SUPERHEROINES IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

[Femcombater]

There are LOT of them out there. Mostly from the golden age and such some have an interesting back story. I was surprised to see SHEENA out there. Wow.. And a lot of other some you might recognize.

[JohnFeer]

Oh yeah there are some good ones just lying around in the PD unused, "Moon Girl" (a sort of Wonder Woman homage), "The Black Cat" (Catwoman as a heroine), Goldengirl (a sort of Mary Marvel knock off) and Trina Robbins' fave "Tomboy" (a sort of Female Robin sans the deadweight of the Caped Crusader). I wish I had the time and resources to cultivate some of these characters in other media.

[accomics]

Expired (or never registered) copyrighted stories and trademarks (which do not expire) are not the same thing. Also there is a tremendous amount of erroneous information on this topic on the internet cultivated by amateur comic "historians" as it relates to golden age characters.

For example there are some Superman comics that have lapsed into public domain, but that does NOT mean that "Superman" himself is public domain. The Princess of Mars is public domain, but "John Carter" is not. The Curse of Capistrano is public domain, but Zorro is not.

You should do some significant research before arriving at the conclusion that a golden age character is ACTUALLY free to use. "I heard that it was public domain from a website" will not serve you well as a legal defense in court.

Sheena is definitely NOT public domain. Neither is Black Cat. Golden Girl is claimed by Marvel.

Also keep in mind that trademarks protect "distinctive likenesses"... so changing the character's name slightly while keeping their distinctive likeness (costume design) will still get you into trouble.

[The UG]

There are LOT of them out there. Mostly from the golden age and such some have an interesting back story. I was surprised to see SHEENA out there. Wow.. And a lot of other some you might recognize.

Shameless promotion...I guess.

I'm using a few in the story I'm cooking up for Pulp Empire.

[zepolmas]

You might be able to get around pesky copyright issues by using ANALOUGES or EXPYS.
(See TV tropes.com)

[robyn]

...Also keep in mind that trademarks protect "distinctive likenesses"... so changing the character's name slightly while keeping their distinctive likeness (costume design) will still get you into trouble.

I am sure you are right in what you say, but this 'trouble' never seems to materialize, not around this genre anyway.

[Femcombater]

Here is the link where the info came from.

http://pdsh.wikia.com/wiki/Public_Domain_Super_Heroes

[accomics]

Yes. That is one of the many inaccurate sites that I was referring to. It's a wiki, not a valid source for copyright or trademark information and not properly researched. It seems that the basis used to determine a comic book characters inclusion on that website is "the character is old".

If you're actually interested in this topic, consider reading this.
http://www.law.uconn.edu/system/files/private/foley.pdf

It's an opinion paper, so the article itself is not authoritative, but the article does site and summarize multiple sources of direct legal references and case law applicable to the discussion, and in general illustrates the COMPLEXITY of the situation, which is ultimately where the CONFUSION originates.

I can't speak for why Marvel or DC has NOT YET taken visible legal action in this "genre", but it remains within their right to do so. I can also tell you that a smaller independent publisher (with a trademark interest in some of the characters mentioned as ERRONEOUSLY being public domain) is highly likely to protect that interest, and using that wiki as a guide is likely to bring you into conflict with several independent publishers (in addition to Marvel and DC in some instances).

[Femcombater]

Ok then what IS in the public domain without having to deal with LEGAL issues. I'm certain that wiki site is not entirely 100% inaccurate?

[accomics]

without having to deal with LEGAL issues

Almost nothing...

While the original books and individual stories that they contain may be public domain... the characters, logos and distinctive likenesses contained within have likely been acquired by SOMEONE that has already done the research and paid the price for it in the form of publishing, merchandising and trademark acquisition... or the rights have been passed along from one company to the next. It's a very tangled mess and there is no authoritative online database, nor is there a financial motive for the parties involved to create one.

At the end of the day NONE of those old characters are capable of pulling in a worthwhile audience based on "name recognition" alone. Not only is it less of a legal hassle to create and develop your own characters, but it's far more rewarding to do so. It is no easier or cheaper to turn "Allan Quartermain" into a popular and worthwhile character than it would be to do the same for your own unique pulp adventurer archetype (Indian Jones). And if you ARE successful, wouldn't you be more satisfied having created something new on your own than you would be sharing credit with the original creator?

