Doc Savage and Shadow reprints at Blackmask Online
Bill Thom
and Shadow reprints. It appears they are being sued after rejecting
an offer to cease publication and just walk away.
FYI, here is the email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In hey-I'm-getting-sued news: the good people at Conde Nast/Advance
Magazine Publishers have finally decided to take care of the last Doc
Savage and Shadow holdout, because they've become aware of the crisis
in boys books, attained new respect for the graphic novels market
scored a movie deal.
Now, given that Variety is an Elsevier publication, Conde Nast could
perhaps be excused for not understanding the basic realities of the
film business. So, they don't grasp that the plethora of comic book
and video-game based flicks on our screens these days is the result
not of Hollywood's respect for modern-day representations of the
Jungian hero archetype, but rather of studio executive's bets on
success in producing content for a pre-existing market. CN also don't
get that destroying said pre-existing market is unlikely to produce
much success at the box office, if the film even gets greenlighted.
Maybe someone needs to do a 50-word feature on the topic for Lucky.
Whatever, in CN's defense, they've got a new law firm, and their
attorney was mostly professional--apart from his choice of Christmas
Eve as an appropriate night to drop bombs, of course. They even sent
me rewewal notices on all 506 Doc and Shadow titles.
The deal offered was, remove the ebooks, stop printing, no harm done.
Just walk away. And of course I've got the green books and the pink
books and the yellow books, as well as other black books...
Needless to say, I turned them down. Cold. The deadline for settlement
was yesterday (April 7), and we did not settle.
Couple reasons for this:
One, the boys' books issue. I mean, come on, 25% of books published to
zero in two decade. This is attracting attention finally, but there is
no author for young men quite like Dent.
Secondly, though the attorney for Conde Nast did keep stressing
"you're running a business! you're running a business! For years!" He
didn't answer when I said "of course; in a manner open, notorious,
hostile and continuous."
See, there's this common law tradition of Adverse Possession, from the
days when peasants would seize a vacant field and hold it, till it,
etc., owning the property after some period of time. This principle
got touched on during the orphan works comment period, but wasn't part
of the orphan works recommendations.
However, there were at least at few times, back in the '50s and '60s,
involving something called the Olympia Press, where
adversely-possessed books were allowed registration, most famously in
the case of the Ginger Man. So I just took a shot for recordation of
transfer of copyright via operation of law: Adverse Possession under
section 205 of the U.S. Copyright Code, and the matter, one month
later, has not been decided.
Hey, life is short, even if that last sentence wasn't.
The third and final reason I'm taking the risk of trial here has to do
with the plaintiff's unclean hands. No, I'm not talking about the big
publishing tradition of committing fraud, conspiracy and restraint by
falsely asserting rights, threatening dire consequences, etc.--a hobby
still extant at former CN subsidiary Random House.
Essentially, whatever happens in the coming months, I will at least
find out why it is that Lester Dent controlled Doc Savage's radio in
the '30s, but somehow when that awful film got made, CN alone was
compensated.
The case goes before a magistrated in Greenbelt, MD on May 8. After
that, things might happen to this site, and smartset.net. Maybe just a
few titles one. I'll be sure to let folks now.
Happy Spring, and, OK, there is a place to donate to my legal defense
fund. No pressure.
Bill Thom
Coming Attractions
http://members.cox.net/comingattractions/index.html
Pulp Series Character Reprint Index
http://members.cox.net/pulpreprintindex/index.html
The Works of Robert E. Howard
http://howardworks.com/
Ron Hanna
Conde-Nast... they have lawyers who work for free to help out the small
guy against the huge corporations...
Ed Hulse
Frank Capra movies as much as the next guy -- but it helps if they're
in the right. Moynihan is a flat-out pirate. If he's too dumb to see
what a sweetheart deal he's being offered, he deserves whatever he
gets. And if he forces CN to spend time and money bringing him to
trial, he'll get puh-lenty.
