When do the copyrights expire?
Bro Koth
I know this has been discussed before, but I don't recall that a definite
answer was found.
Prior to about 1975, copyrights were granted for a period of 38 years. At the
end of this time, the copyright could be renewed for an additional 38 years,
giving a possible 76 years in all before a work became public domain.
Copyright was granted on publication of the work.
Have I got that right? Or is there something about copyright law I've
overlooked? Because, as I figure it, the first Doc novel, "The Man of Bronze,"
will become public domain in April of 2009, or a little less than 11 years from
now, with another Doc novel coming into public domain every month after that.
Does anybody know what the story is on the expiration of Doc's copyrights? I
really want to know!
Alain Berguerand
Bro Koth wrote:
> Does anybody know what the story is on the expiration of Doc's copyrights? I
> really want to know!
AFAIK the 75 years duration (28 original + 47 extension) rule apply for
works first published before 1978. For works published after that date,
the "50 years after writer's death" rule apply.
As another poster mentioned, a US Congress Bill that would grant these
works another 20 years extension (as lobbied by the entertainment
industry, fearing the passage of 30's movies and cartoons and Jazz
records to the public domain) is in the process of being voted. If that
Bill is accepted, you can expect to see another one in 20 years, and so
on until a state of perpetual copyright is achieved. This extension
would essential benefit the entertainement industry, not the original
authors or their heirs.
Alain Berguerand
Robert Cotton
The two bills mentioned in these posts are specifically backed by Disney in
their attempt to keep the early Mickey Mouse cartoons and images within
corporate bounds and are well on their way to passage.
--
RCC
Alain Berguerand wrote in message <356A9F5A...@REMOVEelca.ch>...
Hardyboy01
>The two bills mentioned in these posts are specifically backed by Disney in
>their attempt to keep the early Mickey Mouse cartoons and images within
>corporate bounds and are well on their way to passage.
>
>
"Rollerball" WAS a vision of the future!
Hardy...@aol.com
Your favorite childhood series book & pulp heroes live again at:
http://members.aol.com/Hardyboy01/index.html
Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Tom Swift, Doc Savage & more!
100's OF AFFORDABLE SERIES BOOKS & COLLECTIBLES FOR SALE!
UNCLE Agnt
The issue is not so much copyright as it is trademark. While a particular book
may fall into public domain, the character of Doc Savage will remain a
protected trademark. So although at one point someone may post "The
Thousand-Headed Werewolf" on the 'net when copyright expires on it, you can't
write and post or publish "Doc Savage and the Return of the Thousand-Headed
Werewolf" because the character remains under TM protection.
A legal lesson from Ham Brooks Jr.
Mike Botelho
UNCLE Agnt wrote:
Perhaps others were concerned with the opportunity to write their own Doc
adventures. I am familiar with trademarking and am more concerned with written
material becoming and remaining public property long after the authors are beyond
the realm of royalties. Also, I see no reason for such things as old Doc novels
to be kept from becoming legally distributed e-texts, particularly if the
copyright holder is never going to be involved in any re-publication of the
material. Perpetual copyright, obviously, would make this less likely. Frankly,
I suspect that Lester Dent would be happy to know that people are downloading and
reading e-text of his creations, just as I imagine ERB would be happy that Tarzan
and Mars novels are available in e-text for free to anyone in the world with a
computer and a love of his work.
Alain Berguerand
Mike Botelho wrote:
>
> Perhaps others were concerned with the opportunity to write their own Doc
> adventures. I am familiar with trademarking and am more concerned with written
> material becoming and remaining public property long after the authors are beyond
Mike,
As you are familiar with trademarking, I take the opportunity to ask you
a question. I had the occasion, during a cocktail, to talk with the
person responsible for the marks department of the Nestlé group (they
posess thousands of marks worldwide). He told me that the term
"trademark" had no real legal weight, as opposed to "registred mark".
According to him, TM is used, especially in the US, as a way to
preventively threaten people that would use the mark, but there is no
way to sue an infringer on this basis. Registred mark, on the other
side, legally protects a mark, but the mark must meet some conditions to
remain registred. Especially, some product from that mark must have been
manufactured and distributed during the last (I believe) 5 years. In the
case of Doc, this would force Bantam to pubslish some reprints...
Can you confim / negate this ? If true, what does it imply for the Doc
Savage trademark ?
