Slashdot Mirror


Public Domain Superheroes?

SerpicoWasTaken writes "Here is an interesting article about a group of comic book heroes from the golden age that are in the public domain. Apparently, a bunch of golden age heroes were never copyrighted and just faded into obscurity. The article also contains a long discussion of copyright and the public domain. It is an interesting read for all those interested in the public domain." Update: 09/25 17:51 GMT by M : Link removed at the request of the site maintainers because it's killing their server. Update: 09/25 19:02 GMT by M : They've put the document on a static page instead of a cgi script. :)

237 comments

  1. slashdotted already?! by byolinux · · Score: 2, Troll

    That's gotta be a record!

    1. Re:slashdotted already?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's the fasted *I* have ever seen something get slashdotted. Perhaps the URL is not right?

    2. Re:slashdotted already?! by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 2, Troll

      You know you're in trouble when the first post is to saw you've been slashdotted...

    3. Re:slashdotted already?! by echucker · · Score: 2

      UBB (especially the older versions), the bulletin board software that the post is on, is quite CPU intensive. We commonly experienced that same 500 error until after we upgraded both our server and the software itself. There is no way that their board would be able to handle the load unless it is a dedicated server, and even then, it'd be chancy.

    4. Re:slashdotted already?! by Khaed · · Score: 1

      Who wants to bet the guy just saw his site on Slashdot and jerked the power cord out to keep from being melted?

    5. Re:slashdotted already?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its offical! from now on we should just post stories and say "there was an interesting article on {X}, but its gone now..."

      and then we can go on with out flamebaiting, and trolling without trying to load these slashdot-ed pages...

    6. Re:slashdotted already?! by theVicar · · Score: 1

      This must have been asked before but I've never seen it... would it be possible for Slashdot to cache all the links in an article before publishing them, and publish the cached links too? I guess there might be copyright issues or something, but it seems like Slashdot should try to take some responsibility for the fact that in some cases it's bringing a huge audience to websites that were never designed for it and don't benefit much from it. I'm sure many sites love the publicity, but others may just want business as usual.

      --
      ---The Vicar---
    7. Re:slashdotted already?! by Peartree · · Score: 1

      Google caches websites. Why would there be copyright issues if Slashdot cached the websites it has articles about? As long as they print somewhere on the screen somthing like "CACHED CONTENT, ETC, SOME OTHER LEGALESE, BLAH, BLAH" there should be a problem, right?

      What a good idea!

    8. Re:slashdotted already?! by djblair · · Score: 1

      Well, I think doing that would put even a greater strain on the /. servers. The hit would not only be in bandwidth, but storage as well.

    9. Re:slashdotted already?! by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      This must have been asked before but I've never seen it...

      You'd think that a question that "must" have already been asked would be in the FAQ, wouldn't you?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  2. Sweet! by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 1

    "Power over water" is now in the public domain. It's mine! Fools! Ph35r my 3133t 4rmy of fish! You will never mod my down again! You will be destroyed! Hahahahahaha!

    1. Re:Sweet! by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I already have the powers of Earth, Fire, Wind and Heart. Join me and we can form...

      ... CAPTAIN PLANET!!!

      Captain Planet: "With your powers combined, I am Captain Planet!"
      Annoying kids: "Go Planet!!!"

    2. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I remember that show. I think it's the reason I'm a Damn Dirty Hippie(R)* now.

      *For fuck's sake, would somebody fix the goddamn entity filtering? The only entities that pose any problem are the numeric Ӓ and 뻯 type ones. There is absoultely no reason to filter ™ ® † ∴ etc.

  3. Down Already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    No-one's even had a chance to comment. Apparently, the massive weight of our impending presence has reverse causality (See top ten physic experiments).

    1. Re:Down Already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No-one's even had a chance to comment. Apparently, the massive weight of our impending presence has reversed causality (See top ten physic experiments).

      reverse -> reversed

    2. Re:Down Already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No-one's even had a chance to comment. Apparently, the massive weight of our impending presence has reversed causality (See top ten physics experiments).

      physic -> physics

    3. Re:Down Already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      e.g. Asimov was more right than he knew about Thiotimolene

  4. CowBoyNeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait till CowBoyNeal fades into obscurity.

    1. Re:CowBoyNeal by CmdrTaco · · Score: 2

      Funny, I can't wait until CowBoyNeal becomes CowManNeal. When he achieves his true form, his power level will be so powerful you're gonna want his likeness in the public domain so you can write fanzines!

      --
      Pants are still optional, but recommended for you.
    2. Re:CowBoyNeal by DarkHelmet · · Score: 3, Funny

      So when CowBoyNeal becomes CowManNeal, will he have the power to make ALL the poll options have something to do with him?

      Just a thought...

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    3. Re:CowBoyNeal by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      Will he be constipated like the Dragonball characters when they're powering-up? Does he get to wear underwear on his head? Will he be as cool as Farkman?

    4. Re:CowBoyNeal by Soko · · Score: 2

      New poll:

      CowManNeal's (DADATADADA!!!) Special Power will be:

      ( ) Able to eat an entire 16" pizza in a single bite
      ( ) Able to crack any DRM protection scheme with a Comodore64
      ( ) Ability to vapourise any small server on the internet with a single URL
      ( ) Control the minds of a band of geeks with a single Poll
      ( ) Finally make little CowBoyNeals, since he's now a man.. ;-)

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    5. Re:CowBoyNeal by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      CowBoyNeal: So... weak... super powers drained... must... have... another... poll...

      What is Your favorite country? US, Canada, France, What do you mean France?, Cowboy-Neal-Land

      Votes... coming in... Cowboy-Neal-Land getting majority votes... Getting stronger. HAHAHAHA my superpowers have completely recovered! Now whose server will I crash today?

  5. Last Resort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we have to dibs these guys to settle any disputes now.

  6. A True Public Domain Superhero!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Need a superhero friend?

    How about BONZI BUDDY?

    Sorry, a Linux version is still in the works, but if you're using Windows, you must get it!

    -SexyKellyOsbourne

    1. Re:A True Public Domain Superhero!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just what we need - your stupid fucking spyware shit on the linux desktop sucking on the collective assholes of every computer in the country. Fuck you and every spyware shitbag that looks like you. Sincerely.

  7. 0 to Slashdot in under 5 minutes by PackMan97 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dang...that doesn't take long :(

  8. GoogleNews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Try this!

  9. Where is Slashboy? by jhawkins · · Score: 1

    Able to stop servers in 5 comments!

  10. Arseman by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't see a (c) on the Arseman. Does that mean we all own a bit of his arse?

    1. Re:Arseman by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      How is this a troll? The Goatse Man (I won't link to it this time) is a true superhero, using his rectal powers to fight for truth, justice and the Anal way. I think he's public domain, too (I don't see any copyrights on the site).

  11. Great--Now the "Unlikely Heroes" Return... by Spencerian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe there's a good reason for these to remain obscure.

    "Look...in the sky! It's ChickenMan!"

    "Guess that villain's leaving him a bit henpecked."

    "He flies so smoothly...it's poultry in motion!"

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    1. Re:Great--Now the "Unlikely Heroes" Return... by Yohahn · · Score: 2

      You have obviously never heard the chickenman records. The were hillarious.

      It's hard to convey here, They were great.

      "'mommy, why won't chicken man lay an egg'...
      'well go on then, lay an egg for her'"

      "Mrs Helfinger, could you look in the file labeled super chicken cave for the item super chicken cave lightswitch?"

    2. Re:Great--Now the "Unlikely Heroes" Return... by Yohahn · · Score: 2

      Ah found one.. here's a URL/link:

      http://www.reelradio.com/wc/index.html#chicken

    3. Re:Great--Now the "Unlikely Heroes" Return... by Spencerian · · Score: 2

      Well, gee...no...I just made that stuff up.

      Didn't know it was FOR REAL!!! I'll have to listen in. Thanks for the funny.

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    4. Re:Great--Now the "Unlikely Heroes" Return... by Radical+Rad · · Score: 2

      Chickenman.
      He's everywhere! He's everywhere!

  12. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life")

    Here's a hint for you: There are web sites called cnn.com, bbc.co.uk, etc. There are also any number of web sites (particularly web logs) that do nothing BUT discuss these issues. They're just a click away.It's not like story is preventing you reading about or discussing those things if you so choose.

    Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  13. Pyroman by Zayin · · Score: 1

    The characters who appeared in Tom Strong #11 and #12, including Pyroman, Miss Masque, The American Crusader, The Black Terror, the Fighting Yank, and Doc Strange (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Tom Strong himself). In the story, "Terror on Terra Obscura," Strong teamed up with Strange to rescue the heroes, who had been imprisoned by an alien of impossible power.



    In the next story, Pyroman teams up with michael to fight the evil webserver hosting the newsarama bulletin board...

    --
    "I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
  14. yes but are they open source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    linux superheroes.... although everytime I try compiling superman.c I get errors in krypton.h

    1. Re:yes but are they open source? by mwjlewis · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't it be the other way around?

      linux superheroes.... although everytime I try compiling krypton.h I get errors in superman.c

      --
      www.oobersworld.com - For those that ride.
  15. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

    Well, you're certainly welcome to discuss the atrocities of the world with your other personalities. Slashdot, however, is a TECHNOLOGY news and discussion site, not NATO or the UN.

    If you/the rest of your personalities don't like what's posted on /., I suggest reading something else.

    Thousands of people dying? Guess what, that's been happening since before the age of recorded history. And if more people played video games maybe they'd find its a nice outlet for aggression. It certainly keeps me from beating the snot out of air-wasting morons such as yourself.

    Moderators: Feel free to mod me however you want, I've got Karma to burn.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  16. "Never copyrighted"? by nuggz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently, a bunch of golden age heroes were never copyrighted

    I thought copyright was automatic. It doesn't need to be registered or anything, it just is.

    To become public domain, the copyright must either expire, or be explicitly declared so by the copyright holder.

    1. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Enry · · Score: 2

      True, but it's a lot harder to prove copyright infringment if you never applied for it.

    2. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, but it's a lot harder to prove copyright infringment if you never applied for it.

      Copyright is created literally by appending (c) $YEAR $AUTHOR to it. There's no central registry of things that are copyrighted - you're thinking of trademarks (TM).

    3. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not really, you just point at your old magazine, then point at the new Hollywood movie, and say `when will I get my cash?`.

    4. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by bluGill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Today everything you create is automaticly copyrighted. It wasn't always that way though. If I remember rightly until the late 1970's you had to claim copyright in a specific way or it was automaticly public domain. It was easy to do correctly, worst case was $25 plus a few stamps, no lawyer, but you had to do it. (companies would of course use a lawyer)

      Laws change, the laws that applied back then count in this case, not the laws today.

    5. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Entrope · · Score: 5, Informative
      Since 1978, copyright is automatic for new works. Works published before then but not explicitly copyrighted entered the public domain, and remained in the public domain after the law changed. See BitLaw's discussion of the topic.

      This is in contrast to trademark, for which you must always file to get legal protection.

    6. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you CAN register things officially. Greyday.org links to it somewhere, I think.

    7. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by mkoenecke · · Score: 3, Informative

      IAAL, and thought I'd point out that "(c)" doesn't do squat. Really. You must either use the copyright symbol ("©"), and/or spell out the word "Copyright."

      For what it's worth, I thought "(c)" would work, too, until being informed otherwise by a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    8. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is in contrast to trademark, for which you must always file to get legal protection.


      That's not correct. You have a trademark uponcreation of say a logo or name. If you see a "TM" next to it, that's for an unregistered trademark. Registering a trademark gets you the right to use the little circled 'r' and added ammo a legal fight.