Frankly, I think Conde Nast was being merciful. With a new Shadow
movie in the offing (which is likely why the company is now intent on
policing its rights after years of benign reglect) it would be in the
company's interest to make an example of Moynihan to discourage any
future encroachments on its rights. The fact that they're willing to
let him go, and hang on to such monies as he has collected up to this
point, doesn't strike me as terribly evil.
I'd like to have nice printed copies or replicas of a lot of Shadow
novels I don't have in pulp form. I might even be willing to be
pirated copies of them myself (although I never bought anything from
blackmask.com). But once the rightful copyright holder says, "Okay,
guys, fun's fun but now we're reasserting our rights," game's over.
Sure, it annoys me that Conde Nast hasn't done anything with the Shadow
and Doc properties. But they bought the rights; I didn't. They get to
decide whether or not they want to sit on their properties; I don't.
And neither does Moynihan or anybody else. If the 506 renewals were
duly and properly registered -- and I can't believe CN would have
furnished copies to Moynihan if they weren't -- he doesn't have a leg
to stand on.
And according to Will Murray, who represents Dent's estate, Lester's
widow WAS compensated for the movie. But the estate hasn't received a
dime in royalties from Mr. blackmask.
Robotech_Master
> I'm all for small guys triumphing over huge corporations -- hey, I
> like Frank Capra movies as much as the next guy -- but it helps if
> they're in the right. Moynihan is a flat-out pirate. If he's too
> dumb to see what a sweetheart deal he's being offered, he deserves
> whatever he gets. And if he forces CN to spend time and money
> bringing him to trial, he'll get puh-lenty.
I can't believe he honestly thinks he has any chance of winning. I
suppose that if the legal fees end up being more than he can pay, he
can just declare bankruptcy.
It will be interesting to see just how far his attempt at transferring
the copyrights based on Adverse Possession gets, though.
It's a damned shame, too, as Blackmask has the nicest interface and
format selection of any of the public domain book sets I've yet
visited. I suppose I should hurry up and get one of his ebook DVDs
before the site is sued out of existance.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Homepage: http://www.terrania.us
Robotech_Master |
robo...@eyrie.org | Earn a free iPod and a free Mac Mini!
| http://www.terrania.us/conga.html
Dave
offerred him such a sweetheart deal -- just walk away, no harm, no
foul.
Traditionally, the abandoned property defense -- "Yar, she was
derelict, she was, when we found her sailing without a crew on the
Spanish Main, matey" -- has not done well as a defense in piracy cases.
If indeed there is a May 8th court date, I'd start downloading now...
Dave
alpaige
derelict, she was, when we found her sailing without a crew on the
Spanish Main, matey" -- has not done well as a defense in piracy cases.
>>
There's no way in hell this kind of a defense would wash. Conde Nast
licensed The Shadow to DC and Dark Horse comics as recently as the
1990s, and the character to the 1994 movie. Given that, no magistrate
in their right mind is going to regard the Shadow character or
trademark as "abandoned property". Whether or not Conde Nast choose to
"sit on the properties" (ie the Gibson/Tinsley novels) has NOTHING to
do with this. If they renewed and own the copyrights to the novels,
they can do whatever the hell they want with them - including sitting
on them. It's THEIR property.
God knows what Moynihan finds difficult to understand about the above.
His posts are just long attempts at obfuscation. As has been said by
others, he is simply a pirate and deserves no respect. This is not at
all a case of the big bad corporation clamping down on the poor little
pirate. It's a case of the legal copyright holder asserting its legal
rights.
BCattivabrutto
Bill Thom wrote:
> I received this email from Blackmask Online regarding their Doc Savage
> and Shadow reprints. It appears they are being sued after rejecting
> an offer to cease publication and just walk away.
>
There's info at Boing Boing about this:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/08/conde_nast_sues_over.html
Robotech_Master
> There's info at Boing Boing about this:
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/08/conde_nast_sues_over.html
Also, I wrote an essay for Writing on Your Palm about this affair,
including references to this discussion thread.
http://www.maximumgeek.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3353
http://www.writingonyourpalm.com
Joe Pfeiffer
about to get a whole buncho' trouble. Though I would like to comment
that:
1) I regard it as very unfortunate that copyright law has mutated to
the point that things written in the 1920s are still under
copyright. The idea was to make sure that authors would be
compensated for their works, not that corporations would keep
control of creations forever.
