How does AC Comics reprint DC characters?

[gentlesatirist]

Just wondering how AC Comics - the great little reprint house that publishes Men of Mystery as well as girly art Femforce and a bunch of other retro stuff - manages to print stories with characters owned by DC.

In the two issues out this year, they've already reprinted Spy Smasher, Kid Eternity and Woozy Winks. I know Spy Smasher and Kid Eternity (at least in his 40s guise) are rarely used, but Woozy is in Kyle Baker's Plastic Man comic every month. What gives?

I'm glad AC can crank out affordable Golden Age reprints, but how is it that DC hasn't unleashed a phalanx of attorneys in their general direction?


- FE
Wickliffe OH

[Slam_Bradley]

Just wondering how AC Comics - the great little reprint house that publishes Men of Mystery as well as girly art Femforce and a bunch of other retro stuff - manages to print stories with characters owned by DC.

In the two issues out this year, they've already reprinted Spy Smasher, Kid Eternity and Woozy Winks. I know Spy Smasher and Kid Eternity (at least in his 40s guise) are rarely used, but Woozy is in Kyle Baker's Plastic Man comic every month. What gives?

I'm glad AC can crank out affordable Golden Age reprints, but how is it that DC hasn't unleashed a phalanx of attorneys in their general direction?



The answer is the difference between copyright and trademark law. DC owns the trademarks to the listed characters and presumably has protected them. The copyright to the reprinted stories, however, was apparently not properly renewed pursuant to the copyright laws in effect at the time and the stories fell in to the public domain. With the recent changes to the copyright laws that will never happen again. I'm beginning to doubt that anything will ever be public domain again.

[Nate C.]

The answer is the difference between copyright and trademark law. DC owns the trademarks to the listed characters and presumably has protected them. The copyright to the reprinted stories, however, was apparently not properly renewed pursuant to the copyright laws in effect at the time and the stories fell in to the public domain. With the recent changes to the copyright laws that will never happen again. I'm beginning to doubt that anything will ever be public domain again.

Another reason for me to hate Disney. They have entire legions of lawyers working to prevent public domain.

This sucks for humanity.

[Slam_Bradley]

Another reason for me to hate Disney. They have entire legions of lawyers working to prevent public domain.

This sucks for humanity.


One more reason that you're one of my favorite posters.

Spider Robinson addressed this issue in a story dedicated to Virginia Heinlein. I love to point proponents of lengthened copyrights to it.

"Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson (http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm)

[T GUy]

I consider myself duly pointed and shall peruse this story when I have time.

Does this story deal with corporate copyrights or do I have to look elsewhere or write one myself?

[Slam_Bradley]

I consider myself duly pointed and shall peruse this story when I have time.

Does this story deal with corporate copyrights or do I have to look elsewhere or write one myself?


It looks at the potential impact of perpetual copyrights...something which has been proposed by a number of people.

[gentlesatirist]

...can reprint all the Spy Smasher/Kid Eternity stories they want, but can't create new stories involving those characters?

I imagine Woozy Winks slipped by on some technicality that doesn't involve Plastic Man, or else AC would have been churning out those reprints as well, as a result of the Jack Cole/Kyle Baker resurgence of the character.

And what's the time element required to lapse into public domain? There always was conjecture that one of the purposes of the team-up titles published by both Marvel and DC was to use obscure characters once in a while so the copyrights wouldn't lapse. In the case of a concept like forgotten heroes - the Rip Hunter/Cave Carson/Immortal Man/Dolphin/Rick Flagg combo that teamed with Superman a couple of times in DCCP - that looks like a valid argument.


- FE

[gentlesatirist]

...also has reprinted DC properties Bulletman, Mr. Scarlet, Doll Man and Phantom Lady over the years as well. Boy, Paul Levitz must do a real slow burn every time that happens.


- FE

[Slam_Bradley]

...can reprint all the Spy Smasher/Kid Eternity stories they want, but can't create new stories involving those characters?

I imagine Woozy Winks slipped by on some technicality that doesn't involve Plastic Man, or else AC would have been churning out those reprints as well, as a result of the Jack Cole/Kyle Baker resurgence of the character.

I'm not an expert in either copyright or trademark law, so take anything here with that understanding. Any stories that went in to the public domain can be used by anyone. On the other hand, provided DC has protected the trademark, AC would not be able to do new Spy Smasher/Kid Eternity stories without violating the trademark.

And what's the time element required to lapse into public domain? There always was conjecture that one of the purposes of the team-up titles published by both Marvel and DC was to use obscure characters once in a while so the copyrights wouldn't lapse. In the case of a concept like forgotten heroes - the Rip Hunter/Cave Carson/Immortal Man/Dolphin/Rick Flagg combo that teamed with Superman a couple of times in DCCP - that looks like a valid argument.


The copyright laws have changed over the years, so you have to look at the law when the material was first published and then determine, looking forward whether the law was changed in the interim. For works created after Jan. 1, 1978 the time is the life of the author plus 70 years or (generally) 95 years for "work for hire." As I said, works from before that time vary depending on the law in place at the time. Many of the stories in question were probably not properly marked as copyrighted or the copyright was not properly renewed, as was required in previous copyright acts. Those provisions have been done away with.

The team-up issue is tied to Trademark law rather than copyright law. You cannot copyright a name, i.e. "Batman" cannot be copyrighted, nor can "Legends of the Dark Knight." They are, however subject to trademarks. This is why DC can't publish Captain Marvel's adventures under that name. Fawcett let the trademark lapse and Marvel picked it up and now holds the trademark on "Captain Marvel."

[Nate C.]

One more reason that you're one of my favorite posters.

Spider Robinson addressed this issue in a story dedicated to Virginia Heinlein. I love to point proponents of lengthened copyrights to it.

"Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson (http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm)

Wow, Slam. That is high praise, and I appreciate it.

And I bookmarked the story and promise to read it.

Nate.