Commons talk:Character copyrights

Future designs

I don't think it helpful to add future designs may be copyrighted, since that's true of all of them. Some specific knowledge of what is copyrighted, with renewal references for US works if possible, would be helpful; Thimble Theatre, home of Popeye, apparently only renewed the one comic strip Popeye appeared in IIRC.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Sorry, I didn't see this immediately, I didn't receive a ping. Yes, you were right to say that my edit to the chart that day was redundant, since it applies to all of them. I don't know why I was quick to judgment in that respect. But I think the sentiment I was trying to lay down is that the copyright status of characters like Popeye are complex and multifaceted. I doubt that the year 2025 will exonerate Popeye from most later copyrights (if the 1929 Popeye isn't already PD à la SDudley), since the original comic version usually looks very different from later animated versions. For example, I feel like I remember reading somewhere that a mid-1930s Mickey Mouse film was not renewed (I could be wrong, mind you, this is a vague recollection). And I think assuming it were public domain by now because of Steamboat Willie would be a huge leap on someone's part to say the least, since the hypothetical "1930s unrenewed Mickey" is probably too similar to copyrighted versions of "renewed Mickey" that are closer to home.

Given these complexities, I think it ought to be noted somewhere, somehow on the page that the cartoon character's absolute début year isn't the only year to consider. We've already been too lenient on character copyrights in the past, and I doubt those uploaders ever knew such a thing as a "character copyright" existed. So, I feel like being a bit more informative is necessary. I like your renewal idea, I just don't know how to place it all there without it looking messy. Let me know if you have any ideas. Cheers, SnowyCinema (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Mickey Mouse film you are thinking of is The Mad Doctor (1933). However, since elements of the character originate in earlier works the public domain status of that short is still restricted. That one is itself an interesting case since Pluto is also featured, and he still has a few more years before the first version is public domain. The Mad Doctor character in the film has been public domain since 1961 when the copyright was not renewed.

The ambiguities of Popeye are tough to discern since it is possible the renewal lies someplace where I didn't check. I think that what I said over on the Village Pump about restricting cross-medium adaptations seems fair. Popeye in comic form is not the same as Popeye in animated form.

I'm not certain about the formatting, but perhaps including some section about notable later copyrights would be good. In the case of Mickey we have the pie-eyes in 1929, color in 1935 (Parade of the Award Nominees shouldn't count since it was unpublished), and the larger Mickey redesign in 1939 with Mickey's Surprise Party. Since basic human characteristics can't be copyrighted we shouldn't make notes about those. I think the inclusion of visual shifts is necessary however. SDudley (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Mickey Mouse Color Stock Poster (Celebrity Productions era, 1928).jpg shows off Mickey in color. I think we should be careful about descriptions like that, because it's not so simple that Steamboat Willie + pie-eyes is copyrighted; copying a later Mickey Mouse that's copyrighted is a problem, but adding a feature common in the style of the day is not necessarily.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

People definitely can do Mickey in color. It’s just that his first appearance in animation in color is still under copyright. So people can’t copy or use that depiction just yet. And the pie-eyes are fairly minor as well. I’m personally not certain that the poster’s depiction of Mickey = animated depiction, but most of Commons seems to think so, so it isn’t a large issue. It’s all uncharted territory.

I’m more wary of when we get to Looney Tunes like Bugs and Daffy since there are a large number of shorts that were not renewed. And elements of those shorts are not direct lines from their originals. Especially since the visual designs also changed a lot. SDudley (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

More info

Some of the work I'm doing with Duke at the moment is about noting when famous works and characters from the 1930s will enter the public domain. I think we should add the renewals to the page, and also verify which work is the original master work. I would be glad to tackle this. SDudley (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Still working to verify if Popeye has a copyright notice or not.

Bugs Bunny likely needs some more nuance since there is a prototype version that existed in 3 shorts before the 1940 short.

Looking into Scrooge McDuck. I searched the Periodical renewals for 1974-1976 and did not find any returns for the title of the story in the comic, the comic series, or any relevant renewals associated with the publisher. I need to look further into contributions as well. SDudley (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck renewal info

Ok I broadened my search to include Donald Duck since it is likely that Disney would have copyrighted the work under those terms.

