posted May 15, 2003 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zha-Vam:
Can someone clarify for me whether All-American Comics was just a sub-imprint of DC/National Comics or soemthing more?
Was there in some sense a genuine fusion of the two, or was their rift only a temporary declaration of independence? Thanks.

---

It was more than an imprint. All American was originally jointly owned by M C Gaines and one of the DC/National owners (Donenfeld maybe). They had separate characters, editorial staffs, offices, etc. They did appear under the same label (DC) and cross advertise. All Star Comics did use characters from both stables. Originally this was two each from Adventure and More Fun Comics (National/DC) and Flash and All-American (AA). I suspect the "rule" that the JSA could not have characters with their own comics was upon AA insistence so Batman and Superman wouldn't overshadow everyone else. (Note that DC also used a few AA characters in World's Finest -- Johnny Thunder for one.)

In 1943 (I think it was) AA split from DC. They published their comics under an AA label, and the last of the DC characters were dropped from JSA leading to Flash & GL returning to fill the ranks.

This lasted for only about 9 months then DC bought out Gaines and the two companies have became one. (This allowed Superman & Batman to appear in Al Star #36.) Gaines kept the Picture Stories series and I guess Fat & Slat (unless Wheelahan owned that) and founded EC. This originally stood for Educational Comics. I think it was his son, Bill Gaines, who changed this to Entertaining Comics

posted May 16, 2003 02:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluedevil2002:
Actually, didn't Image start as a part of Malibu?

The way I understood it was that Image was originally one company, but as it got bigger, each of the main creators started splitting into their own studios and so it seems like a lot of smaller companies within one larger one. Not like National/American, which seems like two different companies with similar ownership.

---

I suppose it's possible that Scott gave aid and comfort to the Image guys when they were getting their operation(s) rolling (though I never heard anyhing that would suggest it--my impression of the way Malibu did business would argue against his having been sympathetic to their goals, unless I misjudge), but I'm quite sure that there was no formal connection in any ownership sense.

posted May 16, 2003 03:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by NecessaryImpurity:
Iger was Quality, right? Was this a result of the quality buyout in the late '50s? What was given to quality in exchange for their characters and library? Was it an ownership stake?

---

posted May 16, 2003 09:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by vze2:
I bought all of the Malibu comics until Marvel destroyed them. I've never heard of a connection between Malibu and Image, formal or informal.

---

In the early days, Malibu handled distribution of Image books.

posted May 16, 2003 12:53 PM            

As to whether National/AA can be compared to Image as it exists today with the separate studios, I think that there was more cross-pollination between the facets of DC. (Not even counting All-Star Comics, which used not only National's characters but also its artists.) Of course, that might just be part of the nature of freelancing back then when the universe of talent was so much smaller.

As for EC's history, when Max Gaines was bought out of DC, he told Donenfeld he was retiring. Whether true at the time or not, his retirement lasted only two weeks IIRC before he started EC. OldGuy is correct that EC originally stood for Educational Comics and published the Picture Stories (From World History, From the Bible, etc.) as well as some funny animal and humor titles. The early EC published Fat & Slat for four issues (starting with #1 despite the earlier DC one-shot "Ed Whelan's Joke Book Featuring Fat & Slat"). When Max Gaines died in a boating accident, his son Bill took over, changed the name to Entertaining Comics, and revamped the line. Fat & Slat then became Gunfighter and, eventually, Haunt of Fear.

As for OldGuy's theory that the rule of not having characters who headlined their own books appear in JSA was AA's so as to avoid having Supes and Bats dominate the book, I think it's not wrong, but the story I've heard and tend to agree with is that the idea was to use All-Star to cross-pollinate the readership. Kids that loved the Atom in All-American would follow him to All-Star, fall in love with the Spectre, and then start buying More-Fun every month. Supes and Bats were left out because they simply didn't need the sales bump (and neither did Action or 'Tec).