2) It's also unfortunate that CN didn't see distribution of the old
stories as being in their interest, and offer a licensing deal.
In other words: the law is wrong, CN is wrong (or at least
shortsighted), and blackmask.org is wrong.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Ed Hulse
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> In other words: the law is wrong, CN is wrong (or at least
> shortsighted), and blackmask.org is wrong.
Joe, I think you're pretty much on target. As to the copyright laws
themselves: it probably doesn't matter in this case whether they're
wrong or not. Conde Nast can afford lawyers that will drag so many
side issues into the case (trademark, character rights, prior licensing
history, etc) that Moynihan will be bankrupted before he can mount any
substantive challenge to the renewals of the novels.
We ALL wish that CN would license reprint rights and keep the Shadow
novels in print. They HAVE been shortsighted. But I've been impressed
by their even-handed, reasonable treatment of people to whom they
previously sent cease-and-desist letters. Nobody before Moynihan was
sued or even threatened with being sued. CN's position has been, "Just
stop now and walk away, and we'll forget the whole thing." Moynihan is
the only one who's decided to poke them in the eye instead, and I'm
afraid he's going to pay dearly for it if and when this mess gets
before a judge.
Again, I know from personal experience how these things work -- or, at
least, how they HAVE worked. My friend who sold Hopalong Cassidy
movies on VHS nearly 25 years ago took on the official rights holders
of the character (which represented William Boyd's widow). He was
absolutely convinced that he was in the right because the films in
question had fallen into the public domain. But he didn't count on the
judge ruling in favor of the rights holders, whose high-powered
attorneys had my pal's head spinning with side issues before the trial
was even half over. Ultimately the films' copyright status had nothing
to do with the decision, and the lengthy legal struggle drove my friend
into bankruptcy. And HIS case, mind you, was a helluva lot stronger
than Blackmask's.
Joe Pfeiffer
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> > In other words: the law is wrong, CN is wrong (or at least
> > shortsighted), and blackmask.org is wrong.
>
> Joe, I think you're pretty much on target. As to the copyright laws
> themselves: it probably doesn't matter in this case whether they're
> wrong or not. Conde Nast can afford lawyers that will drag so many
> side issues into the case (trademark, character rights, prior licensing
> history, etc) that Moynihan will be bankrupted before he can mount any
> substantive challenge to the renewals of the novels.
Whether the laws are wrong or not is *completely* immaterial --
they're the laws. Near as I can tell, CN won't need to drag in any
side issues; my understanding of the law is so squarely on their side
they can just sort of squish Moynihan without a lot of legal effort.
> We ALL wish that CN would license reprint rights and keep the Shadow
> novels in print. They HAVE been shortsighted. But I've been impressed
> by their even-handed, reasonable treatment of people to whom they
> previously sent cease-and-desist letters. Nobody before Moynihan was
> sued or even threatened with being sued. CN's position has been, "Just
> stop now and walk away, and we'll forget the whole thing." Moynihan is
> the only one who's decided to poke them in the eye instead, and I'm
> afraid he's going to pay dearly for it if and when this mess gets
> before a judge.
Compare, for instance, DirecTV who demands a settlement from anybody
they can discover has ever had an account with them and a smartcard
programmer, on the grounds that they *must* have been stealing
programming. So yes, CN has really been much less obnoxious than they
could be.
> Again, I know from personal experience how these things work -- or, at
> least, how they HAVE worked. My friend who sold Hopalong Cassidy
> movies on VHS nearly 25 years ago took on the official rights holders
> of the character (which represented William Boyd's widow). He was
> absolutely convinced that he was in the right because the films in
> question had fallen into the public domain. But he didn't count on the
> judge ruling in favor of the rights holders, whose high-powered
> attorneys had my pal's head spinning with side issues before the trial
> was even half over. Ultimately the films' copyright status had nothing
> to do with the decision, and the lengthy legal struggle drove my friend
> into bankruptcy. And HIS case, mind you, was a helluva lot stronger
> than Blackmask's.
