First, when I say “named character,” I mean an actual superhero/villain name. Not just simple “John Smith”.
Next, I didn’t say creating a new character is INSURMOUNTABLE. Obviously publications do it all the time. I just said that it’s complex. As in, not quick and easy. If a writer or artist has an idea for a new character, they propose it to someone like an editor or group of editors. If they approve they put the character through a “creation process” where one of the steps is that they do, in fact, run trademark searches. And not just on the name. If the artist rendition simply looks too much like a trademarked character in another publication, they could have legal problems. This is one of the reasons comics often recycle old characters in preference of creating new ones. It’s not the ONLY reason, but it’s one of them.
I happen to know this from dealing with a comic book writer. Trying to find a cite.
I think your main problem is you’re confusing trademark with copyright.
The thing is, very few character names are trademarked - only the big ones like Superman, Captain America, etc. To obtain a trademark for something, the owner needs to show that it actually functions as a ‘mark’, i.e., it represents the company and consumers instantly understand it come from that company. So DC can trademark “Superman” because consumers know that Superman is a DC character. There’s also the issue of use - trademarks have to be continually used; the right to them goes away if the company stops using it. So if DC had a character back in the 1970s who appeared in four issues, and he never appeared again, Marvel could re-use that name no problem. There are a ton of codenames used by both of the two companies.
Of course, it’s probably a good idea to run trademark searches just in case, but it’s rarely going to be a problem. As far as the “artist rendition looking too similar,” that’d be copyright (aside from something silly like copying Superman’s “S” logo, which IS trademarked, but see above), which lasts a lot longer and exists automatically, so yeah, that’s more of an issue.
The real reason they re-use characters is because re-using characters is how you build a franchise (and, for the characters big enough to trademark, keep their trademarks alive). Familiar characters sell. You can see that happen with Transformers - at first, Hasbro was happy to kill off characters like Optimus Prime, Megatron, Bumblebee, Starscream, etc, and replace them with new characters, but then they realized the attachment people had to those characters, and now we get a new Optimus/Megatron/Starscream in pretty much every Transformers series from 2004 onwards (and new Bumblebee every year since 2007 when they got the trademark back).
Exactly. No one doubts that the character will be coming back, but I have no idea what the OP is talking about. Maybe he got confused by some of the alternate universe promos for next year’s Secret Wars?
Here’s where I got this from . . . a comic book writer I know tried to create his own character. It went into the “creation process” and it was rejected. The reason it was rejected was because it infringed on another company’s trademark. It wasn’t a comic book company’s trademark, believe it or not, it was a CAR company’s.
In light of your post, just out of curiosity, if a comic doesn’t trademark all of their characters, then why would the car company care if a comic book character is named after one of their trademarks?
Now the writer’s story makes even less sense, because trademarks only exist for certain categories. That’s why one company can own “Dove” for soap, and another can own “Dove” for chocolate. Now, certainly, a company can apply their trademark to a variety of categories (DC owns “Superman” in comics, toys, clothes, movies, video games, lunchboxes, …) but I’d be surprised if a car company’s trademark would overlap a comic book one. (I doubt Ford holds the comics TM for “Mustang”)
Since it was rejected, I guess there’s no harm in saying . . . The character was a supposed to be a super powered mob boss called “Chrysler”. And this was about mid to late 90’s. For the record, it never actually got to the point where anyone reached out to Chrysler. It was rejected in-house because of the potential infringement issues.
I forgot that Marvel was advertising “THE DEATH OF WOLVERINE.” I had to google it right now and the promotional image I remember seeing is the one where a bunch of adamantium skeletons with claws are flying out of his back. Nice artwork. But considering that the vast majority of superhero comics readers are probably in their 30s and 40s and remember when Wolverine “died,” and Colossus “died,” and so on, how can this be a profitable storyline?
I can’t get upset though because corporations are there to make money and they don’t want their properties to go into the public domain, and they don’t want to lose out on all the profitable merchandising. But a lot of these deaths are not very well done.
Aunt May, Harry Osborn, Kraven, and Elektra are some of the exceptions.
