So I'm fairly sure the government couldn't have done anything about USA Comics anyway, even were they so inclined (setting aside wartime censorship restrictions, of course). And, of course, the history of American business is littered with companies utilizing nationalistic business names and service marks (which, perhaps ironically, often can't be trademarked for the reason I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph).

Re: government copyrights. As I understand it, the US Government doesn’t own particular copyrights, they just have a list of items that can’t be copyrighted. For instance, you can’t copyright a bald eagle image. The US government needs it for their post office logos and other displays. You probably can’t copyright any flag images. Don’t know of any others.

Not true. Completely wrong, in fact.

Copyright does not protect ideas, such as "a bald eagle"; it only protects a particular work. If you do a drawing, painting, sculpture, photograph or movie of a bald eagle, you absolutely can copyright it, as long as it's your original work and not derivative of someone else's. But owning copyright on your picture of a bald eagle does not prevent anyone from creating their own. You can't own the idea of "bald eagle" any more than you can own the idea of "dalmatian" or "polish sausage". That's not a government restriction on use of bald eagle images, it's the nature of how copyright law works.

The flag is of course public domain, but you can certainly use a flag motif in your work any way you want to. If you took a photo of an American flag flapping in the breeze, it would be completely legitimately protected by copyright.

Most of what you describe in this post actually refers to trademark law, not copyright.

Goodwin's fear was probably that the government might prohibit his comic on the basis that people might mistake it for an official government publication. By creating a character bearing the USA name, he could plausibly claim a legitimate reason for using it. Given the strict censorship and regulation at the time, due to the war, his fear was not entirely unfounded. The post office could easily have refused to deliver subscription copies and possibly have invoked various portions of the postal codes of the time.

This will be my new catch-phrase

He also wasn't colored silver.

How they manage to copyright Captain America covered in flags, I don't know.

How does that pertain to comic books? You don't see a lot of EAGLE images in comics because you can't copyright 'em.

Note I didn't say, "can't use them", because Captain America is often shown with an eagle. You can splash eagles all over ads if you like. Just can't OWN them.

I remember some Marvel artist created his own AMERICAN EAGLE(?) Native American character one-shot back in the 1970s in Marvel Premiere or thereabouts. The guy wore a full eagle headdress and "flew" by shooting crossbow arrows and swinging on the ropes. Pretty dumb, which is why it flopped. And uncopyrightable, maybe.

CE

Oddly enough, post Zero-Hour, we still don't know what happened to the Durlan who pre became Brande. He still was sent from L.E.G.I.O.N to the future, but where he ended up specifically was never addressed.

It was a bit of a pain for a function that not many people seemed to be using. To wit, I stopped linking to it two months ago and you’re the first person to mention its absence!

I noticed, because it is my link into the site. But, at first I figured you were behind on updating it. And, then I got busy and didn't check the site at all for a couple of weeks.

I'm sorry it is gone, as I did use it. But, if it was just me, then there is no reason to maintain it.

Theno

http://www.scottdking.com/comics/batman9.jpg

(credit goes to the website http://www.editions-deesse.com where I found the great scan...)

Does anyone know the particular artist/origin of that Batman and Robin photo up top? Probably Alex Ross, right? I’ve seen it many times, but never in the proper context. Thanks in advance.

That is indeed Alex Ross' work, but the image it is based off of is Jack Burnley's famous cover for Batman #9.

Also, great urban legends this week, Brian, although as iwasben pointed out, it looks like the word “urban” is no longer in service! It is probably an intended change, and Comic Book Legends sounds just fine.

Thanks, Scott!

Yeah, it's an intended change. Someone suggested it to me awhile ago and it made sense, and I finally got around to changing it a couple of months ago. I like the shorter name better.

I’ve noticed that recently, you have stopped using the archive by subject. Is there a particular reason this has ceased? I only ask because when i have forgotten about a particular legend i would like to read up on, that tool makes it very easy.

It was a bit of a pain for a function that not many people seemed to be using. To wit, I stopped linking to it two months ago and you're the first person to mention its absence!

I love your column, but where’s the “urban” in the title? Was this a typo?

I dropped the "urban" part two months ago! I think Comic Book Legends Revealed sounds better.

Thanks for the compliment!

Dan Raspler is, as I recall, is also the reason why the 5 Year Gap Legion had to retcon Superboy away even though Levitz had already made the Legion Superboy into a pocket universe version. Forget Mordu, the Legion of Super-Villains, or anyone else. Raspler is the arch nemesis of the Legion!

JC, when that stuff went down, Raspler was still just an assistant editor. Not even on the Superman or Legion titles (well, he was an assistant on Action Comics Weekly, but I don't think that counts).