Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Started by Astner1,926 pages
Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Smurph
no, they don't 😂

They do. This is the exact format published by Marvel in The Periodic Table of Marvel.

Originally posted by Smurph
The periodic table is public domain. Marvel is riffing on public domain but they don't have a right to it. They wouldn't receive a cent in damages.

It's not the use of the periodic table that's the issue. It's fact that Marvel was first to design a theme based off the style of the period table, which is a unique way to express handbook entries, which means that it's protected under expression.

Smurph tu quoqumber

Originally posted by Astner
They do. This is the exact format published by Marvel in The Periodic Table of Marvel.

It's not the use of the periodic table that's the issue. It's fact that Marvel was first to design a theme based off the style of the period table, which is a unique way to express handbook entries, which means that it's protected under expression.

No. You're confusing ideas and their expression. Ideas aren't protected except by patent. You argue that this is "a unique way to express handbook entries", but Marvel can't protect that "way". They can only protect their specific expression of that way. Take a look at Baker v Selden: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden

So DC can't specifically infringe on the Periodic Table of Marvel, but Marvel can't stop them from creating a Periodic Table of DC any more than they can stop them from having, say, DC versions of characters based on Norse mythology.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Smurph
No. You're confusing ideas and their expression. Ideas aren't protected except by patent. You argue that this is "a unique way to express handbook entries", but Marvel can't protect that "way". They can only protect their specific expression of that way. Take a look at Baker v Selden: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden

Are you even reading my posts? The link I posted above explicitly outlines the difference between an idea and an expression. What DC is doing here is plagiarizing an expression.

Originally posted by Smurph
So DC can't specifically infringe on the Periodic Table of Marvel,

Of course they can. It's protected by Copyright, and therefore the Copyright protection may be infringed upon.

Originally posted by Smurph
but Marvel can't stop them from creating a Periodic Table of DC any more than they can stop them from having, say, DC versions of characters based on Norse mythology.

No. This is like DC creating a character named Thor and then illustrate him in the likeness of Marvel's Thor. That would also a copyright infringement (but of the character). The fact that Marvel's Thor is inspired by the Thor from Norse Myth is completely irrelevant.

Smurph tu quoqumber

Originally posted by Astner
Are you even reading my posts? The link I posted above explicitly outlines the difference between an idea and an expression. What DC is doing here is plagiarizing an expression.
As usual, you're overconfident based on a cursory understanding of the thing you're talking about.

Marvel can copyright their specific publication (expression) but they can't copyright the mere concept (idea) of organizing information that way. That's generally true, but really obviously so in this case because it's just... the periodic table. If copyrights were that powerful, there would be no indie comics whatsoever.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract
abhilegend Prince of All Saiyans

LMAO

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Smurph
As usual, you're overconfident based on a cursory understanding of the thing you're talking about.

If that's the case you wouldn't be dodging my points and straw-manning me.

Originally posted by Smurph
Marvel can copyright their specific publication (expression) but they can't copyright the mere concept (idea) of organizing information that way. That's generally true, but really obviously so in this case because it's just... the periodic table.

The design and presentation of characters as elements in a periodic table with their initials denoting the symbol of the element is very clearly an expression, not an idea.

Originally posted by Smurph
If copyrights were that powerful, there would be no indie comics whatsoever.

If you want to use an example like this you have to be more specific. Chances are that what you're alluding to is another misapprehension on your part.

Smurph tu quoqumber

Originally posted by Astner

The design and presentation of characters as elements in a periodic table with their initials denoting the symbol of the element is very clearly an expression, not an idea.
Not in the legal sense. Go read Baker v Selden.

You can say that the use of their initials to denote the element is expression, but it's an expression so tied to the idea of the periodic table itself that it's ultimately unclear what you think Marvel "owns".

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by Astner
They do. This is the exact format published by Marvel in The Periodic Table of Marvel.