    9. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by jarrell · · Score: 1

      *Now*, yes. After the last major set up changes to the copyright laws, in the late 80s, the convention was that copyright existed as soon as something was put into fixed form. So, you write a story, even if you didn't mark it as copyrighted, it was. Now, if you mark it as such, and file paperwork with the library of congress to register it as having been copyrighted, then you can claim significantly higher damages if someone rips you off. But you can always get them to just stop ripping you off if you don't, so long as you can prove you wrote it before they did.

      But before that last revision copyright didn't exist unless you specifically marked *every* copy as being copyrighted. Let something get out into the public without a copyright notice, and you'd just accidentally released it into the public domain.

      That's why there's a version of the hobbit that is fair game for anyone; they didn't copyright it when it hit the US. Minor changes were made, and the next edition was.

    10. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, everything you create is automatically copyrighted by default, whether you indicate so or not. Indicating so is recommended, though, for obvious reasons. To take it a step further, there is a central registry (see www.copyright.gov, if in the US).

      -- Posting anonymously because I'm using somebody else's computer and don't remember my damn password!

    11. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by jarrell · · Score: 1

      Um, that's what all that paperwork is for that goes to the library of congress. To centrally register your copyright. You don't *have* to do it, but if you do, you get extra legal benefits if you sue. Similarly, there's no need to centrally register a TM. You can put that on anything you feel is one of your trademarks. You're thinking of the R in a circle (R), that's a *registered* trademark. (There's also an (S) for registered Service Mark).

    12. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an author always has the copyright, whether you put the little logo there or just the (c) or nothing at all. (unless its work for hire, then it might be an employer or company owning the rights, but thats the only thing that changes.)

      how can you graft a neat little (c) on a music performance exactly?

    13. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by jarrell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorta, yes and no... The (c) may well *be* a perfectly legal symbol - the problem is no one has taken someone to court on a copyright case that uses it, and had the (c) not being a legitimate mark be challenged, and had the court rule that it was indeed legit. The law only specifically mentioned the copyright symbol and the word. However, thanks to a court decision just like I was just mentioning, C in hexagon is perfectly valid. The court ruled that it was obvious from the context what the person intended to convey, and thus it was a perfectly legit display of copyright. Given that precedent, there's every probability that (c) will be upheld, given the widespread use of it, should the issue ever come up.

      Of course, if you want to be *sure*, and it's important to you, use the real logo, or spell out the word, and you won't be spending money later on being the test case...

    14. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      IAAL, and thought I'd point out that "(c)" doesn't do squat. Really. You must either use the copyright symbol ("©"), and/or spell out the word "Copyright."

      Thanks - I did not know that.

    15. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      There's no central registry of things that are copyrighted

      Actually, that's what the Library of Congress is for the US. Historically, you had to send a copy to the LOC to get copyright; currently, you have to if you're registering a copryight, which is required before you use the law to enforce it.

    16. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by gorilla · · Score: 2

      This is true in the USA AFTER 1976. Before then, the copyright laws required the creator to put 'copyright creator' and register it in order to get copyright. If either was omitted, it was public domain.

    17. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You put a (C)* on the lyrics and sheet music, and a (P)** on the physical thingy the performance is recorded on.

      *Damn filtering again.

      **Yes, a (P). Check the back of your*** favorite**** CD if you don't believe me.

      ***Or someone else's, if you prefer.

      ****Or least favorite, whichever.

      (I love abusing footnotes.)

    18. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is in contrast to trademark, for which you must always file to get legal protection.

      Not true. Anyone can claim a trademark with no legal protection. However, if you register a trademark, it's easier to defend in court.

      That's the difference between a trademark (TM) and a registered trademark (R).

    19. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Danse · · Score: 1

      * ** ***

      * Damn

      ** that's

      *** annoying

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    20. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Except of course the hotly debated issue of retroactive copyright laws, which goes before the Supreme Ct. pretty soon.

      As for automatic copyrights, MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is in the public domain b/c he didn't comply with the formalities. A big win for the public, IMO. I would definately support the return of some formal requirements.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    21. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 2


      Actually, there is no "S in a circle" symbol for a registered service mark. The symbols TM and SM are used for unregistered marks. The "R in a circle" (®) is used for registered marks, be they service marks or trademarks.

      I tried to find a good reference that explains that, but perhaps this link will do: 'Any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO. However, you may use the federal registration symbol "®" only after the USPTO actually registers a mark, and not while an application is pending. Also, you may use the registration symbol with the mark only on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the federal trademark registration.'

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    22. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by drblunt · · Score: 1

      The best way to prove your copyright, now-a-days, is to put the material in an envelope, stamp it, mail it to yourself, and then simply leave it sealed, and file it away. The postmark on the letter is your "date of copyright" in a round-about way. It gives you the power of a date, whereas, if you didn't do this, it's a long battle of trying to prove exactly when you did create said work. I've done this several times for various things I've written/designed, and I've never had to use it, thankfully. A lawyer buddy of mine says it's the best way to do it if you don't want to go through the infernal hell that is the "National Copyright Office". N

      --
      We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
    23. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Foogle · · Score: 2

      That's so absurd. I could just mail myself an unsealed envelope, and get it back postmarked. Then, whenever I felt like "copyrighting" something, I would just stick it in my handy envelope, seal it up, and say "Hey, look what I have here!".

      So, I'm guessing you're either a liar, or your "lawyer buddy" is inept. Your choice.

    24. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by lcrocker · · Score: 1

      That's only been true since 1988, when the US
      signed the Berne Convention. Before that, works
      published without an explicit copyright notice
      were not copyrighted.

      --
      --Lee Daniel Crocker : http://www.etceterology.com My life is in the public domain.
    25. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by azav · · Score: 1

      In a Hexagon? It is called an OCTAGON you moron.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    26. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by jarrell · · Score: 1

      Huh. Maybe there are some companies that are misusing it, cause I've seen (S) next to some things. Similarly there's a (P) that goes with the (C) involving recorded music.

    27. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by jarrell · · Score: 1

      Only if it's got 8 sides instead of six.

    28. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by drblunt · · Score: 1

      LOL
      Have you ever tried mailing yourself an unsealed envelope? Especially with nothing inside it. If you ever recieved it at all, I'm sure you would be investigated immediatly.
      Doc

      --
      We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
    29. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by IP,+Daily · · Score: 1

      You don't get trademark protection on creation of the mark, you get it when you first use it in commerce.

    30. Re:"Never copyrighted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot. is there something wrong with notarizing something? what the fuck is wrong with you.

  17. I guess they will remain obscure by _LORAX_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since the site is so hosed it's not even funny. So they remain obsure.

    -sigh-

    1. Re:I guess they will remain obscure by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      (* Since the site is so hosed it's not even funny. So they remain obsure. *)

      They were attacked by the evil villian, The Mad Slashdotter! He floods the city's shopping centers with confused, geeky drones who never spend money.

    2. Re:I guess they will remain obscure by istartedi · · Score: 2

      Are you sure it wasn't these guys?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  18. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Khaed · · Score: 1

    Didn't I see this idiot post, almost word for word, a few weeks ago? If not, you're a big moron who repeats the same thing often.

  19. This raises an interesting question.. by psxndc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A lot of people like writing stories about say... Transformers. What is FanFic and what is official gospel from Hasbro has a pretty clear distinction.

    Given that the characters in the article are public domain, is there any way to preserve the original intent of the character? I mean since they are public domain, one person could create a Black Terror that reinstates Nazi Germany. Another person create a Black Terror porno. If someone truly loved the character, how can the spirit of that character be preserved amid a landfill of junk?

    Look at Batman. 60's TV show Batman is an abomination to me. Batman to me is supposed to be dark and gritty. The guy watched his parents gunned down as a child. That has to have some serious psychological effects. To see Adam West's gut hanging out over his utility belt while he, supposedly someone that had honed his body to the limits of human ability, punched out the joker's cronies with splahses of POW! and BLAMM!... Awful. But that was what the company was pushing at the time. Since then, DC has brought Batman back to what he should be. If Batman became public domain though, there could be a deluge of 60's Batman stories written by anybody and the original nature of the character would be completely lost. How do you preserve it?

    psxndc

    --

    The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    1. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Khaed · · Score: 1

      While I see your point, do you really think anyone would write 60s-ish Batman stories?

      Unless he's punching that stupid monkey from the one banner.

      *POW*
      Holy roughed up monkey, Batman! You won a prize!

    2. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 60's Batman is way cool. What's not to like. He is a high-tech mellow Batman. He is a geek. Saw an epsiode recently (#31?) and in the batcave was a electronic machine labeled "Bat-Terror". Nice. Where's Batman when you really need him?

    3. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by psxndc · · Score: 1
      Of course not. But I never would have though they would have written Batman Forever and Batman and Robin the way they did either. :-)

      psxndc

      --

      The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    4. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Khaed · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ... I concede to your point. That was low. ^_~

    5. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by GMontag · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ahem...

      True fans of that show, like I, watched mostly to see the female characters. It was an extra-special bonus to see the female characters tied up too.

      That was my gateway media to bondage pr0n and I am GREATFUL that the show was on during my kindergarden/gradeschool years!

    6. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AToo Late!

      m I the only person here who remembers the parody comics "Fatman & Ribbon" from the early to mid 1970's?

    7. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mmmmm. Made me think of the episode when the Queen Bee and her scantily-clad "Honeybees" tied up both our heroes, after drugging them.

      I Never really understood why I found that episode so titillating until I became an adult.

      We need more thinly-veiled light BDSM fantasies in our children's shows.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
    8. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Jon-o · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A more pressing question might be, "why should anything be *preserved* at all?"

      Why not let culture change and grow so that it can be understood and appreciated by a the new society that's really its audience?

      It's not a simple questions, though the overwhelmingly popular answer these days is that everything cultural, from languages, to buildings, to superheroes needs to be preserved for all infinity. This certainly wasn't always the case! I think the very copyright laws that we love to hate here on Slashdot have done a lot to foster this notion (though it's a bit of a chicken & egg situation - the laws might just be in reaction to the attitudes already present).

      In any case, I think more people should really consider what's more important: preserving history, or actually building new culture, and letting the past influence the present (and thus the future) on its own terms, without being stuck on a pedestal of historicity.

      This might sound like hypocrisy, coming from a harpsichord player like myself, but it's an issue that I wrestle with every day, and have yet to come to a real conclusion.

    9. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by phiwum · · Score: 1

      I like both the dark vision of Batman and the campy 1960s version.

      The former sets a good comic tone, and the latter is funny.

      Maybe the humor of the camp version would have fit better with an overly earnest hero, like Superman, but from what I've seen of 1960s era Batman comics, this dark interpretation largely came later.

      Someone that knows comics better than I do might correct me about the 60s Batman comics.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    10. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do realize that for many years, the Batman comic was incredibly campy as well, right? I mean, Batman, for quite some time, time-traveled quite extensively, fought villians in lairs that were filled with giant props ("Holy giant typewriter, Batman!"), etc.

      It was really only after years of that crap that he became serious again (in the early issues of Detective Comics, Batman was incredibly serious, and casually killed criminals).

      But it was during the campy years in the comics that the Adam West TV series was done.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    11. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by GMontag · · Score: 2

      Mmmmm. Made me think of the episode when the Queen Bee and her scantily-clad "Honeybees" tied up both our heroes, after drugging them.

      Here here!

      But my favorites were when Catwoman was the Domme and BAtgirl was tied up. Had to wait until the last seasons to see Batgirl though, but well worth the wait!

    12. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by cpuffer_hammer · · Score: 2

      Could Trademark be used to protect the character?
      This would not protect the stories/product but would limit someone from using conducting there business using the characters? Or maybe there needs to be some other type of IP protections that protects characters from being taken while letting copyright go back to its correct length.

      I for one am not liking with these ideas. Culture is built on myths and stories. If you can bottle and control the stories you can control the culture.

