic is the unassailable gospel, and anybody contradicting the line of reasoning must.  Be.  Shouted at!

On the Internet, it's worse, because you have the dimwits who try to "win the discussion" by hauling out their list of logical fallacies and crying about strawmen whenever you contradict them...

I wonder if that's a natural effect of the Internet's setup.  It takes only the tiniest bit of work to arrange things so that your information all comes from highly selective sources and you can completely avoid conflicting opinions or, even better, vote them down on Digg.

Ah, "when I rule the world," right?  Oh, well.  That's my venting for the day.

I would imagine that the problem lies in people's unwillingness to check things out for themselves.  They listen to someone else whose opinions they respect, so everything that respected person says must be "true", and anyone who they encounter, especially the anonymous folks on the internet, must be "wrong" if they disagree.  "Sad but true" that it happens at all, but some people don't care enough to want to know better, they're simply happy to have something say.