Blue Beetle

Okay, if I wanted to you use golden age blue beetle, is there away I could get around the name trade mark? Like, does DC have the trademark for The Blue Beetle or just Blue Beetle? loop holes like that. Same with golden age daredevil.

Trademarks are only an issue when it comes to the promotion & sale of items (comic books, action figures, etc). You can use the name "Blue Beetle" for the Golden Age hero within the pages of a story but you can't create & sell a comic book called "Blue Beetle" or else DC will probably get in-touch with you. Same thing with "Daredevil".

Look at it this way: Take whatever character you're thinking of using, and replace every question you have about them with "Santa Claus". Can you make a story about Santa Claus even if Marvel or DC could Trademark the name or have their own versions of him? If either of The Big Two published "The Adventures of Santa Claus", would this mean YOU couldn't use the Public Domain version of the character in one of your stories?

my only thing was, I wanted to make a fan film and enter it in a local film contest. And I wanted to not only use the blue beetle but be able to mention his name. so, i thought if i found out whether blue beetle or the blue beetle was trademarked...i could use the other and be in the clear.

my only thing was, I wanted to make a fan film and enter it in a local film contest. And I wanted to not only use the blue beetle but be able to mention his name. so, i thought if i found out whether blue beetle or the blue beetle was trademarked...i could use the other and be in the clear.

What bchat said.

To answer your question more specifically, I don't think changing the name to "The Blue Beetle" would be sufficient to distinguish it from the trademarked term, because confusion would still exist. You have to make it very clear that you are not talking about DC's character or stories, and that is what their trademark points to. You might be able to get away with calling a comic or film something like, "Dan Garret, The Blue Beetle of the Golden Age," which of course, sounds awkward. Might be better to use something creative like, "The Beetle's Curse" or "Revenge of the Beetle" or something like that.

You can use the name within the story, just don't expect to sell Blue Beetle action figures later, unless you change the name.

This digress a bit from the main discussion pertaining Blue Beetle, but thought I 'd mention this bit of curious info.

In the comic series (Chapter One) of Project: Superpowers, a character appears in the first issue with a costume that looks quite a bit like the Golden Age Blue Beetle. He has dialogue and addresses the other characters by name but no one addresses HIM by name.

He also appears in a group sketch in the back of Issue #4, Chapter One.

Also, the name above his head reads "Big Blue". Just like that in quotation marks. All the other characters shown don't have quotation marks to indicate a nickname but they do have their names posted.

@Argosail: I think you really hit upon something with Blue Beetle and comic companies not wanting to have any type of legal dispute with DC regarding Blue Beetle. Not only is he not shown on any covers with his name but even inside the comics, he isn't really given a specific name and none of the other characters address him as Blue Beetle. However it is obvious that is who it is, at least Dynamite's version of the character.


What is also interesting is there is a sidekick character standing next to "Big Blue" who is called Sparky and on Sparky's costume there is clearly a beetle emblem.

I am going to order issues of Chapter Two, so PLEASE, no spoilers from anyone regarding the story. Just thought I'd mention this.

PhantomofDoom wrote:

@Argosail: I think you really hit upon something with Blue Beetle and comic companies not wanting to have any type of legal dispute with DC regarding Blue Beetle. Not only is he not shown on any covers with his name but even inside the comics, he isn't really given a specific name and none of the other characters address him as Blue Beetle. However it is obvious that is who it is, at least Dynamite's version of the character.

"Big Blue" does appear on the cover by Alex Ross of "Masquerade # 2", with his head being obscured by the "R" & "A" of the logo.

And while it's obvious to you, me and some other people who "Big Blue" is, what isn't as obvious is that DE's new Scarab is basically an updated Blue Beetle (color scheme, beetle on the belt-buckle). Some fans argued that this new Scarab was merely the Nedor character with a heavily updated costume, even though the (Nedor) Scarab has yet to appear in any of the related books that I've seen.

I think what's happening now is that, thanks to the internet and all the sites like this one and PDSH, more people are becoming aware not only of what the Copyright Laws are and what the phrase "Public Domain" actually means, but the big companies like DC are starting to realize that more & more people are getting "smarter" as to what is in the Public Domain & what they can do with it. I don't think it's a coincidence that Captain Marvel, Mary Marvel, Blue Beetle, Uncle Sam & The Freedom Fighters, Cat-Man and other PD characters DC uses have seen some major over-hauls in recent years.

