posted May 06, 2003 01:28 AM               

I exchanged email recently with someone that was working on a Captain Marvel web page. The guy was under the impression that DC aquired the Captain Marvel character by sueing Fawcett in the 1950's, and then sat on the trademark for 15 years.

I have some questions of my own about the transfer of trademarks and Fawcett. I know that Charlton published some Ibis comics in the 50's after buying the rights from Fawcett outright, but I also heard that DC bought the Ibis rights directly from Fawcett.

posted May 06, 2003 02:22 AM            

I think copyrights are registered at the Library of Congress, but would that include the sale of copyrights? I dunno.

This stuff should available, just like deeds and birth records. However, I'm guessing it's a labor-intensive process.

posted May 06, 2003 02:58 AM               

If something has the (r) ("r" in a circle) then the trademark is actually registered with that patent or trademark office. The "TM" symbol means that ownership is claimed, but may not have been officially registered.

posted May 06, 2003 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Van Thorp:
The symbol in the title should be a (c)opyright symbol.

I exchanged email recently with someone that was working on a Captain Marvel web page. The guy was under the impression that DC aquired the Captain Marvel character by sueing Fawcett in the 1950's, and then sat on the trademark for 15 years.

I have some questions of my own about the transfer of trademarks and Fawcett. I know that Charlton published some Ibis comics in the 50's after buying the rights from Fawcett outright, but I also heard that DC bought the Ibis rights directly from Fawcett.

---

DC did sue Fawcett for copyright infringement and the case was settled in the early 50's with Fawcett agreeing not to publish Captain Marvel or let anyone else publish Captain Marvel. DC did not acquire any rights to the character at that time. In the 70s DC leased rights to the character from Fawcett and published the SHAZAM comic. They used the name SHAZAM on the cover because in the interim, Marvel and acquired a trademark on Captain Marvel. (To maintain a trademark, unlike a cpyright, you must actually use it so Fawcett lost the trademark and could not sell it to DC.)

The leasing agreement continued into the early 80's at least. Roy Thomas mentioned it cost DC something every time he used Captain Marvel or any other Fawcett character in All-Star Squadron.

posted May 06, 2003 07:27 PM            

Here's how I understand it.

First, I believe that a trademark must be either registered or actually used to remain valid. However, a copyright owner continues to own the copyright for a certain number of years regardless of use.

There is a difference between practical rights and actual rights.

Practical rights are made part of the public record by the uncontested public exercise of these rights. So if some person or company publishes something uncontested, then that person or company has the right to it. A person or company could also exercise these rights by merely making a public announcment of these rights. However, I can't see anyone making a public announcement about a comic book character unless he intends to publish or contest someone else's stated rights.

Actual rights are not necessarily part of the public record and can only be determined in a court of law.

For example, let's say that my dad bought the rights to the Fawcett characters in 1950. This means that anyone who wants these rights has to purchase them from my dad or his heirs after he dies. This would mean that any agreement since 1950 would be voided by the fact that none of them were made with my dad.

If my dad is unaware that his rights are being infringed upon or choose not to excercise his rights for whatever reason (he has no interest in publishing comics and might not think that his rights have a large monetary value), then no one will know that he is the actual owner.

If he dies and I find the original agreement, then I might work out a deal with DC. If there is a non-disclosure clause that prevents both parties from talking about the agreement, then my ownership and subsequent transfer of it to DC will never become part of the public record. Even if there isn't a non-disclosure clause, there is no reason for anyone to make a public announcement.

In this admitedly unlikely scenario, you would only find out that my dad and I owned the rights if my dad or I sue DC and win.

As I understand it, courts resolve disputes by starting with the original owner and the earliest transfer of rights. The court then follows the path and discards any agreements that aren't on it. If I'm right, this is the only way to find the actual history of the transfers. Although even this could be invalidated by the unearthing of an earlier agreement.

posted May 06, 2003 07:45 PM            

1. Go to a library that has access to a legal database. If it's not electronic, go somewhere else. You're looking for something that has cases like LexisNexis or WestLaw.

2. Type in the name of each character, one at a time. Let's face it, even Captain Marvel isn't going to appear too often.

Let's say you find nothing that you didn't already know.

3. Ask someone at DC what he or she thinks DC's rights are. You might be more sucessful by asking privately, in-person, off the record, and with the agreement that you won't tell anyone. Don't hold your breath.