I have found a likely match.

Renewal 592670 which is for Donald Duck #178, the same issue number as Christmas on Bear Mountain in the Four Colors series. When we look at the cover of that issue it refers to it as Walt Disney's Donald Duck Volume #178. And that matches the renewal. SDudley (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Popeye

I still can't seem to find a renewal for Popeye or Thimble Theatre from 1929. I have looked at 1956-1958 in the periodicals and books, but I can't seem to find anything related to it.

I will likely go back and double check out the original 1929 logs to see if there was even an original notice, but in my initial search I couldn't find anything. SDudley (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

After further review I couldn't find anything related in the original 1929 logs. I manually looked through the 1929 logs for Periodicals too.

What I found was a renewal for the March 1929 editions of the New York Evening Journal, which Thimble Theatre was published in, and a renewal for a 1930 Thimble Theatre edition. SDudley (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all these research. Some of Popeye short films were deleted because of the character's copyright. Can they be undeleted? Yann (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get just a bit more verification, but it is seeming like yes. SDudley (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I would think that the earlier Popeye short films would protect the later ones; "POPEYE THE SAILOR, a motion picture in one reel by Paramount Productions. ...R272748."[1] is the first Popeye short, and in the same volume I found several of the other 1933 shorts, so I'd think we're looking at 2029 before any of the theatrical Popeye stuff is clearly PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The first Popeye strip was in 1929, so the character will be in the public domain next year. Yann (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Popeye character was first published in Thimble Theatre in 1929, yes. But character copyright is really an abstraction; as we've been saying, latter versions have their own copyright. You can use Dorothy, from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, but you can't use aspects of Dorothy from The Yellow Knight of Oz (1930) or the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, unless they are found in previous PD works. It's pretty clear to me that the Popeye of the films is his own character in enough ways that the copyright of "Popeye the Sailor" (1933) would be as important as the copyright of Thimble Theatre.

We are in some ways being more Catholic than the Pope; the Library of Congress has Popeye Meets Sinbad the Sailor for download, marked "The Library of Congress is not aware of any U.S. copyright or other restrictions in the vast majority of motion pictures in these collections". It seems that for many years, nobody has cared about these derivative works; Betty Boop, Popeye and Superman cartoons have showed up on all the cheap DVD collections, as have works like The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952) despite the fact the underlying short story was renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been told that the medium matters not once the original character is free of copyright. So the Popeye shorts would be considered derivatives of the original comic still rather than the animated work. This is in contrast to what I said in previous posts, but it’s new information that’s been presented to me since then. I think the larger consideration is that are there aspects of the Popeye character present in those PD shorts that are still covered by copyright elsewhere? We would have to determine that. SDudley (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I requested undeletion of all Popeye related files. See COM:UDR#Popeye. Yann (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that miss, Yann. I had not thought to seek out the art renewals. SDudley (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Black Mask

You say that Sam Spade's first appearance was in 1930; but given that all of the Maltese Falcon was serialized in 1929*, it should be a year earlier, for publication and copyright. *The last part of the Maltese Falcon was published in the January 1930 issue of Black Mask, but the cover date's usually a month after they're released into distribution, and the Copyright Office has © December 12, 1929 for the copyright date.[2].--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t certain how long it took to be serialized, but if the Jan 30 was copyrighted 1929, then it does seem the whole of the story will expire next year. Just not any changes or adjustments that were fixed for the novel in 1930. Thank you for finding that info.

And as stated the character is public domain for basically not really doing anything meaningful to the plot. We could slot in generic John Doe. So I wasn’t entirely sure how to present that info. Please feel free to make the changes needed, or I can do it in a little bit. I think leaving the renewal notice for the 1930 novel is still good. SDudley (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've made the updates to the page. SDudley (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

http://www.philsp.com/indexes.html is basically the master index of all fiction magazines, so I went there to look up how long the Maltese Falcon ran in Black Mask.