@bchat: I don't see Blue Beetle or "Big Blue" on the covers of Project:Superpowers Chapter One comics. I didn't know the character appears on Masquerade's comics because I currently don't have those. Is there a name attached to the image or just the image on the cover?

Yes, I have to say, Scarab as he appears in the comics looks A LOT like an actual beetle, and naturally, he is a shade of blue.

Freedom Fighters and Cat-Man, I thought they weren't available as PD characters. I know Cat-Man is listed in the PD Super Heroes Wiki but I keep reading how Cat-Man isn't PD. Sounds a bit like BS to me but then again I don't know specifically what is the case with him. In Project: Superpowers he is changed to "Man-Cat" in the Second Chapter but I've not read any of those books yet.

Captain Marvel and the Marvel family, though, I thought they were certainly owned by DC now since they bought the character rights from Fawcett? Or was it some one else? I know Captain Marvel didn't officially appear in DC until 1976 I believe. I had that very issue a few years ago where he appears with Superman and is introduced into the DCU. (sadly I sold it) I think Captain Marvel is just contentious regarding all the laws. If you have any info I would like to know about any of these characters.

I don't personally know anything about the history of Captain Marvel, so if anyone else does, please enlighten us. However, Phantom, someone needs to kick you for selling the first Captain Marvel/Superman crossover. Agh!

People are probably just making bad assumptions about the Cat-Man character, because DC most likely holds the trademark to that name, and their copyrighted Cat-Man character looks pretty similar. But they are two totally different characters. And frankly, Man-Cat actually sounds better to me.

I'm not sure if "Big Blue" was ever a featured character in Project Super Powers. I don't recall seeing him in the comic panels, just in the group shot in the back of the book.

PhantomofDoom wrote:

@bchat: I don't see Blue Beetle or "Big Blue" on the covers of Project:Superpowers Chapter One comics. I didn't know the character appears on Masquerade's comics because I currently don't have those. Is there a name attached to the image or just the image on the cover?

For an image of Masquerade # 2: http://www.comics.org/issue/603623/cover/4/?style=default

argosail wrote:

I'm not sure if "Big Blue" was ever a featured character in Project Super Powers. I don't recall seeing him in the comic panels, just in the group shot in the back of the book.
People are probably just making bad assumptions about the Cat-Man character, because DC most likely holds the trademark to that name, and their copyrighted Cat-Man character looks pretty similar. But they are two totally different characters. And frankly, Man-Cat actually sounds better to me.

Big Blue appeared in a few flashback panels in issue # 0. Dynamite hasn't done a whole lot with Big Blue, but he's there whenever they want to use him.

And you're probably right in that a lot of people make assumptions about Copyrights & the Public Domain based on bad information they gather from various places. It's not like a few years ago I knew everything I'ld ever want to know about US Copyright Law, so I was taking it on faith that folks with blogs or posting messages at various sites knew what they were talking about. I assumed that certain people had actually read and (more importantly) understood the laws ... and then I read the laws myself. Heck, nobody should trust what I'm saying because there's a chance I misread something or didn't read something that puts a whole new spin on everything. It's best to read the laws & not rely on someone else's interpretation of them. They might be boring to read but they're not hard to understand.

PhantomofDoom wrote:

Freedom Fighters and Cat-Man, I thought they weren't available as PD characters. I know Cat-Man is listed in the PD Super Heroes Wiki but I keep reading how Cat-Man isn't PD. Sounds a bit like BS to me but then again I don't know specifically what is the case with him. In Project: Superpowers he is changed to "Man-Cat" in the Second Chapter but I've not read any of those books yet.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the world who don't understand what "Public Domain" means. People will argue that, for example, the original MLJ heroes (Shield, Comet, etc) aren't PD because Archie puts-out reprints and keeps the Trademarks active. But publishing a book featuring a character has nothing to do with the PD status of the original stories.

For comics published in the 1930s & 40s, the Copyrights only lasted for 28 years and then the Copyright had to be renewed. Failing to do so meant the material became Public Domain. The majority of the Quality books, where Uncle Sam & The Freedom Fighters come from, didn't have their Copyrights renewed, meaning those original stories are PD and therefore anyone can come along, take those stories and do what they want with them (reprint, make new stories and so on). Same thing for Cat-Man, as the companies that published that title originally never renewed the Copyrights. Cat-Man has had many stories reprinted by AC Comics, and they even produced some all-new stories years ago as part of their "Retro Comics" series.

