|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 18:54:27 GMT -5
That reminds me. I watched The Warriors for the first time a couple months ago — the director's cut with the comic book-style transitions. I liked the movie, but it bothered me that whomever worked on those transitions just slapped some cheap digital filter over some screenshots instead of trying to recapture the Ben-Day effect. Was as out of place and distracting as any of the alterations in George Lucas' special editions.
I prefer the original theatrical release....the comic-transitions things is too obtrusive, especially when they meet the Furies.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on May 11, 2022 19:25:51 GMT -5
Be wary of early Warren Magazines because there are a bunch of "photocopy" replicas circulating around. I despise 'fascimile' type books and these are no exception.
I think many Warrens are available as PDFs on the Internet Archive--that might be the source of the files. Although it should be easy to spot the copies by the paper. They finally removed their Warren archive. I always wondered how they justified claiming those magazines were public domain; apparently someone convinced them otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 11, 2022 21:48:49 GMT -5
I think many Warrens are available as PDFs on the Internet Archive--that might be the source of the files. Although it should be easy to spot the copies by the paper. They finally removed their Warren archive. I always wondered how they justified claiming those magazines were public domain; apparently someone convinced them otherwise. From what I've seen, they treat anything from a company that is out of business as Public Domain, under the premise that if the company doesn't exist, there is no one to sue. Au contraire, mon frer! Try that defense in court. It's another case of they will do it as long as they get away with it, then cry ignorance and take it down when the legal threats start.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 12, 2022 9:03:40 GMT -5
They finally removed their Warren archive. I always wondered how they justified claiming those magazines were public domain; apparently someone convinced them otherwise. From what I've seen, they treat anything from a company that is out of business as Public Domain, under the premise that if the company doesn't exist, there is no one to sue. Au contraire, mon frer! Try that defense in court. It's another case of they will do it as long as they get away with it, then cry ignorance and take it down when the legal threats start. On the other hand, the concept of abandonware/orphaned IPs is an interesting one. Obviously if someone still owns a copyright, proceed at your own risk, but there's a lot of IP out there where the original company, publisher, etc, no longer exist and it's just sitting in limbo. I'm sure in many of these cases someone could reorganize and make an official claim, but a lot of times it doesn't happen. So do it unless and until someone says stop is not necessarily a terribly risky endeavor, especially if it's not being used commercially but for preservation purposes. IP that made an impact on the popular culture is worthy of preservation, and that is an aim that has value. If it is something that has really been abandoned, I would rather an organization like this preserve it unless and until the official channel gets something together, whether it's comics, film, video games, etc. The original intent of copyright was never to be a perpetual bludgeon for huge corporations to milk profits for centuries. It was to let the creator profit off of their original ideas for a reasonable amount of time while society benefits from it.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on May 12, 2022 10:03:02 GMT -5
^On this subject, that thing where comic companies would have to use a character every so many years or lose the rights? How exactly did that work? Still in practice? Any company ever lose a character due to forgetting to use them?
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 12, 2022 10:13:31 GMT -5
I don't think copyright is use it or lose it, but trademark is, I believe. It has to be used to keep its association with whatever goods and services there are.
I know specifically when Marvel licensed out the film rights to various properties in the 90s that those contracts had clauses where the company had to make a movie every so many years or the rights reverted to Marvel. This is why there are so many Sony Spider Man movies. Well, at least one reason.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2022 11:16:01 GMT -5
^On this subject, that thing where comic companies would have to use a character every so many years or lose the rights? How exactly did that work? Still in practice? Any company ever lose a character due to forgetting to use them? You're thinking Trademarks, which have to be used or they are lost. Copyright is for a period of years (at this point 95 years for work for hire). It does not expire and the requirements for to establish copyright have been relaxed to the point that they are negligible. One problem is that there are a LOT of Orphan Works out there where the copyright holder is impossible to determine or contact. Those works just sit there doing nothing until they're lost, rather than actually being useful to the public domain.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 12, 2022 11:24:09 GMT -5
^On this subject, that thing where comic companies would have to use a character every so many years or lose the rights? How exactly did that work? Still in practice? Any company ever lose a character due to forgetting to use them? You're thinking Trademarks, which have to be used or they are lost. Copyright is for a period of years (at this point 95 years for work for hire). It does not expire and the requirements for to establish copyright have been relaxed to the point that they are negligible. One problem is that there are a LOT of Orphan Works out there where the copyright holder is impossible to determine or contact. Those works just sit there doing nothing until they're lost, rather than actually being useful to the public domain. I can't speak to legal repercussions, but in this specific situation, I think ethically there is no issue with a site like the archive collecting the works so they are not lost.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2022 11:30:26 GMT -5