    13. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Sloppy · · Score: 2
      Given that the characters in the article are public domain, is there any way to preserve the original intent of the character?

      Yes, by having the reader exercise their power of judgement and selection.

      One thing to keep in mind, is that Batman is not real. He isn't a real person for whom there is an objective reality and history. Ultimately, he's just what you want him to be, in your own mind. So it's all up to you. You get to decide what is virtually real (e.g. "The Dark Knight Returns") and what is virtually fake (e.g. the 1960s TV show), in accordance with your platonic model of Batman.

      You can't silence other voices, but your mind will always be your own.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    14. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the earlier original Batman comics
      were quite dark. He used to carry a gun, and
      the art was quite moody. (Especially considering
      the period)

      The puritanical Batman came a bit later.

    15. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Batman's not real? I don't believe it! Next you'll be telling me Superman's not real!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    16. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Flarelocke · · Score: 1

      If you want a dark, gritty character, and all the Batman dross that is created doesn't cut it for you, then you create a new character that is always in dark, gritty situations. You've furthered culture. This is the essence of the public-domain arguments. Batman was created in the 1940's. We're still making movies about him. Why haven't we created a new character that is darker, grittier, and rids himself of the knight in shining tights mythos.

      The subcultures that are creating new culture aren't passing on their creations to the mainstream because of the economic(widespread monopolies and/or oligopolies) and legal conditions(copyright, trademark). The new subcultures in America that have their own heroes get them from the outside(anime, etc.). If you created a new heroic character, you'd get laughed off. If it's not first in a comic book, the comic book community will scoff at you, and even if you did, you'd get scoffed by those who'd say, "Trying to create a new Batman? Who do you think you are?". If you made a TV show, it'd have to be Sci-fi, or no one would watch it. If you tried to create a 60's-Batman-like show with a new character, you'd get laughed off.

      Copyright, in essence, says that the past is more important than the present. You can't change Mickey because we don't want Mickey to be different from the way we remember.

    17. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Black and gritty? We're talking about the same Batman that introduced the Robin character as early as 1940 IIRC to make it more appealing to kids? "Dark Knight Returns" levels of grittyness are pretty modern, from the 80's, AFAIK.

      (the level of camp VARIED of course, but it's fairly minor if you then make a comparison to the modern stuff)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    18. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      IIRC the trademark on a character is lost, or at least weakened, once the work the character was introduced in hits the public domain.

      Otherwise we would be in the stupid situation of being able to reproduce, say, existing Mickey Mouse cartoons, but not be able to make our own new ones. Trademarks are, here, of somewhat lesser importance than the public domain goals of the copyright system. (if only b/c it's the only meaningful way to reconcile them, but also b/c one is straight out of the Const. and the other is merely statutory)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    19. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by kirkjobsluder · · Score: 1

      Granted, putting the characters into public domain opens up the door to campy unauthorized portrayals of those characters. On the other hand, one could argue that in the end this is a good thing because the character becomes something of an idiom. For example, Shakespeare in the public domain permits a wide variety of artistic interpretations from the serious (Lawrence Olivier's Hamlet), to the farcical (Strange Brew), to retelling the story through the eyes of different characters (Rosencrans and Guildenstern are dead) and the merely derivative (The Lion King).

      Granted in some cases the interpretation or adaptation bears only a superficial relationship to the source material (The Count of Monte Cristo) but this is balanced by the fact that you can shop around for better adaptations. Generally the original source material survives quite well while the embarrassing adaptations tend to be forgotten (Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein for example). I actually think that humorous adaptations can only improve appreciation for the original source material. I do not know of anybody who seriously complains about "What's Opera Doc" and the "Rabbit of Sevile."

      But to support another poster, Batman the television series wasn't nearly as campy as Batman in movie serial form. The Adam West Batman just followed in the same tradition as the earlier movie versions and closely followed the comics code version of Batman. Stan Lee primarily made his mark by introducing more realism into the comics industry. In fact, I remember switching from reading primarily DC comics to marvel comics as a preteen feeling that I had "grown-up" enough to shift from the strictly G-rated DC comics to the PG-13 marvel comics. I remember when Dark Knight Returns was revolutionary for its depiction of Batman with the same levels of tragedy and horror that had previously been reserved for horror titles such as Swamp Thing and Hellblazer. However that is off-topic. I think that the bottom line is that if Batman were in public domain, then we probably would've seen more darker interpretations throughout the publication history of the character.

    20. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2

      Look at Batman. 60's TV show Batman is an abomination to me. Batman to me is supposed to be dark and gritty.

      Batman's current level of "dark and gritty"-ness is a fairly recent retcon. Some of the early stories were pretty goofy.

      Batman became public domain though, there could be a deluge of 60's Batman stories written by anybody and the original nature of the character would be completely lost. How do you preserve it?

      By letting the best stories define the character.

    21. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by ReadbackMonkey · · Score: 2

      Sorry man, He was dark and gritty first 39 - mid 50's, then they made him campy and colourful later. Basically, around the mid 50's - early 70's he was colourful. The got dark again early 80's, late 70's.

      I mean, come on, the guy was in "Gotham City", he dressed in black, and the whole idea of the character was he was out for vengence for the death of his father. That's pretty dark.

      The campy Batman was cool too tho' in my opinion, they both have their place. I always thought that for a campy batman Adam West was the best. The dark Batman has never been done right, the closest was Michael Keaton; Val Kilmer and George Clooney always made jokes, I'm sorry but that's Spiderman, not Batman. Anyway....

    22. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Myco · · Score: 2

      I would just like to add that Harley Quinn is my favorite submissive hottie ever, fictional or otherwise.

    23. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by quintessent · · Score: 2

      Allow me to ruin the nature of Batman:

      "Batman ran down the alley, chasing the Dark Avenger. In a flash, Batman stopped, having sighted a huge lemon pie. 'Man, this is sure good,' Batman thought out loud, as the Dark Avenger escaped. 'I wonder where I can find more.'

    24. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Superman's not real.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    25. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      NOOOO!!!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    26. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, that offtopic is why I start posting anonymously. Fucking moderators. Remove head from you asshole, THEN moderate.

    27. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by Sunnan · · Score: 1

      A lot of posts have responded, saying that "the bad part of this public domain world" is not as bad as it seems, that you don't have to preserve things, that you can filter out the bad stuff and go for the good stuff.

      And that's good, I agree with those posts.

      Let me just add that with the current system, people are restricted from creating and enjoying great, dark gritty Batman material, unless they're involved with corporate entity Aol/TimeWarner. (Which is a company that produces great stuff like the Sandman as well as crummy things like that Batman/Robin-movie.)

      Maybe we could have a world where there is trademark, or a version of trademark, but not copyright. So you could do batman but it would be distinguished from "canon"-batman. Legalized fanfic/fancomic/fanmovies, so to speak -- but clearly marked as unofficial.

      Or maybe we should just let it all free. Enjoy life.

    28. Re:This raises an interesting question.. by NBarnes · · Score: 1

      Simply put, you have no right to choose what content other people do or do not create. Frankly, I think losing sleep over other people's bizzare content preferences is a silly passtime. Some people like listening to N'Sync; no skin off my nose. I like listening to Styx and Billy Joel, and more than one of my housemates finds them appalingly cheesy and melodramatic.

      The _right_ way to handle this problem isn't governmental at all. If the issue is 'purity of content' and 'creator's intent', then copyright isn't a relevant issue at all. If all you ever are interested in is Frank Miller's take on Batman, then only get the stuff that he's done. Ignore the rest. The proper term is 'canon', and it's been usefully applied to a lot of other aggregations of content. If Star Wars was in the public domain, I think a lot of what LucasArts has done to construct a framework that can embrace different levels of content creation, from the canon themselves (the movies), to the Expanded Universe, to lesser works, would serve a lot of companies very well in protecting thier profit interest even in absense of copyright.

      The correct solution is not legal at all. Content is so hard to regulate and there are so few good reasons to do so. I don't see any reason for the government to get involved over this issue.

  20. kill me by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered who would win in a fight between Bonzi Buddy and Barney the Dinosaur. I hope they disembowel each other.

    "I love you. You love me..."

    Aaaargh!!! They're coming after me!!! Nooooo!

  21. GPL'd comic book characters? by Darth+RadaR · · Score: 2

    Bugger! /.-ed!

    DISCLAIMER:I'm not really a GPL cheerleader (I avoid politics, really), just providing some fast food for thought.

    Though a character's history would be really erratic with a whole bunch of writers and artists doing their bidding with a GPL'd comic book hero(ine), it would provide opportunities for comic writers and artists to have a go at a story with a character they might not normally have a chance to. And that would definitely provide some interesting spins.

    --
    /*drunk.. fix later*/
    1. Re:GPL'd comic book characters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like say, Alien vs Predator vs Batman?

    2. Re:GPL'd comic book characters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Who are you man?!?!?!?!"

      "I'm GNU/Batman!"

    3. Re:GPL'd comic book characters? by Sparks23 · · Score: 1

      "Holy GPL, Stallman! The Penguin isn't acknowledging our work as the basis for his Operating System!"

      "Quick, Rlogin! To the GNU/Cave, we have work to do!"

      (...the things that run through one's mind when one is sleep deprived...)

      --
      --Rachel
  22. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    err, right. And you're here, why??

    Maybe you don't realize that perhaps some of the
    people here commenting on public domain super
    heroes are taking a few minutes rest from some
    of the following:
    A)active military service
    B)political protest movements
    C)writing opensource code
    D)working for a living
    E)going to school
    F)writing closedsource code
    G)parenting

    Seemingly inane activities often reduce stress
    and increase productivity in other areas. I
    would suggest you aren't productive and also
    don't have much fun. Maybe you should take
    a timeout in your room???

  23. It's official - the internet has gone down! by BluBrick · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There has gotta be something seriously wrong with the whole internet when first post on slashdot complains about the site being slashdotted.

    --
    Ahh - My eye!
    The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    1. Re:It's official - the internet has gone down! by Shadestalker · · Score: 2, Funny

      The simplest explanation is that they must have disparaged Scientology in some way.

    2. Re:It's official - the internet has gone down! by sootman · · Score: 5, Funny

      ServerMan: *gasp* can't... hold... out... much... longer... ... slashdot... crowd... too... powerful!

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    3. Re:It's official - the internet has gone down! by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      I thought that was AOL...

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    4. Re:It's official - the internet has gone down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's the article I'm thinking of, it's from Newsarama on the viewaskew.com site. It's always been slow even when I originally read the article last week.

  24. How about Rasterman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is all but disappered from the Linux scence

  25. "Never copyrighted"? I don't think so. by 3583+Bytes+Free · · Score: 0, Interesting
    Apparently, a bunch of golden age heroes were never copyrighted and just faded into obscurity

    If they were created, they were copyrighted. Perhaps the copyrights were not registered, but that doesn't make them public domain. Perhaps the copyright owners are dead or defunct, or just don't care. Perhaps no one knows for sure who had the copyrights. And perhaps the copyright has expired.

    Just don't say "they were never copyrighted" because that's just not true.

  26. Pretty Easy by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    Its pretty easy to create a new public domain super hero - here goes!

    Captain Spooner - he's got big spoons instead of hands! His feet are normal though. He can scoop up loads of water, earth, wax, ANTHING and dump it on top of criminals!

    The Masked Kitten - Some sexy bint who runs around in a mask. She is NOT catwoman, because she wears a mask and is called 'huni' by her side kick 'Sheba' - who is actually her boss though neither of them know it. They were independent crime fighters when they first met at night while Sheba was kicking in a gang members head. The Masked Kitten liked her style!

    FatCowboy - less of a super hero than an anti-hero this dude just floats around farting at people and then taking their chocolate!

