Good lord that was awful. Larsen writes like a 14 year old
Star Trek Public Domain??
- Thread starter Ogrebear
- Start date
And draws like a 6 year old.
Pretty much. They're common cultural property that we can all draw upon however we wish, like Odysseus and Achilles, or Romeo and Juliet, or Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
There's some grey area with trademarks and serial properties that will slide into the public domain bit by bit at different times, but generally, "public domain" means no one has any special ownership over it anymore. The concept of "original rights holder" is artificial, remember. The purpose of copyrights and patents are to grant a legally-enforced monopoly to a creator or inventor so they have enough time to monetarily exploit their creation, since ideas are trivial to duplicate or copy in the age of mechanical reproduction, unlike a physical object or professional service.
Last edited:
In 2010, Dynamite Entertainment started publishing unlicensed comics based of Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter novels. The novels were public domain and Dynamite was careful not to use the trademarked name John Carter on any of the covers. That didn't stop Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc. from suing them even though they had no case. Among the complaints was that Princess Dejah Thoris was sexualized on the covers, which is absurd because the novels clearly established that Martians don't wear clothes. The lawsuit was eventually settled with ERB Inc. giving Dynamite a license for the full series of novels, not just the public domain ones. Dynamite then started publishing fully approved John Carter comics with Dejah Thoris still being sexualized on the covers.
The moral of the story is that bitter former copyright holders can still sue you, even if you do everything right.
The moral of the story is that bitter former copyright holders can still sue you, even if you do everything right.
Anyone can sue you. It's the American Way.™
It might get ugly if people try to use Betty Boop by name or even in human guise right away, because that name doesn't appear to have been in use during the first year her prototype appeared, and she wasn't even fully human. I remember talking to a rep from Hearst when discussing licensing Popeye and Betty and being told Betty was a "billion dollar" business. She's become rather like Hello Kitty, more a brand than a property, so they'll likely do anything they can legally to maintain control for the next few years.
It might get ugly if people try to use Betty Boop by name or even in human guise right away, because that name doesn't appear to have been in use during the first year her prototype appeared, and she wasn't even fully human. I remember talking to a rep from Hearst when discussing licensing Popeye and Betty and being told Betty was a "billion dollar" business. She's become rather like Hello Kitty, more a brand than a property, so they'll likely do anything they can legally to maintain control for the next few years.
Last edited:
No, not completely. For instance, until recently, most of the Sherlock Holmes canon was in public domain, but some of the later stories were still under copyright, so unlicensed authors could tell Sherlock Holmes stories but couldn't include any elements introduced in those specific later stories. Some years back, I downloaded a free collection of the "complete" Holmes only to find it was missing those later stories, so I tried downloading another free collection and found it was missing them too, and I finally realized it was because those stories were still under copyright and thus couldn't be distributed for free.
Anyway, keep in mind that fanfiction writers have always been pretty much free to do whatever they wanted with a copyrighted property, as long as they didn't try to sell it for profit. The only thing that public domain really changes is that the unlicensed fiction can be sold for a profit.
Ah, OK.
I actually just saw a commercial that kind of ties into this conversation. The lawfirm Morgan & Morgan has a new commercial with Steamboat Willie Mickey & Minnie Mouse, and it has a voice over and text disclaimer at the beginning and another voice over at the end talking about how they are not associated with or endorsed by Disney.
I actually just saw a commercial that kind of ties into this conversation. The lawfirm Morgan & Morgan has a new commercial with Steamboat Willie Mickey & Minnie Mouse, and it has a voice over and text disclaimer at the beginning and another voice over at the end talking about how they are not associated with or endorsed by Disney.
Yep. And, of course, you have to be careful about which versions of a long-standing, much-adapted property are in public domain. Elements, even iconic elements, introduced by later versions don't become PD just the because the original source matrial has.
Hence, "The Wizard of Oz" by L. Frank Baum is PD, but the classic MGM movie version is not, so the ruby slippers and Miss Gulch and "Over the Rainbow" are not fair game yet.
Snow White and Seven Dwarfs, the original fairy tale is long PD, but the classic Disney cartoon is not, so don't even think about naming the dwarves Happy, Doc, Dopey, Sneezy, Grumpy, etc.
The novel that introduced Buck Rogers is PD, but not the 1970s tv series, so . . . no Twiki unless you play for whomever still owns the rights to the seventies show.
Etc.
Nor are other elements from that film that were borrowed by Wicked. I remain surprised there was never a lawsuit over it, even before the movie versions.
In practice, self-published or indie-published novels can often get away with things like that. In the 2021 novel Oscar Diggs, The Wizard of Oz the Wicked Witch of the West is named "Theodora Elphaba" which is a combination of her name from Oz: The Great and Powerful and her name from Wicked. Likewise, the Wicked Witch of the East is called "Evanora Nessarose Thropp".
In 1969, I played the head dwarf in a "Snow White" operetta. My character was Max, but I certainly had Doc in mind.
Likewise, the youngest girl playing the seventh dwarf (Horace?) did all the comedy relief and was essentially Dopey.
Those horror films are essentially the new exploitation film sub genre. They’re made cheap, they’re made to be violent, and they’re made to be vaguely recognizable to audiences. Feels very reminiscent of the days of Bruceploitation films, where they had all those actors pretending to be Bruce Lee.
There are some fair points in that. But "No trademark is registered for the specific shade of green used on the Wicked Witch of the West’s skin in the 1939 movie" is not how trademarks work.
I read yesterday that Mila Kunis's Wicked Witch of the West in "Oz: The Great and Powerful" had to be more yellowish, so as not to replicate the look of MGM's WWW.
Here in Australia, a chocolate bar called "Violet Crumble" (originally from Hoadley's) has registered not only the name, but the particular shade of purple (Pantone 2685C) that the company, Cadbury, uses in its advertising and wrappers, and they come down hard on any confectionery that dares to copy that colour of wrapper.
It is noted that they have mixed success in some countries, and specific application wording.
Last edited:
My wife wanted to write romance novels under the name "Violet Crumble."
My wife wanted to write romance novels under the name "Violet Crumble."
Purple prose, of course.
Similar threads