It's not the use of the periodic table that's the issue. It's fact that Marvel was first to design a theme based off the style of the period table, which is a unique way to express handbook entries, which means that it's protected under expression.

So from that link:

Although it is rare, there are times when the idea and the expression of the idea are so intertwined with one another that there is only one way or very few ways to express the idea. When the idea and expression of the idea merge like this the expression of the idea is not copyrightable. This is what is commonly referred to as the merger doctrine.

So from that link, if one had an idea [a handbook detailing fictional stats and characteristics in a scientific manner] and a way to express that idea [using the Periodic Table], then .... according to the link, it's not copywritable, edit: assuming the two concepts are heavily intertwined, which is kinda what Smurph is saying, right?

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Smurph
Not in the legal sense. Go read Baker v Selden.

I did. It's not relevant to the thread because we're not talking about "useful art," we're talking about design.

Originally posted by Smurph
You can say that the use of their initials to denote the element is expression, but it's an expression so tied to the idea of the periodic table itself that it's ultimately unclear what you think Marvel "owns".

Again, the periodic table has nothing to do with this. What Marvel owns is the expression of presenting its characters as elements in a periodic table, with the symbol denoted by their initials.

Even reading the preview pages at Bleeding Cool you can tell that whomever compiled it lifted the design from The Periodic Table of Marvel, because even the layout of the text is identical.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So from that link, if one had an idea [a handbook detailing fictional stats and characteristics in a scientific manner] and a way to express that idea [using the Periodic Table], then .... according to the link, it's not copywriteable.

What you said isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. Ideas come together to form an expression, if your expression is too similar to some established expression then you're infringing on copyright.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
edit: assuming the two concepts are heavily intertwined, which is kinda what Smurph is saying, right?

No. That's a faulty assumption. A periodic table-styled layout is in no way intertwined with the presentation handbook entries. No other handbook has used this style.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Hang on hang on. Astner's post made me question something basic.

Both the DC books and Marvel books in question are published by the same guys. Dorling Kindersley, of the encyclopedia fame.

Why would Marvel have a clear case of copyright infringement? They both licensed it to the same publishing house to, well, publish. It's DK's idea and DK's expression.

Originally posted by Astner
Again, the periodic table has nothing to do with this. What Marvel owns is the expression of presenting its characters as elements in a periodic table, with the symbol denoted by their initials.

This bit....this assumes that Marvel owns this expression, which is faulty.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Hang on hang on. Astner's post made me question something basic.

Both the DC books and Marvel books in question are published by the same guys. Dorling Kindersley, of the encyclopedia fame.

Why would Marvel have a clear case of copyright infringement? They both licensed it to the same publishing house to, well, publish. It's DK's idea and DK's expression.


I assumed it was published by Marvel.

If some other company published it, and they had no special agreements with Marvel concerning the copyright, then the copyright would belong the the publisher.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
This bit....this assumes that Marvel owns this expression, which is faulty.

Yes. That's was an assumption on my part, and it very well may be incorrect. But this isn't what Smurph contested. What he contested was that if Marvel had published it it would belong to them. He is of course still wrong in this. Because it's very clearly an expression, and therefore protected by copyright.

Smurph tu quoqumber

Originally posted by Astner
I did. It's not relevant to the thread because we're not talking about "useful art," we're talking about design.
Then read it again. The case doesn't just stand for useful art (which goes to patent law), but for the distinction between expression and ideas.

Originally posted by Astner
Again, the periodic table has nothing to do with this. What Marvel owns is the expression of presenting its characters as elements in a periodic table, with the symbol denoted by their initials.

Even reading the preview pages at Bleeding Cool you can tell that whomever compiled it lifted the design from The Periodic Table of Marvel, because even the layout of the text is identical.

First, you mean whoever, not whomever. The compiler is the subject of your sentence, not the object. 😊

Second: sure, let's say Marvel has the expression (its handbook) presenting its characters as elements in the periodic table.

I think you'll find that DC did not either republish Marvel's handbook, or in fact publish anything with Marvel's characters.