    Maybe /. should start a repository of public domain shite heros!

    1. Re:Pretty Easy by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the arch enema of the Society Of Adult Public Domain Invincible SuperHero's (or SOAPDISH) -
      The evil Doctor Jyzz - head of Spurm, that most notorious of evil secret societies which will not rest until the whole world cowers on bended knee before their mighty weapons.
      "Prepare to feel the power of my mighty shot, ha ha ha ha ha ha"

    2. Re:Pretty Easy by swfranklin · · Score: 2, Funny
      Its pretty easy to create a new public domain super hero

      Commander Taco - obliterates Web sites with a single post!

      Wow, you're right - that WAS easy!

    3. Re:Pretty Easy by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      These superhero's take the cake!!! Bear Suit is my favorite.

  27. Re:"Never copyrighted"? I don't think so. by bluGill · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Today that is true, but not back then. Today if you create it you own a copyright on it. Back then if you didn't take steps (I'm not sure what, but registration most likely) you had no copyright.

  28. Re:"Never copyrighted"? I don't think so. by Entrope · · Score: 2, Informative
    Just don't say "they were never copyrighted" because that's just not true.

    Please research your rants before issuing them. The law changed so that works published after 1978 do have automatic copyright. Works published before 1978 entered the public domain unless the author or creator registered them. See this page on BitLaw.

  29. Free Steamboat Willie! by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other cartoon public domain news:

    The first Mickey Mouse cartoons would have eventually lapsed into the public domain if it weren't for the Sonny Bono law.

    And if you want a 'real' superheroes in the PD: the 1940s Superman cartoon shorts (produced by Max and Dave Fleischer, the guys who make the old time popeye cartoons) are also (apparently) in the public domain.

    The most disconcerting thing about the old Superman cartoons is that one of the villians had the same voice as Popeye! Gave me the willies.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:Free Steamboat Willie! by SScorpio · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are two DVDs of these cartoons. One of them is all of Fleischer's cartoons, and the other are later works by Future Studio after Fleischer left else.

      You can normally pick them up for about $10, well worth it if your a fan of the old cartoons.

      Max Fleischer's Cartoons:
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail /-/dvd/1572523034/glance/102-2261467-1390511

      Future Studio's Cartoons (Post David Fleischer):
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1572 524537/qid=1032963126/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-226146 7-1390511?v=glance

      Collection of all 17 episodes together (cheaper seperately):
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305 943389/qid=1032963126/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-226146 7-1390511?v=glance

      Note: If you don't like Amazon you can pick them up almost anywhere that sells DVDs.

    2. Re:Free Steamboat Willie! by mpe · · Score: 2

      The first Mickey Mouse cartoons would have eventually lapsed into the public domain if it weren't for the Sonny Bono law.
      BR?No doubt someone will post the link to the website which explains that the first Mickey Mouse cartoons most likely are in the public domain. Due to Disney messing up the original copyright attribution...

  30. Re:"Never copyrighted"? I don't think so. by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly why it's dangerous that people believe everything was always the way it is today.

    AT THE TIME, there was no automatic copyright.

    Soon people will believe that it was always as it
    is under the DMCA.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  31. Shazam! by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of my faves Captain Marvel - and his firesign friends, The Caped Madman, Rocket Jock, Spy Swatter, Sleeve Coat, and Spike in J-Men Forever!

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  32. Golden age super villains did this! by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why is the site about golden age superheros down? Golden age super villains took it out. I suspect The Terror, Dr. Ironbeard, The Ktulu from Timbuktu and Bulgarian Boogeyman!

    --
    How ya like dat?
  33. I propose... by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I propose that whoever invents the first working holodeck be made a superhero in advance (What, that isn't what the article was about? How would I know since it has been /.'ed into oblivion???)

  34. Tux! by e8johan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The only super hero I care for is Tux. I cannot comment on the classic super heroes, as the site could not bear the load. Since there are several tux sites, they will probably survive the load better. Check here, here, here, here, here, here or here.

  35. The Valenti Disney Warner Microsoft Act of 2015 by greensquare · · Score: 1, Funny

    I predict that the Valanti Disney Warner Microsoft Act of 2015 (named partially in memory of Jack Valenti) will, in additon to increasing the legal limited copywrite term from 175 years to infinity minus 1 day, also reassign the ownership of all valuable public domain art from the public domain to whatever corporation can profit from them the most.

    After all, as the new law's text will read, "what is the sense in having art if no corporation can profit from it?

    Disney will be required Pay for all their new material by contributing $750,000 to the retirement fund for the Microsoft Geeks that run their "P2P DDOS Strike Force" that has been successful in knocking 99% of all P2P file traders, and FTP shareware sites off the net.

  36. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Phoenix · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You sir are in the most desperate need of some stress relief of anyone I've ever seen. Even AFTER 9-11-2001 the Mayor appeared on SNL and told people that it is ok to laugh and that laughter was needed to try to help lift the pall that fell over the people when the towers came down.

    If people do nothing but dwell on the negative that happens in the world, then they are on the fast track to a prescription of anti-depressants at best and at worse a trip to the psyche ward with a 24/7 suicide watch.

    We play with our Legos and our Nerf Guns to give us a break from the depressing stuff that happens in our lives. We read comics and play EQ to relax. We watch Anime because it's fun.

    And contrary to your belief, having fun is not evil.

    We are BOMBARDED constantly by CNN over some crisis. We are shown time and time again pictures of dead bodies from some natural disaster. We are shown videos of that woman beating that child senseless or that dog getting nerve gassed. With that CONSTANT and INCESSANT exposure to the violence in the world, the only thing keeping us from going insane and possibly psychotic is the fact that we have outlets where we can back off and embrace all that is pleasant, positive, and good in the world.

    So if ANYONE should "get some priorities" it is you. You are on the fast track to an early death unless you cut loose and enjoy life instead of brooding on all the death doom and destruction.

    To quote Good Morning Vietnam "He is in the most desperate need of a blowjob of any white man I know"

    --
    -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
  37. Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER IT by HaloZero · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You're right. The attack more than a year ago was terrible. Thousands of people died. You are correct in that aspect. However. You must understand, the attack, as you mentioned, WAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO. Some of us want to move on. I'll take this further. You're going on about all of these world events stories. Why? Wait. Why do you even know about them? CNN? MSNBC? BBC? That's my point, exactly. CNN, MSNBC, BBC. You've seen in there. Why reprint the same regurgitated crap here? Yeah. It's the world. Yeah. It sucks. Horribly. Matter of fact, it's the worst. Y'ever stop and actually LOOK at Slashdot's synopsis? It says "News for nerds, stuff that matters.". Now, I'm not implying that these world events don't matter, but we don't need to rehash the same thing over and over and over again. If you want to read about tragedy, and terror, and people being blown to bits, go to MSNBC, or CNN, or BBC, and read THERE. We aren't them. We are us. To that end, have you ever thought that some of us visit this site to try and escape from that worldly crap? I come here, because I know that I can find happy refuge among other geeks, and we can discuss techy things, and fun things, and not have to worry about Saddam Hussien, and al-Quieda, and the problems of the world. I personally find thinking about such events and scenarios frightening, disturbing, and to think that my world could disappear tomorrow because some fanatic in the middle east doesn't like my pants, or that I could give less than a flying fuck what God whoever believes in really, really worries me. With that in mind, why not hang out with people you can relate to, and enjoy the things you do in life? For me, that's Slashdot. Here's another point: I'm not sure if I am more disgusted with the fact that you've acted just as these terrorists would. Yes. You have. Don't look at me like that. Just listen. What are terroists? People with a cause? Yes. And what do they do? Inflict pain, and fear, and anger, in people they wish to make their point to. Ok, that's a given. What have you done? Mm-hmm. You waltzed right into our little happy party, and took a big shit in the punchbowl. Yes. You, sir, in your gross and selfish display of arrogance, have become a terrorist. Thank you for taking time out of your important life to remind me that there are people out in the world who wouldn't give another thought to turning me, and everyone I know, into piles of radioactive dust from thousands of miles away. That's incredibly comforting. I digress; the other issue which sickens me is that you could attack us, at all. Are we hurting anyone doing what we are doing? Discussing science, technology, humor, entertainment, culture, and so on? Are we killing people? Are we the ones out there with superweapons threatening to commit mass genocide? NO! You want someone to be disgusted with? Someone to attack? Why not take out your anger and aggression on some of those assholes you mentioned? Yeah. All those terror networks and shit. Ever stop and consider that? Don't come down here and drop your crap on us, simply because you feel we are wrong for not dwelling on the past, or living in fear. I, myself, plan on enjoying every second I can get from life, with the things I enjoy doing, with my family, and my girlfriend, and if the time comes, I will defend myself, my home and the people I've mentioned, and my country. Until then, I plan on being myself. Take you, yourself, your bullshit, and go elsewhere, please. You are not welcome here. Thanks. </RANT

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
  38. Here is a copy of the article by protektor · · Score: 5, Informative

    So - who owns the heroes of ABC/WildStorm's Terra Obscura? No one, everyone and DC. Kind of.
    The characters who appeared in Tom Strong #11 and #12, including Pyroman, Miss Masque, The American Crusader, The Black Terror, the Fighting Yank, and Doc Strange (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Tom Strong himself). In the story, "Terror on Terra Obscura," Strong teamed up with Strange to rescue the heroes, who had been imprisoned by an alien of impossible power.

    To Tom Strong, the entire mission was somewhat surreal - to him, the heroes that he was helping to rescue existed on his earth solely as comic book characters, something like how the JSA existed as comic characters on Earth-1 to the JLA, back when there was an Earth-1 and Earth-2, or, if you want something a little more metaphysical, the existence of the heroes on the far side of the galaxy percolated through...ideaspace, where it was captured by comic creators on Tom Strong's earth who were imaginauts...or..something...

    The heroes are slated to get a return engagement in 2003 when Peter Hogan pens a Terra Obscura miniseries for ABC [with art by Yanique Paquette and Karl Story], utilizing the same characters on the same world. Ideally, interest will be high enough, according to Hogan, in the miniseries that ABC will launch the heroes of Terra Obscura in their own ongoing monthly.

    If you're the gambling sort, it's a safe bet that a solid 99% of the readers of the Tom Strong storyline thought that the characters were simply fruits of Alan Moore's imagination, heroes who were shared shades of similarity to "real" Golden Age comic heroes. After all, the proper archetypes were present - the patriotic hero (the Fighting Yank), the science hero (American Crusader), the "dark" hero (The Black Terror, renamed the Terror, who comes complete with young sidekick), the jungle queen (Princess Panther), the monster, the fire-man, and even the talking ape were there.

    The thing is, the characters weren't, or at least originally weren't the products of Moore's imagination - the heroes of Terra Obscura were, in fact, real comic characters published in the 1940s by Ned Pines under the Standard/Better/Nedor imprint(s). While the fact does little to change the story, it does raise a question or two. No, DC didn't quietly acquire another stable of comic characters as they had done with the Charlton characters in the late '80s by buying them outright - the Nedor characters are themselves in a unique position in terms of copyright: They are in the public domain, and can therefore be freely used by anyone. As an aside - in the ABC universe, the heroes are located on "Terra Obscura," a unique world which itself is an invention of Alan Moore, and is therefore copyrighted to DC/ABC/WildStorm.

    Before we continue, a little history lesson is needed on how things got to be the way they are.

    A Publisher of Many Names

    The heroes which are collectively referred to as "Nedor" heroes were originally published by Pines, who had three names for his publishing company over the years, Standard, Better, and Pines. As a company, Standard began publishing in 1932, and was the king of comics with adjective titles - Thrilling Comics, Thrilling Detective, Exciting Comics, Startling Comics - all were staples of Standard/Better/Pines over the years.

