Talk:Nelvana of the Northern Lights

The "Real" Koliak

Aside from webpages talking about Nelvana, I can't find any references to Koliak anywhere. Did Dingle just make it all up from whole cloth, or is there an Inuit legend?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 03:43, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain Status

Nelvana is NOT public domain, she should be removed from this wiki. All Bell Features characters are copyright Corus Entertainment and the National Archives of Canada

Ugh, we've been over this when you posted this same message on the Major Domo & Jojo talk page. Please see the response you were given there.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:40, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

This is where your confusion is coming from: Nelvana Animation is owned by Corus (and was named after the comics character and owns the trademark on the word "Nelvana") but, they do NOT own the character or anything else ever created by Bell Features. Bell Media, a completely separate company founded some 50 years AFTER Bell Features folded (and that has NOTHING to do with comics - now or ever), is also owned by Corus but has NOTHING to do with Bell Features. The only similarities between the two is the word "Bell" being the first word in their name and them both being Canadian.

--Cebr1979 (talk) 21:52, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Actually Michael Hirsh and Patrick Loubert, founders of Nelvana Animation, bought the rights to Bell Features characters from the publisher John Ezrin in the 1970. You can read about it in their book The Great Canadian Comic Books.

(Please sign your posts by using the 4 squiggles) Luckily, "The Great Canadian Comic Books" was reprinted in Alter Ego 71. In discussing material from Bell Features, the authors note:

John Ezrin bought what stocks of comics Bell Features still owned. He bought the Bell archives (which is perhaps too dignified a word for the wooden crates in which original comic art, photo negatives, and printing plates were stored). And he bought the rights to reproduce any of the old comic books in later years, in case anyone ever wanted to see them again.

And by the time two young acquaintances of George Henderson’s went to call on Ezrin in late 1970, Ezrin was thinking quite specifically about “finding a good home” for what was left of the Canadian Whites ... So he sold them.

Although a bit ambiguous, it sounds like he sold them the comics he had, not rights.

The indicia of Alter Ego itself lists "Nelvana, Thunderfist, The Dreamer, & The Penguin TM & ©2007 Nelvana Limited. " Hmm.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 02:38, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Also, this. Roygbiv666 (talk) 02:46, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

"Although a bit ambiguous, it sounds like he sold them the comics he had, not rights."

That's exactly what it sounds like.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:55, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

As roygbiv666 indicated from the article: "1971 agreement would indicate that Hirsch and Loubert obtained just the reprint rights to those stories published by Hillborough/Bell Features. The creation rights may have had a specific time limit, or conditions that were not met, but at the latest they likely lapsed back to the Dingle Estate in 1997 (50 years after they were licensed)."

Yep, and the fact that in 1947 Bell Features had already sold the rights to Nelvana and other characters to F.E. Howard Publications.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:37, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think anyone who doesn't sign their posts isn't serious about contributing to a discussion. Please, sign your posts.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 23:34, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Not signing posts is a form of internet trolling.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:56, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

While Bell Features/Commercial Signs of Canada closed up shop in 1953, the original artwork and the publication rights to the Bell Features Comics (incl. presumably the Hillborough Studios issues) were sold to Michael Hirsh and Patrick Loubert in 1971 by John Ezrin, Bell’s former Capital Officer. They in turn donated the collection to the National Archives under the provision that the material could not be reprinted without their permission. Their company Nelvana, was named after Dingle’s character, which was bought by Corus Entertainment in 2000, and presumably that includes the company’s assets – including the publication rights to Bell Features comics.

The people that ran the Kickstarter to reprint the Nelvana stories had to get permission from both Corus Entertainment AND the National Archives of Canada to do so. 50.72.160.112 02:13, October 8, 2013 (UTC)MrTea

Their company Nelvana, was named after Dingle’s character, which was bought by Corus Entertainment in 2000, and presumably that includes the company’s assets – including the publication rights to Bell Features comics.

Hmm... Even the links you keep quoting as fact don't seem to know for sure. You don't find that odd?Cebr1979 (talk) 02:24, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

1. That was my first comment on the matter.

2. Let's put this issue to bed. One of the two women who have the rights to reprint the original comics said this:

"I have been working as a researcher and producer on a documentary on Canadian comic books called Lost Heroes for the last two years. As part of this project, I researched the current copyrights of almost every Canadian comic book produced, and along the way Nelvana’s current copyright holders were discovered. Me and Rachel discussed doing a reprint project after this, and I approached the copyright holders to pitch our idea. They agreed, and we were given the exclusive rights to reproduce the comics."

