Pulp Pricing and Copyrghts..a few thoughts

202 views
Skip to first unread message

John P. Gunnison

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
I thought I'd stir up the muck a little and let off a little steam. Since
THE ADVENTURE HOUSE GUIDE TO THE PULPS finally went to the printer and my
several weeks of 16-18 hour days is behind me, I've ventured out onto the
net. Therein I've found several items that really steamed me.

A company with the ironic name of TRADEMARKS is selling a cd on ebay that
includes MP3's of SHADOW radio shows as well as copyrighted covers and text
to SHADOW pulps. I guess they decided to trademark their own little brand
of copypirated material.

An ebayer with an interesting name that starts with "X" is promoting once
more the ludicrous suggestion that pulps purchased from a collector in
Yakima, Washington are the finest pulp examples in existence and therefore
should be sold at an extremely inflated price. I did notice that a friend
of mine actually placed a bid on one, but several others went without bids.
I still say that a white paper pulp with pieces out of the cover, or badly
trimmed is still a pulp with a grade of GOOD or maybe GOOD PLUS. I figure
anyone who tries to sell a pulp with a psuedo "pedigree" for greatly
inflated prices, might find a buyer, but lose a customer in the long run
when they find the same material for much less elsewhere.

The most recent pulp renaissance hopefully will continue. I would hate to
see it die due to greed, overzealous ultra-hyped sales pushes, literary and
artistic ghouls who try to cash in without getting permission from copyright
holders.

Just one man's opinion!

John P. Gunnison
Adventure House
Publisher of THE ADVENTURE HOUSE GUIDE TO THE PULPS.
http://www.adventurehouse.com


Cat Savage Woman Of Bronze

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
Thanks John, nothing like your post to get my blood rushing. Hell, I can skip
the coffee this morning !
It seems that the people who ask and offer to pay for the use of the CR/TM
materials are 'punished' (turned down) and the people illegally selling CD ROMS
and unlicensed posters get rewarded by no legal action brought against them.
Most times it's a matter of one fax to an ISP or a call to Ebay to stop this,
yet the CR/TM holders just turn the info over to lawyers, who aren't web-savy,
and don't do anything at all about it. No wonder people think that the stuff
is in the public domain.
I hate this duplicity-I am not allowed to sell my Spider posters over the web
anymore, yet someone can illegally make and sell Spider posters over Ebay.
GRRRRR.
Trademarks: Use them or Lose them.
Copyright: is for the entire term whether they use it or not.

I would really hate to be an author or artist nowdays.

Nothing is stopping us from posting negative feedback for these sellers, you
know.
All it takes is for good men (and women) to stand by and do nothing.
(Yes, I know I've been spending too much time on http://www.michaelmoore.com/
lately)

====
Meow, Frozencat >^..^<
"I refuse to fight. I'm a consciences objector. You know, a coward."
(Fry-Futurama-Sunday 6pm CST on FOX)

John P. Gunnison

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
I also have found someone posting to some sort of photo album sight,
pictures of pulps. Not that such a low resolution file gets my blood
boiling, it's just that I have already found images that I scanned for my
web site as part of this person's albums of pulp images. Although I hold no
copyrights, I do not grant wholesale permission to copy images and text off
my web site without permission.

Does anyone know who crush2apulp is?

John Gunnison

Catts4

unread,
Jun 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/15/00
to
>Nothing is stopping us from posting negative feedback for these sellers, you
>know.

Except that they only take feedback from successful bidders. So theoretically
you could bid $25.99 and buy an original DOC Clock, and then post feedback that
it was a rip-off and trademark infringement, but that doesn't seem to be the
best use of time or money. This is the proper use for the NG -- keeping folks
aware.

I have seen this dodge several times in different areas of e-Bay -- the seller
says, "Well I don't know about the legality of this, but I bought it from
somebody who said it was ........."

Dave

Cat Savage Woman Of Bronze

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
In article <zEb25.6$_m.2...@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net>, "John P. Gunnison"
<gunn...@adventurehouse.com> writes:

> it's just that I have already found images that I scanned for my
>web site as part of this person's albums of pulp images. Although I hold no
>copyrights, I do not grant wholesale permission to copy images and text off
>my web site without permission.

Try this for protecting your images:
http://www.gamacles.com

Joseph Teller

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
On 15 Jun 2000 21:19:55 GMT, cat...@aol.com (Catts4) wrote:

> This is the proper use for the NG -- keeping folks
>aware.

Except in the case of the MP3s of Shadow Episodes you are in the wrong
if you state they are not in the Public Domain.

Take a look at the reality of copyrights - before 1978 recordings were
NOT copyrightable under US Copyright law. This has been specifically
clarified by the Library of Congress staff a number of times. Check
out their website and contact their staff.

There was a short period of time, when the law changed, when the
companies could have put in claims to retrieve copyright protection in
1978-79 by filing forms with the government, having their rights
posted in the Congressional Record (as the law required) and giving
the public the right to challenge the attempt to reclaim protection
under the law change. NO US companies or individuals filed such
documents accoriding to searches by the LOC staff for any material
except some foreign language recordings.

Exception is musical performances (which are protected under a
different set of laws under which sheet music is protected).

You cannot take something that is in the public domain and legally
return it to copyright status (check on Project Gutenberg Site
regarding this, theres a ton of material regarding this and legal
battles associated with such last time I checked).

You can re-edit a recording that was in Public Domain, as you can
re-edit a book, and thus put the new revised edition under copyright
law (Thats what Media Bay's Radio Spirits subsidiary does, they
remaster and cleanup the audio digitally, and remove some of the
material along the way, including ads etc.)