    From the early days, Standard employed editor Leo Margulies and Mort Weisinger, who took the ball and ran with it, in 1939 creating series after series, and hero after hero. Alex Schomberg provided dozens of covers over the series' runs. Standard's standard fair for the early '40s was pulp-inspired superheroes, but as Standard couldn't get a good footing against National Periodical Publications' stars of the costumed set, Superman and Batman (as well as the Justice Society) and others, and sales of Standard's hero line slipped, and by 1949, the company dropped costumed heroes, sticking to real-life adventures, funny animal books, and romance comics. Aside from the Nedor heroes, one character of Standard's original comic series remains alive today - Dennis the Menace.

    Like many of the comic characters created in the 1940s, the heroes of the Standard line weren't copyrighted. It wasn't necessarily a careless move by the publisher, just a simple business decision. Remember - this was in the days before the phrase "intellectual property" was even coined, and comic book characters were disposable commodities. One was created in order to sell comics to boys, and when its sales started to slip, another was created to take its place. "Progress" was the theme of the day, and no one would have thought to bring back a concept that was perceived to have failed - why return to something that the public clearly had passed on? Thinking of the better world coming tomorrow was the name of the game, and nostalgia had yet to become a pastime for individuals and an income stream for companies. Everyone, from the man on the street to comic book publishers, was looking for the next big thing, and had precious little time to spend on the old thing that no one wanted.

    At the same time, creators' right were largely unheard of, and the creators themselves were generally nose-to-the-grindstone workhorses, and no real interest or incentive to try to keep or reclaim their original work or worry about the rights to the characters they wrote or drew. After all, the first comic book fandom had yet to be born, and the first "comic book convention" was decades away. Aside from a few superstars, comic artists and writers were scratching by, and were immensely more concerned with putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head than securing the rights of ownership for a pulp knockoff they jotted down when the publisher came looking for a comic book hero.

    Additionally, the Standard/Nedor heroes were like many, many other heroes of the '40s - colorful, and attention grabbing when they were on the cover of a comic, but ultimately, their stories were pretty pedestrian. No kids were clamoring for fan clubs or decoder rings from the Nedor line, as they were for Superman. Within a few years of the end of their publication, the heroes sank beneath the waves of popular culture, remembered only by a very few.

    "Come on Little Chum - We're Going Into the Public Domain!"

    With the above influences working on them, in their original form, the Nedor characters were never trademarked, and the stories in which they appeared in have long gone out of copyright (a period which lasted 28 years after publication) and were not renewed. As such, the characters legally moved into the public domain one by one, beginning with Doc Strange, in order of their publication, making it free for anyone to use them.

    The public wha...?

    For example, Frances Hodgson Burnett's The Secret Garden has had multiple adaptations, spinoffs and derivative products come out - all of which are legal, from the Secret Garden Cookbook to the most recent movie adaptation, because the work is in the public domain. Anyone can create a work based on the original without having to acquire any kind of rights whatsoever - the work, legally, belongs to all mankind.

    An aside - before you go off thinking that governments actually made one law that would ultimately benefit the culture of the planet in a timeless fashion, copyright critics, pointing fingers at recent copyright extensions, such as the Sonny Bono Act (which was lobbied for largely by large media companies, and the validity of which is slated to be argued to the Supreme Court by Lawrence Lessig on October 9th) claim that the number of works entering the public domain has been drastically reduced in the past thirty years, and they're right. The move is seen by many anti-copyright pundits as a move as a culture from valuing the expression of an individual artist to valuing a corporate property.

    Ironically, Walt Disney, one of the companies that has lobbied the hardest for copyright extension (ensuring the company will reap the profits from their characters for generations to come) is also one of the biggest beneficiaries of the public domain - from Snow White to Cinderella, Jungle Book (released one year after Kipling's own copyright expired) and much of classical music in Fantasia came from the public domain. Without recent extensions approved by congress, Mickey Mouse would have gone into the public domain in 2004.

    So - how does all of this apply to the Nedor heroes? Well, as alluded to previously, they didn't just go into the public domain, and ABC/WildStorm isn't the first comic publisher to publish them - or even the only publisher to currently publish them. The Nedor heroes have bubbled up a few times in the decades since their journey into the public domain, from Ace Comics and First Comics to Eclipse and currently, AC Comics.

    The Point Is: No One's Fighting

    Before moving on, it must be stressed that none of this is a matter of publishing legality - everyone, from AC to WildStorm to anyone reading this article could legitimately and legally create and publish comics starring any of the Nedor heroes that are based on the original materials from the '40s. There's the rub - the characters have to be based directly upon the original versions which appeared in the comics. From there, things get a little more...legal.

    For example, take The Black Terror. Created in 1941 by Richard Hughes and David Gabrielsen, the character first appeared in Exciting Comics #9 in 1941. Both AC and ABC took the base character, The Black Terror, and modified it (in different ways), and renamed it The Terror (AC, after naming their version, later renamed theirs "The Terrorist"). Both were based on Nedor's The Black Terror, but were modified in unique ways by the respective publishers. Likewise, Beau Smith's version of the character, published by Eclipse (and co-written with Chuck Dixon and illustrated by Dan Brereton) used the name, but was worlds away from the original version. The character also showed up in the '80s in versions published by Ace Comics, and in Roy Thomas' Alter Ego comic series at First Comics.

    In Smith's case, the desire to use the Nedor hero as a starting point for his own take was a result of childhood memories. "When I was a kid, my dad gave me a couple of old coverless Black Terror comics that he had as a kid," Smith said. "There were in the attic at my grandma's attic. I got hooked on the cool looking character with the skull and crossbones on his chest. I always wanted to do something with the character after that.

    "He was in the public domain, and I had a high concept crime/alternate universe idea
    that I had been saving up, and this was the perfect opportunity for it. I called my buddy Chuck Dixon and we decided to write it together. We changed the basic background of the character and did our own. As a result of what we did with the original concept, Chuck and I have the rights to the story and the characters as they appeared in our three issue run....names and all that."

    Smith said he wasn't sure if Eclipse owned any of the rights to the characters, or if Todd McFarlane acquired the rights to his and Dixon's version of the Black Terror when he purchased the Eclipse assets. Smith did write a new story with the Black Terror while he was with McFarlane Productions, which was illustrated by Clayton Crain, but to date, McFarlane has opted not to publish it.

    Smith wasn't the only creator with a soft spot in his heart for the characters - as mentioned previously, the pool of Nedor characters had been dipped into by Roy Thomas and ACE Comics, but in 1988, publisher Bill Black brought back a host of public domain characters, including many of the Nedor heroes for use in AC's Femforce series, placing them in new series, as well as reprinting original stories.

    Over the years, AC Comics has taken the initiative to seek out and preserve many Golden Age comics and heroes, painstakingly retouching and correcting the art from the original comics - since no original art still exists - to produce reprint editions. As stated on their website, AC's reprints of public domain Golden Age comics is threefold:

    1. To help preserve the history of the American comic book.
    2. To make material available to collectors who have been priced out of the Golden-Age collecting market.
    3. To introduce Golden-Age material to a new generation of comic book readers.

    AC has also endeavored to compile information about the creators of the Golden Age comics - as much as it is available - and publish the information in various magazines, including Men of Mystery, which featured the Nedor heroes in a special edition.

    Again, given the time period in which the work was originally created, many creators were never credited with their work, and in some cases, attribution of the creation of Golden Age characters is only anecdotal in nature.

    Along with reprints of the original characters, AC has written the Nedor heroes as continuations of their Golden Age incarnations, maintaining the same general concepts and secret identities, but have also made some alterations in terms of costumes and names. The changes AC has made in the Nedor characters made done in order to make their versions distinctive in order that the publisher could copyright their stories, as well as protect their looks, just as Smith and Dixon did with their version of the Black Terror, and ABC has done with their versions of the characters.

    To date, AC has been publishing the Nedor heroes (both on their own and as supporting characters) for going on twenty years, a run nearly double the original run the characters enjoyed in the '40s.

    As the covers in this article show, the Terra Obscura storyline in Tom Strong #11 and #12 isn't the only connection between the Nedor line and WildStorm's ABC line - in 1942, Nedor launched America's Best Comics #1, a title which brought together Nedor's top three characters, Fighting Yank, Doc Strange, and the Black Terror together between two covers. And of course, there is that similarity between Doc Strange and Tom Strong, noted by Strong in issue #11 - the two could be brothers. It was a similarity Moore himself noted in an interview with Previews, but said that while he was inspired the America's Best Comics title as a name for a line, the similarity between the two characters was a complete coincidence.

    For Moore aficionados, his account of later discoveries after creating both Tom Strong and Promethea come as little surprise, and fit into the creators' theories about ideaspace and the fact that he occasionally runs off and prays to a snake god...or...something under his house. "I didn't know there was The Book of Promethea by Hélène Cixous, or things like that," Moore told Previews. "I didn't know John Kendrick Bangs had written a bunch of stories about a place very much like the Immateria when I made Sophie Bangs the secret identity of Promethea. All of these things are delicious coincidences. I even found a character created from about 1910 in a series of novels published by the Boy Scouts of America about this ultimate Boy Scout named Tom Strong. It's just great! If you're hitting the right kind of vein of archetypal stuff then things like this will just happen. I'm just tapping into something. It works out."

    In a recent interview with Newsarama, Moore expanded upon his decision to use the characters. "The original idea for the whole thing came when somebody, it may have been Rick Veitch, told me that there had been, back in the '40s, an America's Best Comics which I wasn't aware of," Moore said. "I thought it was a striking coincidence that we had America's Best Comics, and there was a series by the same name in the '40s. I asked [ABC editor] Scott Dunbier to check it out and see if he could find out anything about this comic, and whether there were any interesting characters.

    "For all I knew, it might have been a Western comic book, but I asked him to tell me if there were any interesting characters, with an eye to possibly reviving them if they were sort of old, forgotten characters, in the current America's Best Comics as a kind of instant 1940s continuity. I left it with Scott, and he got back to me, along with some other people who sent me covers from the original comics - it was then I realized that Doc Strange looked very much like Tom Strong - he had the same kind of bizarrely muscled physique. He wore a red t-short, and these jodhpurs, and boots. I realized that we wouldn't be able to do a character with the name Doc Strange [due to this upstart company called Marvel, which had created a character named Dr. Strange in the interim]. I though that maybe we could change the name to Tom Strange, because at that point, I though that point his first name had never been given. I found out later that it was Hugo, so I think that the current orthodoxy at ABC is that his name is Thomas Hugo Strange."

    Moore said that originally, the plan was to use the characters only for the two-part "Terra Obscura" storyline which would explain where Tom Strange came from - it was a story that needed a world populated with heroes. "I came up with the Terra Obscura idea, which I thought was an interesting variant on the notion that this is a planet which is in the same dimension as ours, and is an exact duplicate, just elsewhere in space," Moore said. "I started to research as many of the Nedor heroes as I could. Jim Steranko was a great help - he dug out loads of old articles which filled in a lot of details for me, and we did the story from there.

    "That was originally going to be all we were doing. Then, Pete Hogan, after having just done a pretty splendid job on the Tesla Strong special was looking for something else to do. He suggested that, because there was such a lot of positive feedback and interest on the web regarding the Terra Obscura characters that he wondered about doing a miniseries. It sounded good to me. Pete and I have been working together on this, and it's coming along well.

    "Initially, it was an idea if there was an interesting character in this 1940s, America's Best Comics we could kind of bring him back in the present day and pleasantly confuse readers as to whether America's Best Comics really did exist in the 1940s," Moore continued. "It was more that than anything - we'd exploit the coincidence and sort of pretended that we had this backlog of characters that stretched back to the 1940s."