I've always regarded that Sam Spade decision as a judicial version of Ignore All Rules; I think in most cases, courts would have ruled that even if Sam Spade was a weak character, you couldn't copy him name and all and drop him your stories. But Dashiell Hammett was being sued for ripping off his own stories, and the judge made a ruling to protect him, even if it made no legal sense. It might be found ruling precedent, or it might get ignored, if Sam Spade ever came back into court.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know later legal judgements did not rule as broadly as they did in the case of Sam Spade. And since it has never been re-litigated no one has ever bothered to see if Spade should otherwise be protected. Luckily we are 11 months out from some public domain status for the character. I wonder if there are any alterations to the story present in the 1930 book that we would note on the page. It started to get lengthy so I added some footnotes. Thanks for your help on this, and thank you for the reference for the fiction magazines! What an invaluable resource, hope that link lives for a long time. SDudley (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Page Changes and More Characters

Hello. I went ahead and just added a renewals column to the page. The renewals made the notes messy, so this seems to have helped clean it up. Additionally I determined that I could not reasonably find any registration or renewal for Popeye, so we might want to treat it as PD with the caveat that it definitely will be next year. Here is the first strip he appeared in. Wayback wouldn't archive it properly, so I used a different site.

And to add to this discussion I wanted to start a list of further characters we should add. I added Scarlett O'Hara, Rhett Butler, and Captain America already, but below I will list some more that we might be interested in.

Mary Poppins - First book was published simultaneously in both the US and UK in 1934, and the author died in 1996. Here is the Renewal: R292340. Add to this that she apparently first appeared in a 1926 short story, but since that wouldn't be free of copyright in the US we might not consider it as relevant until 2067.

If the book was simultaneously published in both countries, the shorter term applies (US copyright), so this will be OK for us in 2030. Yann (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the short story was published? That would at least free Mary Poppins in the US if it were.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

According to this site the story was published abroad in 1926, in New Zealand. Their term is still life+50, but Travers was an Australian-British author, so it seems her works would rather be under life+70.--SDudley (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Country of origin for a work is the place it was published, if it was only published in one country within 30 days. So the short story would be free for Commons and countries with the rule of the shorter term in 2047. If it's in two countries, the term that counts is the Berne country with shortest period, so the US copyright would matter on the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah the copyright for the book is separate since it had a US notice. The short story and Commons is a different matter, but likely the 2047 date as you listed. SDudley (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Bilbo Baggins - The Hobbit was published in 1937. It had its copyright restored after the URAA. Just ctrl+f for "Hobbit" and it will show up.

The Hobbit is UK work, so we can't upload it here until it is PD in the source country, i.e. 2044. Yann (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have had a US publication in 1938, would that change anything? SDudley (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Only concerning the US copyright. Yann (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

King Kong - The 1933 film was renewed with Renewal: R267274. However, I have seen some dispute over the character's copyright status since a 1932 novel was published, and is likely public domain. I need to look more into it.

What other characters do people want to see included? I'd be glad to verify renewals. SDudley (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Casper? Zorro (US 1919)? Richie Rich? Archie? Green Hornet? Lone Ranger (Radio in 1933 is complex)? Buck Rogers (US 1928)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Casper is an interesting one. His original short, The Friendly Ghost was not renewed. Though it is claimed to have been based on an unpublished children's novel. I'm not certain to what extent that is true, so I am unsure if we have to consider Casper as derivative work or not.

The Zorro case is interesting as well.

I can look into the rest. SDudley (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In the US, an unpublished work can not protect the copyright of a published work. So Casper should be clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you. SDudley (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Zorro should be pretty simple; it's a US work published in 1919. Like Sherlock Holmes and the Wizard of Oz, there's a lot of more recent versions, but the basic version is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The Lone Ranger

This is an interesting seeming one. The character first appeared on a radio station serial. I believe that it likely never had a copyright notice in the first place. Since it is a sound recording it would likely be governed under the CLASSICS Act which set federal copyright term for pre-1972 sound recordings. Since it started in 1933, the show (via sound recording) will expire on January 1, 2034. Though I am not a legal expert.

I checked a few places to see if Radio had any specific cutout in the act, but I couldn't find any. This site Old Radio World claimed otherwise, but checking an InternetArchive of their page from 2017 revealed that nothing had changed in their text since then. And that was prior to the CLASSICS Act passing in 2018.

