More accurately, they kind of bought it. IRRC, DC purchased all of Fawcetts characters something like 30 or so years ago. Nothing illegal or immoral about it.
Yeah, they did. Captain Marvel was outselling Superman at one point. DC decided to sue Fawcett claiming Captain Marvel was a Superman knock off. The lawsuit ended up bankrupting Fawcett so DC bought them out on the cheap years later and sat on the properties until the copyright ran out. When people complain that Marvel stole the Captain Marvel name, they conveniently leave out the part where DC bullies a smaller company until they can take the characters.
shareWhich is legal. You could argue if it was moral or not. Personally, I don't think Fawcett was violating copyright with Captain Marvel, but I can see how it could be perceived that way.
And if they bought them out, there is no need to sit on it "until the copyright" runs out. By buying the characters, they now own the copyright and can use them as it chooses.
I never said it wasn’t legal but DC was never very ethical so they only have themselves to blame for Marvel taking the name.
sharehow could it be perceived that way? I'm just wondering.
shareAt the time, comics were fairly new. You had two characters, Superman and Captain Marvel. Both were super strong, both could fly, both were indestructible. It could be perceived, or interpreted, that Captain Marvel was a copy of Superman; thus violating copyright, or more likely the trademark, of Superman
I don't think Captain Marvel was in violation. First the number of powers available for super heroes is limited. Strength, flight and invulnerability are all powers that are fairly common; at least now. At the time, with fewer characters it might not seem that way.
In addition, they were very different characters. Superman was the last son of Krypton; a visitor from a distant plantet who gained his powers in earth's lower gravity and under its yellow, thus more energetic, sun. He had a secret identity as a reporter. He was a fairly dramatic character with occasional humor.
Captain Marvel was a young orphan. He was given his powers by the Wizard, Shazam, part of a line of wielders of the powers. He was generally a comedic character with occasional drama.
It is just conspiracy bcos Captain Marvel even surpassed Superman in sales in 1940s, so they claimed it is rip off of their Superman and conquered it. It just shows their clever mind and black heart. They said it ripped off superman doesn't mean they believed it. They know they are different. People are not good. Especially those from business and politics. This is dog eat dog world.
shareWhat is your primary language?
shareYES. And they gained nothing from it. It's Fawcett's prosperity and they only managed to kill the company and the character. F*** DC! They did to wonder woman too. Instead of facing their competitions like a tiger, they became cunning like fox.
shareThe irony.
''National's argument was that Captain Marvel's main powers and characteristics (super-strength, super-speed, invulnerability, a skin-tight costume with a cape, and a news reporter alter ego) were derived directly from those of Superman.[4] Fawcett's counterargument was that although the two characters were indeed similar, the similarity was not infringing.[5]Fawcett countered in two ways: by providing examples of Captain Marvel performing those feats at even earlier points of publication, or by providing examples of other heroic comics characters such as Popeye or Tarzan performing those feats in earlier published comic strips.[5] ''
''While its lawsuit against Fawcett was still pending, a few of the elements unique to the Captain Marvel strip found their way into Superman comics, including making Superman fly, Superman's arch-villain Lex Luthor a bald "mad scientist" like Captain Marvel's Dr. Sivana, and introducing the adventures of Superman as a teenager under the title Superboy, after Captain Marvel's teenaged sidekick Captain Marvel, Jr. proved to be popular.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Comics_Publications,_Inc._v._Fawcett_Publications,_Inc.
It is Fawcett's stupidity too. They shouldnt have backed out as there was a revival in 1960s for superheroes.
''Judge Hand did not find that the character of Captain Marvel itself was an infringement, but rather that specific stories or super feats could be infringements, and this would have to be determined in a retrial. He therefore sent the matter back to the lower court.
Instead of trying to appeal the Second Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court or going through the damage assessment on how much of an infringement Captain Marvel was in district court, Fawcett decided to settle with National out of court.[4] Superhero comics sales had decreased dramatically during the early 1950s, and Fawcett decided that it was not worthwhile to continue fighting National.[4][7] National agreed to settle with Fawcett out of court, and Fawcett paid National $400,000 in damages and agreed to cease publication of all Captain Marvel-related comics.[5]''
But DC got it's karma!
''Captain Marvel remained out of print for the rest of the 1950s and the entirety of the 1960s, a period during which superhero comics regained their popularity. In 1967 Marvel Comics trademarked a character of the same name for use in Marvel Super-Heroes #12, and a follow-up self-titled series, which created some difficulties when DC licensed the rights to all of Fawcett's superheroes in 1972, and revived Captain Marvel in a periodical entitled Shazam!. They also obtained reprint rights to the original Fawcett comic books, and began running older stories in their various reprint titles as well as Shazam! itself. However, the license agreement required a per-use fee for every appearance by a Fawcett character, which limited DC's willingness to use the characters, and as a result most of them appeared very rarely once the Shazam! series ended in 1978.''
In 1987, DC Comics relaunched Captain Marvel in a miniseries, Shazam!: The New Beginning, and purchased the full rights to all of the Fawcett superhero characters by 1991.[1] Captain Marvel has not proven to be a modern-day success for DC to the degree it had been for Fawcett, due in part to DC not being able to properly promote the character under the "Captain Marvel" name, which is a Marvel Comics trademark. As a result, when DC Comics rebooted its entire comic line under the New 52 initiative in 2011, Captain Marvel was renamed "Shazam" and was reintroduced to comics the following year under that name.[8]
It ultimately did bad to Fawcett, DC and Captain Marvel himself.
Captain Marvel didn't appear in comics for more than a decade before Marvel Comics trademarked the name in 1967.
Due to Marvel's trademark, they couldn't publish a comic under his name and called it Shazam instead.
Following a trial in which DC Comics sued Fawcett Comics for breach of copyright, claiming Fawcett's Captain Marvel was too similar to Superman, the latter stopped publishing Captain Marvel in 1953.[2] In the late 1960s Marvel gained the trademark "Captain Marvel" with its first series.
In order to retain its trademark, Marvel has published a Captain Marvel title at least once every few years since, leading to a number of ongoing series, limited series, and one-shots featuring a range of characters using the Captain Marvel alias.[3]