Omission in Beck's book

[SEATTLECHEF]

Whilst reading Jerry Beck's book, "the Ultimate Visual Guide" I noticed that Ben Hardaway is listed in the index and should appear on pg 14 (I think that's the page number, it's not in front of me) yet neither he nor his work appear anywhere in the book. As far as I can tell, that is the only name or topic listed in the index that does not appear in the book. Does anybody have any idea why?

[SEATTLECHEF]

I haven't received any input on this thread so I started the exact same thread on the Animation Show forum. I posted it this morning, when I looked at it in the middle of the day there were almost 50 views but no comments. Then just a few minutes ago I looked and it vanished. What's up with that? Anybody have any ideas? That forum is much slower moving than this one. The thread is not offensive or off topic why would it vanish?

[Tom Stathes]

Perhaps the topic you're bringing up has some legal issues attached to it that prevent public discussion. :bugs2:

[David Gerstein]

I've got your answer.
At the particular time this LOONEY TUNES book was in production, Warner Legal objected to revealing too much about the origins or first appearances of its characters, apparently for the far-fetched reason that if future video pirates knew when the characters debuted, they'd start counting the years until the early shorts became public domain (no—really!)
Page 14 was originally to have discussed the earliest appearances of Bugs, with references to Hardaway, Dalton, Thorson, Jones, and Avery. Thanks to Warner Legal, almost all of this precise information got wiped; one Avery WILD HARE reference stayed, but if you read closely, you'll notice that the cartoon's exact significance is noted nowhere.
All that's left of the deleted material is an unexplained, unidentified PORKY'S HARE HUNT screengrab at the top of the page... and that overlooked pointer you noticed in the index, pointing to an article that isn't there anymore.

[Tom Stathes]

Ah, so there you go. ;)

[J. B. Warner]

That would also explain why there are practically no mentions of when the cartoons were released throughout the entire book. Hundreds of shorts are mentioned by name, but none of their release years are identified.

Any other legal tidbits we should know about this book? Like why the Dover Boys were digitally removed from the endpapers, perhaps?

[Sogturtle]

That would also explain why there are practically no mentions of when the cartoons were released throughout the entire book. Hundreds of shorts are mentioned by name, but none of their release years are identified.

Any other legal tidbits we should know about this book? Like why the Dover Boys were digitally removed from the endpapers, perhaps?

J.B. Warner~

Well the cartoon "The Dover Boys" has always been public domain (never copyrighted back in '42--instant public domain). But the fact of them NOT being copyrighted MAY have made the lawyers thrice-jumpy.

And honestly ANY video-pirate with very little "smarts":p can nowadays EASILY look up all the pertinent info online about the debuts of ANY Warner (or MGM) character(s). Like right here!:D

[captchucky]

I've got your answer.
At the particular time this LOONEY TUNES book was in production, Warner Legal objected to revealing too much about the origins or first appearances of its characters, apparently for the far-fetched reason that if future video pirates knew when the characters debuted, they'd start counting the years until the early shorts became public domain (no—really!)
Page 14 was originally to have discussed the earliest appearances of Bugs, with references to Hardaway, Dalton, Thorson, Jones, and Avery. Thanks to Warner Legal, almost all of this precise information got wiped; one Avery WILD HARE reference stayed, but if you read closely, you'll notice that the cartoon's exact significance is noted nowhere.
All that's left of the deleted material is an unexplained, unidentified PORKY'S HARE HUNT screengrab at the top of the page... and that overlooked pointer you noticed in the index, pointing to an article that isn't there anymore.

But now, I don't think this is a problem, mostly because of one mouse's birth in 1928. Will any character from that year or later ever end up in public domain? ...as long as there is a studio around to maintain copyrights, that is.

[David Gerstein]

Tim, you're correct about the Dover Boys situation. WB Legal knew the original cartoon was PD and, I believe, didn't think it had trademarked the characters independently of the cartoon, or used them in any other protected product.
Ironically, on that last fact it was wrong. There is an Animaniacs episode, FRONTIER SLAPPY, that features the Dover Boys, and that is most certainly still owned by Warner—oops!

The trademark issue again comes to play with regard to your comment, Captchucky. Mickey Mouse and most of the more major cartoon characters are protected by trademark—independently of any specific cartoon—as long as their owners can prove they've continued to use the character in some (however minor) capacity over the years.
At the time of the copyright extension act you're talking about, a lot of people claimed that Mickey himself was due to enter the public domain—nope, he wouldn't have. The possibility was merely that his early cartoons would have become PD, and PD distributors (Goodtimes, etc.) would have been able to put them out. Due to trademark law, however, those PD distributors wouldn't have been able to create as much as one new drawing of Mickey to illustrate their DVD sleeves; they would have to restrict themselves to enlarging and retouching images from the actual cartoons.

