Pulp Doc Savage Covers?

[rogue_ronin]

Does anyone here have a complete set of the original covers from Doc Savage Magazine? Not the later, helmet-haired ones -- the earlier, original Baumhofer ones?

I've found the first few dozen on the web, but after the first 8 or so, can't find them very large. Even including the smaller ones, haven't found many past the first 46 issues.

Thanks!

m a r

[moosejons_dad]

Check this out for the covers:

http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/doc-savage-books

[rogue_ronin]

Thanks. That's a great site.

But...

Those are the later, Bantam covers. I'm looking for the original pulp covers from the Doc Savage magazine of the 30's and 40's.

m a r

EDIT: Searching from the main page, it seems that there are a lot of the original covers, too. Thanks! Here's hoping I can assemble all 180 or so!

[HarryT]

They're probably still in copyright, so I doubt you'll legally find hi-res scans of them on the web.

[rogue_ronin]

Oh, god, no!

Not that!

Someone looking at pictures without permission?

Horrors! How will the rich ever survive?

m a r

[HarryT]

<shrug>

Pictures have copyrights just as words do.

[rogue_ronin]

Are people reading stuff without permission?

I am seriously concerned now.

If people keep reading stuff, without license, and looking at pictures without asking their betters... I mean, how will those that live off the efforts of the creative class survive? Especially when those creators remain stubbornly dead?

Everyone should do exactly what the rich and powerful say. That's just the way it ought to be. Otherwise they might not remain rich and powerful, and then how would we know our proper place?

m a r

[HarryT]

There's no need to be sarcastic. You said that you'd not been able to find these images on the web. I was saying why that was.

[rogue_ronin]

You were telling me what was "legal", and implying that my actions were ethically wrong. You certainly weren't trying to help me find the images.

As there are many reasons to display and discuss and, dare I say it, make use of some 60-year-old (and older) images, I find your implications insulting.

Sarcasm is the only socially acceptable response to such behavior that I'm capable of. I'm capable of other responses, but they lack... subtlety.

m a r

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

You were telling me what was "legal", and implying that my actions were ethically wrong.

No, I wasn't. I was simply stating that most images from the 1930s and 40s will still be protected by copyright, and that this is why you won't find them on the web. What "hidden meanings" you choose to insert into that simple factual statement exist only in your imagination.

[Ralph Sir Edward]

They were "work for hire" in the US. That leaves them under US copyright until 95 years after they were printed. 1933 + 95 = 2028 for the first cover.

The Berne convention is life + 50 (stretch by many countries to life + 70) for the artist. Since you know the name, you can look up the artist's date of death and find out when he was to go PD in those countries.

Some of us (such as me) think that copyright length is ridiculous, but we don't link to pirate sites here. This is too useful of a site to have legal problem with it....

[rogue_ronin]

Pirate sites like Mobileread?

How many of the avatars used here are "in copyright" and therefore "illegal" by this "definition"? Like maybe a Dalek?

Maybe someone should make a DCMA takedown notice?

Pirate sites? Please.

m a r

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

How many of the avatars used here are "in copyright" and therefore "illegal" by this "definition"? Like maybe a Dalek?

Avatars being usually low resolution fragments, they can be considered inside the limits of fair use.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

You were telling me what was "legal", and implying that my actions were ethically wrong. You certainly weren't trying to help me find the images.

As there are many reasons to display and discuss and, dare I say it, make use of some 60-year-old (and older) images, I find your implications insulting.

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I wasn't. I was simply stating that most images from the 1930s and 40s will still be protected by copyright, and that this is why you won't find them on the web. What "hidden meanings" you choose to insert into that simple factual statement exist only in your imagination.

Being on this forum for some time now and getting to know the regulars, I can tell you that HarryT quite definitely didn't mean any offense and was just stating a fact. He's not that kind of guy.

Copyright law currently sucks pretty bad, but that doesn't change whether something is under copyright or not. You can, of course, choose to ignore that and accept any possible consequences.

Oh and avatars certainly fall under fair use.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

Oh, god, no!

Not that!

Someone looking at pictures without permission?

Horrors! How will the rich ever survive?

m a r

The point is that pictures are copyrighted, just as text can be copyrighted.


Don