Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively,
Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.
Links
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
| You're viewing Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More | Reload page in style: site light |
no subject
Date: 2009-03-20 11:55 am (UTC)GOLDEN AGE
Date: 2009-03-20 12:20 pm (UTC)The mods seem really nice here, as far as I can tell, it would be up to your own discretion.
If you have proof that it's actually public domain, then post as much as you want (it's legal); if you're not sure, condense as you see fit.
Overall, if you're really not sure, contact a mod.
Hope this helps.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-20 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-20 01:28 pm (UTC)If, however, before 1978, then, if it was published before 1923, it is public domain. If, however, it was published _after_ 1923, but _before_ 1978, and a renewal notice had not been filed with the US Copyright Office in the 28th year of its copyright, before the need was removed in '92, it is public domain. Thus, works whose copyright had not been renewed, and were published before 1964, are in the public domain.
(Of course, there's weird areas, like how Night of the Living Dead (1968) is public domain due to a screwup.)
A lot of Golden Age stuff is public domain because nobody bothered to renew.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-20 01:42 pm (UTC)Not the case for comic books, and CERTAINLY not for Golden Age comic books.
That rule (the number's wrong, though - it's currently 95 years, plus the math is wrong - 2008-70 is 1938) applies only to works to which the author holds the copyright. Comic books are generally* work for hire material, the copyright owned by the company that commissioned the work.
Golden Age comics will fall under one of two groups - stuff that was never renewed - and thus fell into PD in the 50s or 60s - and stuff that WAS renewed, so was still in copyright in 1978, but, being work-for-hire, fall under a copyright term starting with publication, not connected to the author's time of death. 75 years from publication, under the 1976 rules, 95 under the current rules (introduced in 1998).
So, anything produced before October 1923 (75 years before the Sonny Bono act came into effect) is out of copyright. And anything produced after that - which didn't fall into public domain due to lack of renewal before the 1976 rules were implemented in 1978 - will start falling into the public domain in 2018. Anything created before 1950 from a company that went defunct before 1977, is possibly, though not guaranteed to be**, in public domain.
* Indies, Underground, and Creator Owned are the exception, not the rule, and, assuming the copyright goes to a person, not a company they created to control the work, fall under the 'author's death+' rule.
** Obviously, the originating company couldn't have renewed their copyright, but somebody could have bought the company's properties, and renewed themselves.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-20 01:52 pm (UTC)With Whiz, I'm _prrrrrreeeettty_ sure the copyright wasn't renewed, but I'm not sure.
FAWCETT
Date: 2009-03-20 02:21 pm (UTC)From what I understand (because I looked into this, as well), DC owns the rights to Fawcett/Quality/Red circle/etc. CHARACTERS.
So you couldn't publish any SpySmasher stories and sell them.
However, DC does not own the rights to every STORY that was ever published.
Additionally, DC has blatantly raped some golden age defunct publishers; they actually DON'T own Phantom Lady (nobody does). From what I understand, they didn't purchase Hoppy The Marvel Bunny, either, 'tho they've considered him to belong to them as part of the SHAZAM! family.
Just my two cents. I'm taking it that Kamino_Neko is the one with the real booklarnin'.
Re: FAWCETT
Date: 2009-03-20 02:33 pm (UTC)Re: FAWCETT
Date: 2009-03-20 03:12 pm (UTC)I should note I'm not a copyright lawyer, or anything of the sort - due to being a lit. major in university, and wannabe writer, I've ended up needing to know something of this stuff, and have read a lot I didn't need just because it's interesting to me, but it's not my speciality.
And the founder of Americomics is really grumpy about how that whole thing went.
Re: FAWCETT
Date: 2009-03-20 06:16 pm (UTC)Re: FAWCETT
Date: 2009-03-20 10:42 pm (UTC)Re: FAWCETT
Date: 2009-03-20 10:48 pm (UTC)