Green Hornet

A radio program as well. If the logic holds for Lone Ranger, then this one should be 100 years after 1936, so January 1, 2037.

Richie Rich

Now I for sure need to do more digging, but this one is a bit of a challenge.

• First appeared in Little Dot (1953)
  • First renewal for that series is for a March 1957 edition
  • The earliest renewal for his own self-titled series is from 1964 since all of those works had renewals published automatically

28 years after 1953 is 1981, and the books of copyright catalogs don't exist anymore. So we have to search the Online Public Catalog, which is less reliable. I wouldn't sign off on this as final research, but what I could find so far. My search was primarily only for the titles of the series as they were. I also searched for the title of the comic he is in The Dancing Lessons and that returned nothing. I searched in Commercial Prints, Artwork, Periodicals, Books and Contributions to Periodicals for Harvey, Comics, and Dot. So it was a lot of searching. SDudley (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Protection under the CLASSICS Act is not legally the same as a federal statutory copyright. The penalties are similar, but they are legally distinct. While the term of CLASSICS Act rights expires after (in this case) 100 years, this only applies to the audio recording itself and not to any copyrightable work included within it.

Yes, the sui generis nature of the CLASSICS Act rights is... confusing. But, legally speaking, Congress chose very explicitly to make it so that sound recordings from before 1972 cannot result in the publication of their contents. And even though there is a script being read in the radio shows, the contents of that script are not published, even if the shows were recorded and distributed (if we're talking about recordings made before the relevant date in 1972; recordings fixed after that can result in publication).

So, anything about the Lone Ranger first becomes published whenever it was included in a published form. Radio shows from 1933 are considered as performances only. Obviously, there was literature involving the Lone Ranger in print, so you will need to go based on that. Anything that wasn't made available in print or incorporated into a recording fixed in 1972 or later is considered unpublished and treated according to the usual rules. And no, releasing copies of the recordings made before 1972 doesn't count as publishing the contents even if the release of rerelease occurs after 1972. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Things that were registered for copyright started the clock; a script that was registered in 1933 may as well have been published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, registration is equivalent to publication with respect to starting the clock on a statutory copyright term. If an unpublished script was registered, then the term begins then. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. I made adjustments to the Lone Ranger and radio stuff down below under a new section. The first publication with a renewal I found was for August 1934. SDudley (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Now, what about The Flintstones, Top Cat, Buddy (Looney Tunes), Cool Cat (Looney Tunes), and Scooby-Doo? - THV | ♂ | U | T - 23:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC); edited: 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll add those to my list. Thank you for asking. SDudley (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The Flintstones

Here is the renewal for the first episode of The Flintstones. The later episodes don't need to be considered since Commons couldn't use them as they would be derivatives of this original episode. Since the pilot was unpublished, it was only given a test screening and no public distribution, we don't have to worry about that. The First episode of the Flintstones premiered on September 30, 1960. So the characters from any episodes of Season 1 through the end of 1960 will be public domain on January 1, 2056.

Later characters like Bamm-Bamm and Pebbles will retain copyright until the expiration of their own episodes of debut. And like other TV shows, seasons will be split by years of release. Both characters are from 1963, so that won't be an issue. Pebbles's debut, The Blessed Event and Bamm-Bamm's, Little Bamm-Bamm were both renewed. Those will enter the public domain January 1, 2059.

Top Cat

His debut in 1961's The $1,000,000 Derby was renewed. It will be public domain January 1, 2057.

Scooby-Doo

Once again this is from post-1964, so it was automatically renewed because it had an original notice. Here is a renewal for the first episode What a Night for a Knight anyway. Debuted in 1969, so this thru the 15th episode will be public domain on January 1, 2065. SDudley (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's one for you, by the way. Garfield is in the public domain because Jim Davis published his strips in a local newspaper with no notice from 1976–78 before he signed with a syndicate. (Though Garfield's appearance isn't the same as the one he gradually acquired). See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#Jim_Davis'_early_work_(Gnorm_Gnat,_Jon,_Garfield) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. SDudley (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