You're thinking Trademarks, which have to be used or they are lost. Copyright is for a period of years (at this point 95 years for work for hire). It does not expire and the requirements for to establish copyright have been relaxed to the point that they are negligible. One problem is that there are a LOT of Orphan Works out there where the copyright holder is impossible to determine or contact. Those works just sit there doing nothing until they're lost, rather than actually being useful to the public domain. I can't speak to legal repercussions, but in this specific situation, I think ethically there is no issue with a site like the archive collecting the works so they are not lost. I agree. And "orphan works" are an area where there's been some movement to loosen copyright, which is a beginning. From a legal perspective, if there's no perceivable rights holder, then it's no harm no foul.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 12, 2022 11:47:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 12, 2022 12:06:52 GMT -5
I can't speak to legal repercussions, but in this specific situation, I think ethically there is no issue with a site like the archive collecting the works so they are not lost. I agree. And "orphan works" are an area where there's been some movement to loosen copyright, which is a beginning. From a legal perspective, if there's no perceivable rights holder, then it's no harm no foul. That's encouraging. Is it something like if there is no obvious rights holder and no one claims something within x time it reverts to public domain, or does someone have to do something specific to trigger it? Like "hey we want to use this thing, but no one is on record as actively owning it?" application to the copyright office or something? Or is it not that defined yet? I am speaking to the efforts to loosen copyright, I mean. I like that copyright protection is all but automatic to the creator, but in the situation where there literally is no one to claim the copyright or benefit from it, it should revert to the public domain as intended. Frankly, I think the current extensions of copyright are excessive already, but Disney has deep pockets. A similar but different instance is stuff like the classic 8 bit, 16 bit and original arcade Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles games. They were core fixtures in the arcade and Nintendo generations' childhoods and made their owners gobs of money. They are also markedly absent in an official modern channel or these retro collections, e.g. NES Mini. From a consumer's perspective, TMNT 2 not being on the NES MINI is a ludicrous omission and glaringly misrepresents the era. This is due to legal squabbles and expired licenses between the owners of the TMNT IP versus the original game company and/or publisher which may be various forms of defunct, etc. No new agreements, old ones expired, thus some of the most iconic games are absent from the retro collections, and there is no proper way to obtain them through official channels. Thankfully at least for this particular case, there is some resolution as a collection is coming out later this year.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2022 12:35:11 GMT -5
I agree. And "orphan works" are an area where there's been some movement to loosen copyright, which is a beginning. From a legal perspective, if there's no perceivable rights holder, then it's no harm no foul. That's encouraging. Is it something like if there is no obvious rights holder and no one claims something within x time it reverts to public domain, or does someone have to do something specific to trigger it? Like "hey we want to use this thing, but no one is on record as actively owning it?" application to the copyright office or something? Or is it not that defined yet? I am speaking to the efforts to loosen copyright, I mean. At this point there isn't an actual policy from the copyright office. It's something that's in the works. Right now it's a bit of a wild west show. Since their is nobody to send out a C&D or to file suit there's nobody to stop you from using it.
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on May 12, 2022 12:54:15 GMT -5
^On this subject, that thing where comic companies would have to use a character every so many years or lose the rights? How exactly did that work? Still in practice? Any company ever lose a character due to forgetting to use them? While as Slam wrote, that's mainly a trademark thing, there have been at least a couple of examples of just what you're talking about. In the 80's, DC did not outright own Wonder Woman, but had an arrangement with the Moulton estate that called for ongoing publication of the character or risk (at least the legal potential of) losing the rights to create and publish Wonder Woman stories. Hence the stop-gap "Legend of Wonder Woman" miniseries filling the gap between the end of the original run and the start of the Perez revamp post-Crisis. As to your last question, DC acquired the rights to create and publish new James Bond comics when they arranged to publish "Dr. No" (which was reprinted from a British version of Classics Illustrated) as an emergency fill-in issue of Showcase. Then they forgot all about it until it was too late! Man, Russ Heath would have been great on a 007 comic in the mid-60's...
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2022 13:19:15 GMT -5
^On this subject, that thing where comic companies would have to use a character every so many years or lose the rights? How exactly did that work? Still in practice? Any company ever lose a character due to forgetting to use them? While as Slam wrote, that's mainly a trademark thing, there have been at least a couple of examples of just what you're talking about. In the 80's, DC did not outright own Wonder Woman, but had an arrangement with the Moulton estate that called for ongoing publication of the character or risk (at least the legal potential of) losing the rights to create and publish Wonder Woman stories. Hence the stop-gap "Legend of Wonder Woman" miniseries filling the gap between the end of the original run and the start of the Perez revamp post-Crisis. As to your last question, DC acquired the rights to create and publish new James Bond comics when they arranged to publish "Dr. No" (which was reprinted from a British version of Classics Illustrated) as an emergency fill-in issue of Showcase. Then they forgot all about it until it was too late! Man, Russ Heath would have been great on a 007 comic in the mid-60's... I didn’t read Trevor’s question that way, thinking instead about the use of minor characters in team-up books, but yeah, the contract between DC and Marston is the big example there. My understanding is, and I’m willing to be corrected, that sales on Wonder Woman fell well below cancellation levels a number of times. The book wasn't canceled because the character would have reverted to the Marston Estate and because licensing of the character made decent money. The power of Underoos.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 12, 2022 19:01:09 GMT -5
The second Legion of Super-Heroes story, in Adventure #267, may well be the dumbest comic story I’ve ever read.
There. I said it!
|
|