Their press release states:

Nelvana of the Northern Lights will be reprinted with the permission of the copyright holders, Corus Entertainment and the National Archives of Canada.

Their Kickstarter campaign also states that the character is owned by those two entities. Not just the comics, the character.

Given that this wiki as of late has been flooded with useless non-comic PD characters or half-baked open source superheroes, the last thing I want to see is a public domain superhero pulled from the list. however it seems cut and dried to me that Nelvana is NOT a PD character and should not be listed as such.

50.72.160.112 00:15, October 9, 2013 (UTC)MrTea

As for "putting the issue to rest," I agree. Let's just leave it that you haven't proven anything with your "presumablys" and quoting books that, in the end, prove very much the opposite of what you claimed they would. It sounds to me like these girls just want to have "exclusive" rights to something they shouldn't have exclusive rights to. The Bell Features catalogue has been said to have been sold to F.E. Howard and, indeed, both Nelvana of the Northern Lights and Mr. Monster moved to that publisher... and stayed there.

If you'd like to discuss Open Source Characters, you really should have spoken up months ago when that was an issue. That's over.

So... The issue is now rested. I'm glad we agree.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:23, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Another link stating that Nelvana was sold to F.E. Howard:

Some Nelvana stories were reprinted in a one-shot of her own title in 1945, but after issue #31 of TRIUMPH she appeared only once more, in SUPER DUPER COMICS #3 (May-June 1947), published by F. E. Howard, who purchased the rights to some of Bell Features' characters after Cy Bell threw in the towel.  Once again it was written and drawn by Adrian Dingle, this time in full colour.  In fact, Adrian Dingle was Nelvana's sole writer and artist from beginning to end, with the exception of TRIUMPH #31, which was written by John Hollis Mason. Cebr1979 (talk) 19:26, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Good lord this is silly. So you're telling me you know better than that these women who (A) one of which worked at the National Archives (B) did the research on the copyright status of numerous Canadian comic book characters (C) negotiated with the National Archives and Corus Entertainment for the publishing rights. You're also trying to tell me lawyers for a major corporation negotiated with them for rights they do not have, opening themselves up for a lawsuit for minimal financial gain.

here's Hope Nicholson's Twitter account. Act your age, drop the petty passive agressiveness, and find out what she knows about the copyright status of Nelvana and those other characters she researched as Nelvana may not be the only one that's not in the Public Domain.

50.72.160.112 01:33, October 10, 2013 (UTC)MrTea

What lawyers? You are making stuff up now, even those girls have never made such claims about lawyers. Don't start a conversation with "Act your age," that just makes the conversation juvenile right off the bat. I messaged Corus weeks ago. I sent them the link to the Bell Features page right here on this wiki. They haven't responded. Neither have their "lawyers."Cebr1979 (talk) 01:47, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

When you negotiate the rights for something with a corporation, who do you think you're going to be dealing with? Who do you think draws up the contract? Looks up the information to draw up said contract? Why do you have so much authority on a wiki that deals with copyright when it has to be explained to you how a lawyer fits into this equation? I didn't start this conversation telling you to act your age, I started it by telling you your notion that your internet search is more relevant than someone's actual research and legwork on the issue is wrong.  I'm completely flabbergasted at the lengths one has to go to to have correct information posted on this wiki. I provided the link to that woman's twitter account. You'll get an answer from her faster than you will from Corus. I may have to do it myself but at this point I feel nothing short of summoning the ghost of Adrian Dingle is going to get accurate information posted on this wiki.

50.72.160.112 02:43, October 10, 2013 (UTC)MrTea

No one is about to take a whole company worth of bios down just because you (via them) say so. There are a lot of unanswered questions here, and you (via them) don't seem to want to answer them (aka: you dont have the answers). I messaged those girls via facebook, they sent me a lovely link that I've read and it seems to confirm exactly what Roybiv666 said above: "it sounds like he sold them the comics he had, not rights." I sent it to him and he's reading it. Chill out and hold your horses.