[Superheroinegirl22]

I saw a post on Tumblr the other day about how many Golden Age Superheroiens fell into the Public Domains.

http://theshadowmenlounge.tumblr.com/po ... the-public
[quote][/quote]
That means Perils websites could use those character without necessarily needing to change the same.

But regardless of taking advantage of that legal benefit. It's certainly be interesting to see some that haven't been commonly used before.

I really like The Black Cat's look.

[Heroine Addict]

The public domain is a real minefield. The long-abandoned Marvelman/Miracleman and his subsidiary characters were thought to be in the public domain by publisher Dez Skinn when the Alan Moore version was launched in 1982. After years of the character changing hands and being assumed to be owned by various writers and publishers, a 2009 ruling decided that the rights had never left creator Mick Anglo. Even though he had abandoned the characters in 1963.

Very few characters are truly in the public domain with no possibility of someone staking a claim. In most countries, works don't enter the public domain until many years after the death of the author(s).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ht_lengths

The one advantage of using an established character is name recognition. And virtually nothing recognizable in the superhero/ine genre is in the public domain.

Is it really worth taking a risk on some obscure character nobody remembers when you might as well just create your own and have 100% ownership?

[Superheroinegirl22]

The PDSH wiki tends to put a lot of work into double checking things from what I've seen, you can see that on some of the talk pages.

For this fetish I tend to like seeing new idea along side the well known ones. It's more about the costumes concept that any specific lore.

[Shakeshift]

Warner Brothers thought that TARZAN was in the public domain after so long without anyone renewing the copyright, but the great-grandchildren of Edgar Burroughs are now taking WB to court for half a billion dollars to show them that it rightfully belongs to them.

Nothing is truly in the public domain. Intellectual property law makes that point fairly clear that it's never "yours" unless you have the money to defend that claim in a court of law. Sad, but true.

[Heroine Addict]

The PDSH wiki tends to put a lot of work into double checking things from what I've seen, you can see that on some of the talk pages.

For this fetish I tend to like seeing new idea along side the well known ones. It's more about the costumes concept that any specific lore.

The problem is that we're talking about obscure characters. (Although that wiki also contains Tarzan, Zorro and John Carter. All of which have been subject to aggressive legal action in recent years.)

Let's say that wiki tells you that the long-forgotten Example Girl (created by John Writer) is now in the public domain. But the author only died in 2007. Why would you bother risking legal action from John Writer's family when you can just create your own Generic Girl character which you would own outright?

Bear in mind that superhero/ine comics emerged in the 1930s. To meet the requirement of Life+70, you would need to find authors who died in the early years of this genre.

[Visitor]

Plus some families wait until they see how successful a project using a character is before filing a lawsuit. There isn't much point on going after a flop compared to a money maker.

[Superheroinegirl22]

Tarzan is pre 1923, if someone thinks they have a copyright on it they are going to be embarrassed in court.

The thing about Comic Book characters is they were never owned by the Creators, they were/are owned by companies.

[Heroine Addict]

Tarzan is pre 1923, if someone thinks they have a copyright on it they are going to be embarrassed in court.

The thing about Comic Book characters is they were never owned by the Creators, they were/are owned by companies.

That is another minefield. Who owns what is subject to the contracts signed at the time. Some writers are hired hands with little or no rights to their characters. Others retain all rights.

Alan Moore, for example, had a contract which granted him half the rights to Watchmen (shared with Dave Gibbons) once the comic had been out of print for over a year. Under normal circumstances, the creators should have gained full control of those characters in the the late 1980s. However, DC has kept the trade paperback edition in print perpetually. Meaning that Moore and Gibbons never have received - and probably never will receive - the rights to Watchmen.

And, of course, the granddaddy of all these disputes was Seigel and Shuster's treatment over Superman. Which dragged on until 2013. By which time they were both long dead.

Who owns characters can't be covered with a sweeping statement such as "The thing about Comic Book characters is they were never owned by the Creators, they were/are owned by companies."

It's way more complicated than that.


Getting back to the idea of using obscure characters. I'm wondering how this would fit into this particular niche?

At the moment, I would say there are three distinct types of characters:
1. Direct parody of well-known characters such as Supergirl and Wonder Woman.
2. Loose parody of well-known characters such as Supernova (Supergirl) and Princess Paradise (Wonder Woman).
3. Original characters such as Lady Victory and Scarlet Fox.

With 1 and 2, the obvious advantage is that these popular characters are instantly recognizable. Although there's always a risk of the publishers and studios threatening legal action. With 3, the advantage is that the producer owns the character.