Many of the early Shadow Novels were not renewed under their original
form (the later PPB series was a re-edited collection, often with as
much as 10,000 words of content removed and thus counts as a seperate
NEW copyright of the PPB edition). Additionally Walter Gibson was
said to have sued for his rights for a number of the novels that were
renewed and regained control of the copyright. The status of his
estate is unknown at this time (anyone with further info on this
please post about it and quote sources).

Now, trademarks are another thing entirely, and making knock-off
materials using trademarks without permission is a different ballpark
entirely.

Joe

Joseph Teller joet...@mindspring.com
"Put Some Fantasy Back In Your Life!"
The Fantasy Library
http://www.fantasylibrary.com

John P. Gunnison

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to

> > This is the proper use for the NG -- keeping folks
> >aware.
>
> Except in the case of the MP3s of Shadow Episodes you are in the wrong
> if you state they are not in the Public Domain.

There was a very public lawsuit in regards to THE SHADOW radio programs
being copied and redistributed. The company who holds (that company name
has been forgotten by yours truly) those copyrights won the battle, and a
company who was trying to sell cassettes of the shows lost.


SNIP

>
> Many of the early Shadow Novels were not renewed under their original
> form (the later PPB series was a re-edited collection, often with as
> much as 10,000 words of content removed and thus counts as a seperate
> NEW copyright of the PPB edition). Additionally Walter Gibson was
> said to have sued for his rights for a number of the novels that were
> renewed and regained control of the copyright. The status of his
> estate is unknown at this time (anyone with further info on this
> please post about it and quote sources).

Which novels are you speaking of. The last time I looked, and I'll admit
that I didn't check each issue, THE SHADOW was renewed by first Street &
Smith, and then Conde Nast. S&S was one of the few pulp publishers who
spent the money to copyright and renew.

The lawsuit you are thinking of, was when Walter Gibson was helping produce
the reprint editions through Mysterious Press. He basically said to Conde
Nast, I'm the writer and I'm 70 something, go ahead and try to sue...you'll
just look bad. He didn't sue them to the best of my recollection.

>
> Now, trademarks are another thing entirely, and making knock-off
> materials using trademarks without permission is a different ballpark
> entirely.
>
> Joe

My biggest problem with companies like TRADEMARKS is that they are using
product that we know is copyrighted and trademarked and thumbing their nose
and saying go ahead and try and sue. To me, I wouldn't even dare doing
something like that, and perhaps that's why I have such a snit fit over it.

John Gunnison
Adventure House
http://www.adventurehouse.com

kar...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/16/00
to
In article <39495471...@news.mindspring.com>,

joet...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2000 21:19:55 GMT, cat...@aol.com (Catts4) wrote:
>
> > This is the proper use for the NG -- keeping folks
> >aware.
>
> Except in the case of the MP3s of Shadow Episodes you are in the wrong
> if you state they are not in the Public Domain.
>
> Take a look at the reality of copyrights - before 1978 recordings were
> NOT copyrightable under US Copyright law. This has been specifically
> clarified by the Library of Congress staff a number of times. Check
> out their website and contact their staff.
>
> There was a short period of time, when the law changed, when the
> companies could have put in claims to retrieve copyright protection in
> 1978-79 by filing forms with the government, having their rights
> posted in the Congressional Record (as the law required) and giving
> the public the right to challenge the attempt to reclaim protection
> under the law change. NO US companies or individuals filed such
> documents accoriding to searches by the LOC staff for any material
> except some foreign language recordings.
>
> Exception is musical performances (which are protected under a
> different set of laws under which sheet music is protected).
>
> You cannot take something that is in the public domain and legally
> return it to copyright status (check on Project Gutenberg Site
> regarding this, theres a ton of material regarding this and legal
> battles associated with such last time I checked).
>
> You can re-edit a recording that was in Public Domain, as you can
> re-edit a book, and thus put the new revised edition under copyright
> law (Thats what Media Bay's Radio Spirits subsidiary does, they
> remaster and cleanup the audio digitally, and remove some of the
> material along the way, including ads etc.)
>
> Many of the early Shadow Novels were not renewed under their original
> form (the later PPB series was a re-edited collection, often with as
> much as 10,000 words of content removed and thus counts as a seperate
> NEW copyright of the PPB edition). Additionally Walter Gibson was
> said to have sued for his rights for a number of the novels that were
> renewed and regained control of the copyright. The status of his
> estate is unknown at this time (anyone with further info on this
> please post about it and quote sources).
>
> Now, trademarks are another thing entirely, and making knock-off
> materials using trademarks without permission is a different ballpark
> entirely.

not too different...while the person selling the mp3's might be able to do so
because that material is pd, they are not allowed to use any other material
with the shadow logo or likeness, new or otherwise, to market that material
because the shadow as a property is not pd. the most famous example is the
fleischer superman cartoons that went pd. to package and market the video,
you are only allowed to use images actually found in the cartoon.

much like gunnison's reproduction of the first tarzan novel that went pd. as
long as he only reprinted from that novel (including the cover with the word
tarzan on it), he didn't have to worry about trademark infringement. if he
had made up his own cover with his own tarzan logo on the other hand...


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

je...@ionet.net

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
fantas...@mindspring.com (Joseph Teller) wrote:


>Except in the case of the MP3s of Shadow Episodes you are in the wrong
>if you state they are not in the Public Domain.

>Take a look at the reality of copyrights - before 1978 recordings were
>NOT copyrightable under US Copyright law. This has been specifically
>clarified by the Library of Congress staff a number of times. Check
>out their website and contact their staff.


Joseph is absolutely correct on this score. However, the script
can be still be protected.

James


Ronwixziv

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
If the reedited versions of pulp stories are covered by more recent copyright
law, but the publishers no loger exist, do the copyrights stil hold?

I'm thinking particularly of...
Freeway Press (Operator 5)
Corinth (G-8, Operator 5, Secret Agent X, et al)
Belmont (new Shadow novels by Walter GIbson & Dennis Lynds)
Plus, though the publishers still exist, Berkley & Pocket (The Spider)
The Corinth & Belmont series are now over the initial 29-year period, and since
they no longer exist, who could legally renew the rights?
-R

Alan D Glick

unread,
Jun 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/17/00
to
Which editions and which novels are you talking about having been edited?
Alan Glick

"Joseph Teller" <fantas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39495471...@news.mindspring.com...

Joseph Teller

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:28:14 GMT, "John P. Gunnison"
<gunn...@adventurehouse.com> wrote:

>There was a very public lawsuit in regards to THE SHADOW radio programs
>being copied and redistributed. The company who holds (that company name
>has been forgotten by yours truly) those copyrights won the battle, and a
>company who was trying to sell cassettes of the shows lost.

Check again - company that presently distributes Shadow radio programs
and claims licensing ownership is Media Bay's subsidiary, Radio
Spirits. Radio Spirits has been trying to claim ownership or licensing
for about 90% of OTR, but when push has come to shove with many
collectors, clubs, organization etc has had to back down as what they
have is a license to use the Shadow TRADEMARK.

They remaster the material, clean it up, edit it, and resell it. They
did not originate the masters, in many cases they got the masters from
collectors and clubs. They then claim copyright on the remastered
material, since it has been altered and "improved" (sort of a Ted
Turner job in some cases).

The shows are in the PD, as is nearly all of pre-1978 radio
recordings, as copyright law did not cover them. There are a handful
of exceptions (Music shows, Shows that were derrived from hollywood
feature films like the Lux Radio Theatre and the Academy Award
Theatre, and shows that were direct adaptations of books & novels -
which the Shadow Radio Shows weren't). There were only two authors
writing for radio that registered their scripts as seperate
copywritten documents of note: Arch Obler and Carlton E. Morse.

Many of the surviving shows are from 1) The Government overseas disc
collection from WWII, used to broadcast radio shows on board ship and
on bases outside the USA 2) Private collections of Performers 3) Wire
and transcription disk copies made by individuals or rescued from the
trash heap after being discarded.

There was also a MAJOR lawsuit in regards to Amos & Andy radio shows
and CBS where CBS lost control of all the early Amos & Andy material
to the public domain. (The case might be Silverstein vs CBS, I don't
remember for sure). All of this has been discussed by the way in the
otr discussion newsgroup over the past year, including legal
information, the running battle with the OTR collectos with Media
Bay/Radio Spirits etc.

Joseph Teller

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:26:51 GMT, "Alan D Glick"
<a.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Which editions and which novels are you talking about having been edited?
>Alan Glick

Check out the site: http://www.spaceports.com/~deshadow/

You'll find details about what was altered, and also ascii texts of
the shadow novels that are in the public domain.

On Project Gutenberg you can find copies of Edgar Rice Burroughs
novels now, and also of some of the Fu Manchu novels by Sax Rohmar
(and if you want some fancy versions of the Sax Rohmar material drop
on by my own website www.fantasylibrary.com and check in the stacks,
as I'm the official distrubution site for the PDF Retro-Novella
editions (free to download).

Alan D Glick

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
Just checked the site again and came across this sentence, "As to my
source material, I have chosen to use the original pulps rather than the
edited reprint versions. " Does this mean that more were edited than the
three Grosset & Dunlop editions? I'll pose this question to John also.
Alan Glick

"Joseph Teller" <fantas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:394c2a5a...@news.mindspring.com...

Alan D Glick

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
The site mentions three paperback books that were edited. Were you
referring to just these three or more?

je...@ionet.net

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
ronw...@aol.com (Ronwixziv) wrote:

As long as the copyright was in it's renewal term at the time of the
1976 copyright act, it got a twenty year "freebie" extention. Under
the DMCA, this has been extended even further. As a general rule, you
should assume that all of the hero pulps have valid copyrights, at
least until you do some real legwork. Most American E-publishers just
simplify their lives and decline to publish works produced after 1922.
European copyright (in striciter accordance with the Berne Convention)
can run substantially longer.


James


Catts4

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
The three there marked as edited, GROVE OF DOOM, MURDER BY MOONLIGHT, and
VOODOO DEATH, were edited when they were combined into a hardback collection
(title slipping my mind) in the late 1960's...

Does anybody think these were published without a clearly renewed copyright?
Same with the Crime Club editions? Or that when the SHADOW stories came out as
paperbacks in the 1960's it was done without a renewed copyright? Wish I had a
SHADOW paperback around -- all the DOCs, AVENGERs, and SPIDERs have the
copyright renewal notice in the front.

Dave

Joseph Teller

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:19:18 GMT, "Alan D Glick"
<a.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Just checked the site again and came across this sentence, "As to my
>source material, I have chosen to use the original pulps rather than the
>edited reprint versions. " Does this mean that more were edited than the
>three Grosset & Dunlop editions? I'll pose this question to John also.
> Alan Glick

You need to ask him - I am not an expert in the differences between
the pulp and paperback versions etc.