P.S. "I may have to do it myself." Be my guest. Go ahead and make yourself useful instead of annoying. Won't bother me any. Hop to it, hotstuff! Cebr1979 (talk) 02:58, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

MrTea thank you for bring this issue to the wiki's attention. I've been reviewing the information posted by yourself and the others involved in this discussion about the status of Nelvana. We had added Nelvana to the wiki because from the research we had gathered about Canadian copyright law works owned by corporations expired 50 years after the company became defunct. In the case of Hillsborough Studios, where Nelvana's first appearance was published, that would be 50 years after it became defunct in 1942 which would be 1992. In the case of the comics featuring Nelvana published by Bell Features, the company became defunct in 1953 so the rights would have expired in 2003. In addition, F.E. Howard ceased publication in 1948 meaning the rights to their books would have expired in 1998. So essentially while we recognize that the individuals and companies you cited all claim to own Nelvana and the Bell Features catalog, the copyrights have long since expired making their claims seem pretty suspect. You can read more about Canadian copyright law here.

That being said we do make mistakes from time to time so if we have misinterpreted the laws feel free to send us documentation showing that Nelvana would still be protected by copyright and we'll be happy to rectify the situation. There have been other cases such as the Charlton, Fawcett, Quality, and MLJ characters where corporations still claim to own the copyrights to these works when according to copyright law the rights to these works have long since expired. This is partly why we are skeptical in situations like these. I would also like to invite you in the future to send a message to myself or one of the other administrators if you find any future issues with the copyright status of works listed on this wiki.

In the meantime as we analyse the documents and try to come up with a final decision I've added a disclaimer about her status and added her to disputed characters category. Thanks. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 04:25, October 10, 2013 (UTC)

Character vs Comics

As I wished to use original images of Nelvana in a print on demand comic, I contacted both Corus and the National Archives to determine if that was copyright infringement. This is part of what I was told in writing:

Library and Archives Canada holds joint copyright with Nelvana Ltd. only for the published comics held in the Bell Features fonds in our collection. If you were to simply reproduce images, etc. ‘as is’ from these specific comics, Library and Archives Canada and Nelvana Ltd. would issue a licence to you. This is not the case with your current project which is to redefine the Nelvana character. Therefore, a licence from Library and Archives Canada is not required.

Library and Archives Canada holds no rights to any trademarks or other moral rights (i.e. modifications to images) in the Bell Feature comics, more specifically, to the Nelvana of the Northern Lights character.

Based on the material I supplied previously (see "Public Domain") above, it appears to be that the copyright to the Bell Features comics was bought and ultimately sold to Corus/NAC. Although they hold no right or interest in the use or modification of the image of the character, they appear to hold copyright in the Bell Features comics themselves.

Take that for what you may. For further information on the issue, contact Corus/NAC directly. 'Moral rights' is a feature of Canadian copyright law and would reside with the Dingle Estate.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 21:01, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

None of that is new information, though. We've known that Corus has "claimed" to "own the copyright" to the Bell Features catalogue for years now. It doesn't change the fact that, at the time Nelvana Animation (apparently) bought the Bell Features catalogue from Cy Bell, Cy Bell didn't own the Bell Features catalogue nor was it his to sell. He had already sold it F.E. Howard (which anyone with access to Google can look up for themselves). He sold them (literally) a trunk with leftover junk and the Nelvana Animations guys have either misinterpreted what they bought or been lying ever since (I have no reason to believe malice on their part, I do believe they simply misinterpreted). Corus is sort of a victim in all this, they probably do believe they own the Bell Features catalogue (and, given what they would've been told, have every reason to believe that) but... they don't.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:40, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, until someone comes forward with new information, I'd prefer to to just leave them in the disputed characters category with the notes section reflecting why they're in there and call it a day. How long have we been going around in circles having this same debate for?Cebr1979 (talk) 22:42, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Cebr:

As I've noted previously, Bell licenced material to FE Howard. It doesn't mean it was sold. As I pointed out in previous posts, Bell cliamed to have the copyright, not just a bunch of comics. You are interpreting things in a certain way. Maybe I am as well. I'm just trying to tell you and everyone what I learned from the people claiming current copyright.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 18:40, April 29, 2015 (UTC)

There isn't anything, anywhere that says Cy Bell licensed anything to F.E. Howard, only that it was sold and there is written documentation that he did sell nothing more than a trunk with some comics and leftover paperwork to those Nelvana guys. In any case, you haven't "learned" anything from the people claiming copyright (Corus), we knew all about their claims years ago. Like I said, I'm not interested in going around in circles every few months. In any case, if the Corus people are now saying they only hold the rights to the comics they have in their possession but, the character is free to use by anyone in new work (which makes no sense as that's not how the law works and 'moral rights' -as you stated above- aren't relevant when it comes to comics... something I've told you before... but... why am I opening my big mouth here???), then I guess that's better than what I would have expected them to say so fine. Let's just be done with it then.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:14, April 29, 2015 (UTC)