Robert A. Woodward wrote:
> In article <1148224683.990442.89790@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Noel" wrote:
>
>
>>---Hmm. I support the notion of shorter copyrights, but
>>for distributional reasons.
>>
>>Two points.
>>
>>First, I'm not so sure that there would no effects. Frex, in
>>a world where Spiderman is in the public domain, do the big
>>blockbusters get made? (I just watched both movies back-
>>to-back while working yesterday, so I'd miss 'em. I'd cer-
>>tainly miss 'em more than any Spiderman comic book
>>written after 1964. Although that final episode with the
>>alien suit was kinda cool.)
>>
>>Second, aren't copyrights renewable? After all, new Spider-
>>man comics are still being made. So would Spiderman really
>>be in the public domain even if copyrights were limited to, say,
>>15 years?
>>
>>We need a lawyer.
>>
>
>
> Also, is Spiderman a trademark, just like Mickey? I would guess
> yes. That would make much of the copyright discussion irrelevant.
I'm not a lawyer, either, but from what I know, a work that has passed into
public domain can be copied, sold, etc to ones' heart's content (yes, even by
its original studio/publisher/etc), BUT, any maintained trademark on any of
its characters continues, so you cannot make any NEW works using those
particular characters.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________ |