Ronwixziv

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
<< ronw...@aol.com (Ronwixziv) wrote:
>If the reedited versions of pulp stories are covered by more recent copyright
>law, but the publishers no loger exist, do the copyrights stil hold?
>I'm thinking particularly of...
>Freeway Press (Operator 5)
>Corinth (G-8, Operator 5, Secret Agent X, et al)
>Belmont (new Shadow novels by Walter GIbson & Dennis Lynds)
>Plus, though the publishers still exist, Berkley & Pocket (The Spider)
>The Corinth & Belmont series are now over the initial 29-year period, and
since
>they no longer exist, who could legally renew the rights?
>-R

je...@ionet.com replies...


As long as the copyright was in it's renewal term at the time of the
1976 copyright act, it got a twenty year "freebie" extention. Under
the DMCA, this has been extended even further. As a general rule, you
should assume that all of the hero pulps have valid copyrights, at
least until you do some real legwork. Most American E-publishers just
simplify their lives and decline to publish works produced after 1922.
European copyright (in striciter accordance with the Berne Convention)
can run substantially longer.>>

But, again, if the publisher NO LONGER EXISTS, who retains the copyright? In
other words, who can legally claim the copyright & defend it?
In the case of the Belmont Shadows, they were published before 1976, and the
publisher no longer exists.
In the case of the Berkley/Pocket Spiders, they were published before 1976.
In the the case of the Corinth/Freeway Press Operator 5s, they were published
before 1976, and the publisher no longer exists!
In the case of the other Corinth titles, all published before '76 AND the
publisher no loger exists!
-R

John P. Gunnison

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
From http://www.spaceports.com/~deshadow/#Q1

"What about copyrights? Are these legal? To quote from the United States
Copyright Office circular 22 : "If a work was first published or copyrighted
between January 1, 1923 and December 31, 1949, it is important to determine
whether the copyright was renewed during the last (28th) year of the first
term of the copyright. This can be done by searching the Copyright Office
records or catalogs as explained previously. If no renewal registration was
made, copyright protection expired permanently at the end of the 28th year
of the year date it was first secured."

A search of the Library of Congress web site at www.loc.gov failed to find a
notice of copyright renewal for the stories on this site."

The reason you won't find them listed, is that the Library of Congress
hasn't updated those files. You have to go to the Madison Building, 4th
Floor and into the Copyright Card Files to find the renewal. I can tell
you...you will find the renewals and the original copyrights. The Shadow is
under copyrights and all those text files are illegally posted and
reprinted. This is a problem, when someone assumes. If these are all
public domain, why hasn't some decent publisher rushed to reprint these
stories? I can tell you why...Advance Magazines, Inc, which is a subsidary
of Conde Nast Publications hasn't granted permission. That's why!

John Gunnison
Adventure House

John P. Gunnison

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
Only the G&D editions were edited to the best of my knowledge. All the
Bantam's and Jove paperbacks are printed complete and unedited.

John Gunnison
Adventure House

> Just checked the site again and came across this sentence, "As to my
> source material, I have chosen to use the original pulps rather than the
> edited reprint versions. " Does this mean that more were edited than the
> three Grosset & Dunlop editions? I'll pose this question to John also.
> Alan Glick
>

> "Joseph Teller" <fantas...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:394c2a5a...@news.mindspring.com...

John P. Gunnison

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
Although those companies no longer exist, the copyrights for the character
and the original story still do. In some cases, like Corinth, they
reprinted the pulp stories without copyright permission and was shut down
when Steeger found out.

John Gunnison

>
> >If the reedited versions of pulp stories are covered by more recent
copyright
> >law, but the publishers no loger exist, do the copyrights stil hold?
>
> >I'm thinking particularly of...
> >Freeway Press (Operator 5)
> >Corinth (G-8, Operator 5, Secret Agent X, et al)
> >Belmont (new Shadow novels by Walter GIbson & Dennis Lynds)
> >Plus, though the publishers still exist, Berkley & Pocket (The Spider)
> >The Corinth & Belmont series are now over the initial 29-year period, and
since
> >they no longer exist, who could legally renew the rights?
> >-R
>

> As long as the copyright was in it's renewal term at the time of the
> 1976 copyright act, it got a twenty year "freebie" extention. Under
> the DMCA, this has been extended even further. As a general rule, you
> should assume that all of the hero pulps have valid copyrights, at
> least until you do some real legwork. Most American E-publishers just
> simplify their lives and decline to publish works produced after 1922.
> European copyright (in striciter accordance with the Berne Convention)
> can run substantially longer.
>
>

> James
>
>
>

Steven Rowe

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
In article <20000618145633...@ng-fv1.aol.com>, ronw...@aol.com
(Ronwixziv) writes:

>But, again, if the publisher NO LONGER EXISTS, who retains the copyright? In
>other words, who can legally claim the copyright & defend it?

some companies which no longer exists have sold their assets to another
company.
(or just changed their name)


Steven Rowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.

join the FelixTheCat list at www.onelist.com
.

Spider9137

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
<< But, again, if the publisher NO LONGER EXISTS, who retains the copyright? In
other words, who can legally claim the copyright & defend it? >>

The successor-in-interest claims it. That is, whomever purchases the copyrights
(or the company owning the copyrights) claims them.

Alan D Glick

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
I checked my Bantam and Pyramid/Jove paperbacks. I have all of them except
one. They were originally published from 1931-1935. They all list
copyright renewal dates of 1958-1963.
Alan Glick

"Catts4" <cat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000618083506...@ng-da1.aol.com...

Robert Weinberg

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
"The Grove of Doom" was substantially cut for the G&D hardcover and the Tempo
pb reprint.

The other two novels were not edited.

As to the novels not being renewed, it is the first I've ever heard of it.
They were copyrighted in the books.

