|
Post by General Kenobi on Jun 13, 2018 23:12:59 GMT
Oh it's not just you.I was let down by the action too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 7:25:16 GMT
I wasn't surprised. Marc is a known liar and full of shit. It appears to be that way. He has lied about other things too that didn't happen in the shows but they are getting rid of him from 'Arrow' now as you know so that is one good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 7:38:50 GMT
Yeah. There was nothing really ‘epic’ about that battle and it just ended with Black Siren using her Canary Cry on Ricardo Diaz and sending him in the water and Oliver finding out the body was missing later but I didn’t think the opening was that bad as Dazz pointed out above and I think it would have been better if they had kept that until the end. I also think it would have been better if they killed off Quinton in battle or had Ricardo shoot him in the head in front of Black Siren ‘cause the way they had him die in hospital was too much like the way Laurel died. The worst part was Marc saying the Huntress and Ragman were going to return in the second half of the season and they were nowhere to be seen. That final battle was so dumb, Siren also was such a twat, surely at this point she knows her screams are not lethal unless prolonged, imo that scene would have been so much better if she had used her scream to basically kneecap Diaz, knock him face down then stands on his hand as she threatens to do to him what she did to Vigilante, Oliver who she knocked out with a scream pleads with her not to do this, which she relents to then as she leaves Diaz goads her which is when she screams and sends him into the river whilst shattering any light or window and coms for like 1/4 mile, make the scream she used seem powerful show how dangerous she can be with it but show hopes of her turning more, as it was it came across lame, she looked dumb and progressed the story nowhere, it didn't even fake us out into thinking Diaz was dead so what was the point of it?
The promise of Huntress & Ragman wasn't the worst let down as Arrow has routinely fucked up major guest spots, but they have had a history of producing some good action for some of their finales so promising an epic throw down just to give us that is imo more a let down, but that's just me.
I don't think they knew what they were doing in the final battle especially in regards to Diaz and if they were going to have him live or not. I think they were planning on killing him off originally and then decided they liked him so much they would bring him back for another season with the Longbow Hunters. I am curious as to what role he will play in that group going forward 'cause from the way they have described things Diaz isn't one of the members of the group like he is in the comic books and he has contacted them for help. The members they go with next season is one of the few things that has me interested in the next season of 'Arrow' and I am hoping we get to see a good version of Killer Moth with all his abilities 'cause Killer Moth could be a great villain on screen and is very underrated. A lot of fans who aren't that familiar with the comic books think he is just like Firefly but he is very different and has actual powers.
Your idea for Black Siren sounds a lot better than the one the writers ended up going with but if there is one thing we should have learned from this board it is we all have better ideas than the writers of these shows.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jun 18, 2018 16:47:38 GMT
I'm still holding out hope for Andrew Bennett and Frankenstein
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 12:38:09 GMT
I'm still holding out hope for Andrew Bennett and Frankenstein Yeah. Those two would be interesting. However, I am wondering if there would be anything preventing them from using a character like Frankenstein since he has appeared in a lot of movies and was the creation of Mary Shelley. Does anybody specifically own the movie and TV rights for him like New Line Cinema own Freddy Kreuger and Jason Vorhees or is that a character that anybody could use?
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jun 23, 2018 13:13:58 GMT
Frankenstein is in the public domain, which means everybody can use him.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 23, 2018 14:09:02 GMT
Yeah hence why he appears in so many different projects under different studios or networks, is Dracula also in the public domain also?
I think specific variations belong to specific people like werewolves are public domain but the Wolf Man is a Universal property right?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 23, 2018 15:55:07 GMT
Dracula would most definitely be in the public domain; especially with the Bram Stoker novel being published in the 19th century. Any character traits from that work or common concepts about vampires prior to that would be fair game for anyone to expound on at this point. Anything invented for a characterization of "Dracula" not in the book, created more recently would more than likely be under copyright. So, if some obscure novel or movie from the 50s up to the present presented the idea that an identifying characteristic of Dracula was his penchant for women's underwear, any subsequent adaptations who aren't affiliated in some way with whomever owns the rights to that particular take may do well to err on the side of caution and put Drac in boxers, unless they can do it in such a way as make it conceptually different from that other characterization.