4. Assuming DC responds, look for conflicts between DC's perceived rights and material published elsewhere. Ask DC to clarify, but realize that you may start a lawsuit that prevents the other company from publishing something you want to read.

5. Ask about specific characters or stories that aren't explicitly covered by DC's percieved rights.

6. Repeat with other companies, if any, who have published material that you care about. My guess is that the other publishers will tell you that the work is in the public domain.

I suspect that Fawcett (and Quality and Charlton) and DC are the only companies that bothered to register trademarks and copyrights.

posted May 06, 2003 08:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by OldGuy:

At some point, DC purchased the rights to Captain Marvel and the other Fawcet characters and now owns them.

---

If I remember Mark Waid correctly this was in the early to mid 90s when DC decided to out and out buy the Fawcett Line. He said they thought of "celebrating" it with a series of one shots, but eventually it was decided there wouldn't be much interest in the characters beyond the Marvel Family.

quote:

---

It is true that Charlton published some Ibis (and I think Mr Scarlet) stories. I do not know what deal Fawcett & Charlton agreed to. I know Bill Black believes he acquired the rights to those Charlton (and hence Facwett) characterd from them. He has reprinted some stories. But I doubt he has the inclination or financial sources to fight DC (AOL Time Warner) over the issue, however.

---

I've never heard that Bill Black believes that he acquired the rights to the Charlton characters...how could he when DC bought their "hero line"? Color me confused...

I always thought the problem between AC and DC was because Black argued the Fox material had went into Public Domain so that he should be able to use the Fox characters as derived from those original issues.

Where the problem lies is with Blue Beetle [who was sold or licensed to Charlton, I think this is unclear] and Phantom Lady [who was originally a Quality character, but after Quality stopped her series the Iger studio "resold" her to Fox, claiming they had a proprietary interest in any character they created]. I'm unclear whether or not Iger was legally entitled to do that with PL, but "Busy" Arnold never pursued it, so...

As far as reprinting the material, Black has also reprinted other Fawcett character not to my knowledge published by Charlton...if I understand the situation correctly the original non-Marvel Family Fawcett stories fell into public domain so could be reprinted, but the characters remained a trademark for Fawcett; so Black [or anyone else] could publish reprints of the original books but can't actually publish new stories with those characters.

Live from Sagittarius A * - as I understand it - and I may be wrong - the USA recognized international copyrights and follows the terms of the originating country; so something copyrighted in the UK would be recognized as copyrighted in the US for the time that copyright is allowed [plus renewal] in the UK.

posted May 06, 2003 09:51 PM               

Is the answer possibly as simple as this:

DC owns the copyrights but has no interest in challenging a small time operator like AC who is generating interest in their property?

Or. . . .

Maybe Paul Levitz is sitting at DC HQ thumbing through his copy of Golden Age Men of Mystery even as we speak??

posted May 06, 2003 11:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amentep:
I've never heard that Bill Black believes that he acquired the rights to the Charlton characters...how could he when DC bought their "hero line"? Color me confused...

---

I believe DC only bought the so called "Action Line" -- the ones Giordano edited as a "presnt" for Dick. This would not include Ibis and Mr. Scarlet -- if indeed Charlton published the latter and I'm not sure."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amentep:
Where the problem lies is with Blue Beetle [who was sold or licensed to Charlton, I think this is unclear]

---

There's no problem here. Since Fox is no longer publishing Blue Beetle they have no trademark claim. DC owns Charltons, Fox could only sue for copyright infringement *if* DC's character was too close to theirs and this certianly isn't true of the current Blue Beetle. It might possibly be argued for
Charlton's original Blue Beetle which DC has used in JLA Year One, for exampele. And if Fox Copyright has expired which is very likely since it probably wasn't renewed, they could not do this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amentep:
As far as reprinting the material, Black has also reprinted other Fawcett character not to my knowledge published by Charlton...if I understand the situation correctly the original non-Marvel Family Fawcett stories fell into public domain so could be reprinted, but the characters remained a trademark for Fawcett; so Black [or anyone else] could publish reprints of the original books but can't actually publish new stories with those characters.

---

The trademark would have lapse as well for non-use. Black could publish new stories and fight with DC over who owned the trademark. To win he'd have to argue that (i) the trademark did lapse and (ii) that he'd reestablished it by publishing new stories before DC did.

Of course, he'd have to be willing to fight DC and they have much deeper pockets.