Joseph Teller wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:19:18 GMT, "Alan D Glick"
> <a.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Just checked the site again and came across this sentence, "As to my
> >source material, I have chosen to use the original pulps rather than the
> >edited reprint versions. " Does this mean that more were edited than the
> >three Grosset & Dunlop editions? I'll pose this question to John also.
> > Alan Glick
>

Robert Weinberg

unread,
Jun 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/18/00
to
the Corinth paperbacks were illegal (at least the Operator 5 and Dusty Ayres and
all the other Popular Publications stuff was) and they were discontinued for
several reasons - one being that they were about to be sued for publishing the
stuff.

Freeway Press and Dimedia were owned by Argosy Communications. They are still in
business. If a publisher reprints a novel and that novel is in copyright, it
means zero if the paperback publisher goes out of business. The original
copyright still holds.

Those people who assume they can reprint Popular Publications material without
permission on websites are going to be in for some surprises. One of the less
active owners of Popular Publications copyrights has finally pursuing copyright
infringements on the internet. As that owner, along with his wife and brother are
all attorneys, and have won copyright cases against such companies as Avon, Harper
Collins, etc. I expect some of the more notorious violators of copyright are soon
going to find that their open violation of copyright law is not going to be so
much fun.

Ronwixziv wrote:

> << ronw...@aol.com (Ronwixziv) wrote:
> >If the reedited versions of pulp stories are covered by more recent copyright
> >law, but the publishers no loger exist, do the copyrights stil hold?
> >I'm thinking particularly of...
> >Freeway Press (Operator 5)
> >Corinth (G-8, Operator 5, Secret Agent X, et al)
> >Belmont (new Shadow novels by Walter GIbson & Dennis Lynds)
> >Plus, though the publishers still exist, Berkley & Pocket (The Spider)
> >The Corinth & Belmont series are now over the initial 29-year period, and
> since
> >they no longer exist, who could legally renew the rights?
> >-R
>

> je...@ionet.com replies...


> As long as the copyright was in it's renewal term at the time of the
> 1976 copyright act, it got a twenty year "freebie" extention. Under
> the DMCA, this has been extended even further. As a general rule, you
> should assume that all of the hero pulps have valid copyrights, at
> least until you do some real legwork. Most American E-publishers just
> simplify their lives and decline to publish works produced after 1922.
> European copyright (in striciter accordance with the Berne Convention)
> can run substantially longer.>>
>

> But, again, if the publisher NO LONGER EXISTS, who retains the copyright? In
> other words, who can legally claim the copyright & defend it?

Cat Savage Woman Of Bronze

unread,
Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00
to
In article <394D642F...@para-net.com>, Robert Weinberg
<rwei...@para-net.com> writes:

> I expect some of the more notorious violators of copyright are soon
>going to find that their open violation of copyright law is not going to be
>so
>much fun.

I saw this blurb in James Patrick Kelly's On The Net column in ASIMOV's this
month.
Quote: A reader suggested I check out the VIRGINIA TECH SPECULATIVE FICTION
HOME PAGE http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/vtsf/sf-project2.html
where they are digitizing the materials from the SF magazines and book
collection of one William Heron. Heron amassed 5 thousand issues of 2 hundred
publications dating from 1926 to 1987 Unquote

Do universities have special permission to do this?

====
Meow, Frozencat >^..^<
"If I didn't know better, I'd almost think he was abusing electricity."
(Leela-Futurama-Sunday 6pm CST on FOX)

Catts4

unread,
Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00
to
>Do universities have special permission to do this?
>

No, they did not. They simply assumed it was out of copyright when the posted
it to the net (they frankly admit so on their web-site). They've already been
hit with lawyers, which is why their STARTLING STORIES link doesn't work -- had
posted a Heinlein story, from under his Lyle Monroe pen name -- some college
experts; didn't even realize who he was. They now claim they are "negotiating"
for rights,

Dave

Ronwixziv

unread,
Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00
to
The nigh-legendary Robert Weinberg says this about the Shadow pulps and
copyrights...

<<As to the novels not being renewed, it is the first I've ever heard of it.
They were copyrighted in the books.>>

But the point is that most of the Shadow pulp run (unlike Doc Savage, The
Avenger, or even Captain Future, has NOT been reprinted since the inital pulp
printings, so how can copyright be renewed on something NOT reprinted? Don't
you have to reprint it to renew copyright?

Example: Several newspaper syndicates issue limited-run strip reprints to
maintain copyrights on the strips. Hotalings in NYC used to carry the Tribune
Syndicate reprints until they moved into much smaller quarters.

On a similar note, to maintain trademarks, Marvel & DC used to use their
team-up books (Marvel Team-Up, Brave & Bold, etc.) to feature characters who
weren't appearing anywhere else in their line for a calendar year.
-R

kar...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00
to
In article <20000621133416...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,

ronw...@aol.com (Ronwixziv) wrote:
> The nigh-legendary Robert Weinberg says this about the Shadow pulps and
> copyrights...
> <<As to the novels not being renewed, it is the first I've ever heard of it.
> They were copyrighted in the books.>>
>
> But the point is that most of the Shadow pulp run (unlike Doc Savage, The
> Avenger, or even Captain Future, has NOT been reprinted since the inital pulp
> printings, so how can copyright be renewed on something NOT reprinted? Don't
> you have to reprint it to renew copyright?
>

nope. if you reprint something legally and changes have been made, you can in
effect copyright the new version as a separte work. it does not effect the
copyright status of the original.

trademarks on the other hand have to be used every so often to be maintained
which is what the following were actually doing.