Quote :

Captain Marvel and the Marvel family, though, I thought they were certainly owned by DC now since they bought the character rights from Fawcett? Or was it some one else? I know Captain Marvel didn't officially appear in DC until 1976 I believe. I had that very issue a few years ago where he appears with Superman and is introduced into the DCU. (sadly I sold it) I think Captain Marvel is just contentious regarding all the laws. If you have any info I would like to know about any of these characters.

The Copyrights on Fawcett books featuring Captain Marvel & Company are a bit of a mess to sort through, as it appears that the company was "hit-or-miss" when it came to filing renewals ... and I'll admit right now that I have not thoroughly looked into this company because only a handful of characters from Fawcett interest me. On one hand, you have people that flat-out say DC owns everything, and then there are plenty of people who swear up-and-down that all of the books are PD. The truth, from what I've discovered so far, is somewhere in the middle. I have yet to find a renewal for Whiz Comics # 2 (CM's 1st appearance), but there are renewals for the next several issues, and then no renewals again for a while after that. Another character I looked into was Mary Marvel, and it appears that all of her early appearances are PD, although renewals were found for her self-titled series from Fawcett. Bottom line is that since CM's & Mary's 1st appearances are PD, then the characters are pretty much free for anyone to use (and I can't help but notice how similar Erik Larsen's "Mighty Man" character is to Captain Marvel).

@bchat: Thank you for taking the time to give me all that info. While it may be "boring" for some it actually interests me, even if I may never attempt using any of the said characters for anything.

I think that is the thing, though, DC has managed to convince everyone they have the iron fist in terms of ownership pertaining to a lot of characters whose status is questionable.

Honestly, while I love Captain Marvel, I would just leave it alone simply because he is questionable, has been with DC for so long, and I don't recall any other company pursuit of using the character (or any of the Marvel family, like Mary Marvel). I know there is some bs contention over use of the NAME Captain Marvel between Marvel Comics and DC, and THAT is another topic and honestly I think its also chincey that Marvel would be upset about DC using the name. Yes, I know there have been at least 3 different Marvel comics characters with the name "Captain Marvel", but really, it's just annoying that Marvel would care. I am sure because the name "Marvel" is involved but still. Funny thing is the Jim Starlin Captain Marvel is very similar in many ways to the Billy Batson Captain Marvel. Rick Jones using the Nega-Bands to become the Kree super hero Captain Marvel. Granted the appearances are different, but essentially its the same concept.

Regarding Freedom Fighters and Cat-Man thanks for filling me in. These characters--I am CONSTANTLY reading how they are NOT PD, that DC owns them and the like. You're right, though, I've seen both Kitten and Cat-Man in new stories in AC Comics. However, the whole Phantom Lady topic ( as she is a member of the Freedom Fighters ) is something that, like Captain Marvel, is contentious.

With DC's Secret Six, Cat-Man is an important character, so I wonder if any other company or even Indie person trying to use Cat-Man would receive any flak from DC. Even if they used the early PD stories or changed things around? I have not seen Cat-Man for awhile in AC, so I am wondering. Just speculating.

I am just rambling, but thanks for the info.

PhantomofDoom wrote:

@bchat: Thank you for taking the time to give me all that info. While it may be "boring" for some it actually interests me, even if I may never attempt using any of the said characters for anything.

I think that is the thing, though, DC has managed to convince everyone they have the iron fist in terms of ownership pertaining to a lot of characters whose status is questionable.

You're welcome, glad I can help. There is a lot of misleading info out there, even from people who try their best to get it right. The US Copyright Office at http://www.copyright.gov/ is a great place to learn more with plenty of PDF files to download for anyone looking to learn more than they'll ever need to, such as the fact that from 1790-1908 Copyrights only lasted 14 years unless the material was republished, then the maximum term was 28 years.

And I don't think DC tries to be evil about it, although that may be me just cutting DC some slack. They do own their versions of those characters, and maybe that's what they (or anyone else) might be trying to say. To be honest, I think Archie Comics is worse when it comes to a perceived "claiming of ownership", and I don't see anyone, really, trying to use the old MLJ characters because Archie has done a great job of allowing fans to believe that their Golden Age superheroes couldn't possibly be Public Domain ... even though they are.

Quote :

Honestly, while I love Captain Marvel, I would just leave it alone simply because he is questionable, has been with DC for so long, and I don't recall any other company pursuit of using the character (or any of the Marvel family, like Mary Marvel).

