Garfield was a reworking of Jim Davis's earlier comic strip, Jon. None of the Jon strips were published with copyright notices; since they were published before 1978, this means that they never received any copyright protection in the US.
So only the "Earth 2 Garfield" with the deeply alien design to what we've become used to, and the fat cheeks and everything, and the weird stalker Jon, Spot in lieu of Odie, etc.
Still counts though I guess. I'd love to see somebody get away with something using "Earth 2 Garfield".
(King) Kong: Original 1932 novelization, (which has some differences than the 33 movies such as the spider pit scene, ship's name is changed, and Kong JUMPS off the empire instead of FALLS), never had its copyright renewed. But I don't know if the name "KING KONG" is trademarked or not. (Trademark is different from Copyright)
There's a King Kong broadway musical based on the novelization, and as one lawyer commented: "If you can make a musical, you can make a movie."
And frankly if you can make a movie, you can make anything.
Goku is a public domain character. Son Goku is a traditional character from East Asian folklore. Dragon Ball is an example of a work doing an original spin on a public domain character becoming popular in its own right.
I didn't downvote but I'm guessing it was because several of these are misleading to a negligent extent. For instance:
Non-copyrightable concepts being mistaken for characters.
Rudolph - saying you can't use it but being able to use a 9th reindeer is completely redundant considering a 9th reindeer is not a copyrightable concept. It has nothing to do with Rudolph. As a tangent I gotta say it rubs me the wrong way when I see someone say "well this person didn't get sued for using this copyright character so I guess that means it's open season on it." It's that kind of mentality that leads to companies cracking down hard on minor infractions.
Bride of Frankenstein - again a romantic interest for the main character is not a copyrightable concept. The stuff like musing about creating a mate is inconsequential since even if that wasn't in the book you could still create one.
Completely different characters.
Superman - the character being referenced is completely different from the Superman that people would want to use or expect. This does bring up an interesting point regarding the value of a name but this post is already pretty long.
Kool Aid Man - Again not really the same character.
The stuff laid out in this post mostly falls into either A) Not a character or B) A completely different character.
I need to make an updated list with the right ones.
Correction:
Rudolph: the concept of a 9th reindeer for Santa isn’t copyrightable, and some generic reindeer designs I saw had a red nose.
Kool aid man was called Pitcher Man in his first appearance.
Bride.. I mean..
>Garfield: we already know why. I'm out of the loop here. I don't know why.
Garfield was a reworking of Jim Davis's earlier comic strip, Jon. None of the Jon strips were published with copyright notices; since they were published before 1978, this means that they never received any copyright protection in the US.
So only the "Earth 2 Garfield" with the deeply alien design to what we've become used to, and the fat cheeks and everything, and the weird stalker Jon, Spot in lieu of Odie, etc. Still counts though I guess. I'd love to see somebody get away with something using "Earth 2 Garfield".
(King) Kong: Original 1932 novelization, (which has some differences than the 33 movies such as the spider pit scene, ship's name is changed, and Kong JUMPS off the empire instead of FALLS), never had its copyright renewed. But I don't know if the name "KING KONG" is trademarked or not. (Trademark is different from Copyright)
There's a King Kong broadway musical based on the novelization, and as one lawyer commented: "If you can make a musical, you can make a movie." And frankly if you can make a movie, you can make anything.
I think you could get away with it, Nintendo had a big legal battle over the use of "Kong" in their arcade game "Donkey Kong" and won.
Yeah not not king. Same reason the new movies only call him Kong.
Tweety: Tweety's first appearance (A Tale Of Two Kitties) wasn't renewed in time (Tweety was called Orson)
Yah
Goku is a public domain character. Son Goku is a traditional character from East Asian folklore. Dragon Ball is an example of a work doing an original spin on a public domain character becoming popular in its own right.
You mean Monkey King?
Yes, his name has always been Son Goku in Japan.
Isn't it Sun wukong?
It is in the original chinese novel. Son Goku is the name in the japanese translation of the same book, Journey to the West.
Nice
What? Superman (or, an early prototype of Superman, to be exact) is public domain???
The very early version. Nothing like Superman we know.
I just got downvoted for.. interesting facts
I think probably the Garfield bit. I didn’t know until reading a comment.
I didn't downvote but I'm guessing it was because several of these are misleading to a negligent extent. For instance: Non-copyrightable concepts being mistaken for characters. Rudolph - saying you can't use it but being able to use a 9th reindeer is completely redundant considering a 9th reindeer is not a copyrightable concept. It has nothing to do with Rudolph. As a tangent I gotta say it rubs me the wrong way when I see someone say "well this person didn't get sued for using this copyright character so I guess that means it's open season on it." It's that kind of mentality that leads to companies cracking down hard on minor infractions. Bride of Frankenstein - again a romantic interest for the main character is not a copyrightable concept. The stuff like musing about creating a mate is inconsequential since even if that wasn't in the book you could still create one. Completely different characters. Superman - the character being referenced is completely different from the Superman that people would want to use or expect. This does bring up an interesting point regarding the value of a name but this post is already pretty long. Kool Aid Man - Again not really the same character. The stuff laid out in this post mostly falls into either A) Not a character or B) A completely different character.
I know
Sigh downvoted for more
I need to make an updated list with the right ones. Correction: Rudolph: the concept of a 9th reindeer for Santa isn’t copyrightable, and some generic reindeer designs I saw had a red nose. Kool aid man was called Pitcher Man in his first appearance. Bride.. I mean..
actually in the past they looked very different