Now, what you're suggesting is the use of characters who aren't well-known enough for parody to be justified. Nor are they well-known enough to have any popular appeal. So why would Damien Woods, for example, take a risk on Black Cat when he can use his own Scarlet Fox?

http://pdsh.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Cat

Black Cat is also notable for the fact that her name has since been trademarked for the unrelated Marvel Comics character. (Who is famous enough to parody.) So without the name, you're just left with a costume and a basic concept.

I'm sorry to be so negative. It's just the idea of using obscure characters seems to be all risk for no obvious reward.

[Gus Goreman, Jr.]

I think some one did a Golden Age Black Cat video starring Ludella Hahn

[shevek]

Nevertheless some of the obscure Golden Age characters are hella sexy, so if it's going to be a parody anyway, what's the difference if it's a parody of a modern character or a Golden Age one? This is an interesting thread because I'm a big fan of the revived Golden Age heroines that comic companies like Dynamite are using (for example Miss Fury or Masquerade...just drawn amazingly hot!) in their whole "Project Superpowers" universe (Swords of Sorrow, which I've featured, uses some really old heroine characters as well)and I was eventually going to make a thread about it in the comics subforum. I've also seen on DeviantArt some members who are posting really old comic book serials of heroines nobody has really heard of or used. I would instantly get any video if a producer made a good version of those kinds of characters.

Here is a good blog to check out some of the old forgotten heroines: http://heroheroinehistory.blogspot.com/

Wildfire:




Mysta of the Moon and Aurora of Jupiter





this looks like some cool 1960s vibe, but still...Butterfly, the first black superheroine...? (actually it appeared in Hell-Rider #1 and 2, 1971)





the original Yankee Girl

[Superheroinegirl22]

I'd love to check out those deviant art accounts. I have my own deviantart account, but so far I only use it to put things sin my favorites.
http://superheroinegirl24.deviantart.com/favourites/

Thanks for the contributions.

[shevek]

Well, the deviantart account I took those from is called ComicNostalgia. But I think he is simply just taking them from that HeroHeroine Blogspot.
So go to the Blogspot for the more original source I think. I'll check out your DA faves page when I have a bit 'o time.

Somewhere I came across a really great sexy Golden Age heroine who has superstrength, a bluish costume, has a secret base and flies her own plane. I forget her name but I was very impressed because I'd never heard of her before at all (and she wasn't one of the heroines revived by Dynamite). I'll see if I can track that down.

[Superheroinegirl22]

Cool, thanks

[shevek]

So...there really is such a thing as public domain. This particular artist was a big fan of Golden Age Blue Beetle and noticed that it was in public domain. He decided to use the character to create a heroine out of his grand-daughter: Beetle Girl. So far he has two issues up for sale on Drive-Thru Comics. The covers are full color but the inside drawings look like they might be just b&w. Anyhow, she looks fantastic (I guess the Vitamin X-2 formula gave her killer abs, too) and would be a great heroine for video producers to parody.

[Heroine Addict]

Did the writer of the Beetle Girl comic cite his evidence for the public domain status of the Dan Garret Blue Beetle? I strongly suspect this is an ORPHAN WORK, rather than something that's undoubtedly in the public domain.

Of course, DC will have trademarked the Hell out of the name Blue Beetle. Which would explain the name change to Beetle Girl.


Along with the conflation of orphan works, the PDSH wikia also conflates public domain comics (which means they can simply be reprinted by anyone) and public domain characters. Anyone who is considering reviving a long-abandoned character had better make their due diligence a priority. A 5-second search on an unaccountable wikia is not research in any meaningful sense.

[Lurkndog]

I'd think a knockoff of a Golden Age heroine that has lapsed into the public domain would be pretty safe.

The Golden Age Phantom Lady, for instance, would be rife for imitation, and losing the "Phantom" from her name could be a bonus, since her look and powers aren't particularly ghostly. Rich thrill-seeker turned vigilante detective seems like it could still work, though. Call her Lady Blackout, and maybe make the costume midnight blue, and there you go.

You could do her black light ray as just a simple dark blue overlay. Or maybe use a red or green colored flashlight and chroma-key it blue?

[Superheroinegirl22]

If any of these are determined to be still under copyright ti could only to be to creators, who for Golden Age creations are mostly long deceased. The companies that originally published them no longer exist besides DC and Timely/Marvel.

