Tag Archives: Copyright

Books/Literature, Comic Books/Graphic Novels, Movies, Music

1923 Copyrighted works entering into public domain…

…in 2019!

The article, by Nick Douglas and which is found over on lifehacker.com, offers a…

List of 1923 Copyrighted Works that enter into public domain in 2019

These include songs, books, movies, and even works of art.  It’s an intriguing list and it does bring up, at least for me, the issue of copyright in general.

As an author, I feel copyright is a very important tool to protect one’s works (duh) from being appropriated by others.  I would certainly go ballistic if someone comes up, without my authorization, stories set in my Corrosive Knights universe and subsequently released them.  If it’s “fan fiction” and posted where anyone/everyone can read them, I don’t mind.

But if a conscious attempt has been made to create something for sale/profit, then that crosses a line.  I created the Corrosive Knights “universe” and the characters that inhabit them.  I feel I should have the ultimate say, as long as I live, to what becomes of them.

However, issues regarding copyright aren’t always so clear cut.

Years ago and way, waaaaay back in the 1980’s I was an early fan of the brilliant writing of Alan Moore.  For those who don’t know who he is, Alan Moore is considered, even today, one of the best comic book writers there ever was.  Among the works he wrote, several made it to film:  V for Vendetta, Watchmen, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell.

Most of his very best works appeared in DC Comics, including Watchmen, Swamp Thing, and V for Vendetta.  In the case of V for Vendetta, the initial stories were serialized in a British comic book magazine called Warrior but after the magazine folded it appeared the work, which hadn’t reached its conclusion, would never be finished.  DC Comics picked it up and Mr. Moore, along with original artist David Lloyd, were able to finish the series and get the full story released through DC.

Mr. Moore had a big falling out with DC Comics in the late 1980’s and left the company, never to return again.  According to interviews, the main issue Mr. Moore had with DC was regarding the rights to Watchmen, which according to the contract he signed with DC would revert to him once the book was no longer in print.

Thing is, Watchmen was so very successful DC’s been able to keep it in print since it was originally published and therefore have retained the rights to the work.  Mr. Moore, who signed that contract in an era when reprinting works in near perpetuity seemed unlikely, feels he was shafted and DC has taken advantage of him.

Did they?

I suppose.

DC must have seen at least the possibility of retaining the work to include that provision in the contract, though one could also argue that maybe Mr. Moore, who was a red hot creator by that point, should have read the contract more carefully before signing it (or at least had a lawyer read it and advise him on the provisions).

However, just how “original” is Watchmen?

As a story, it is quite original, though I very much believe Alan Moore took -whether deliberately or unconsciously- the ending of the Outer Limits episode The Architects of Fear… or some other similar work  (You can read more about that here).  My feeling, at least based on interviews with the recently deceased Len Wein, who was the editor of Watchmen, suggest that at the very least Mr. Wein knew the ending was going in that direction and told Mr. Moore to watch out.  Mr. Wein stated in these interviews that Moore didn’t really care.

Regardless of who/what the ending of Watchmen was taken from (or not!), what is not in dispute is the chain of events that led to Watchmen being made, which bends the issue of copyright to a near breaking point.

Back in the 1980’s DC Comics bought the defunct Charlton Comics line of superheroes.  The characters, with a few exceptions, were for the most part forgotten.  But Alan Moore was given the opportunity to write a story for these newly acquired characters.  Thing is, the story he came up with would have effectively “ended” any future Charlton heroes story, something DC wasn’t about to do, having invested good money in buying the rights to the characters.

So Mr. Moore modified the story and “created” new characters to inhabit it and, voila!, Watchmen was created.  Here’s a visual comparison of the Charlton Comics heroes and their eventual Watchmen “twins” (click on the image to see it larger):

Image result for charlton comics watchmen

Here’s where the proverbial rubber hits the road: I feel sympathy for Mr. Moore.  Of all the comic book works he’s done in his life, Watchmen was his most ambitious, at least IMHO.  He clearly poured his heart into the story and, even if the ending may be suspect, nonetheless wrote an intricate work that deserves to stand the test of time.