DC lifted the concept from Marvel, and Marvel lifted it from Mendeleev.

Originally posted by Astner
What you said isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. Ideas come together to form an expression, if your expression is too similar to some established expression then you're infringing on copyright.
And yet the only aspects that are "expressive" are already established expression in the public domain.

To DS's point, if your starting idea is "superheroes on the periodic table" then there's really only one way to express that. Hence the doctrine of merger. So whether framed as purely a concept or as a combination of idea and expression, your answer is the same.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

I would indeed say so. Case dismissed! A teachable moment for us all, not to blindly assume and make sweeping statements without basis.

And now, back to comics - with a panel, completely apropos of nothing, from Batman and The Joker: The Deadly Duo #2:

Of course, misattributed to Einstein. I don't believe he ever said it.

qwertyuiop1998 The Vampire

Yeah, many handbooks either of Marvel or DC are published by other publishers nowadays

For example:
Both The DC Book and The Marvel Book are published by DK too

https://www.amazon.com/DC-Book-Vibrant-Multiverse-Explained/dp/0744039800
https://www.amazon.com/Marvel-Book-Expand-Knowledge-Universe/dp/146547899X

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Smurph
Then read it again. The case doesn't just stand for useful art (which goes to patent law), but for the distinction between expression and ideas.

No. If there's something specific you're referring to then post an excerpt of it.

Originally posted by Smurph
Second: sure, let's say Marvel has the expression (its handbook) presenting its characters as elements in the periodic table.

That's not an idea, that's an expression.

Originally posted by Smurph
DC lifted the concept from Marvel, and Marvel lifted it from Mendeleev.

Again, this has nothing to do with the periodic system. Its function here is purely inspirational.

Originally posted by Smurph
And yet the only aspects that are "expressive" are already established expression in the public domain.

Through your reasoning Marvel's Thor would not be protected by copyright. You're obviously wrong.

Originally posted by Smurph
To DS's point, if your starting idea is "superheroes on the periodic table" then there's really only one way to express that. combination of idea and expression, your answer is the same.

There's a distinction between legal terms and colloquial terms that you don't seem to understand. Just because you can call something an idea colloquially, doesn't mean it's an idea legally.

Colloquially "a superhero who came to Earth from a dying world, grew up on a farm, and has a secret identity as a journalist," can be either an idea or an expression. But legally it's an expression.

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Yeah, many handbooks either of Marvel or DC are published by other publishers nowadays

For example:
Both The DC Book and The Marvel Book are published by DK too

https://www.amazon.com/DC-Book-Vibrant-Multiverse-Explained/dp/0744039800
https://www.amazon.com/Marvel-Book-Expand-Knowledge-Universe/dp/146547899X


It could very well be the case that they outsource their handbooks.

But this brings up a more interesting question. How much of the work is actually outsourced? Because if the entries are written by writers not working for Marvel or DC, and they pull their information from non-official sources, then that's a problem.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract
Originally posted by Astner
It's kind of interesting to see these companies plagiarizing each other still, despite being very protective of their own intellectual properties. Marvel very clearly has a case here for copyright infringement of expression. But guidebooks don't sell that well, so the litigation costs of the pretrial alone would probably exceed whatever they'd receive in damages.

I don't think they do have a case, as it's not them publishing it.

Smurph tu quoqumber

Originally posted by Astner
There's a distinction between legal terms and colloquial terms that you don't seem to understand.
lol k

Astner The Ghost Who Walks
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I don't think they do have a case, as it's not them publishing it.
Originally posted by Astner
If some other company published it, and they had no special agreements with Marvel concerning the copyright, then the copyright would belong the the publisher.
DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I would indeed say so. Case dismissed! A teachable moment for us all, not to blindly assume and make sweeping statements without basis.

And now, back to comics - with a panel, completely apropos of nothing, from Batman and The Joker: The Deadly Duo #2:

Of course, misattributed to Einstein. I don't believe he ever said it.