"Wolf Man" in name would probably still be under copyright, though the underlying concept of werewolves isn't. So if you create a werewolf character, you really wouldn't want to call him "Wolf Man," or some variation of the spelling; unless he's a Jewish werewolf and it happened to be his surname, but even then, it could be problematic.
Frankstein would be a bit of puzzle in this regard. While in the public domain, DC does have its own take on the character; and if they told any of the shows they couldn't use him specifically, they probably could still get away with using the public domain version and developing their own original version of the character, so long as they made sure to stay clear of anything and everything that was unique or created for the DC version of the character. And that might be feasible, but it would be kind of a big screw you to their parent company.
What will be interesting is when Batman and Superman fall into the public domain, which is less than 20 years away. It won't mean DC or Warner's won't be able to use the characters, they just won't be able to stop anyone else from using them either...
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 23, 2018 16:48:14 GMT
Dracula would most definitely be in the public domain; especially with the Bram Stoker novel being published in the 19th century. Any character traits from that work or common concepts about vampires prior to that would be fair game for anyone to expound on at this point. Anything invented for a characterization of "Dracula" not in the book, created more recently would more than likely be under copyright. So, if some obscure novel or movie from the 50s up to the present presented the idea that an identifying characteristic of Dracula was his penchant for women's underwear, any subsequent adaptations who aren't affiliated in some way with whomever owns the rights to that particular take may do well to err on the side of caution and put Drac in boxers, unless they can do it in such a way as make it conceptually different from that other characterization. "Wolf Man" in name would probably still be under copyright, though the underlying concept of werewolves isn't. So if you create a werewolf character, you really wouldn't want to call him "Wolf Man," or some variation of the spelling; unless he's a Jewish werewolf and it happened to be his surname, but even then, it could be problematic. Frankstein would be a bit of puzzle in this regard. While in the public domain, DC does have its own take on the character; and if they told any of the shows they couldn't use him specifically, they probably could still get away with using the public domain version and developing their own original version of the character, so long as they made sure to stay clear of anything and everything that was unique or created for the DC version of the character. And that might be feasible, but it would be kind of a big screw you to their parent company. What will be interesting is when Batman and Superman fall into the public domain, which is less than 20 years away. It won't mean DC or Warner's won't be able to use the characters, they just won't be able to stop anyone else from using them either... From what I understand though it only extends to the name and what elements of the character was introduced over 100 years earlier, so Supermans powers in the PD would be limited unlike they are today, though this all seems unfair in a sense that these days Batman & Superman and such are still active properties and the foundation of a major companies revenue stream, seems unfair to come along and say F U everyone can use it now.
Now if the strictness of they copyright holding of DC on the character was lessened, so Batman, Bruce Wayne ect as characters and a title were still DC owned but companies could literally make copies called Ratman and copy every detail down to him being called Wayne Bruce, or Pruce Dwayne and stuff I could get it, so DC couldn't sue or stop characters being made that resemble or even rip off their ones, but to make Batman himself and as a title PD seems wrong to an extent, but then so is how DC has historically treated the creators of their properties and their families until a court forced them to do so differently, so whatevers.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 23, 2018 17:43:51 GMT
It's very nuanced and convoluted. You are correct that only aspects of a certain age would immediately fall into the public domain - namely the character names and their identies and some degree of their origins. Any non-DC takes on Superman would probably need to legally identify his Kryptonian name as Kal-L. But as time went on, more of the conventional elements of their stories could be used.
Honestly I don't feel too sorry for anyone in this type of situation. They're a company, not an individual; and they've had sole creative control over these characters for nearly a century. To me that's long enough. Nothing will stop them from continuing to put out and profit from those characters once it's in the public domain, just as anyone still profits from Sherlock Holmes or Peter Pan. It just means that others have the opportunity to be inspired to create their own unique take on a character or idea without limitation. Look no further than Disney. That's an entire media empire built on adapting derivative works of public domain properties, creating in the process contemporary versions of these stories that are for some more definitive than their source material - but don't you dare think to do with their work what they did. At least not until it's been at least 95 years since it was released. Shakespeare borrowed and based much of his works on other stories that had been told before; he's even been accused of out right plagiarism, if memory serves, but they're still considered classic works that have in turn inspired new works adapting his adapted works, the best know example being West Side Story.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 23, 2018 22:54:01 GMT
But was Sherlock still an ongoing character having new stories and iterations created by the IP owners or was it a case of it being a reoccurring IP just retelling or adapting past works over and over again.