Well, as I see it, the problem becomes using Captain Marvel in a way that doesn't infringe on any of DC's Copyrights. They have given the character several series over the decades, plus there's a lot of Golden Age stories that do have valid Copyrights, so there's some hoops to jump through to make sure only PD material is the basis for anything someone would do. And then there's the whole fact that DC sued Fawcett over Captain Marvel, so that probably scares off a lot of people too, because if they sued somebody once over the character, they might do it again.

Quote :

I know there is some bs contention over use of the NAME Captain Marvel between Marvel Comics and DC, and THAT is another topic and honestly I think its also chincey that Marvel would be upset about DC using the name. Yes, I know there have been at least 3 different Marvel comics characters with the name "Captain Marvel", but really, it's just annoying that Marvel would care. I am sure because the name "Marvel" is involved but still. Funny thing is the Jim Starlin Captain Marvel is very similar in many ways to the Billy Batson Captain Marvel. Rick Jones using the Nega-Bands to become the Kree super hero Captain Marvel. Granted the appearances are different, but essentially its the same concept.

I'll just add that I agree with you about Marvel Comics & the Trademark issue.

Quote :

Regarding Freedom Fighters and Cat-Man thanks for filling me in. These characters--I am CONSTANTLY reading how they are NOT PD, that DC owns them and the like. You're right, though, I've seen both Kitten and Cat-Man in new stories in AC Comics. However, the whole Phantom Lady topic ( as she is a member of the Freedom Fighters ) is something that, like Captain Marvel, is contentious.

I don't think Phantom Lady is a problem at all. In the Golden Age, Quality (1941-43) & Fox Features (1947-49) published different versions of Phantom Lady. Fox's version of the heroine was picked-up by Ajax/Farrell for a short-lived series (1954-55). None of those stories had their Copyrights renewed. When DC Comics attacked Bill Black years ago, presumably, as I understand the story, DC thought they owned every variation of the character when, in fact, they didn't really own anything related to Phantom Lady except for what they had done with her themselves. Black, acting out of ignorance of the Copyright Laws, backed-off rather quickly, changing the name of his PL character to Blue Bulleteer & Nightveil to avoid any further problems with DC. Then one day, Black realized he made a mistake and had every right originally to do what he wanted to do, and for a time he would even hold a Trademark on the name "Phantom Lady" during the 1990s (not sure if he still does at this point).

Quote :

With DC's Secret Six, Cat-Man is an important character, so I wonder if any other company or even Indie person trying to use Cat-Man would receive any flak from DC. Even if they used the early PD stories or changed things around? I have not seen Cat-Man for awhile in AC, so I am wondering. Just speculating.

I don't read AC's Femforce (based on female heroes from the Golden Age), so I don't know if he's popping-up in that book or not. There's always the possibility that DC would give someone flak for Cat-Man, but it's pretty much common knowledge at this point among comic fans that Cat-Man is PD. I'm not sure if they'ld bother anyone about it unless it was an issue of Trademarks, and I honestly don't know if DC is claiming a Trademark on the name "Cat-Man" or not.

Quote :

I am just rambling, but thanks for the info.

Ramble away, it's what makes this board interesting.

Thanks again bchat. Plenty of info that I am taking in and love it.

Regarding Cat-Man that is good to know. I've not picked up any recent FemForce comics but I soon will. I don't think he's made any appearances in AC since the 90's BUT I could be wrong.

I shouldn't be trying to portray DC as "evil" because I love a lot of what the company has, but it seems their lawyers and management have somehow managed to convince readers they have the seal of ownership on a lot of characters that are still PD as you point out.

Regarding Phantom Lady, I know there has been discussion WHICH Phantom Lady is PD and I believe that DC's Sandra Knight probably is not. I think Argosail explained it all before but I've still been wondering about it.

Bill Black at AC, yes, I know about him changing Phantom Lady to Blue Bulleteer then to Nightveil BUT I did NOT know he then found out he could still use Phantom Lady.

However, Nightveil's history if you will is pretty good, especially for a magical good girl art character. So in this instance what started out as a possible problem actually benefited him. I know I like the character, even though she is very much just a one-dimensional good girl art character. Plenty of people also agree so he actually won out with his version!

I know the early incarnations of Phantom Lady are PD, but I've not seen anyone use it. It would be great if some company would use that version, twist it around. I think she'd be a kick-*** addition to the Project: Superpowers books but that's just wishful thinking!