[Heroine Addict]

It wouldn't only be to the creators, but also to their estates. The surviving relatives may well have a claim.

Also, companies' assets are often sold off. Most of the Charlton Comics characters now belong to DC.

Marvelman/Miracleman was reclaimed by creator Mick Anglo 46 years after the original run ended and the publisher L Miller & Son ceased trading. The character had never truly been in the public domain. Even if Anglo had died slightly earlier (he passed away a year after selling the rights to Marvel), his family could still have pursued the case.

[Heroine Addict]

Here's the take of a publisher/producer who has some experience in this area.

Expired (or never registered) copyrighted stories and trademarks (which do not expire) are not the same thing. Also there is a tremendous amount of erroneous information on this topic on the internet cultivated by amateur comic "historians" as it relates to golden age characters.

For example there are some Superman comics that have lapsed into public domain, but that does NOT mean that "Superman" himself is public domain. The Princess of Mars is public domain, but "John Carter" is not. The Curse of Capistrano is public domain, but Zorro is not.

You should do some significant research before arriving at the conclusion that a golden age character is ACTUALLY free to use. "I heard that it was public domain from a website" will not serve you well as a legal defense in court.

Sheena is definitely NOT public domain. Neither is Black Cat. Golden Girl is claimed by Marvel.

Also keep in mind that trademarks protect "distinctive likenesses"... so changing the character's name slightly while keeping their distinctive likeness (costume design) will still get you into trouble.

Yes. That is one of the many inaccurate sites that I was referring to. It's a wiki, not a valid source for copyright or trademark information and not properly researched. It seems that the basis used to determine a comic book characters inclusion on that website is "the character is old".

If you're actually interested in this topic, consider reading this.
http://www.law.uconn.edu/system/files/private/foley.pdf

It's an opinion paper, so the article itself is not authoritative, but the article does site and summarize multiple sources of direct legal references and case law applicable to the discussion, and in general illustrates the COMPLEXITY of the situation, which is ultimately where the CONFUSION originates.

I can't speak for why Marvel or DC has NOT YET taken visible legal action in this "genre", but it remains within their right to do so. I can also tell you that a smaller independent publisher (with a trademark interest in some of the characters mentioned as ERRONEOUSLY being public domain) is highly likely to protect that interest, and using that wiki as a guide is likely to bring you into conflict with several independent publishers (in addition to Marvel and DC in some instances).

without having to deal with LEGAL issues

Almost nothing...

While the original books and individual stories that they contain may be public domain... the characters, logos and distinctive likenesses contained within have likely been acquired by SOMEONE that has already done the research and paid the price for it in the form of publishing, merchandising and trademark acquisition... or the rights have been passed along from one company to the next. It's a very tangled mess and there is no authoritative online database, nor is there a financial motive for the parties involved to create one.

At the end of the day NONE of those old characters are capable of pulling in a worthwhile audience based on "name recognition" alone. Not only is it less of a legal hassle to create and develop your own characters, but it's far more rewarding to do so. It is no easier or cheaper to turn "Allan Quartermain" into a popular and worthwhile character than it would be to do the same for your own unique pulp adventurer archetype (Indian Jones). And if you ARE successful, wouldn't you be more satisfied having created something new on your own than you would be sharing credit with the original creator?

Full thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16612


The link posted above by AC Comics is now dead. Here's an active version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100705034 ... /foley.pdf

[Superheroinegirl22]

Zorro is pre 1923, he is Public Domain. If the work that introduced a character is Public Domain so is that character no matter what someone tries to claim otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorro#Cop ... k_disputes

The copyright and trademark status of the Zorro character and stories are disputed. Zorro Productions, Inc., asserts that it "controls the worldwide trademarks and copyrights in the name, visual likeness and the character of Zorro."[42] It further states "[t]he unauthorized, unlicensed use of the name, character and/or likeness of 'Zorro' is an infringement and a violation of state and federal laws."[43]

In 1999, TriStar Pictures Inc. sued Del Taco, Inc., due to a fast-food restaurant advertising campaign that allegedly infringed Zorro Productions’ claims to a trademark on the character of Zorro. In an August 1999 order, the court ruled that it would not invalidate Zorro Productions’ trademarks as a result of the defendant's arguments that certain copyrights in Zorro being in the public domain or owned by third parties.[44]

A dispute took place in the 2001 case of Sony Pictures Entertainment v. Fireworks Ent. Group.[45] On January 24, 2001, Sony Pictures, TriStar Pictures and Zorro Productions, Inc. sued Fireworks Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, and Mercury Entertainment, claiming that the Queen of Swords television series infringed upon the copyrights and trademarks of Zorro and associated characters. Sony and TriStar had paid licensing fees to Zorro Productions, Inc., related to the 1998 film The Mask of Zorro. Queen of Swords was a 2000–2001 television series set in Spanish California during the early 19th century and featuring a hero who wore a black costume with a red sash and demonstrated similarities to the character of Zorro, including the sword-fighting skills, use of a whip and bolas, and horse-riding skills.