Finally, turning to the Image/Malibu relationship, the very first Image comics were also listed as, I think, published by Malibu. I don't recall exactly, but I do remember that the first time I'd ever heard of Malibu was on the inside-cover/title page of, IIRC, Spawn #1.

posted May 18, 2003 12:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by NecessaryImpurity:
Iger was Quality, right? Was this a result of the quality buyout in the late '50s? What was given to quality in exchange for their characters and library? Was it an ownership stake?

---

Busy Arnold owned Quality. I presume he sold out to National for cash- although supposedly he got royalties on Blackhawk. There were a number of Igers in comics. I'm not sure if they were all related. Jerry Iger orignally partnered with Will Eisner, created a lot of stuff for Quality, including Phantom Lady. He took Phantom Lady to Fox and later to Ajax, which is why DC doesn't own the character even if they think they do. Fred Iger was one of the owners of American Comics Group (publishers of Adventures into the Unknown, Herbie and Magicman). He was married to Sonia Donnenfeld at one time.

posted May 18, 2003 02:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by vze2:
I bought all of the Malibu comics until Marvel destroyed them. I've never heard of a connection between Malibu and Image, formal or informal.

---

posted May 19, 2003 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Friel:
Like most of the black & white publishers of that period, they generated a little good material and a tremendous amount of schlock.

---

Remove the phrases "balck & white" and "of that period" and the statement is still true of the majority of comics companies, I'd say.

--Cliffy

posted May 19, 2003 03:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by whoswhoz:
Jerry Iger took Phantom Lady to Fox and later to Ajax, which is why DC doesn't own the character even if they think they do.

---

I think the question is less settled than you suggest -- there's s legitimate question as to whether Iger ever had the right to take Phantom Lady over to Fox and elsewhere after Quality no longer published her. If he didn't, then no later version of the character was authorized and DC does indeed own the Phantom Lady which it purchased from Quality.

Since it's never been litigated and I don't believe anyone's ever investigated the terms of Quality's deal with the Eisner-Iger studio, it's an open question whether Iger did have the right to shop PL around. However, in light of the precedents that have come out of that era, and unless more facts about the actual terms of the original deal came to light, it seems most likely that a court would consider Phantom Lady to have belonged to Quality, not Iger, and therefore DC today, not AC (who claims ownership through Fox, etc.). Of course, it's probably the case that at that point Eisner & Iger were more sophisticated that Siegel & Shuster were in 1938, so maybe they signed a better contract. Regardless, AC backed down when DC threatened litigation over the issue, so the question is moot (until such time as someone willing to fight buys AC's rights, if any).

The above doesn't take into account that the modern DC incarnation of Phantom Lady owes a lot to the racier Fox version than the Quality version which DC owns, but I don't think it makes a difference -- if Fox's version of PL was copyright infringement, then nothing about that version of the character is protected by copyright law, and therefore DC, as true owners of the character, can take whatever they want from the Fox version, because any part which DC doesn't already own is public domain.

posted May 19, 2003 05:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Friel:
They included Eternity, Imperial, Wonder Color, and one whose name now blessedly escapes me. Like most of the black & white publishers of that period, they generated a little good material and a tremendous amount of schlock.

---

posted May 19, 2003 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cliffy Mark II:
if Fox's version of PL was copyright infringement, then nothing about that version of the character is protected by copyright law, and therefore DC, as true owners of the character, can take whatever they want from the Fox version, because any part which DC doesn't already own is public domain.

--Cliffy

---

If that was true, DC wouldn't have had to buy Captain Marvel off of Fawcett--they'd already have all the rights.

posted May 19, 2003 08:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by arromdee:
If that was true, DC wouldn't have had to buy Captain Marvel off of Fawcett--they'd already have all the rights.

---

IIRC, the lawsuits started by DC were never concluded. Fawcett just gave up because the declining sales didn't make the legal battle worthwhile. DC alleged copyright infringement but never won a judgement.