Of course the “she wasn’t really dead, it was a dying actress that took her place, and the real May had been kidnapped by Octopus in suspended animation because… well, just because”, “He resurrected because Goblin Formula and disappeared in Europe”, “A wife that had never been mentioned up until this point just resurrects him with magic”, and “*The Hand did it. They are useless ninjas but can somehow resurrect people”*lame explanations for their comeback just makes it all more infuriating.
From the sounds of it, it was a very comic-booky “death” (oh, he got trapped on the other side with a bunch of enemies! No one could survive that!) and they had a plan to bring him back all along. I find those a bit different from say, Colossus, who was killed off in 2001 with no plans to bring him back (his body was cremated, ashes spread). He only got resurrected when Joss Whedon was writing X-Men 13 years later and wanted to use him.
Aunt May-I stopped reading comics in the mid-90s and found out years later that Marvel had killed off Aunt May. When I first heard about it I remember thinking, “If *I *were in charge that’s the first thing I would change back.” I hated all the deaths of characters and the gravestone cover for Amazing Spider-man #400 looked really tacky.
But the explanation was really dumb. Oh well, we got Aunt May back. But then I read the actual issue by DeMatteis and I can’t imagine anyone wanting to undo it. In hindsight I like that Marvel was trying to progress the saga of Spider-man by having it reflect, somewhat, real life. People in our lives move away, change, even die. I liked Mary Jane’s aunt. I tried reading Spider-man again when JMS took over and liked it but took a break again and stopped completely when they undid the marriage.
Norman Osborn-Wasn’t around when he died but that particular story played such an important part in Spider-man that it seemed ridiculous to undo it. I get they had to do something BIG to get readers back to reading the adventures of the once and future Peter Parker. It probably worked for many but not me.
Harry Osborn-As much as I liked his farewell in Spectacular I could see why Marvel wanted to bring him back, and single. If Peter is outliving even his peers, that, not the marriage, seems to age him more. Also, Peter needs a best friend. However, that’s where creativity comes in. Subsequent writers should be able to create new supporting cast members for Spider-man. Not only did he never die, he never was married or had a family. One of the many reasons I don’t bother with Marvel Comics.
Kraven-DeMatteis has been involved in killing off a lot of characters. But he’s one of the few that do it well. Such a great story and a shame it’s lost some of its impact.
Elektra-Frank Miller set up the character knowing she was to be killed. Made perfect sense considering her profession; she had done too much to turn back, too much to go on. Elektra Lives Again was a great way to bring the character back but not really. I think Miller kind of ruined it himself though when he had her soul purified by Matt. I think it was in the regular series that it occurred. I haven’t read anything since Elektra’s official return that warrants her resurrection.
More to the point, no writer with an ounce of sense is going to give a promising new character he’s invented to a publisher who’ll demand full ownership on a work-for-hire basis. The money upfront may be smaller by going with a small publisher and retaining that ownership yourself, but the ultimate payoff (and creative satisfaction) can be far greater.
Couldn’t agree more. I loved the Avengers as kid in the 80’s. I got back into the comic in the 2000’s. Had to stop reading them recently. They’ve just become a mixture of ludicrously over the top ‘the entire multiverse is in danger’ have to top whatever the previous one was or tie ins to ‘what this seasons big crossover event is’.
I know i’m sounding like a Grandad here but goddamit kids get off my lawn. I remember when the Avengers were fun, when they saved the world and had fun adventures. The animated series “Avengers.Earths mightiest heroes”. Like that, i liked that, I don’t like the Avengers debate how many worlds they are prepared to murder to save their own.
Wasn’t there a Marvel series a number of years back where Thanos discovered that the fabric of the universe was destabilized by dead heroes coming back to life, so he pretty much destroyed and re-made the universe without a “back door” from death?
There was a cute exchange between Booster Gold and Blue Beetle, when they were about to do something dangerous. “We could get killed! Whatever that means.”
Of course, these days, with several X-Men titles all current and absolutely contradicting each other, I just took the Death of Wolverine to be one more “What If” plot-line.