I think though that's the thing with a lot of the PD characters. A lot of records were simply not kept. Things were different "back in the day" compared to now when virtually everything you say and/or do can be recorded one way or another. So claims of ownership are still questionable. I think it boils down to the big bucks and whether or not anyone wants to try and risk playing with the big dogs.

It seems DC, though, really has more of a vocal stake in all this. While Marvel DOES have a number of characters who are based off PD ones, it seems the only contentions I've read have been about Captain Marvel. DC, though, it seems like it's been virtually an entire stable.

This is good discussion, so thanks. I am clear regarding trademarks and copyrights but they still seem to intimidate a lot of potential creators (like myself) so having some illumination is welcome.

PhantomofDoom wrote:

Thanks again bchat. Plenty of info that I am taking in and love it.

US Copyright Laws are kind of complex, but speaking for myself only, once I got the basics of it down it was just a matter of looking at everything else (how the laws changed over the years) as pieces of the puzzle. I don't know if I know everything there is to know ... you know? ... but I feel like I have a fairly solid understanding of it all, and when I'm in doubt I pull-up a PDF file or a word file I made notes on and double-check.

Quote :

I shouldn't be trying to portray DC as "evil" because I love a lot of what the company has, but it seems their lawyers and management have somehow managed to convince readers they have the seal of ownership on a lot of characters that are still PD as you point out.

My point of view is that DC & Archie don't go out of their way to say some of their characters are based on PD characters, and I don't hold that against them for taking that stance. It makes sense, as I see it really, for a "big publisher" to keep it quiet about their characters being derived from PD heroes & villains. In DC's case, I don't think when they purchased characters from Charlton, to be specific, that they knew what the Copyright status of Charlton's books were, probably assuming Charlton had its act together. With Archie, Fawcett & Quality, I get the impression that they (and DC) had people in charge of taking care of the Copyrights that "fell asleep at the wheel" or didn't really understand the laws completely.

Quote :

Regarding Phantom Lady, I know there has been discussion WHICH Phantom Lady is PD and I believe that DC's Sandra Knight probably is not. I think Argosail explained it all before but I've still been wondering about it.

Yeah, it can all be a little confusing, but the Quality, Fox & Ajax comics featuring Phantom Lady were never renewed, so that's pretty straight-forward. What AC Comics & DC have done, while based on earlier versions of the characters, should be viewed as different characters. So, basically, YES DC's version of Phantom Lady would be off-limits for anyone looking to do something with the character, just like you couldn't do anything with Batman, The Teen Titans or anything else DC holds the Copyrights to.

Quote :

I know the early incarnations of Phantom Lady are PD, but I've not seen anyone use it. It would be great if some company would use that version, twist it around. I think she'd be a kick-*** addition to the Project: Superpowers books but that's just wishful thinking!

I've thought the same thing. She's a good character that not many people do anything with, and yet she's right there for anyone to use, just like the "I Want You" Uncle Sam or Santa Claus.

Quote :

I think though that's the thing with a lot of the PD characters. A lot of records were simply not kept. Things were different "back in the day" compared to now when virtually everything you say and/or do can be recorded one way or another. So claims of ownership are still questionable. I think it boils down to the big bucks and whether or not anyone wants to try and risk playing with the big dogs.

Copyright records from "back in the day" are actually pretty good. I know people love taking every opportunity to knock the US government, but they really have their act together when it comes to records of Copyright submissions & renewals, I just wish there more information regarding those records available online than what there currently is.

Quote :

It seems DC, though, really has more of a vocal stake in all this. While Marvel DOES have a number of characters who are based off PD ones, it seems the only contentions I've read have been about Captain Marvel. DC, though, it seems like it's been virtually an entire stable.

I see what you're saying here, but DC's main focus has always been, in my opinion, Batman, Superman, the Justice League-related characters (Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc), plus the Legion of Super-Heroes, Teen Titans and all of their Golden Age characters. It doesn't seem like they push the characters they've purchased from other companies all that hard or for very long when they do get a little bit of the spotlight. Captain Marvel, Blue Beetle, Plastic Man, The Freedom Fighters and now Cat-Man seem to get only a few years' worth of their own series before they get relegated back to secondary characters & guest-stars when their numbers start to sag, as opposed to Batman, etc where DC goes out of their way to make sure people are buying those comics by bringing-in new creators, reviving a fan-favorite villain or relaunching a series.