With them going into the PD would that mean DC would no longer have to cut in the original creators in on the money they make off the IP?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 23, 2018 23:39:07 GMT
They would mostly likely not owe the creators anything, just as no one who uses those characters would have to pay DC; the only money derived would be on new or derivative works, which people can and have gotten very creative with. There are people and companies still finding ways to cash in on works by Beethoven or Shakespeare by publishing derivative adaptations - it's still fundamentally Beethoven's or Shakespeare's works, but they've made minor tweaks and republished them; and it's technically those changes that are then under copyright. It's a little easier when talking about Shakespeare, because it may be a case of someone "translating" the dialog into more contemporary text; or editing around scenes for various reasons, but in so doing it's a classified as a new work. You can still do the free version of the play, or play the public domain version of classical songs, but it needs to be the original copies and not an arrangement that has been modified by someone else more recently. Then there's the clusterfuck of It's a Wonderful Life. The movie only had the opportunity to become the classic it is, because it originally bombed at the box office and fell into obscurity for a period after it's release. At that time copyrights had to be renewed after a certain period, and the rights holders for that movie forgot and it lapsed into the public domain; which meant it was completely free to broadcast, which is exactly what every major network did every holiday season. Then, sometime I believe around the 90s, one of the studios who ultimate bought out the original production company argued in court that the movie that had been in the public domain for decades should be put back under (their) copyright, because the story it was based on and the music score were still under (their) copyright; and the courts agreed - within those specific guidelines that, that specific order of the story and the music were under copyright. But purportedly if you were to re-edit the movie into a substantially different sequence and took out the original music (and ostensibly replaced it with something else. Or not) what product that came out of that would not fall under that company's copyright, because they didn't own the characters in the movie specifically, or some such thing. But then you fall down the rabbit hole, that in creating a derivative of a public domain work that didn't previously exist, it itself falls under a new copyright (short of the rights being waived by whomever created it) and by sidestepping one copyright, you've created a new one that won't lapse for at least a century.
As for your initial question, that's a little harder to say; in part because the current copyright laws have been modified a few times over the last 40 years or so. Because of copyright legislation towards the end of the 90s or early aughts, that extended copyright even longer than what had been done in the 70. As a result, there haven't been any published works in the US to have lapsed into the public domain in years, and nothing will enter the PD for years.
I do recall something from a few years ago about the estate of some iconic work had sanctioned an author to write the definitive/canonical sequel to some iconic piece of literature that their grandfather or someone had written. If I'm not mistaken, it was Peter Pan; which of course is in the public domain - at least parts of it are. I can't recall if J.M. Berrie wrote anything related to Peter Pan that might still be under copyright; with the exception of on stage-play that wasn't produced until 1928, meaning it won't be in the public domain in the US for another 5 years, but is in the PD everywhere else in the world - but should not be confused with the Marry Martin musical, which didn't come out until 1954.
There are some later Sherlock Holmes stories that weren't published until the late 20s, which means there are some Sherlock Holmes stories still under copyright.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 24, 2018 1:51:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jun 24, 2018 10:46:22 GMT
And that's not the end of Disney's altercation of copyright. In 2013 they got the U.S. Patent to give them a trademark on Snow White, allowing them to be the only ones to be the only ones to use the story and characters in film, television, radio,song, stage, the internet, and photographs. Even though the tale was 200 years old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 11:40:45 GMT
Thanks for explaining that everybody. I wasn’t sure about Frankenstein ‘cause there are a number of Horror characters that belong to studios and can’t be used by other people unless they ask them for permission and pay for them which is why ‘Supernatural’ couldn’t use a lot of Horror characters they wanted to use in the show. Werewolves are definitely not under copyright ‘cause we have had heaps of movies and TV shows use them like ‘Underworld’, ‘Ginger Snaps’, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, ‘The Howling’ and ‘True Blood’ but you remind me of a funny complaint the creators of a movie received from an angry ‘Twilight’ fan who thought the ‘Wolfman’ was a knockoff of ‘Twilight’ and the creators of the movie had stolen the concept of werewolves from ‘Twilight’ and I tracked down that letter here.