For King Kong, I found a renewal for the 1932 novelization. It is under Renewal: R251390, so this will be public domain in 2028. SDudley (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking for some help over at Duke, but it appears that some court cases in the 1970s and 1980s stated that King Kong was public domain due to a lack of renewal. So I am not entirely sure how to go about this since it appears that this renewal is for the 1932 novel and would directly contradict court cases that were settled 40+ years ago. So we should hold on putting this Kong info any place. SDudley (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Some characters that debuted in newspaper comics: Captain Easy, Blondie, Dick Tracy, Nancy, Flash Gordon, Li'l Abner, Mandrake the Magician, The Phantom, Prince Valiant, The Spirit, Snuffy Smith, Johnny Hazard and Huey, Dewey, and Louie. Other characters would be The Shadow, Blackhawk, Plastic Man, Archie Andrews, Dumbo, Pogo and Mighty Mouse. But how about Conan the Barbarian, Captain Marvel and Tweety? Conan appeared in "The Phoenix on the Sword" in 1932, but he also appeared earlier the same year in "People of the Dark", both stories now seem to be in public domain. The short where Tweety debuted, "A Tale of Two Kitties" seems to be in public domain. As for the captain, the first two issues of Whiz Comics seem to be in public domain. That's a lot of characters I've brought up, but it would still be nice if they were included. Grey ghost (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into these as well. Hoping to do a deep dive tomorrow. SDudley (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Huey, Dewey, and Louie

They first appeared in a Donald Duck comic from October 17, 1937. You can find it here, Renewal: R354206, so they are public domain January 1, 2033. SDudley (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Besides the characters mentioned above, there are some more characters: The Thing (from another world), The Avenger, Philip Marlowe, Mike Hammer, Norman Bates, Robin, Green Lantern, Lensman (inspired later Green Lantern stories), The Addams Family (not given names at first) and Kermit the Frog (apparently not a frog at first). And here are some non-American characters who should be looked into (like Winnie the Pooh or The Hobbit, they could have been published in the US simultaneously or shortly after): The Saint (Simon Templar), Aslan, Screwtape, Spirou, The Smurfs, Astro Boy, Godzilla, Ultraman, Biggles, Horatio Hornblower, James Bond, The Rescuers, Cruella de Vil, Madame Mim (The Sword in the Stone 1938) and Dennis the Menace and Gnasher. But are the Dover Boys in the public domain? According to this article on Wikipedia their film is in public domain, but this document mentions the film which would mean it is still in copyright. And since Namor first appeared in Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, which was printed but doesn't seem to have a copyright renewal, does that mean that the character is in public domain? Grey ghost (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Lots of documents are filed later in regards to films, but they aren't necessarily the same as a renewal notice. Luckily since the Dover Boys is from 1942 we can look in the actual copyright catalogs for 1969-1971. A glance through those returns no renewals.

I went ahead and added James Bond to the list. He will be out of copyright in the UK sooner than in the United States due to life+ rules. Which also includes a wider array of stories as well than what the US will receive at first. SDudley (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hercule Poirot

2047 (UK)

Miss Marple

2047 (UK)

I've added to the page for now and won't edit it again for a while. Some things are still unclear; flaxen-coloured characters on the page, and radio characters (The Shadow, The Lone Ranger and Green Hornet). And there's a category of characters I'm not sure of what to do: characters that debuted in advertisements, like Snap, Crackle and Pop (debuted in 1928), Green Giant (the 1920s, the Jolly Green Giant in 1935), Smokey Bear (1944) and Tony the Tiger (1952). Also, I saw this on the page: "Original copyright for Trolley Troubles ended in 1955". Then why didn't Oswald ener public domain in 1955? Grey ghost (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oswald probably should be listed as 1955. Advertising characters are fundamentally no different than other characters, it's just harder to find the original publication and check whether it was renewed. Smokey Bear is complex; the copyright is clearly PD-USGov, but there are significant not technically copyright restrictions on the use of it in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Radio Shows

Some more info here.

Broadcasting something on the radio was not a “publication” and nor was distributing a sound recording (17 USC 303(b) “distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of any musical work, dramatic work, or literary work embodied therein.”). But distributing copies to a radio station for purposes of exploitation could be. -This is from Jennifer Jenkins at Duke.

