Will Public Domain Comic Characters Go Back Into Copyright? Will DC Have To Abandon Black Dossier To The Winds?

[Rich Johnston]

Right now there is a clash between copyright systems between the USA and Europe. In the USA, anything created before 1922 is public domain. In Europe, it is seventy years after the death of the author. And there are some intriguing cases that have fallen between the two, including comic book adaptations of uses of Sherlock Holmes, the work of HG Wells and Peter Pan.

But now it seems that the US may be leaning to abandoning its 1922 provision which overrules the Berne convention on copyright law. On Wednesday, in a 6-2 ruling, the US Supreme court ruled that even though something has been made public domain, it is not "territory that works may never exit." And so, in the USA at least, foreign created or published works from 1922 or before that are not in the public domain in Europe, may affect their status in the USA.

Such as HG Wells' War Of The Worlds created in the 1890s when Wells died in 1946. Or how about John Carter Of Mars, created in 1912 by Edgar Rice Burroughs, who died in 1950. Whatever the copyright issues that prevented The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier from being published in the UK, could they now affect DC Comics directly?

One might look to see if Dynamite will have any issues with the likes of Project: Superpowers. Of course, Dynamite is party to other attempts to find ways to trademark public domain characters...

[Lemurion]

Oh FUCK no!

If there was ever a dumber IP idea than shoving stuff back into copyright once it's out I don't know it. Shorter term, fixed copyright is the way to go, but as long as Disney has its way that's not going to happen.

[absherlock]

It seems to me that the most reasonable course of action would be to bring the U.S. into compliance with Europe but only going forward. Anything currently in the public domain stays there.

[Jason A. Quest]

Fuck the Supreme Court. Fuck Congress. And other countries extending their copyrights until nearly a century after the creator is dead can go fuck themselves.

Copyright used to be good for 56 years. That's long enough. As far as I'm concerned, anything more than 56 years old is Public Domain. It's time to draw a line and reclaim what's ours: PD56.org

[Knut Robert Knutsen]

"On Wednesday, in a 6-2 ruling, the US Supreme court ruled that even though something has been made public domain, it is not "territory that works may never exit." "

The relevant passage is this: "Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) grants copyright protection to works protected in their country of origin, but lacking protection in the United States for any of three reasons: The United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication; the United States did not protect sound recordings fixed before 1972; or the author had not complied with certain U. S. statutory formalities."

While the Supreme Court has indeed ruled that Public Domain works can be returned to copyright it is also a ruling that is very limited in terms of what can be affected. For instance, the US did protect works from the UK when Sherlock Holmes and the novels of H.G.Wells were published, taking care of the first reason. They are not sound recordings, taking care of number 2. And they didn't lapse into public demain as the result of a statutory formality (such as filing deadlines for renewal or some other formality unique to the US), but as the result of copyright time elapsing. Which takes care of reason 3.

While it may be tempting for some to try to reclaim time-lapsed copyrights for purely financial reasons, that is some very shaky legal ground.

There are legitimate reasons why copyright terms are limited. There would have to be a strong case that there is some essential injustice in making something public domain in order for a copyright to be put back into place.

I very much doubt that leaving Sherlock Holmes in the public domain can be considered an essential injustice. Unless of course the proposed new US series really sucks. That might sway the Supreme Court, you never know.

[B-Thom]

Copyright laws are clearly way too much in big companies' favour. With that being said, it's basically a case of recognizing other countries laws/copyrights. Not exactly the most stupid thing ever done by the Supreme Court. For once, the US are respecting other nations. I can't be against that.
(Now if copyright laws could be rewritten entirely so as to not be nicknamed Disney laws, that'd be nice too)

[ahlhelm]

Rich, it's perfectly within Dynamite's rights to trademark their version of Black Terror for example. There's been history of marks falling in and out of trademark for years. They've got a new logo, a new design on the character, and no one else was significantly using him, so they could have a chance to score with it.

[Comicsfan101]

Copyright laws are clearly way too much in big companies' favour. With that being said, it's basically a case of recognizing other countries laws/copyrights. Not exactly the most stupid thing ever done by the Supreme Court. For once, the US are respecting other nations. I can't be against that.
(Now if copyright laws could be rewritten entirely so as to not be nicknamed Disney laws, that'd be nice too)

While recognizing other country's laws is not an inherently bad thing when those laws intersect with local law (regardless of which countries you're discussing), it is not generally the place of the courts to do that. Courts work with laws (written by someone else in most cases) that govern their location. It is the business of the people who write the laws to say whether or not they go along with someone else's laws and, in the case of nations, that is usually handled by treaty. I don't know of any country that gives its courts the power to, effectively, enact a treaty on its own authority.

[GreyMouser]

Of course, Dynamite is party to other attempts to find ways to trademark public domain characters...

Oh really?!? do tell...
if they are trying to copyright public domain characters, to keep them for themselves and profit from other's creations, that would be particularly scummy! i hope Kirby's people are on top of keeping his creations from being owned by dynamite. im amazed they let them use them at all. i wonder if dynamite is in bed with marvel/disney in supporting the SOPA?

[Joe Kalicki]

While recognizing other country's laws is not an inherently bad thing when those laws intersect with local law (regardless of which countries you're discussing), it is not generally the place of the courts to do that. Courts work with laws (written by someone else in most cases) that govern their location. It is the business of the people who write the laws to say whether or not they go along with someone else's laws and, in the case of nations, that is usually handled by treaty. I don't know of any country that gives its courts the power to, effectively, enact a treaty on its own authority.

Supreme Court Justices have been making their own treaties ever since John Jay signed that travesty with Great Britain in 1794!

/bitter old revolutionary