techland.time.com/2010/02/19/twilight-fan-the-wolfman-gives-werewolves-a-bad-name/
It is funny you mention Batman and Superman becoming public domain characters Stargazer ‘cause I was talking about that with another member on here last year and not only are those two characters set to become Public Domain characters but Wonder Woman will too in 2036 along with a number of DC’s other superheroes like The Flash, Green Arrow, Aquaman, Black Canary etc and I don’t know all the dates for those characters but I did read Supergirl will enters the Public Doman in 2055 and was originally meant to enter a lot earlier but due to changes with the laws DC have their copyright over the character extended. Batgirl is set to enter the Public Domain earlier but as ‘Betty Kane/ Bat-Girl’ and the ‘Barbara Gordon/Batgirl character’ won’t enter until later. Not sure if that means Bette also gets entered as Flamebird and Hawkfire since it wasn’t until DC brought her back later she become those names and the Bette we see as Flamebird and Hawkfire is very different than the old one.
Bette Kane is somewhat of a mystery ‘cause a lot of sites refer to her being the same character as Betty Kane whereas it has been stated Kate Kane is the daughter of the original, Batwoman (Kathy Kane) and they aren’t the same character. However, they seem to have retconned things since Kate Kane is Bruce Wayne’s cousin and Bruce Wayne dated Kathy Kane which would have meant he dated his Aunt and I don’t think DC would keep that in the stories. I read Spider-Man is set to become a Public Domain character around the same time as Supergirl along with other Marvel superheroes and Captain America is already a Public Domain character but not Steve Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 25, 2018 12:28:19 GMT
Thanks for explaining that everybody. I wasn’t sure about Frankenstein ‘cause there are a number of Horror characters that belong to studios and can’t be used by other people unless they ask them for permission and pay for them which is why ‘Supernatural’ couldn’t use a lot of Horror characters they wanted to use in the show. Werewolves are definitely not under copyright ‘cause we have had heaps of movies and TV shows use them like ‘Underworld’, ‘Ginger Snaps’, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, ‘The Howling’ and ‘True Blood’ but you remind me of a funny complaint the creators of a movie received from an angry ‘Twilight’ fan who thought the ‘Wolfman’ was a knockoff of ‘Twilight’ and the creators of the movie had stolen the concept of werewolves from ‘Twilight’ and I tracked down that letter here.
techland.time.com/2010/02/19/twilight-fan-the-wolfman-gives-werewolves-a-bad-name/
It is funny you mention Batman and Superman becoming public domain characters Stargazer ‘cause I was talking about that with another member on here last year and not only are those two characters set to become Public Domain characters but Wonder Woman will too in 2036 along with a number of DC’s other superheroes like The Flash, Green Arrow, Aquaman, Black Canary etc and I don’t know all the dates for those characters but I did read Supergirl will enters the Public Doman in 2055 and was originally meant to enter a lot earlier but due to changes with the laws DC have their copyright over the character extended. Batgirl is set to enter the Public Domain earlier but as ‘Betty Kane/ Bat-Girl’ and the ‘Barbara Gordon/Batgirl character’ won’t enter until later. Not sure if that means Bette also gets entered as Flamebird and Hawkfire since it wasn’t until DC brought her back later she become those names and the Bette we see as Flamebird and Hawkfire is very different than the old one.
Bette Kane is somewhat of a mystery ‘cause a lot of sites refer to her being the same character as Betty Kane whereas it has been stated Kate Kane is the daughter of the original, Batwoman (Kathy Kane) and they aren’t the same character. However, they seem to have retconned things since Kate Kane is Bruce Wayne’s cousin and Bruce Wayne dated Kathy Kane which would have meant he dated his Aunt and I don’t think DC would keep that in the stories. I read Spider-Man is set to become a Public Domain character around the same time as Supergirl along with other Marvel superheroes and Captain America is already a Public Domain character but not Steve Rogers. I think how it works is elements of the characters become public domain at different times, in relation to their creation, so when Superman and co become PD at first only things established in their first appearances are free to use, so things like the source of Supermans powers, the degree of those powers, his kryptonian name even will all have to be 1st iteration, so no flight or world ruining powers sort of thing and Kal-L not Kal-El.
That twilight letter is hilarious, but then what do you expect from twilight fans, I mean even the creator seems quite ignorant themselves, I recall reading something like they didn't know vampires are meant to be hurt by sunlight when they first started writing the first book, just made shit up and realised or was told later on that a bunch of the shit they made up has no history in vampire lore.