    The Perils and Promise of the Public Domain

    By becoming part of the public domain, the heroes of the old Standard line of comics are part of the cultural heritage of the United States and world, just like Thomas Nash's versions of Santa Claus and Uncle Sam, and nearly all the classical music in the world. As such, they can be used by current creators as source material who would be "standing on the shoulders of giants" as it were to create their own, new works.

    According to public domain advocates, what AC and ABC (and previously, Eclipse and others) are doing with the old Nedor heroes is exactly why material should go into the public domain, that is, the original works can be freely built upon to further enhance the cultural landscape of the world. Okay, so whether or not FemForce and Tom Strong #11 and #12 enhance the cultural landscape of the world is arguable, but again, AC and ABC are doing exactly what they're supposed to in regards to works in the public domain - using them as source works, and either re-presenting them or building upon them to tell new stories.

    It's exactly what Borders or Barnes & Noble do when they publish and release their own editions of classic literature - or, for that matter, what Alan Moore did in creating League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. That said though, working with properties from the public domain, especially when using them as a foundation to build upon comes with its own problems due to the simple fact that anyone can do it. If one publishing house starts up a version of say, Pyroman (a Nedor hero) with writer A and artist B, a publishing house down the street can do their own version of Pyroman with writer C and artist D.

    In such a setting, the market would determine which version of the character survives, based on everything from quality of the product to the marketing each publishers attempt. One publish could win out over the other and make millions while the other fails, despite the time and effort expended.

    While neither Dunbier nor anyone from AC Comics chose to go on record, sources confirmed that, despite the legalities of each company's use of the characters, the smaller publisher is mildly annoyed at ABC's apparent ongoing use of the characters.

    Also, in today's world where the creator of a property has come to be considered in higher regard than in years past, there is a danger in a property such as the Nedor heroes entering the public domain and then being revised or revisited by a creator such as Alan Moore or Peter Hogan, and that is that the original creators of the work may be forgotten or overlooked. Already, the specific creator pedigree of many Nedor heroes is unknown, lost in the mists of time and churning of the 1940s' publishing industry.

    As stated above, many readers of Tom Strong #11 or #12 would automatically assign the creation of the Terra Obscura characters to Moore - after all, the guy did create heroes that were a shade away from the Charlton heroes for Watchmen, why couldn't he just do it again?

    As a result, the original creators of the characters are lost to the mists of time - technically, as they should be, as part of becoming part of the public domain, but perhaps unfairly so in the view of fans indoctrinated in the creator rights battles of the past decades.

    The public domain, in the eyes of its advocates, is a necessary part of the cultural landscape of America - something that the founding fathers outlined - something that allows a vigorous and growing culture without the restrictions of royalties. For every pro argument, there's a con, mostly from copyright holders.

    For example, if Disney and other media companies would be unsuccessful in extending the term of copyright extension, Mickey Mouse hits the public domain in 2003. Legally, Universal could produce a line of Mickey Mouse cartoons based on the original appearance of the character from the 1928 Steamboat Willie, and anyone could package and sell the original Steamboat Willie cartoon - all without credit or payment to Walt Disney.

    The challenges of public domain don't just affect the Nedor heroes - there are dozens upon dozens of Golden Age heroes who are currently in the public domain waiting for their chance at a second shot or re-presentation, or to be completely forgotten, their histories, creators, and adventures lost forever.

    1. Re:Here is a copy of the article by Radical+Rad · · Score: 2
      For example, if Disney and other media companies would be unsuccessful in extending the term of copyright extension, Mickey Mouse hits the public domain in 2003. Legally, Universal could produce a line of Mickey Mouse cartoons based on the original appearance of the character from the 1928 Steamboat Willie, and anyone could package and sell the original Steamboat Willie cartoon - all without credit or payment to Walt Disney.

      B.F.D. Kids today would never be interested in Mickey Mouse as he existed in Steamboat Willy. And decades from now when the most current incarnations would be available they will also seem like ancient history. Maybe we should grant Disney a permanent exception to copyright law so that they will no longer use their great wealth to trample the public's intellectual freedom.

    2. Re:Here is a copy of the article by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Oh
      My
      God

      16 pages of the most obscure comic book minutia imaginable. Dude, I sure hope you're some sort of comic book professional.
      And I thought *I* had no life :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  39. Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER IT by HaloZero · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You're right. The attack more than a year ago was terrible. Thousands of people died. You are correct in that aspect. However. You must understand, the attack, as you mentioned, WAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO. And some of us want to move on.

    I'll take this further. You're going on about all of these world events stories. Why? Wait. Why do you even know about them? CNN? MSNBC? BBC? That's my point, exactly. CNN, MSNBC, BBC. You've seen in there. Why reprint the same regurgitated crap here? Yeah. It's the world. Yeah. It sucks. Horribly. Matter of fact, it's the worst. Y'ever stop and actually LOOK at Slashdot's synopsis? It says "News for nerds, stuff that matters.". Now, I'm not implying that these world events don't matter, but we don't need to rehash the same thing over and over and over again.

    If you want to read about tragedy, and terror, and people being blown to bits, go to MSNBC, or CNN, or BBC, and read THERE. We aren't them. We are us. To that end, have you ever thought that some of us visit this site to try and escape from that worldly crap? I come here, because I know that I can find happy refuge among other geeks, and we can discuss techy things, and fun things, and not have to worry about Saddam Hussien, and al-Quieda, and the problems of the world.

    I personally find thinking about such events and scenarios frightening, disturbing, and to think that my world could disappear tomorrow because some fanatic in the middle east doesn't like my pants, or that I could give less than a flying fuck what God whoever believes in, really, really worries me. With that in mind, why not hang out with people you can relate to, and enjoy the things you do in life? For me, that's Slashdot.

    Here's another point: I'm not sure if I am more disgusted with the fact that you've acted just as these terrorists would. Yes. You have. Don't look at me like that. Just listen. What are terroists? People with a cause? Yes. And what do they do? Inflict pain, and fear, and anger, in people they wish to make their point to. Ok, that's a given. What have you done? Mm-hmm. You waltzed right into our little happy party, and took a big shit in the punchbowl. Yes. You, sir, in your gross and selfish display of arrogance, have become a terrorist. Thank you for taking time out of your important life to remind me that there are people out in the world who wouldn't give another thought to turning me, and everyone I know, into piles of radioactive dust from thousands of miles away. That's incredibly comforting. I digress; the other issue which sickens me is that you could attack us, at all. Are we hurting anyone doing what we are doing? Discussing science, technology, humor, entertainment, culture, and so on? Are we killing people? Are we the ones out there with superweapons threatening to commit mass genocide? NO! You want someone to be disgusted with? Someone to attack? Why not take out your anger and aggression on some of those assholes you mentioned? Yeah. All those terror networks and shit. Ever stop and consider that?

    Don't come down here and drop your crap on us, simply because you feel we are wrong for not dwelling on the past, or living in fear. I, myself, plan on enjoying every second I can get from life, with the things I enjoy doing, with my family, and my girlfriend, and if the time comes, I will defend myself, my home and the people I've mentioned, and my country. Until then, I plan on being myself. Take you, yourself, your bullshit, and go elsewhere, please. You are not welcome here. Thanks. [/RANT]

    Note to moderators: I do sincerely apologize for cross-posting. In my fit of rage, I posted in HTML-formatted mode, and had no line breaks. That... is not me. I'm sorry, but I had to post an edited version. I thank you for the work you do for this site, and, to that end, again apologize for this.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
  40. ...preserve the original intent of the character? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, there is a way to preserve the original intent of a character that has passed into the public domain. Write stories with that character that fulfill the original intent, and make them so insanely great that everyone reads them instead of the schlock stories that violate the character's original intent.

    As in all public domain and open source situations, it's up to you to make it what you want.

  41. Free Mickey Mouse! by artemis67 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Interestingly enough, Mickey Mouse is due to enter the public domain in 2004, unless Congress passes a copyright extension. The copyright is only good for 50 years after the owner/creator's death. A move is underway to extend that to 75 years.

    1. Re:Free Mickey Mouse! by Shadestalker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Spider Robinson had something to say about extending copyright. I think it's still relevant.

      http://www.tale.com/titles-free.phtml?title_id=39

    2. Re:Free Mickey Mouse! by gorilla · · Score: 2

      You've got it exactly backwards. Mickey Mouse's copyright has been extended to 70 years. There is a move underway to reverse that.

    3. Re:Free Mickey Mouse! by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      A resolution WAS passed... Mickey has another 20 years (2019)

      Wired Article on it when it was an
      act

      Wikipedia article on it as a bill

    4. Re:Free Mickey Mouse! by srvivn21 · · Score: 2

      Ahem... Interestingly enough, the article you linked to has it different.

      More specifically, Micky Mouse is not due to enter the public domain until 2024, unless Eric Eldred wins in the Supreme Court (and there will likely be an other extension before then).

      The move to extend copyright for 70 years (for individuals, 95 years for corporations) was called the "The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act". It passed in 1998.

      All according to the article you linked.

  42. Parent is a troll, duh. (OT) by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2

    So in essence, most of your lengthy reply is just a waste, and only encourages them. But you're probably right about him needing a blowjob. Though like most trolls it would likely be his first and only ;-)

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  43. Learn to be picky about the authors by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2

    Figure out which authors write stories you like, and ignore those whose stories you dislike.

    Frank Millers's Batman is not any less brilliant because of the existence of Adam West's Batman.

    Worrying that someone, somewhere is doing something you dislike is not a productive use of your time.

  44. Tull said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on ye childhood heroes!
    Won't you rise up from the pages of your comic-books
    your super crooks
    and show us all the way.
    Well! Make your will and testament.
    Won't you? Join your local government.
    We'll have Superman for president
    let Robin save the day.

  45. You do not have to explicitely copyright something by xmda · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Apparently, a bunch of golden age heroes were never copyrighted and just faded into obscurity.

    At least today, you do not need to explicitely say that you have copyright to something, you get this automatically. Of course it helps if you type down your name and stuff to be easier to enforce.

  46. Re:Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER by tetranz · · Score: 1

    There doesn't seem to be much on the news about the 24,000 people thehungersite.org who died of hunger on 9/11. I would have thought that a tragedy of that magnitude would deserve a large multinational operation to make sure it doesn't happen again.

    It goes without saying but, just in case, no I'm not denying the pain, suffering or heroism related to other events of that day but it does need to put into perspective.

  47. Being a Public Domain Superhero would suck by fobbman · · Score: 4, Funny

    What if Batman were public domain? EVERYONE would have a Bat signal and there would be one jackass who would light theirs up just to get Batman to pick up a short case on the way over.

    1. Re:Being a Public Domain Superhero would suck by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Dude, that would rock! Everybody would come to a party if Batman brought the booze!!!

  48. PD Superheroes by bytesmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean like:

    StallMan (real name: Richard Stallman)
    Stalwart leader of the FSF, he fires his GPL Virus Cannon at all software in sight.

    The Penguin (real name: Linus Torvalds)
    Hacker extraordinaire. Uses Linux-grip action to bring monopolies to their knees. Annoyed that StallMan keeps calling it "GNU/Linux-grip action".

    And their arch-enemies:

    Mr. Big (real name: Bill Gates)
    Leader of Micro$oft, Mr. Big uses his vast resources of time, money, and attorneys to make sure his Evil Windows Empire retains complete control. Also likes to eat kittens. Raw.

    The Luddite (real name: Jack Valenti)
    The Luddite is stringently opposed to any new technology that it enables people to have control over the music they purchase. Powers are similar to Mr. Big's. Mr. Big and The Luddite may team up to form an organization too powerful for StallMan and The Penguin to take on.

    And don't forget:
    The Citizens (real name: all of us)
    We are the supreme power. Ultimately, it is not up to StallMan and The Penguin to stop the minions of Microsoft and the ??AA from controlling us. Fight back.