Disney ran the risk of losing exclusive right to use the early Mickey cartoons. But there was never a risk that someone else could create entirely new cartoons featuring Mickey, or begin to market Mickey stuffed animals.
(Damn, and I had my sewing machine all warmed up.)

[Leviathan]

This wouldn't be the first time WB Legal has mandated some kind of arcane change to something (lest we forget Top Cat and Wacky Races).

Only God can surmise How many other unfortunate events have been brought on by the lumbering in of these lunkheads?

[Daws Butler Jr.]

I don't understand the Warners legal department, or consumer products, for that matter. Any boob that can read a roman numeral can figure out when the cartoons were made.

Disney celebrates every anniversary and birthday of its characters, bringing out new merchandise for people to collect. Warners sits on their thumbs, trying to bury the obvious, afraid someone might not like the characters because they're "old".

And thus, we get "Loonatics" instead.

[Alf]

David Gerstein wrote:

Tim, you're correct about the Dover Boys situation. WB Legal knew the original cartoon was PD and, I believe, didn't think it had trademarked the characters independently of the cartoon, or used them in any other protected product.
Ironically, on that last fact it was wrong. There is an Animaniacs episode, FRONTIER SLAPPY, that features the Dover Boys, and that is most certainly still owned by Warner—oops!

The Dover Boys also appeared in SPACE JAM, among the audience -made up of classic Looney Tunes characters- watching the basketball game.

[nickramer]

I don't understand the Warners legal department, or consumer products, for that matter. Any boob that can read a roman numeral can figure out when the cartoons were made.

Disney celebrates every anniversary and birthday of its characters, bringing out new merchandise for people to collect. Warners sits on their thumbs, trying to bury the obvious, afraid someone might not like the characters because they're "old".

And thus, we get "Loonatics" instead. Not to mention the fact that Warners still thinks Tweety's a girl. I'm strating to wonder if Warner's marketing even cares about there chacters.

[SEATTLECHEF]

I've got your answer.
At the particular time this LOONEY TUNES book was in production, Warner Legal objected to revealing too much about the origins or first appearances of its characters, apparently for the far-fetched reason that if future video pirates knew when the characters debuted, they'd start counting the years until the early shorts became public domain (no—really!)
Page 14 was originally to have discussed the earliest appearances of Bugs, with references to Hardaway, Dalton, Thorson, Jones, and Avery. Thanks to Warner Legal, almost all of this precise information got wiped; one Avery WILD HARE reference stayed, but if you read closely, you'll notice that the cartoon's exact significance is noted nowhere.
All that's left of the deleted material is an unexplained, unidentified PORKY'S HARE HUNT screengrab at the top of the page... and that overlooked pointer you noticed in the index, pointing to an article that isn't there anymore.

Thanks for your answer.

I went back through the book. The others that you mentioned; Dalton, Thorson, Jones,and Avery are, at least, discussed and acknowledged in the book.
The only one entirely excluded is Hardaway (except in the index).
Why would Warner legal go out of their way to completely exclude just one person?
As you state above, the "video pirates of the future" explanation is far-fetched.

[SEATTLECHEF]

I reposted the thread after it dissappeared from the Animation Show forum the first time. Jerry Beck responded with a post directing me to David Gerstein's answer posted within this thread and he added that he'd be deleting the thread in a few hours. One of the posts offered before the thread was deleted for the second time was particularly poignant.

From Michael Grabowski:

"Wow--this only mildly interesting (to me) question leads to a very interesting topic. I find it disturbing that the answer is to be left so obscure and that this thread will soon self-destruct. How frighteningly Orwellian."

[Leviathan]

From Michael Grabowski:

"Wow--this only mildly interesting (to me) question leads to a very interesting topic. I find it disturbing that the answer is to be left so obscure and that this thread will soon self-destruct. How frighteningly Orwellian."

That wouldn't be the first time something like that's happened there (if you do visit the Animation Show, don't EVER EVER mention a certain old farmer that goes by the name of "MacDonald", particularly if it relates to a certain 1945 Noveltoon. You'll be as popular as an alleged-Commuist in the McCarthy era)

[Tom Stathes]

Orwellian or not, it is Beck's jurisdiction to do whatever he pleases on his forum. It's not our concern especially when in relation to topics with legal issues attached to them. In a situation where something like this is a concern to you, the best thing to do is contact Beck privately. I can't stress that further (and am feeling redundant in doing so). :shame:

[Tom Stathes]

That wouldn't be the first time something like that's happened there (if you do visit the Animation Show, don't EVER EVER mention a certain old farmer that goes by the name of "MacDonald", particularly if it relates to a certain 1945 Noveltoon. You'll be as popular as an alleged-Commuist in the McCarthy era)
While I might agree that the consequences of an individual obsessing over something because of a deficit of social skills were a bit drastic, again, contact the moderators and administrators if something is a concern.