That's a way the whole legal system is broken, not just the copyright
laws!
Robotech_Master
> Whether the laws are wrong or not is *completely* immaterial --
> they're the laws. Near as I can tell, CN won't need to drag in any
> side issues; my understanding of the law is so squarely on their
> side they can just sort of squish Moynihan without a lot of legal
> effort.
I can't help but think that the Adverse Possession thing is an
interesting tactic. It probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in
hell of succeeding, but imagine what would happen if it did. It would
certainly put a new wrinkle in the Orphaned Works problem.
boldvent...@aol.com
> interesting tactic. It probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in
> hell of succeeding, but imagine what would happen if it did. It would
> certainly put a new wrinkle in the Orphaned Works problem."
I'm sure that large entertainment companies like Disney have considered
this for years. Imagine if they could stroll through Public Domain
Valley, plucking ripe, juicy properties for "Re-copyrighting." Hell,
Disney has been fighting to keep the copyright laws extended, and most
of their great animation works are based on public domain material.
The problem with Shadow and Doc Savage is that they were NEVER orphaned
... Conde Nast has owned them all along.
kur...@earthlink.net
copyright lawyer.
I never could understand the kick about the Docs. They're all available
in legal paperback reprints from the '60's and 70's. They're not rare
or even scarce. I had a nice big box of bagged near mint/mint first
printing Docs that I use to take to pulp shows and quit taking them
because the fans would pass on them because they were $6-7. About three
years ago.
I don't understand The Shadow either but that's just personal taste.
Kent Allard
boldvent...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm sure that large entertainment companies like Disney have considered
> this for years. Imagine if they could stroll through Public Domain
> Valley, plucking ripe, juicy properties for "Re-copyrighting." Hell,
> Disney has been fighting to keep the copyright laws extended, and most
> of their great animation works are based on public domain material.
Disney has also screwed copyright holders whenever possible. I believe they've
been sued by the Burroughs and Milne estates repeatedly. That's the beauty of
U.S. justice. Money and time will always win.
--
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of men? The Shadow do!
--Flip Wilson
Dave
"only 1" or "only 2" left, which may be significant.
Dave
heliog...@gmail.com
repeatedly."
Milne, yes. However, when I contacted the Burroughs people about
licensing material for a game, they pointed me directly to Disney:
Disney had bought -all rights- to Burroughs' works.
It was worth it for the Burroughs stationary, though ;-)
Matt Goodman * Heliograph, Inc.
heliog...@gmail.com
novels in print."
I approached Conde Naste about licensing Doc Savage material for a game
and reprinting the books in 1999. They wanted a CRAZY amount of money
for a guarantee and royalties. -That's- why nobody's done licensed
reprints.
While I have paid the Lester Dent Estate to reprint some non-Doc
stories (and did ask for and receive proof that Will Murray was the
Literary Estate manager and that they owned the copyright on the
material), I'd have to be convinced they had any control over the Doc
material. Everything points to Conde Naste for Doc and The Shadow.
I asked the Black Mask guy about CN and his Doc books at the New Jersey
pulp show in the fall... at that point they hadn't cease-and-desisted
him, but he was selling the books for below what it cost him to print
them. I didn't realize that at the show, but I did the math when I got
home (we use the same printer). If he was selling off stock for a loss
in November, I don't understand why he'd get into it with Conde Naste
over the rights. I just hope he's talked to a real lawyer... he did do
a good job with the books. I liked how he included the original art,
but I wish he'd done the covers as a flip book instead of how he did
them (two on the front, smallish).
heliog...@gmail.com
"only 1" or "only 2" left, which may be significant."
Nah. The books are print on demand, so when they reorder Lightning
Source will just print more up per order.