    --
    bytesmythe
    Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
    -- Scott Meyer
    1. Re:PD Superheroes by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Funny
      Uses Linux-grip action
      Shouldn't that be Linux-grep action? :)
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:PD Superheroes by nytes · · Score: 1
      And don't forget:
      The Citizens (real name: all of us)
      We are the supreme power. Ultimately, it is not up to StallMan and The Penguin to stop the minions of Microsoft and the ??AA from controlling us. Fight back.

      However, The Citizens have been placed under a mind control spell by The Luddite, and can not remember their superpowers, or even that they are in a battle against The Luddite.

      Will The Citizens shake off the spell and remember that they have superpowers?

      Will The Citizens realize that The Luddite is evil and must be fought at all cost?

      Will The Citizens be able to regain control of their ships, the S. S. Their Rights and the S. S. Public Domain, from The Luddite and his minions, who seized control of the ships using mind control spells and the evil power of Graft?

      Tune in for the first chapter of the answer, on October 9th, 2002: "Lessig Meets The Supremes"!
      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  49. Too subjective by Picass0 · · Score: 2

    One could make the argument that if you recognize the current Batman as "canon" then you recognize DC as the current author or caretaker for the character. By that rational, the 60's series is also canon, because it was created with permission from DC.

    Most fanfics are easy to filter because they are created without permission from the owners. But if corporate ownership is your criteria, you are going to be stuck with Bat-mite, Man-Bat, the 60's bat-suit, and all sorts of other wackiness. If you narrow Batman to Bob Kane, then you ignore the first (true) Dark Knight Returns series, Alex Ross' recent work, Dick Giordano's Batman stories, etc.

    Original intent goes as far as Bob Kane. The rest is up to you.

    1. Re:Too subjective by Tikiman · · Score: 1

      One could make the argument that if you recognize the current Batman as "canon" then you recognize DC as the current author or caretaker for the character. By that rational, the 60's series is also canon, because it was created with permission from DC

      It boils down to what the owner of the character says - if DC comes out and says the 60s TV series isn't canon, then its not. Marvel doesn't claim that the recent Spiderman or X-Men movies are canon. Not to mention that DC has explicitly wiped out the Golden Age Batman from their continuity anyway

  50. If you're compiling kryton.h... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you'll have errors from cc You can't compile a header.

  51. Re:Your a fag, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he is, but you're an idiot, and should probably spend a little more time working on your spelling before trying to interact with others in a text-based forum. Thanks.

  52. Watchmen by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Informative

    didn't Alan Moore use some abandoned Golden Age characters as the basis of the heros in Watchmen?

    1. Re:Watchmen by Tikiman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Moore used characters based on a defunct comic company called Charlton, which DC has just acquired the rights to. Rather than use those characters directly, he based his characters off them (e.g. Dr Manhatten from Captain Atom). Some of those old Charlton characters are still around today, like the Blue Beetle and The Question.

    2. Re:Watchmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the Blue Beetle of today -- a snivelling little bit of comic relief in the JLA -- is nothing like the cooler, original Blue Beetle. Sad.

    3. Re:Watchmen by Blackbrain · · Score: 3, Informative
      Alan Moore had planned to use a group of characters created by Charlton comics for the Watchmen, but once DC (who owned the characters) saw that he meant to kill them off, DC asked Moore to modify them.
      Comic Book Artists Magazine has a great interview with Moore about the Charlton characters and how they relate to Watchmen. http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09m oore.html

      --
      Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
  53. Re:Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh, it was a troll. Guy posts pretty much the same thing here pretty regularly, all fairly transparent. Your rant ("fit of rage?" Get a grip, camper!) has only encouraged him to troll here again.

    Nice Work. Consider some Anger Management Therapy, 'kay?

  54. Re:"Never copyrighted"? I don't think so. by andcal · · Score: 1

    Are you sure?



    True, current copyright laws only require you to put your idea down on paper or on a computer for it to be considered copyrighted, but this was not the case always, was it?

    --
    --something witty
  55. Not quite by Raul654 · · Score: 2

    Not exactly. The copyright is good until January 1 of the year after the expiration date. Steamboat mickey came out in '28, meaning its copyright wouldn't have expired until Jan 1 of (1928+75+1)=2004.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  56. obscurity by mkanoap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Any discussion of obscure comic characters make me think of my favorate, "Arm fall off boy". I originally read about him in a reprint digest of Legion of Superhero classics. In the introduction, the editor related how they often got suggestions for new heros from fans. He mentioned the idea of "arm fall off boy" who could detatch his arm and hit people with it.

    I was tickled by the idea of the worst super hero that never lived. Then I went looking for a link to post with this, and discovered that DC went ahead and used the character in 1996! I don't know whether to be horrified or pleased.

    http://www.ian-rowland.com/Vault/FunAFOB.htm

    1. Re:obscurity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats great! I was a big fan of LSH in the late 60s early 70s (yes, showing my age again) but never had the pleasure of encountering Arm-Fall-Off-Boy. I do remember being fascinated by Matter-Eater Lad (also mentioned in the link) as an impressionable 8 year old.

  57. He's sorta copyrighted by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 1

    His true name is Kip Winger.

    1. Re:He's sorta copyrighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's this... you're finally posting comments logged-in!? I'm a fan of your work, such as this post. Too bad your karma will eventually go down and you'll be forced to a two post per day limit. Damn Taco's troll filters!

  58. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by tobo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually this dude has a point. There are more important things than superheroes.

    On the other hand i am hanging around Slashdot since i'm #&!"&" tired of Indymedia and every sort of teenage radicalism it represents.

  59. Culture used to be so fluid by Damek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree with you - while still being generally undecided on a firm position regarding copyright, the position that tends to get ignored is that copyright wasn't a concern until we could so easily copy things right and left.

    For thousands of years of human history, culture was fluid and the past was history. Art is always something different in its own time from what it becomes once its time has passed. One might say the primary purpose of art is to influence the present to become the future, but once the present has passed it becomes the past. Any art you look at contains within it some hope for the future, even if only because its creator hoped that someone would experience it after it was created, but once created, art exists as something from the past, already created, immutable.

    But art is not always immutable - our perceptions of it change, and if we are discussing it, our discussion will change. Art influences us, and we influence all the art yet to come. The past exists as our soil, and we are the plants growing from it, but very soon we will wilt and decay into the soil, to become part of the history out of which the next generation grows. We, the past, will be incorporated into the structure of the future, but only if we allow what is created to decay into the natural "cultural soil" from which great things are born. If we hold our creations steadfast and immutable, never to change, then the only hope we are expressing is that the future is the same as the present and the past.

    Now that everything seems to be recorded for posterity, people are obsessed with obtaining the "definitive edition" or the "original version" of books, films, albums, etc. If anything this stifles creativity - One imagines that the definitive version of all these stories has been cast in stone, and one wants to own it. Perhaps we then lose our ability to imagine something different, something new. Why not take elements of what has been created, and reconfigure it to your own imagination?

    1. Re:Culture used to be so fluid by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Culture used to be so fluid, but time just became too fluid! I think I just slipped through three non-adjacent timezones while reading that post!

      Either you're a temporal mechanics major or you're manic phase manic/depressive. Let me trim that down and read it as fast as you can :)

      You just said:
      while being is wasn't until thousands of years history was past was history is always different time becomes time passed. is present future once present passed becomes past. future after was once exists past already immutable.

      is always immutable change are will change are yet to come. past exists are soon will decay become history next generation past, will future, is decay are born. immutable, never change, then are is future is same present past.

      Now to be posterity, are original has been then different, new. has been.


      Wow.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Culture used to be so fluid by mekkab · · Score: 2

      I think I just got a contact high from reading that...

      --
      In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  60. Captain Good vs. Doctor Evil by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did you ever notice how many heros are called "captain," and how many villains are called "doctor?" What does that say about our ideals? Why do we value brawn over brain so much? Is stupid but strong the ideal we strive for? Is there something wrong with being smart? Why not Doctor Good and Captain Evil? Is the military all good and science all evil?

    --
    That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    1. Re:Captain Good vs. Doctor Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the value are yesterday's values. America in 1940's had size or brawn plus 2 oceans for protection. Brains had to be imported (Einstein and most of the post WW2 Germans rocket scientists).
      Only recently is brainpower recognized as the real power. Did anyone want to be a geek 20 years ago if another option was available?

    2. Re:Captain Good vs. Doctor Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more likely it appeals to the target audience. lets face it, comic book fans arent braniacs. in fact most of them i have seen were also fans of pro rasslin' and jerry springer

      if the good guy was smart, stupid people wouldnt read the comics. stupid people buy more stuff, and smart people do not read comics

      the evil genius villian will be around forever. get used to it

    3. Re:Captain Good vs. Doctor Evil by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      What confuses the hell out of me is Captain Doctor Cowboy Neal.

    4. Re:Captain Good vs. Doctor Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mistake the good guys for the bad ones... take Magneto, for example. He's the REAL hero - fighting for world domination and mutant superiority is simply not wrong. Time to re-evaluate, friend.

    5. Re:Captain Good vs. Doctor Evil by Noren · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, in the story cited, the heroes used were
      Pyroman, Miss Masque, The American Crusader, The Black Terror, the Fighting Yank, and Doc Strange
      No Captains, and one heroic doctor- in direct opposition to your naming rule claim.

      There are good and evil characters with each title. See a list of characters named "Doctor" here. Ignoring multiple characters with the same name, good superheroes called "Doctor" or "Doc" of note include Strange, Fate, and Savage all of whom have had their own series; for evil "Doctor"s the only ones of similar stature are Doom and Octopus. (I'm not including the more obscure villians Destiny, Psychlo, or Alchemy; heroes of similar notability include Samson, "Doc" in the DCU, Light, and Midnight.) "Doctor" heroes actually slightly outnumber villians in my opinion.

      Notable "Captain" villians are fewer but ones I'd heard of include "Captain"s Boomerang, Cold, and Nazi; they're similar in notability to the second group above, while there are three very well known hero "Captain"s who have had their own series (America, Marvel, Britain)... So I can agree that there's a correlation of good characters and the "Captain" name, but dispute the above absolute statement if "military all good".

  61. Batbuddies? (This raises an interesting question.. by phorm · · Score: 2

    It seems to me that some of the more recent movies took away a lot of the initial seriousness,etc from the batman series. JC (a good comedian but one shouldn't shove him into every role just because he's popular) made a joke of the riddler, when I remember him more an a form of "intellectual badass". There was a fair bit of humour in previous eps, but much of it was a quite dark variety.

    And of course, the odd buddybuddy relationship between Batman and Robin, which was quite reminiscent of Ace and Gary from Saturday Night Live (not that there's anything wrong with that).

    Quick Robin, back to the batcloset! - phorm

  62. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I know is if it wsn't for my ritual serial killing i'd go mad

  63. Controlling your creations.... by qurob · · Score: 1


    That's called Licensing

  64. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
    Actually this dude has a point. There are more important things than superheroes.

    No, there aren't!
    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  65. How long... by Nomad7674 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The heroes are slated to get a return engagement in 2003 when Peter Hogan pens a Terra Obscura miniseries for ABC [with art by Yanique Paquette and Karl Story], utilizing the same characters on the same world. Ideally, interest will be high enough, according to Hogan, in the miniseries that ABC will launch the heroes of Terra Obscura in their own ongoing monthly
    So how long until ABC sues someone who uses these "public domain" superheroes in their own work, for violation of copyright, trademark, or something else? I don't imagine it will take some lawyer long to try and argue that once the characters have appeared in an ABC miniseries that they "belong" to ABC and that allowing other people to use the characters will cause damage to ABC's unique use of them.
    1. Re:How long... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can't. I can publish anything I want about Snow White (there's a kung-fu movie coming out soon, no joke) and Disney cannot stop me despite their massive 'investment' in it, unless I what I'm doing draws directly from what THEY did, as opposed to the perfectly unobjectional original source material that they also drew from. Thus I couldn't name the dwarves Happy or Doc or whatever. I'd have to find something else, like Hillary and Jack and Bill. (assuming I bothered at all)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:How long... by Nomad7674 · · Score: 2
      True but while Snow White is part of the common consciousness (it was a myth for centuries before it was merchandised by Disney), the same can hardly be said for Golden Age Superheroes. Someone could argue (and likely will) that any derivative work on these heroes after the miniseries is in fact "drawing directly from what THEY did" unless the author can show that they first learned of the heroes by digging them out of grandma's attic.