Zorro Productions, Inc., argued that it owned the copyright to the original character because Johnston McCulley assigned his Zorro rights to Mitchell Gertz in 1949. Gertz died in 1961, and his estate transferred to his children, who created Zorro Productions, Inc. Fireworks Entertainment argued that the original rights had already been transferred to Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. in 1920 and provided documents showing this was legally affirmed in 1929, and also questioned whether the copyright was still valid.

The court ruled that "since the copyrights in The Curse of Capistrano and The Mark of Zorro lapsed in 1995 or before, the character Zorro has been in the public domain".[46] Judge Collins also stated that: "Plaintiffs' argument that they have a trademark in Zorro because they licensed others to use Zorro, however, is specious. It assumes that ZPI had the right to demand licenses to use Zorro at all."

In another legal action in 2010, Zorro Productions, Inc., sued Mars, Incorporated, makers of M&M's chocolate candies, and ad agency BBDO Worldwide over a commercial featuring a Zorro-like costume.[47] The case was settled with "each party shall bear its own costs incurred in connection with this action, including its attorney’s fees and costs" on August 13, 2010.[48]

In March 2013, Robert W. Cabell, author of Z - the Musical of Zorro (1998), filed another lawsuit against Zorro Productions, Inc. The lawsuit asserted that the Zorro character is in the public domain and that the trademark registrations by Zorro Productions, Inc., are therefore fraudulent.[49] In October, 2014, Cabell’s lawsuit was dismissed, with the judge ruling that the state of Washington (where the case was filed) did not have jurisdiction over the matter.[50][51] However the judge later reversed his decision and had the case transferred to California.[52]

In June 2015, Robert W. Cabell's legal dispute with Zorro Productions, Inc. resulted in the Community Trade Mark for "Zorro" being declared invalid by the European Union's Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market for goods of classes 16 and 41.[53] This follows the ‘Winnetou’ ruling of the Office’s First Board of Appeal [54] in which the Board of Appeal ruled that the name of famous characters cannot be protected as a trademark in these classes. Both rulings are currently being appealed. Zorro Productions, Inc. owns approximately 1300 other ZORRO related trademarks worldwide.

[Heroine Addict]

Do you see the contradiction there? One moment, you state unequivocally that Zorro is in the public domain. The very next moment, you demonstrate that Zorro's public domain status is the subject of ongoing legal challenges.

Even if someone feels confident they have an absolute right to use Zorro, attempting to do so could result in a protacted legal battle.

Note how nobody's doing anything with the Zorro brand at the moment. Compare that to the glut of media based on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in the years since that property legitimately entered the public domain. Although MGM owns iconic elements not in Baum's book, such as the ruby slippers.

This is a whole other can of worms, of course. Once a property is in the public domain and adapted many times, you run the risk of inadvertently replicating something created for another adaptation. For example, Mary Shelly's novel Frankenstein is absolutely 100% in the public domain. However, the character design for Boris Karloff as the Monster is the property of Universal. Even though it has been parodied extensively in The Munsters and many other transformative works.

[lionbadger]

I think part of the problem here is that people

1. confuse what is a copyright and what is a trademark

2. there are some variations internationally between what is copyright, trademark and patent

The Zorro one is interesting because the EU is generally against granting ownership over a common noun in a community language (Zorro is Fox in Spanish?) but I don't think that was the reasoning of the 1st instance court there.

[Heroine Addict]

Various countries' laws is yet another can of worms to add to the already opened cans. In the middle of a minefield.

James Bond is now public domain in countries such as Canada which apply Life+50 to the creator(s).
http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-does-it-mea ... 1678191830

Although Danjaq has registered James Bond 007 as a trademark in Canada. So it's possible Canadian adaptations of Ian Fleming's books would need to ditch the iconic name and number.
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/ ... exOnPage=1