Gotta ask how is Batwoman related to Bruce? surely if he had living relatives they should have taken him in after his parents death, you know instead of leaving him in the care of his butler, also before that "revelation" had he ever mentioned having any sort of family remaining? or is this a long lost blood connection where they found you great uncle/aunt Wayne/Waynetta W. Wayne was disowned from the family for public lewdness and changed their name to Kane or something else and simply never spoke of their heritage and they only figured this out due to Batwoman needing a tissue donation and that's how they figured out she and Bruce share a familial connection? Or is it all just retcon bollocks that gets overlooked?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jun 25, 2018 18:01:41 GMT
Thanks for explaining that everybody. I wasn’t sure about Frankenstein ‘cause there are a number of Horror characters that belong to studios and can’t be used by other people unless they ask them for permission and pay for them which is why ‘Supernatural’ couldn’t use a lot of Horror characters they wanted to use in the show. Werewolves are definitely not under copyright ‘cause we have had heaps of movies and TV shows use them like ‘Underworld’, ‘Ginger Snaps’, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, ‘The Howling’ and ‘True Blood’ but you remind me of a funny complaint the creators of a movie received from an angry ‘Twilight’ fan who thought the ‘Wolfman’ was a knockoff of ‘Twilight’ and the creators of the movie had stolen the concept of werewolves from ‘Twilight’ and I tracked down that letter here.
techland.time.com/2010/02/19/twilight-fan-the-wolfman-gives-werewolves-a-bad-name/
It is funny you mention Batman and Superman becoming public domain characters Stargazer ‘cause I was talking about that with another member on here last year and not only are those two characters set to become Public Domain characters but Wonder Woman will too in 2036 along with a number of DC’s other superheroes like The Flash, Green Arrow, Aquaman, Black Canary etc and I don’t know all the dates for those characters but I did read Supergirl will enters the Public Doman in 2055 and was originally meant to enter a lot earlier but due to changes with the laws DC have their copyright over the character extended. Batgirl is set to enter the Public Domain earlier but as ‘Betty Kane/ Bat-Girl’ and the ‘Barbara Gordon/Batgirl character’ won’t enter until later. Not sure if that means Bette also gets entered as Flamebird and Hawkfire since it wasn’t until DC brought her back later she become those names and the Bette we see as Flamebird and Hawkfire is very different than the old one.
Bette Kane is somewhat of a mystery ‘cause a lot of sites refer to her being the same character as Betty Kane whereas it has been stated Kate Kane is the daughter of the original, Batwoman (Kathy Kane) and they aren’t the same character. However, they seem to have retconned things since Kate Kane is Bruce Wayne’s cousin and Bruce Wayne dated Kathy Kane which would have meant he dated his Aunt and I don’t think DC would keep that in the stories. I read Spider-Man is set to become a Public Domain character around the same time as Supergirl along with other Marvel superheroes and Captain America is already a Public Domain character but not Steve Rogers. I think how it works is elements of the characters become public domain at different times, in relation to their creation, so when Superman and co become PD at first only things established in their first appearances are free to use, so things like the source of Supermans powers, the degree of those powers, his kryptonian name even will all have to be 1st iteration, so no flight or world ruining powers sort of thing and Kal-L not Kal-El. Pretty much this. Same thing with Peter Pan and Sherlock Holmes. Anything included in the earliest works are public domain, but anything not sure Incorporated until much later, in anything that would still be under copyright, will not enter the public domain until the works that originated it are no longer under copyright. So I expect that once the likes of Mickey or Superman or Batman enter the public domain, we'll likely see a lot of use of their likenesses, but may only initially get the most rudimentary and derivative adaptations, at least by anyone who knows well enough that somethings may still be protected and it would be prudent to err on the side of caution and stick to a more conservative use of the characters than to open themselves up to any lawsuits. And you know that Disney or DC will be watching for any type of deviation of any element they'll still control. I mean by all rights, most of the sketches by Abbott and Costello should be in the public domain, but their heirs fight that tooth and nail. Never mind all that went on with Happy Birthday.... Just a straight up retcon, establishing that Bruce's mom was a Kane. It does get really convoluted with Kathy's history still being cannon; and ostensibly the names are a coincidence and even though she and Kate (and Bette) share a last name, there's no actual relation. I don't recall how long they've Incorporated it, I believe well before the New 52,but for the New 52 they did a new origin story, Zero Year, that expounded on the relationship. We meet Bruce's uncle, who's a Kane and has been running Wayne Enterprises in Bruce's absence - I think during a period he was presumed dead, while traveling the world. Said uncle turned out to be into some shady shit. Frankly I didn't care for Zero Year in general, and that part specifically. Bruce really shouldn't have any family besides Alfred once his parents die. I certainly don't think Batwoman needs to be his cousin, which just seems too convenient, seeing how she adopts the mantle before learning that Batman is Bruce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 11:59:05 GMT
Thanks for explaining that everybody. I wasn’t sure about Frankenstein ‘cause there are a number of Horror characters that belong to studios and can’t be used by other people unless they ask them for permission and pay for them which is why ‘Supernatural’ couldn’t use a lot of Horror characters they wanted to use in the show. Werewolves are definitely not under copyright ‘cause we have had heaps of movies and TV shows use them like ‘Underworld’, ‘Ginger Snaps’, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, ‘The Howling’ and ‘True Blood’ but you remind me of a funny complaint the creators of a movie received from an angry ‘Twilight’ fan who thought the ‘Wolfman’ was a knockoff of ‘Twilight’ and the creators of the movie had stolen the concept of werewolves from ‘Twilight’ and I tracked down that letter here.
techland.time.com/2010/02/19/twilight-fan-the-wolfman-gives-werewolves-a-bad-name/
It is funny you mention Batman and Superman becoming public domain characters Stargazer ‘cause I was talking about that with another member on here last year and not only are those two characters set to become Public Domain characters but Wonder Woman will too in 2036 along with a number of DC’s other superheroes like The Flash, Green Arrow, Aquaman, Black Canary etc and I don’t know all the dates for those characters but I did read Supergirl will enters the Public Doman in 2055 and was originally meant to enter a lot earlier but due to changes with the laws DC have their copyright over the character extended. Batgirl is set to enter the Public Domain earlier but as ‘Betty Kane/ Bat-Girl’ and the ‘Barbara Gordon/Batgirl character’ won’t enter until later. Not sure if that means Bette also gets entered as Flamebird and Hawkfire since it wasn’t until DC brought her back later she become those names and the Bette we see as Flamebird and Hawkfire is very different than the old one.
Bette Kane is somewhat of a mystery ‘cause a lot of sites refer to her being the same character as Betty Kane whereas it has been stated Kate Kane is the daughter of the original, Batwoman (Kathy Kane) and they aren’t the same character. However, they seem to have retconned things since Kate Kane is Bruce Wayne’s cousin and Bruce Wayne dated Kathy Kane which would have meant he dated his Aunt and I don’t think DC would keep that in the stories. I read Spider-Man is set to become a Public Domain character around the same time as Supergirl along with other Marvel superheroes and Captain America is already a Public Domain character but not Steve Rogers. I think how it works is elements of the characters become public domain at different times, in relation to their creation, so when Superman and co become PD at first only things established in their first appearances are free to use, so things like the source of Supermans powers, the degree of those powers, his kryptonian name even will all have to be 1st iteration, so no flight or world ruining powers sort of thing and Kal-L not Kal-El.
That twilight letter is hilarious, but then what do you expect from twilight fans, I mean even the creator seems quite ignorant themselves, I recall reading something like they didn't know vampires are meant to be hurt by sunlight when they first started writing the first book, just made shit up and realised or was told later on that a bunch of the shit they made up has no history in vampire lore.
Gotta ask how is Batwoman related to Bruce? surely if he had living relatives they should have taken him in after his parents death, you know instead of leaving him in the care of his butler, also before that "revelation" had he ever mentioned having any sort of family remaining? or is this a long lost blood connection where they found you great uncle/aunt Wayne/Waynetta W. Wayne was disowned from the family for public lewdness and changed their name to Kane or something else and simply never spoke of their heritage and they only figured this out due to Batwoman needing a tissue donation and that's how they figured out she and Bruce share a familial connection? Or is it all just retcon bollocks that gets overlooked?
Thanks for explaining that Dazz and stargazer1682 and I do recall reading when Superman becomes a public domain character they will only be able to use certain side characters and villains that were in use in the first few years of the character’s existence and overtime more will be added and I can’t say I have read the first comic book of ‘Superman’ or any of the really early stuff from the decade he started in and the oldest I have read were comic books from the 1960s (maybe 50s too) so I’m kinda confused over what characters they will or won’t be able to use like as far as I can tell they should be able to use Lois Lane ‘cause she debuted in the first comic book (Action Comics #1) but Jimmy Olsen was introduced in ‘Action Comics #6’ which came out the same year and was said to be Anonymous and it wasn’t until 1941 he got the name Jimmy Olsen so I am not sure if they could use him.
Other characters like Lex Luthor and Perry White didn’t appear until 1940 in Superman #7 (which the two coincidentally both debuted in) two years after Action Comics #1 and if we dig deeper Supergirl didn’t debut until 1959,Pete Ross didn’t debut until 1961, Cat Grant didn’t debut until 1987 and Lana Lang didn’t debut until 1950 so they are going to be missing a lot of characters and unless Lex Luthor can be used since it was only two years later other writers might hold off on using the character until more characters become available to use. Batman sounds easier to do ‘cause a number of Batman’s characters like Robin, Catwoman, the Joker, Hugo Strange, The Penguin and Scarecrow had their first appearances in the firsttwo years of Batman’s creation. Alfred, however, didn’t debut until 1943 and Barbara Gordon didn’t appear until 1967 so they would be off the table especially the latter for some time.
The 'Twilight' letter was funny and I was just telling another member about that earlier today and how people are now accusing the 'Firestarter' remake and Charlie McGee in particular of being a ripoff of a character from 'Stranger Things' even though the original movie came out in 1984 and the novel came out in 1980 and it always surprises me how some people accuse things from decades ago of being ripoffs of things that are only very recent and don't bother to do their research before accusing others of copying but the creation of the Werewolf is perhaps the most bizarre of all 'cause I thought most people would have seen werewolves in other movies, TV shows or books before 'Twilight' and it goes to show how Horror the 'Twilight' fanbase were since they didn't know simple things like that and it reminds of some 'Supernatural' fans who weren't real Horror fans at all and complained about anything scary happening on the show when 'Supernatural' is meant to be a Horror TV show about two hunters that go around saving people from ghosts, demons, vampires, werewolves, witches, angels etc.
Stargazer is very spot on with Batwoman and there has been a lot of retconning with Bat Family characters over the years and even in the New 52 they did a big retcon with Batgirl, Black Canary and The Huntress when they went from Gail Simone's 'Batgirl New 52' series and 'Birds of Prey New 52' to 'Batgirl of Burnside' and 'Black Canary New 52' and all of a sudden Batgirl was evidently younger than she was in Gail's series and had a new look, new costume and new personality a lot of the things that happened to her in Gail's series weren't mentioned again and it stands out the most when you read the 'Batman Eternal' series 'cause that started before the retcon and near the end she had been retconned. Then there was the whole thing where they changed Black Canary from Dinah Laurel Lance in 'Birds of Prey New 52' to 'Dinah Drake in 'Black Canary New 52' and 'Batgirl and Birds of Prey Rebirth' and there close to no recollection of any of the events that happened in the previous series and Huntress had a massive makeover and personality change too that was never explained. After Gail left it was like they decided all the previous issues in the New 52 didn't matter and they would start afresh.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jul 6, 2018 12:50:40 GMT
In the world of copyright, a year or two is no different than 50. If something still falls under that protection, and especially if it's something valuable and owned by a company that has the clout and inclination to fight anyone who might infringe on it, they will and they'll win.
That's why I think we can expect more generalized commercial use of the likes of Batman or Superman at first; unlicensed merchandise with their likenesses, which is arguably going to be where the money will really be made. There are only so many places that will have the resources to do some type of out right adaptation - tv, movies, print. Print might be easier than the other two, but outside the internet, I think most authors will run into the same issue with publishers as I see happening in the other mediums; a certain level of cautious hesitation the first few years the material is in the public domain, to make sure the circumstances don't suddenly turn against them, or that anything being used could be claimed as owned property.
The New 52 was such a cluster fuck.
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Jul 6, 2018 13:20:46 GMT
I think that sums it up perfectly!
|
|