Yet it probably never would have come to be had DC not acquired the Charlton Comics heroes and asked him to come up with a story involving them (he might, to be fair, have come up with a story similar to Watchmen eventually, on his own).  Further, the characters he “created” for Watchmen were clearly meant to be thinly veiled versions of the Charlton Comics heroes.

Issues of ownership, thus, get stretched in a matter like this.

Curiously, though Mr. Moore’s arguments with DC involve the Watchmen ownership, he hasn’t been shy about using actual characters who have fallen into public domain.  Indeed, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was composed of a host of public domain characters!

Would the creators of those characters, were they alive today, be miffed about what Alan Moore has done with them?  Would they be angry that someone has appropriated their works/characters and profited from their use?

An interesting question which will never have a proper answer.

Books/Literature, General

Copyright and the Diary of Anne Frank…

So it appears Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank and the man most responsible for getting his daughter’s diary to the public, will now be listed as the “co-author” of the book.

The reason?  So that the book retains its copyright status as Mr. Frank died in 1980 and European copyright for publications lasts for 70 years after an author’s death.  By having Mr. Frank listed as a co-author, The Diary of Anne Frank can retain its copyright status until 2050 versus ending this year (Anne Frank died in 1945).

Want to read a little more about this?  Check out the below link:

Thanks to Copyright Bullshit, Anne Frank’s Diary Now Has A Co-Author

There are many in the commentary sections, along with the author of the piece, Rachel Vorona Cote for Jezebel.com, who decry this move (as if the headline for the article didn’t clue you in on this fact!).

As an author myself, I find myself more on the side of those who want to retain copyright of their fictional/nonfictional works.  Sure, Anne Frank passed away a very long time ago and with the death of Otto Frank in 1980, all immediate family from that original time are gone.  The beneficiaries of the continued copyright will be the Anne Frank Fonds, or the Anne Frank Foundation, which I understand contributes quite a bit of the profits made from selling the work to charity.

I’m also aware that copyright/patent laws can have a decidedly negative impact on society.  In this case I’m referring to things outside of books, novels, and autobiographies.  There are technologies that could advance tremendously if other companies were allowed to make their own version of certain items and then try to expand/improve upon them.

Elon Musk, for example, should be commended for allowing the schematics for his electronic systems be available for other car manufacturers to use.  He did this because he knew that if the electronic systems were to take over for gas powered cars, he’d need all companies focused on what works and what does not.  By allowing others access to material which he could well have kept to himself, he offers to share the technology.

With medicines, copyright/patents have also become a very sticky issue.  A company can create and copyright/patent a medicine and are the sole company to release it.  What’s to stop them from charging crazy fees for their medicines?  Further, I suppose they may prevent other companies from modifying their medicines and making them more effective.

But with books and, especially, novels, we’re talking about an author’s creations. Unlike new technologies or medicines, I don’t see how the ownership by an author/authors or their offspring of their fictional/non-fictional work prevents society from advancing.

Quite the contrary, I’m bothered when modern authors use past author’s famous creations to make -and benefit financially- with “new” works.  These modern authors might take on famous characters like Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan or any other character which has slipped outside copyright control and make money off these past author’s works while the family (distant though they may be by that point) may not make a cent from these “new” works or the printing by others of their relative’s past works.

My hope is always that someone, even if it is a distant relative of the original author, is compensated for the work, even if they themselves had little or nothing to do with it.

Why?

Because as an author I’m painfully aware of the great effort I put into writing novels.  Each work takes so much from me and it is my hope that when I’m gone they will serve as my legacy for future generations of my family.

There’s not guarantee this will happen, of course.  There are literally tons of novels published each year and only a precious few achieve some kind of popularity/longevity.  Even those that do may do so very temporarily and not stand the “test of time”.

But if my works somehow beat the odds and prove popular to future generations, it is my hope my relatives can benefit from my hard work when I’m gone.