What precisely has been gifted to the public domain? As I understand it, Willingham was the writer, not the graphic artist, so the words are his to give away but the finished comic book product is not - is that right?
If he's the "creator" of record, then he can give away characters, setting, plots &c. The words and concepts, as you suggest. So derivative works based on the concepts would be kosher, photocopies of the existing books wouldn't. New art based on old scripts might fly, though my gut instinct says it wouldn't, but rewrites with new art probably would, that sort of thing.
My question is how can he give away a character in a legal sense? Can characters be copyrighted? Mickey Mouse is a Disney Trademark, same with Spiderman and other name-brand 'on the cover' characters.
But what about if I make up a novel and sell it starring the character Peter Parker beat in the match ring in the early aughts film? I say this character is the same character, make up a story of how he recovered from his injury, opened a hot dog launching factory as a novelty theme park, then died of cancer.
The story is set in Earth 616 ostensibly, but I don't use Spider-man beyond that being the past of this main character.
Is that a derivative work? Can you copyright a name/character traits without using trademark law to focus on customer confusion?
EDIT: I think this is laudable what he did, I'm just curious if he even needed to do so in the first place, or if the law already allowed you to do this, in the same way that the Open Gaming License of DND 5E only gave you rights to use the rules system of 5E that copyright law already allowed you to do in the first place?
The current legal status of "Winnie the Pooh" provides examples for all of this.
The original book has entered the public domain and can be reproduced, in whole or in part, by anyone. This includes the characters.
The Disney created works (books, animated, etc.) are still under copyright.
The original Pooh did not wear clothes; the Disney Pooh wears a red shirt. I could write a story based on the original Milne book and it would be legal; if I put Pooh in a red shirt, I would be violating Disney's copyright.
Many of the character names are trademarked by Disney; however, it is not a violation to use those names for new works that are not based on Disney works.
> The original Pooh did not wear clothes; the Disney Pooh wears a red shirt.
Actually, Pooh wears just such a top in chapter three, perhaps because it’s cold, and although all I can actually check at present is https://www.gutenberg.org/files/67098/67098-h/67098-h.htm#CH... which clearly shows it in the original black and white line art, I believe that it was red in colourised versions (though I’m not actually certain when colourisation happened or what its status is).
No, without seeing his contract, you can't know what ownership he retained even if he's nominally the copyright holder. He can be the "copyright holder" of record and have exclusively licensed away the characters, settings, and plots in the contract. He obviously thinks he has not done this, but who is the "creator" of record tells you nothing.
