Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 78

Thread: Which DC Comics 8"action figures would you like to see from mego corportaion?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 15, 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    331
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by phil View Post
    Accurate, first appearance figures of at least Superman and The Batman would be nice.
    Absolutely! In addition to the JSA and All Star Squadron (in the new bandless body...please).

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 15, 2001
    Location
    My Pants
    Posts
    55,924
    Blog Entries
    8
    more importantly what is a kibosh? Is it a fish of some kind?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 29, 2005
    Location
    Somewhere beyond the Heavens
    Posts
    824
    I ment it's be oddly quiet about them did something go wrong or some one stop it (could not think of anyone but FTC that might have an issue with it)

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 5, 2008
    Location
    near Akron
    Posts
    14,678
    Images
    1
    Blog Entries
    2
    It's only been two months.
    WANTED: Dick Grayson SI trousers; gray AJ Mustang horse; POTA Fortress signal-flasher--top mirrored portion or mirror sticker; POTA Forbidden Zone prison doors, walls, bar; minty Wolfman tights; mint Black Knight sword; minty Launcelot boots; Lion Rock (pale) Dracula & Mummy heads; Lion Rock Franky squared boots; Wayne Foundation blue furniture; Flash Gordon/Ming (10") unbroken holsters; CHiPs gloved arms; POTA T2 tan body; CTVT/vintage Friar Tuck robes, BBP TZ Burgess Meredith glasses.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,916
    Quote Originally Posted by tmthor View Post
    I ment it's be oddly quiet about them did something go wrong or some one stop it (could not think of anyone but FTC that might have an issue with it)
    No and no.
    Expectation is the death of discovery.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Liu Bei View Post
    If Mego is still around in 10 or so years they could do the figures without paying Warner/DC a dime, as Batman and Superman will officially be in the public domain. At least, Batman and Superman as they appeared in 1938 and 1939.
    Public Domain only applies to copyrights, not trademarks. You could reprint the public domain material but you cannot use the names Batman and Superman to sell the products, nor their logos because those trademarks would still belong to DC. so even if they enter public domain (which is doubtful as every time major properties owned by corporations have come close to public domain, Congress has passed new laws extending copyrights), Mego could not put out figures using the S shield or Bat symbol, nor call them Batman or Superman on the packaging. If they wanted to use the emblems and the names, they would still have to pay DC/Warner.

    Not sure how well generic guy in a blue suit with a red cape and no logos would sell for Mego.

    -M

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    4,643
    Images
    5
    I'm not so sure. In Dastar vs. 20th Century Fox, the Supreme Court essentially declared that trademark cannot be used to circumvent a copyrighted product falling into the public domain. If they used the same appearance -- including style of emblem-- from the public domain version of the character, it very well could be legal. At the very least, it would make for a long and interesting legal battle.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,342
    Quote Originally Posted by sprytel View Post
    I'm not so sure. In Dastar vs. 20th Century Fox, the Supreme Court essentially declared that trademark cannot be used to circumvent a copyrighted product falling into the public domain. If they used the same appearance -- including style of emblem-- from the public domain version of the character, it very well could be legal. At the very least, it would make for a long and interesting legal battle.
    When Dynamite tried to publish Tarzan comics adapting the Tarzan material that was in the public domain, they could not use the name Tarzan in the marketing or the title, having to call it Lord of the Jungle because not all the Tarzan material was in the public domain and the trademarks were still in use and thus still owned and controlled by ERB properties. If, Superman and Batman fall into the public domain, the copyrights end, not the trademarks. Trademarks last as long as the owner can show use and defends them.

    So if Bats and Supes do enter public domain, you could reprint the stories in the public domain, you could create new material based on the content of those stories alone (so no Daily Planet, Supes can't fly, etc.), but you cannot use things protected by trademarks. Since toys are a different medium, a trade good using Superman and Batman, and not the copyrighted material, the trademarks would still stand as long as DC still owned them and were using them. And if someone did try to use them, DC/Warner would have no choice but to protect those trademarks by suing and sending cease and desist letters or they would lose the trademarks, so at the very least, it would be a long expensive legal battle that could bankrupt a smaller company before the dust settled.

    It's happening now with Conan. Conan copyrights have elapsed in Europe and the earliest stories have entered the public domain, but not in the US. European comic publisher Glenat, published new adaptions of the Conan stories in France (in French) over the past 2-3 years. An American publisher, Ablaze Comics announced they were publishing English translations of those books and using the title the Cimmerian to avoid violating the Conan trademarks. They were solicited this month in Diamond Previews and supposed to come out in October. The news just broke today that Conan Properties has issued Diamond and Ablaze Comics a cease and desist order, so Diamond cancelled all orders and is no longer carrying the book, and it is unlikely Ablaze will be able to get the books to market. It's not worth the legal expenses for Diamond to fight it, even if Ablaze is in the right.

    Oh and that Lord of the Jungle book. Same thing happened. ERB issued a cease and desist, so Diamond stopped carrying the book and Dynamite had to cancel all it. They ended up negotiating with ERB and started producing licensed ERB comics instead. More expensive than it would have been just doing public domain books, but far less expensive than the legal fees it would have accrued fighting ERB and taking the risk of Diamond dropping all their books altogether because it wanted to avoid being drawn into a protracted legal battle.