      Not saying that was right or that it will work. But I can't imagine ABC's lawyers not trying this trick... unless of course the miniseries is a disaster.

    3. Re:How long... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      It DOESN'T MATTER. However, if you like, let us consider Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." As an American who wrote it around 1820, Irving would definately have qualified for a copyright. I strongly suspect he had one, though I don't have time to research it just now.

      Disney made a short cartoon of it in 1949. I suspect that most people are probably more familiar with the cartoon than the actual story!

      And yet, this didn't stop OTHER retellings of the story, such as the Jeff Goldblum version, or the (very good, but very divergent) Tim Burton version.

      See, you fail to understand that the burden of proof here is going to rest on ABC, as they're the plaintiffs. They have to actually PROVE that someone infringed before the other party even has to think about defending themselves. A mere allegation simply doesn't cut it. And being aware of later works is not enough -- every time Disney brings out a movie based on a fairy tale there are tons of low-budget imitators. As long as they don't draw on whatever NEW STUFF Disney has ADDED to the old story, they're a-ok.

      Unless they're actually _right_, ABC's lawyers would probably be subject to sanctions for bringing a frivolous suit. They're not going to try it unless they really do have a case. (or else they're idiots who probably deserve to be disbarred -- smart lawyers, no matter how slimy, won't risk their careers like that)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:How long... by Nomad7674 · · Score: 2

      Thanks for explaining to a slow mind. ;-) Teaches me to try and be too clever for my own good.

  66. Loser Heros by Bahamuto · · Score: 1

    What kind of loser Heros do they have that in the public domain? Cottage Cheese man? Or maybe Tape Dispenser Boy. On a side note I always loved watching Whose line is it anyway on Comedy Central when they did the bit about super heros.

  67. A mens club by AForwardMotion · · Score: 0

    AForwardMotion Broadcasts "Scientologists KOS they are PKers using excuses based on religion to do whatever they like!"

    Sorry just had to do it :).

  68. copyright vs trademarks by Megane · · Score: 2

    Copyright only controls the right to copy the works: reprints of the existing materials. Trademarks cover the superhero names, logos, etc. Trademarks are much tougher to keep going, since in the USA you must actively defend them (TrademarkMan to the rescue!) or you lose them.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:copyright vs trademarks by Monkey+Angst · · Score: 2, Interesting
      in the USA you must actively defend them (TrademarkMan to the rescue!) or you lose them.

      I'm kind of unclear how this works. The way I understand it is this: I create a superhero, and I call him PublicDomainMan. I make it clear that he's not actually IN the public domain, but is trademarked, but I will allow anyone to use him if not for anything horribly offensive.

      So someone comes out with "PublicDomanMan Saves a Puppy" and I don't sue for infringement, because I don't WANT to.

      Then, someone else comes out with "PublicDomainMan rapes a puppy while helping Adolf Hitler gas Jews" and I feel that's in poor taste and I would like to sue. Is it true that I can't sue, just because I didn't sue the first guy?

      If this is the case, it's no wonder so many companies are rat bastards, if the only way to keep ownership of your property is to BE a rat bastard...

      --
      stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
  69. Katz was sacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When OSDN had the big enema a few months back, Katz was the first to go. Pity really, what with him being the only janitor that could spell.

  70. Re:Batbuddies? (This raises an interesting questio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JC (a good comedian but one shouldn't shove him into every role just because he's popular)

    Stupid Jesus freaks.

  71. Re:"Never copyrighted"? I don't think so. by Flarelocke · · Score: 1

    No, what people need to understand is that it need not be how it is now. That is always the case. It doesn't matter if it was or was not this way in the past. At the time of the American Revolution, there had only been one instance of democracy in the world. At the time of the formation of the Athenian democracy, there had not ever been a democracy anywhere in the world. Even if there had always been a DMCA, we needn't tolerate this oppression just as the Athenians didn't need to tolerate monarchy.

    The knowledge that it wasn't always this way is just to demonstrate the point.

  72. Marvel, are you listening? by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 2

    Well, I think we just found a few more superfriends for this project. :)

    --
    Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  73. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man-bat was cool!

  74. How do you preserve it? by Rupert · · Score: 2

    The same way you preserve, say, HCA's "Little Mermaid" as a poignant story about love and loss and a total absence of Jamaican lobsters.

    You can't. You just have to tell the story your way, and hope that more people will like your vision than that of $MEGA_ENTERTAINMENT_CORP.

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
  75. Which side are you arguing again? by Nindalf · · Score: 2

    Okay, so there's an example of a character under copyright being abused. Therefore, copyright stops a character from being abused in that way. ...

    Look at an old public-domain character: Heracles. Sure there's been a lot of crap with him in it. However, there's been a lot of good stuff, too, and the original nature of the character hasn't been lost.

    Or take, for example, Space Balls. Campy crap parody of Star Wars. Perfectly legal. If Batman was as serious as you claimed before the TV series, anyone could probably have made it and claimed the parody exemption.

    Copyright may protect the author's profits. It doesn't protect the author's vision.

  76. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by sinserve · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    WORD, thas my nigga.

  77. Would you give Lex Luthor your source code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Secret identity? Not under GPL! Hidden lair (Batcave, Fortress of Solitude)? Forget about it! The mysteries of your secret weakness (Kryptonite)? Open to foe and friend alike.

    1. Re:Would you give Lex Luthor your source code? by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1
      You could always be something like Reed Richards. Public identity, well known location for base. You just need a super human intellect to know how to exploit the code.

      Fear the code.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  78. New Superhero - Ninjai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out www.ninjai.com

  79. Age of Heroes coming soon by nike2422 · · Score: 1

    Eye-n-Apple Productions has plans to publish a compilation of comic book heroes that have gone to the public domain. The book, titled "Age of Heroes" is a faithful reproduction of superheroes "The Arrow", "Wonder Man", and "The Phantom of the Fair." Most of the research on these heroes was done at Michigan State University's special collections department at the university library. The curator of the collection is an avid golden age comic book collector.

    The editor promises the book will be published in the near future. Keep your eyes open for it.

    --
    What Would Scooby Do?
  80. Re:Pretty Easy --these are not copyrightable. by gmahan · · Score: 1

    These are ideas, which are not copyrightable.
    People so often misunderstand copyrights that it's not even funny any more.

    You can copyright text, and you can copyright pictures (among other things such as performance recordings). You cannot copyright 'ideas'. You likewise own the copyrights of anything derived from your work.

    So, draw a picture of Captain Spooner, write a story about him, and these things are copyrighted. Then, if someone tries to write a "Captain Spooner's Revenge", feel free to sue them for creating a derivative work.

  81. Obligatory Comic Book Guy Joke... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

    Worst Website Ever!

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  82. Redundancy by po8 · · Score: 2

    Update: 09/25 17:51 GMT by M: Link removed at the request of the site maintainers because it's killing their server.

    Great, now we'll be discussing the article without ever having read it!

    Oh, wait, that's what we do anyway. Nevermind.

  83. Why bother putting stuff on the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kids, here's a tip for you. If you don't want people to read your stuff, DON'T PUT IT ON A WEB SITE. If you're unprepared for such a load, then just give up and go home now.

    1. Re:Why bother putting stuff on the internet? by RedWolves2 · · Score: 1

      Hey at least they cared enough to give us a static page to read. How many /.ed sites do that?

  84. Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...anyone who writes Transformers fan fiction deserves everything they get, AFAIC.

  85. It was Slashdotman and CowboyNeal what done it! by billstewart · · Score: 2

    Arrrgh, we know who done it. But we're busy rewriting our SuperPowers to adapt to computer-age threat models, and we'll be back and kicking butt Real Soon Now. That's the nice thing about being Public Domain - Steamboat Willie can only do what his fat-cat employers want him to, but we can do anything we want!

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  86. Hrmm... by Metallic+Matty · · Score: 1

    Am I going to have to agree to some sort of GPL to read comics now?

  87. Copyrighted, yes. Renewed, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the story. When the original copyright expired, nobody applied for renewal.

  88. Re:Pretty Easy --these are not copyrightable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    People so often misunderstand copyrights that it's not even funny any more.

    When was this ever funny?


    You can copyright text

    The original post (was text)


    You likewise own the copyrights of anything derived from your work.

    I believe this covers your post (and mine)


    So, draw a picture of Captain Spooner, write a story about him

    Which I believe that the OP did, how else would I know that C'pn Spooner scooped wax and other materials to drop on his foes?


    Copyright (C) 2002 Anonymous Coward Intnat'l Ltd. Inc.
  89. Hobbit Lost Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Lord of the Rings (and possibly The Hobbit) were not published in the US, initially. So Brit copies were imported. When a certain number were imported, the US copyright automatically expired, since US copyright is for the protection of US publishers, not authors. Ace published inexpensive pb editions, arguably bringing in a large audience. The Brit publisher twisted Tolkien's arm to put out a "revised" edition and got a US pub to do the US edition. Ace may have sent money to Tolkien (volunarily) and it may have been more (per copy) than he got via his Brit pub for the US pub copies, since it went through fewer hands. (?)

    parl

  90. Re:Pretty Easy --these are not copyrightable. by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    Tut tut tut. These are not ideas, these are short works of fiction. I have created a character and introduced him / her. The middle one even had the back story in place.

    I did this using TEXT!

    Are m 30 words less copyrightable than a 20000 word story? How many words do I need? 100, 500, 2000??

  91. Re:Pretty Easy --these are not copyrightable. by gmahan · · Score: 1

    semantics, chap...wouldn't hold up in court.

  92. Re:Pretty Easy --these are not copyrightable. by gmahan · · Score: 1

    How many words? Don't ask me...ask a copyright judge. Copyright law interpretation is *highly* subjective. While your message itself would be copyrighted, I doubt very much that you would be able to gain any judicial relief in a court of law if someone made a story about Capt. Spooner.

  93. Re:Pretty Easy --these are not copyrightable. by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    GIven that the context was NON copyrighted super heroes I don't, personally, give a rats ass wether its copyright or not. We're not talking Captain Dolphin here!

  94. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    "I have examined Bogota," he said, "and the case is clearer to me.
    I think very probably he might be cured."
    "That is what I have always hoped," said old Yacob.
    "His brain is affected," said the blind doctor.
    The elders murmured assent.
    "Now, what affects it?"
    "Ah!" said old Yacob.
    "This," said the doctor, answering his own question. "Those queer
    things that are called the eyes, and which exist to make an agreeable soft
    depression in the face, are diseased, in the case of Bogota, in such a way
    as to affect his brain. They are greatly distended, he has eyelashes, and
    his eyelids move, and cosequently his brain is in a state of constant
    irritation and distraction."
    "Yes?" said old Yacob. "Yes?"
    "And I think I may say with reasonable certainty that, in order
    to cure him completely, all that we need do is a simple and easy surgical
    operation -- namely, to remove those irritant bodies."
    "And then he will be sane?"
    "Then he will be perfectly sane, and a quite admirable citizen."
    "Thank heaven for science!" said old Yacob.
    -- H.G. Wells, "The Country of the Blind"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...