Alain Berguerand
SRoweCanoe
In article <356D1A91...@REMOVEelca.ch>, Alain Berguerand
<Alain.Be...@REMOVEelca.ch> writes:
>Especially, some product from that mark must have been
>manufactured and distributed during the last (I believe) 5 years. In the
>case of Doc, this would force Bantam to pubslish some reprints...
>
>Can you confim / negate this ? If true, what does it imply for the Doc
>Savage trademark ?
While I think that the guy was attempting to give you too much trival
information (you do have to register your trademark, that's true - for it to do
any good), Doc Savage's trademark has not been dropped, as a Doc comic book
came out in late 1995.
Mike Botelho
> As you are familiar with trademarking, I take the opportunity to ask you
> a question. I had the occasion, during a cocktail, to talk with the
> person responsible for the marks department of the Nestlé group (they
> posess thousands of marks worldwide). He told me that the term
> "trademark" had no real legal weight, as opposed to "registred mark".
> According to him, TM is used, especially in the US, as a way to
> preventively threaten people that would use the mark, but there is no
> way to sue an infringer on this basis. Registred mark, on the other
> side, legally protects a mark, but the mark must meet some conditions to
> manufactured and distributed during the last (I believe) 5 years. In the
> case of Doc, this would force Bantam to pubslish some reprints...
Alain,
In regard to the specific issue of trademarks, an unregistered mark is still legally
protectable, although registration provides the maximum legal protection. I'm sure
that unregistered marks, known as 'common law' marks, are ignored as an option by a
group such as Nestle since they are working on large budgets and protecting valuable
properties. You are right about the main aspect of sustaining a registered mark, as an
affidavit proving usage must be filed between the 5th and 6th year of registration to
keep that registration active.
Mike
RWmHarvey
Unfortunatly ... Conde Nast has authorized comic books, movies, and lots of
other stuff related to THE SHADOW ... but no paperback reprints ... the
copyrights on the novels remain active, and there are a number of ways for them
to keep the registered trademark WITHOUT reprinting any novels. At least we've
got all the Docs reprinted ...
Best,
Rich Harvey
-- Pulp Adventures, Inc.
-- http://members.aol.com/pulpress/index.html
Mark O Lambert
As I understand the copyright laws: For "Works for hire" -- i.e.,
created by an EMPLOYEE of a company -- the copyright lasts 75
years. If, however, the writer is an outside contractor and the
contract does not meet the requirements of being a "work for
hire," then copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 50
years (or the life of the longest-living author plus 50 years if
multiple authors). So, by my calucations, by either 2008 or 2009
THE MAN OF BRONZE will be in the public domain.
Please note that the above info is for informational purposes
only and is NOT legal advice; if you desire legal advice on this
question you should hire a lawyer with expertise in copyright and
trademark law, and not an attorney like yours truly who disclaims
and denies any expertise or competence in copyright or trademark
law.
--Mark Lambert
hid...@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hidalgo
SRoweCanoe
In article <ug8feU3...@ntdwwaaw.compuserve.com>, Mark O Lambert
<10571...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>As I understand the copyright laws: For "Works for hire" -- i.e.,
>created by an EMPLOYEE of a company -- the copyright lasts 75
>years.
However, Doc Savage was written before the "Work For Hire" laws were
extablished.
Steven Rowe
BritReid
The Doc Savage novels were written as "work for hire".
Most series fiction is written and illustrated this way (Creator-owned series,
especially, but not exclusively in comics, are a recent development.) If the
copyright says "Conde Nast" not "Lester Dent", it's work for the company.
Today, work for hire can involve royalties, but the material still belongs to
the company, not the writer and/or artist.
Regarding trademarks: Marvel and DC both published team-up books (Brave & Bold,
Marvel Team-Up, etc.) or mini-series with the primary use of keeping character
names trademarked. Since secondary characters like Stingray or The Crimson
Avenger don't have their own titles, the companies do this to maintain use of
character names exclusively. When they don't, anybody can use the name with a
totally different character concept behind it. Example: both Marvel & DC have a
Sandman (DC actually has several related characters) But both versions are
different concepts and characters. (Lets not even go into the numerous Captains
Marvel that have appeared from four different publishers!)
I'm getting as headache over this. Talk to ya later.
-Brian