    Copyrights and trademarks are two separate entities. Public domain only applies to copyrights, it has nothing to do at all with trademarks. Trademarks don't expire based on copyright statutes. They extend as long as the holder continues to show use and defends the trademarks. And just because something is public domain doesn't mean you can violate trademarks associated with it. Trademarks may not be able to stop something from entering the public domain, but they do prevent those who don't hold the trademarks from using trademarked names and images to market or sell goods based on those properties. Most things falling into the public domain do not have active trademarks associated with them, so it is easy to use them. Those with active trademarks associated with them are far trickier to use and could wind up costing someone who tries far more than they could ever make using the public domain material associated with those trademarks.

    Confusing trademark and copyright is something many small publishers or product producers do, and few survive the experience when the consequences of violating trademarks hit their pocketbooks.

    -M

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 31, 2018
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by MRP View Post
    Public Domain only applies to copyrights, not trademarks. You could reprint the public domain material but you cannot use the names Batman and Superman to sell the products, nor their logos because those trademarks would still belong to DC. so even if they enter public domain (which is doubtful as every time major properties owned by corporations have come close to public domain, Congress has passed new laws extending copyrights), Mego could not put out figures using the S shield or Bat symbol, nor call them Batman or Superman on the packaging. If they wanted to use the emblems and the names, they would still have to pay DC/Warner.

    Not sure how well generic guy in a blue suit with a red cape and no logos would sell for Mego.

    -M
    I’m not so sure that Warner or Disney will be able to prevent companies from reproducing public domain material previously protected by copyrights via trademark infringement.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled against Twentieth Century Fox in a similar situation in their lawsuit against Dastar. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...-fox-film-corp.

    “We have been careful to caution against misuse or overextension of trademark and related protections into areas traditionally occupied by patent or copyright.”

    The reason why companies have not yet been willing to go to court over these murky grey waters is because characters like Tarzan and the Shadow are niche markets, and there simply isn’t enough money in it to make long, drawn out lawsuits worth it.

    When Mickey Mouse, Batman, and Superman make it to the public domain, these fights will happen, because the money to be made will be worth it. For many years all the big money and corporate interests were aligned on the side of extending copyrights, but this has changed within the last 10 years. With so many consumers now being content creators themselves on platforms like YouTube, the momentum is decidedly on the side opposite side now.

    The Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the Authors Guild have all already gone on record confessing to the fact that they will no longer try to pass legislation extending copyrights, because the legal argument simply isn’t there.

    In the past, as I stated previously, there were no champions for the public domain because there was no money to be made and therefor no motive to fight, so copyright extensions went virtually unchallenged. Those days are done. Disney May fight to extend, but they’ll lose. They may try to use trademark infringement to protect expired copyrights, but they’ll lose that too.

    I don’t say this as someone who supports what is happening, as I honestly see merit to both sides of the argument. As a disinterested third party, this is simply how I see things playing out.

    Disney has lots of money, and they may indeed be able to scare off business looking to take advantage of public domain, but if/when it goes to court, they will lose.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 19, 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Liu Bei View Post
    I’m not so sure that Warner or Disney will be able to prevent companies from reproducing public domain material previously protected by copyrights via trademark infringement.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled against Twentieth Century Fox in a similar situation in their lawsuit against Dastar. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...-fox-film-corp.

    “We have been careful to caution against misuse or overextension of trademark and related protections into areas traditionally occupied by patent or copyright.”

    The reason why companies have not yet been willing to go to court over these murky grey waters is because characters like Tarzan and the Shadow are niche markets, and there simply isn’t enough money in it to make long, drawn out lawsuits worth it.

    When Mickey Mouse, Batman, and Superman make it to the public domain, these fights will happen, because the money to be made will be worth it. For many years all the big money and corporate interests were aligned on the side of extending copyrights, but this has changed within the last 10 years. With so many consumers now being content creators themselves on platforms like YouTube, the momentum is decidedly on the side opposite side now.

    The Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the Authors Guild have all already gone on record confessing to the fact that they will no longer try to pass legislation extending copyrights, because the legal argument simply isn’t there.

    In the past, as I stated previously, there were no champions for the public domain because there was no money to be made and therefor no motive to fight, so copyright extensions went virtually unchallenged. Those days are done. Disney May fight to extend, but they’ll lose. They may try to use trademark infringement to protect expired copyrights, but they’ll lose that too.

    I don’t say this as someone who supports what is happening, as I honestly see merit to both sides of the argument. As a disinterested third party, this is simply how I see things playing out.

    Disney has lots of money, and they may indeed be able to scare off business looking to take advantage of public domain, but if/when it goes to court, they will lose.
    I don't want to go too deep, since it skirts on the political, but Supreme Court decisions can and are overturned by later Supreme Courts when the make up of the court changes. The make up of the court has changed since 2003, so don't count on the precedent standing if it goes back to the Supreme Court. Also trademark law is a separate entity from copyright. Copyright does not apply to trade goods like toys. It applies to written or recorded material. The works themselves will go into public domain and content creators can make written or recorded content based on them, but making trade goods themselves is an entirely different issue and copyright law has no bearing on them. You can't copyright toys, but trademarks i.e. unique names or symbols associated with trade goods to protect proprietary goods do apply. For a court precedent on copyright to apply to trademarks, you would have to convince a court that a trade good like a toy is a written or recorded work.

    -M

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •