Does Rebellion own all of IPC's comic properties?

[Judge Brian]

Does Rebellion own all of IPC's old comics? Could they reprint strips from Lion & Eagle? What about Starlord? Can they reprint the old 2000 AD Dan Dare strips?

Some of it would make for a good floppie for the MEG.

[Art]

According to this DC owns the IPC characters:
http://comicsbeat.com/mad-mental-crazy-the-true-life-of-the-fabulous-zenith-part-3/

[hippynumber1]

And the Dan Dare stuff is 'owned' by the Dan Dare Estate (or whatever they're called)...

[Dandontdare]

I'm pretty sure they own the Starlord stuff, because they've included it in the Strontium Dog and Ro-Busters collections.

Dan Dare is a whole other kettle of litigious fish, as it's owned and fiercely defended by the Dan Dare Corporation. [EDIT - as I now see Hippynumber1 has pointed out...!]

[Steve Green]

Dan Dare is owned by the Dan Dare corporation.

Depending on who you speak to they seem to want more money than people are willing to pay for the licence. Pat Mills suggested re-lettering/renaming him - though obviously there's the Mekon as well.

(The Mekon has appeared with his face blanked out in a couple of strips)

I've no idea what the status of Starlord/Tornado strips that didn't hope over to 2000AD are.

[maryanddavid]

No. Only 2000ad, and the relevant crossover characters from Starlord and Tornado (and Finn?)

Egmont own all new titles published after 1971, Dan Dare Corporation own all Eagle titles and stories originating in the Eagle and the New Eagle.
IPC still own all comics and characters first published pre 1971, but administered by DC comics.
Look and Learn ltd own all the nursery and educational expect for the story 'The Trigan Empire'.

There are some exceptions to the above, but its a pretty accurate overview.

[hippynumber1]

Rebellion own the Starlord stuff that crossed over into 2000AD - Strontium Dog, Ro-Busters and Time Quake but nothing else I believe...

[Simon Beigh]

According to this DC owns the IPC characters:
http://comicsbeat.com/mad-mental-crazy-the-true-life-of-the-fabulous-zenith-part-3/

Interesting article though, Art, thanks for posting the link.

Signatures on the back of cheques considered to be a contract! I don't know enough about the law to say whether it's right or wrong, only that in pretty much all other forms of life there are paper contracts - even back in the 80's. Seems weird it wasn't standard practice up until relatively recently.

[Frank]

According to this DC owns the IPC characters:
http://comicsbeat.com/mad-mental-crazy-the-true-life-of-the-fabulous-zenith-part-3/

Signatures on the back of cheques considered to be a contract! I don't know enough about the law to say whether it's right or wrong, only that in pretty much all other forms of life there are paper contracts - even back in the 80's. Seems weird it wasn't standard practice up until relatively recently.

Until the relatively recent development of the nostalgia market, the perceived value of the vast majority of comic work wasn't so great that anyone cared where the copyright resided. Ironically, the nineties 2000ad material which is the subject of legal dispute is largely stuff that no-one but a small number of hardcore nostalgists would want to read again (Zenith excepted).

[maryanddavid]

I think the problem with reprinting some of this material is that there is no one in these companies that know the material, know whats popular, or cares.
Egmont to their credit have tried with the Misty and Battle special, but even these the content was a bit scattergun. They have some material available on I tunes and on their site 'Classic Comics' available for download. Slightly over priced, but its available and decent quality.

[JOE SOAP]

Signatures on the back of cheques considered to be a contract! I don't know enough about the law to say whether it's right or wrong, only that in pretty much all other forms of life there are paper contracts - even back in the 80's. Seems weird it wasn't standard practice up until relatively recently.

There was a docket system too which predisposed that rights to work were signed over when payment was received.

[Simon Beigh]

I guess I just see it as another fascinating insight into British comics in the 70's and 80's. All a bit "informal" shall we say?