So following that we have to determine if there was a notice for original works like The Lone Ranger or Green Hornet and if not then we have to figure out if we would qualify the airing of an episode as publication. I think if the shows were syndicated then they could be considered published. If not then we have to think about if they are work for hire or life+70 rules.

The Lone Ranger

The earliest renewal I could find is for an August 1934 script. The copyright over this script will expire in 2030.

And the earliest notice I could find was under Dramatic Compositions for a June 1934 script. I did not notice a renewal for this. --SDudley (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Modern characters such as Doraemon and SpongeBob SquarePants etc

I know some people upload fan works with Creative Commons license, so it is ok to upload to Commons? Also it can’t upload to Commons, can you add the characters to main page of Character copyrights? User:The Harvett Vault/Blacklists/Works and Series 6D (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The CC license does not supersede the copyright that still exists, so no we couldn’t upload fan works. SDudley (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Me too, except freely licensed and public domain ones. (YouTube's search and algorithm nowadays that I criticized after giving me pathetic results on the Invidious instance.) - THV | ♂ | U | T - 13:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC); edited: 23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think more modern characters that are less than a few decades old should be excluded, as they will be too far in the future before copyright expires (it appears obvious that they will still be in copyright for decades to come), and because many post-1978 works have life + 70 durations, some might not have a PD year for decades to come. Xeroctic (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think once we start to get beyond the 1970s it is a bit too far for most of our usage for the immediate future. The case of SpongeBob is interesting since the show is held under the copyright of Viacom, but would the character be separately held with the death of Hillenburg? If so then the character is public domain in 2089 versus the start of the show which is 2095. SDudley (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Formatting and Bugs Bunny

Hello! Thank you to @User:Xeroctic for helping to add the new column and clean up some of the relevant notes.

Below is the formatting style to use when inserting a new work

|| character || original work (year of release) || Country of Origin || Year of Public Domain || Note on the work || Author(s) (death date) || Copyright/Renewal info

Bugs Bunny

This one seems to be a bit complicated to know who to credit for character creation. His Wikipedia page lists 7 different people for creation alone and additional 5 for design. What thoughts do people think we should use? Just the director of his first official short?

-- SDudley (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure it if it a priority to mention US works' authors as they are not used for PD dates, so I do not really have a major opinion on how to deal with Bugs Bunny.

In terms of formatting, I am aware of the formatting, but I ended up confusing myself when trying to add a new column part-way through the page (including ensuring blank columns remain). Additionally, I was unsure whether to put the authors' death dates before or after the general notes (considering I was planning on splitting many of them from the notes), so I went with the latter. Xeroctic (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah I get it. Sorry the comment on the formatting wasn’t meant to be directly at you. It was more just an easy way for future users to add in a new entry since the page is getting more complex. And thanks for the notes on Bugs. I agree that in the case of the US it doesn’t matter. SDudley (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Dumbo

Dumbo seems to have a very dubious state of affairs in its publication. I think utilizing the 1941 Disney film is more advisable than the book. SDudley (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Cthulhu and magazine renewals

At Wikisource we've come to the acting opinion that a renewal on a magazine renewed the works inside it. There apparently have been no court cases one way or the other. Various Lovecraft works first published in Weird Tales in the 1930s were first published in a periodical that was renewed, and hence may still be under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to have more renewals linked to across the entirety of the page. There has been a large addition of works sans proper renewal checking. SDudley (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I took the copyright information on Cthulhu from the pages of H. P. Lovecraft and Cthulhu Mythos at Wikipedia, the former page has a (imo) well-sourced section regarding rights to Lovecraft's works. Still, I could have added at least one reference. I'll add that before long. Grey ghost (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Dick Tracy Renewal?

Can anyone find a renewal for Dick Tracy? I found the original notice for the character from 1931 as a work of art, but I am unable to find a renewal in 1958-1960 which would be within the allotted range for renewal. I've checked: books, periodicals and periodical contributions, works of art, and commercial prints. I'm able to find fresh registrations for Dick Tracy from the 58-60' period, but not the same as a renewal. And here are some renewals from 1960 for 1932 and 1933 works. SDudley (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)