> Example: Several newspaper syndicates issue limited-run strip reprints to
> maintain copyrights on the strips. Hotalings in NYC used to carry the Tribune
> Syndicate reprints until they moved into much smaller quarters.
>
> On a similar note, to maintain trademarks, Marvel & DC used to use their
> team-up books (Marvel Team-Up, Brave & Bold, etc.) to feature characters who
> weren't appearing anywhere else in their line for a calendar year.
> -R
>

Cat Savage Woman Of Bronze

unread,
Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00
to
You're confusing copyright with Trademarks.
Trademarks: Use them or Lose them.
Copyrights: As long as they're renewed, they don't have to 're-release' them.

Spider9137

unread,
Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00
to
<< But the point is that most of the Shadow pulp run (unlike Doc Savage, The
Avenger, or even Captain Future, has NOT been reprinted since the inital pulp
printings, so how can copyright be renewed on something NOT reprinted? Don't
you have to reprint it to renew copyright? >>

No. Back in the "old days," you simply had to apply for copyright renewal
before the first 28 years expired.

Robert Weinberg

unread,
Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00
to
any of the several lawyers on board will tell you that NO, you do not have to
reprint material that has been published to renew a copyright. Copyrights come
up for renewal in 28 years. So a Shadow from 1932 had to be renewed in 1960. If
it was renewed (which they all were), then the copyright would have run to 1988,
then the issue would have been in public domain. But, with the copyright
extension law, the magazine is still under copyright. that's the long and short
of it. Reprinting something has nothing to do with renewal which just involves
filling out a form.

Ronwixziv wrote:

> The nigh-legendary Robert Weinberg says this about the Shadow pulps and
> copyrights...
> <<As to the novels not being renewed, it is the first I've ever heard of it.
> They were copyrighted in the books.>>
>

> But the point is that most of the Shadow pulp run (unlike Doc Savage, The
> Avenger, or even Captain Future, has NOT been reprinted since the inital pulp
> printings, so how can copyright be renewed on something NOT reprinted? Don't
> you have to reprint it to renew copyright?
>

Catts4

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
Simply check the inside page of DOC SAVAGE paperback. It gives you the
original copyright date, the date of renewal, and then the date of paperback
pulblication.

Dave

James D. Keeline

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
Spider9137 wrote:
>
> << But the point is that most of the Shadow pulp run (unlike Doc Savage, The
> Avenger, or even Captain Future, has NOT been reprinted since the inital pulp
> printings, so how can copyright be renewed on something NOT reprinted? Don't
> you have to reprint it to renew copyright? >>
>
> No. Back in the "old days," you simply had to apply for copyright renewal
> before the first 28 years expired.

Yes, but they actually had to fill out the form and pay the fee at the one-year
period after the first term expired. Very large publishers with good records
and secretarial staff could probably handle this but items which were considered
dated or not worthy of reprinting may have been overlooked. To be sure, one
would have to look up the original registration (prefix code "A") and the renew-
al ("R") at the Copyright Office which is part of the Library of Congress in
Washington, D.C.

Even the big companies slipped up from time to time. A couple of Tom Swifts
and some Bobbsey Twins books were not renewed which caused some difficulty
for the Stratemeyer Syndicate and its publishers.

Another thing to check while at the Copyright Office would be transfers of
copyright ownership. These records can be a goldmine of information if you
know how to use them.

James D. Keeline
http://www.keeline.com/StratemeyerSyndicate.html

davo...@earthlink.com

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to

----------
In article <R7935.4684$n95.1...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net>, "John P. Gunnison"
<gunn...@adventurehouse.com> wrote:

> In some cases, like Corinth, they
>reprinted the pulp stories without copyright permission and was shut down
>when Steeger found out.
>
>John Gunnison
>

I've heard this about Corinth several times, and I'm
a bit curious.

Does anybody know who made the decision at Corinth
to reprint the pulp material? My understanding is
that Corinth published pornographic novels. Were
they trying to "go straight?" Was it outright
piracy, or did they think the copyrights had
lapsed?

I suppose I'm mostly curious as to why a publisher
of pornography would suddenly get it in his head
to start reprinting pulp novels. I'm guessing
they were trying to copy the success of the Bantam
reprints of Doc Savage, but that's sheer speculation.

I have about 30 of the Corinth book, but my financial
situation being what it is, it's gonna be a loo-o-o-ong
time before I complete the set. :)

Spider9137

unread,
Jun 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/22/00
to
My point is that you simply filed for another copyright extension, in answer to
the guy who thought they were public domain because they hadn't been reprinted.
I'm not really concerned with the proceedure, and just wanted to answer the
poster.

lurch-...@iname.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:13:12 GMT, "davo...@earthlink.com"
<davo...@earthlink.com> wrote:

>I've heard this about Corinth several times, and I'm
>a bit curious.
>
>Does anybody know who made the decision at Corinth
>to reprint the pulp material? My understanding is
>that Corinth published pornographic novels. Were
>they trying to "go straight?" Was it outright
>piracy, or did they think the copyrights had
>lapsed?

Actually, I have a whole list of questions regarding Corinth's - I
would love to get in touch with one of the people involved with them.
Anyone know how to?

Catts4

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
>Corinth's - I
>would love to get in touch with one of the people involved with them.
>Anyone know how to?

For some reason, the first connection that popped into my mind was "minimum
security prisons"

dave

Bill Mann

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
"davo...@earthlink.com" wrote:
> Does anybody know who made the decision at Corinth
> to reprint the pulp material? My understanding is
> that Corinth published pornographic novels. Were
> they trying to "go straight?"

I seem to remember reading about this somewhere but my memory has been
pretty hazy for the past year. There was some law passed in California?
that forced them to stop printing porn and they needed some cheap
material to keep their business going. Probably the Doc Savage reprints
influenced their decision, and they probably thought they were using PD
material. Then again I could be having another fatigue induced
hallucination.

Cat Savage Woman Of Bronze

unread,
Jun 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/23/00
to
In article <3953A239...@att.net>, Bill Mann <bma...@att.net> writes:

>Then again I could be having another fatigue induced
>hallucination.

Why Bill, you're supposed to save the fatigue induced hallucinations for after
Pulpcon!

Mark S. Halegua

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to

Cat Savage Woman Of Bronze wrote:

> In article <3953A239...@att.net>, Bill Mann <bma...@att.net> writes:
>
> >Then again I could be having another fatigue induced
> >hallucination.
>
> Why Bill, you're supposed to save the fatigue induced hallucinations for after
> Pulpcon!

No, No Cat. You're supposed to save the fatigue induced hallucinations for the
2nd and 3rd day of the Con!! Not after!!

Mark

*** The Phantom Speaks ***

davo...@earthlink.com

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
The hallucinations aren't induced by fatigue. They're
induced by the LSD I put in the water so I can steal
pulps while everybody's whacked out on acid.

----------
In article <39544333...@mindspring.com>, "Mark S. Halegua"

Catts4

unread,
Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00
to
On copyright/trademark -- the-artist-formerly-known-as-the
artist-formerly-know-as has regained his rights to his former self. And the
human-herpes-sore-formerly -known-as-Cat-Stevens is seeing his "music" hawked
on TV, with no say-so in the matter

Dave

Ronwixziv

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
The nigh-legendary (but extremely modest) Robert Weinberg points out that...

<< any of the several lawyers on board will tell you that NO, you do not have
to
reprint material that has been published to renew a copyright. Copyrights come
up for renewal in 28 years. So a Shadow from 1932 had to be renewed in 1960.
If
it was renewed (which they all were), then the copyright would have run to
1988,
then the issue would have been in public domain. But, with the copyright
extension law, the magazine is still under copyright. that's the long and
short
of it. Reprinting something has nothing to do with renewal which just involves
filling out a form.>>

So, theoretically, in the case of the Belmont Shadows, which were published
between '65 to '67, if Advance/Conde Nast didn't file by '94-'96, they're now
public domain! Belmont no longer exists, so only Conde Nast/Advance would have
the right to do so. Would they bother?

And what of all the movie and/or tv novelizations from the 40s to the 80s?
Since the shows were cancelled, would the studios bother to renew copyright on
what would essentally be a dead property?
Think of it-- The Man (and Girl) from U.N.C.L.E., The Prisoner, Voyage to the
Bottom of the Sea (movie & tv series!), Secret Agent, Have Gun Will Travel, the
Corman Poe flicks (scripts & novelizations written by Richard Matheson!),
Reptilicus, even the Batman tv novelizations might all now be public domain!

The mind boggles!

-R

Spider9137

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
<< So, theoretically, in the case of the Belmont Shadows, which were published
between '65 to '67, if Advance/Conde Nast didn't file by '94-'96, they're now
public domain!>>

If the first 28 year term expired before 1978, you had to renew. After 1978,
copyrights were given all that special extension stuff.

If your work was still in its first 28-year term by 1978, it was no longer
necessary to renew. Anything published after 1978 was automatically given 75
years of protection, now extended to 95 years.

Confused? That's why copyrights were given a flat lifetime, and it was no
longer necessary to renew them. Belmont Shadows are still under copyright.

<<Belmont no longer exists, so only Conde Nast/ Advance would have the right to
do so. Would they bother?>> Of course. Conde Nast owns the copyright. They can
license the book (and make money) if another publisher decides to pony up money
to reprint them.

<< And what of all the movie and/or tv novelizations from the 40s to the 80s?
Since the shows were cancelled, would the studios bother to renew copyright on
what would essentally be a dead property? >>

Of course. Reruns, reprints. You earn money on a property years after it was
actually created. Some authors like Stephen King earn millions upon first
publication of their work. Other authors earn the big bucks by peddling their
work years after it was produced.

<< Think of it -- (Many tev shows named) even the Batman tv novelizations might


all now be public domain! The mind boggles! >>

But they probably aren't. The mind boggles only if you refuse to accept the
drab truth. They're probably still under copyright.

Catts4

unread,
Jun 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/25/00
to
The TOR paperback people have taken to publishing the very early Zane Grey
books (beofre 1922) with the notation "New material copyright by TOR books".
They have an edition of WILDFIRE with no copyright notice. whatsoever.

Dave

Clark

unread,
Jun 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/28/00
to
"John P. Gunnison"
<snip>
>The reason you won't find them listed, is that the Library of Congress
> hasn't updated those files. You have to go to the Madison Building, 4th
> Floor and into the Copyright Card Files to find the renewal. I can tell
> you...you will find the renewals and the original copyrights. The Shadow
is
> under copyrights and all those text files are illegally posted and
> reprinted. This is a problem, when someone assumes. If these are all
> public domain, why hasn't some decent publisher rushed to reprint these
> stories? I can tell you why...Advance Magazines, Inc, which is a
subsidary
> of Conde Nast Publications hasn't granted permission. That's why!

To continue beating this horse, what's the copyright status when a pulp was
published without copyright notice? According to the Copyright Office's
website:

"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law,
although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a
requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright
status of older works.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was
eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective
March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date
could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally
published without notice."

I have a copy of the Sheena pulp published in 1951. Nowhere can I find a
notice of copyright on the contents page or anywhere else. Although a work
published in 1951 would normally have had an automatic renewal after 28
years because of later copyright law, would this apply if there had been no
original notice of copyright?

- Clark

Visit my Pulp Heroes web page at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801a/Pulp.htm


comic-art.com

unread,
Jun 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/29/00
to
there are definately some things being said that are wrong in many of these
posts, so I will let you know some of them.

1....a copyright notice was mandatory prior to 1978. Anything published without
a notice prior to that year IS PD. You can read the copyright circular available
online to read this (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html).
This is why many (if not all) of the Thunder Agents comics by Tower pubs (all
that great Wally Wood art) are PD as determined by the lawsuit and judgement
filed when the company reprinting the material and creating new stories was sued
by the original writer -(( I think Bill Spicer?..Ed Hulse might know that
answer..). The judge determined the material had been in the public domain since
publication due to the lack of the copyright notices.

2....anything copyrighted prior to 1-1-64 had to be renewed during the 28th year
to maintain the further copyright protection which was extended to 67 years by
later congressional acts.

3....anything copyrighted prior to 1-1-64, does not get an automatic renewal,
though anything after that date does.

these are the simple facts available online at the LOC address above.
So if you didn't adhere to the above guidelines, you were determined to have
"abondoned" the material.
This was most notably the situation with all the Fiction House comics & pulps.
It would have cost $12 per issue for renewal of comics and pulps that were not
producing a single penny for Sam Iger in 1963 when the comics began expiring
(the pulps had begun to expire in the fifties). later the renewal fee was $20.
So why spend several hundred dollars each year to renew? He saw it as a waste.
was he short sighted? Yes he was......he wasn't the only one. Look at the
enormous catalog of material in the public domain, all that great stuff.

Later as some companies realize their mistakes, it is quite simply - too late...

Rich
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spider9137

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
<< This was most notably the situation with all the Fiction House comics &
pulps.
It would have cost $12 per issue for renewal of comics and pulps that were not
producing a single penny for Sam Iger in 1963 when the comics began expiring
(the pulps had begun to expire in the fifties). later the renewal fee was $20.
So why spend several hundred dollars each year to renew? He saw it as a waste.
was he short sighted? Yes he was......he wasn't the only one. Look at the
enormous catalog of material in the public domain, all that great stuff."

Yes, but if he had to keep a company afloat, then perhaps not renewing
copyrights was perceived as a cash-flow thing. While tie up all that money to
renew "junk" that had no apparent future?

Later as some companies realize their mistakes, it is quite simply - too
late... >>

Yes, but several companies DID renew copyrights ... which goes to the basic
heart of the matter, which is that: Some folks want to believe that everything
is PD, while much of it isn't.


Clark

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
"comic-art.com" wrote

<snip>


> So if you didn't adhere to the above guidelines, you were determined to
have
> "abondoned" the material.

> This was most notably the situation with all the Fiction House comics &
pulps.

That helps clear up my question on the Sheena pulp--it was published by
Fiction House. Though in the case of the Sheena pulp there was no copyright
notice, so there was apparently no copyright to renew anyway.

John P. Gunnison

unread,
Jun 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/30/00
to
They probably didn't attach a copyright notice, since they were all reprints
anyway. Stories taken from JUNGLE STORIES. You might also want to check
the inside front cover. Those stories were copyrighted, but has since
lapsed into public domain.

John Gunnison
Adventure House
www.adventurehouse.com

Clark <cjh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZRT65.39312$Ey2.2...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...

Steven Rowe

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to
In article <395BA647...@comic-art.com>, "comic-art.com"
<sa...@comic-art.com> writes:

>This is why many (if not all) of the Thunder Agents comics by Tower pubs (all
>that great Wally Wood art) are PD as determined by the lawsuit and judgement
>filed when the company reprinting the material and creating new stories was
>sued
>by the original writer -(( I think Bill Spicer?..Ed Hulse might know that
>answer..). The judge determined the material had been in the public domain
>since
>publication due to the lack of the copyright notices.
>

Hmm, this judgement was overturned on appeal, and the material was found to be
NOT be in the public domain.

the lawsuit was by the owner of the material (JCP Inc) sued a company (Deluxe?
Singer?) who was producing material without permission of the copyright and
trademark holder.

Steven Rowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.

join the FelixTheCat list at www.onelist.com
.

Nodwar's Stuff

unread,
Aug 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/9/00
to
How long is the extension for the example below, something orig in 1932,
renewed in 1960 then in 1988 how much longer?

Doug

Robert Weinberg wrote:
>
> any of the several lawyers on board will tell you that NO, you do not have to
> reprint material that has been published to renew a copyright. Copyrights come
> up for renewal in 28 years. So a Shadow from 1932 had to be renewed in 1960. If
> it was renewed (which they all were), then the copyright would have run to 1988,
> then the issue would have been in public domain. But, with the copyright
> extension law, the magazine is still under copyright. that's the long and short
> of it. Reprinting something has nothing to do with renewal which just involves
> filling out a form.
>

> Ronwixziv wrote:
>
> > The nigh-legendary Robert Weinberg says this about the Shadow pulps and
> > copyrights...
> > <<As to the novels not being renewed, it is the first I've ever heard of it.
> > They were copyrighted in the books.>>
> >

> > But the point is that most of the Shadow pulp run (unlike Doc Savage, The
> > Avenger, or even Captain Future, has NOT been reprinted since the inital pulp
> > printings, so how can copyright be renewed on something NOT reprinted? Don't
> > you have to reprint it to renew copyright?
> >

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages