switching gears a touch, I found some cool urban legends surrounding The Big Red Cheese:
COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Marvel HAS to publish a Captain Marvel comic book.
STATUS: For all intents and purposes, True
As I stated in two (here and here)earlier Urban Legends Revealed, after they settled with DC, Fawcett ceased publication of Captain Marvel.
In the mean time, at one point in the 60s, Marvel decided that they should trademark well, anything with Marvel in the title.
That was all fine and good, you can trademark something, but for the trademark to be ENFORCABLE, you have to actually PUBLISH something.
Marvel did not do that until they heard rumblings that DC was considering bringing back Fawcett's Captain Marvel character.
So, in the late 60s, Marvel released their Captain Marvel character, therefore protecting their Captain Marvel trademark.
This is why, when DC got around to publishing Fawcett's Captain Marvel characters in the 1970s, they had to call the book "Shazam!," as the name Captain Marvel was a trademark owned by Marvel (note the difference between trademark and copyright. Fawcett still owned the copyright on Captain Marvel, so when they licensed the character to DC, DC was able to use the name Captain Marvel IN the comic book, just not when promoting or advertising the comic book. That is where trademarks come into play).
Well, as you can imagine, if Marvel ever LOST the trademark on Captain Marvel, DC would be quick to swoop in and grab it, so Marvel knew very well that it could not let the trademark lapse.
To do so, there is no hard and fast rule, but a safe bet would say they had to come out with a Captain Marvel publication at least every year or so.
So, what did Marvel do?
They published the adventures of the Kree warrior, Captain Marvel, from 1968 until 1979 (the last few years as a bi-monthly).
Then the Death of Captain Marvel in 1982.
Then the mini-series the LIFE of Captain Marvel (reprinting his most significant achievements) in 1985.
In 1982, Marvel introduced a new Captain Marvel (as mentioned last week), and in 1989, when no Captain Marvel book had been released for awhile, suddenly, she had a one-shot!
In 1994, once again, she had a one-shot!
In 1995, the first Captain Marvel's son had an ongoing series for less than a year.
In 1997, Marvel published an Untold Tale of Captain Marvel.
In 2000, Peter David gave Marvel's son another boost, with a series that lasted until 2004.
So while no, Marvel does not HAVE to publish a Captain Marvel comic book, if they want to keep their trademark, they will.
And, well, they want to keep their trademark...so they WILL keep on finding ways to publish a Captain Marvel comic book.
Note that, in House of M, Ms. Marvel is known by a certain familiar name?
COMIC URBAN LEGEND: After the Captain Marvel decision, DC bought Fawcett's characters.
STATUS: False
The fact remains (as pointed out here) that Fawcett's sales had gone down a lot by the mid-50s, as did most superhero titles. The Fawcett/DC suit had begun at the height of Fawcett's sales, and by the time Fawcett settled, the books just weren't selling.
So they agreed to stop publishing Captain Marvel, and they sold their remaining characters to Charlton.
Years later, in the early 70s, DC decided they would like to publish Captain Marvel themselves (Marvel, during the 60s, had decided to claim all uses of the word Marvel as a trademark, and upon rumors of DC wanting to bring Captain Marvel back, they rushed out their version to take claim to the "Captain Marvel" trademark).
Still, they were not OWNED by DC.
DC simply leased the characters.
Years later, DC eventually just bough the characters outright (this seems to be DC's modus operandi...rather than have to do complicated deals, they just use their money to buy themselves out of complicated deals...see the Wonder Woman deal from here.)
COMIC URBAN LEGEND: C.C. Beck based Captain Marvel's appearance on a movie where Fred MacMurray daydreams about being a superhero.
STATUS: False
E. Nelson Bridwell, speaking of the origins for the look of Captain Marvel (nee Captain Thunder), had the following to say in 1977...
The twenty-nine-year old [C.C.] Beck came fresh from a job on a movie mag and possibly inspired by a dream sequence in which the star became a kind of superhero modeled Captain Thunder on Fred MacMurray.
MacMurray DID, in fact, star in a film called "No Time For Love," in which MacMurray, in a dream sequence, dressed up as a caped superhero.
The only problem is that "No Time For Love" was released in 1943.
Captain Marvel's first appearance?
1940.
However, just because Bridwell was wrong about the specific film that inspired Beck to choose MacMurray to base Captain Marvel on does not mean that Beck did not, in fact, base Captain Marvel's appearance on Fred MacMurray.
According to Beck himself, "Captain Marvel himself was based on the actor Fred MacMurray."
Or according to Jim Steranko, "With the movie job fresh in his mind, he began the task of translating Bill Parker's ideas into graphic form. He chose film star Fred MacMurray as the model of Captain Thunder, giving him the same black, wavy hair; bone structure, and cleft chin."
And many others agree.
So it is likely that Beck DID, in fact, base Captain Marvel's appearance upon MacMurray...just not that particular film.
COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Fawcett Comics had to stop publishing Captain Marvel because it lost a copyright lawsuit brought by DC Comics.
STATUS: A lot of truth to it, but the basic assertion that Fawcett was forced to stop publishing Captain Marvel due to a court decision is false.
Here is the straight story, right from the mouth of noted comic legal expert, Bob Ingersoll,
DC (here a shorthand for National Periodicals Publications, Inc.) sued Fawcett over Captain Marvel claiming copyright infringement At the trial, the court ruled that Captain Marvel did infringe on DC's copyright on Superman (citing to the former Superman/Wonderman lawsuit as precedent). Specific panels of Captain Marvel flying and performing deeds were used in evidence to show his adventures and exploits swiped those of Superman.
But the trial court also ruled that DC (or NPP as it was called back then) couldn't enforce its copyright, because it had abandoned it. The basis for this ruling was that the Superman comic strip, which the McClure Syndicate did under a license from NPP, did not include any of the necessary copyright notices which are required by law to secure and maintain a copyright. So, the trial court ruled that NPP had abandoned its copyright on Superman and couldn't enforce it. This was a victory for Fawcett. The court ruled it did violate copyright, but also ruled NPP couldn't enforce the copyright.
The federal court of appeals in New York affirmed the trial court in part and reversed the trial court's decision in part. The court of appeals agreed that Captain Marvel violated NPP's copyright on Superman. It also ruled that NPP hadn't abandoned its copyright. It noted that an intent to abandon copyright has to be clear and unequivocal. NPP continued to attach copyright notices to the Superman comics that it published, so any intent to abandon the copyright wasn't unequivocal. The Court of Appeals also ruled that NPP couldn't be held responsible for the lapses of its licensee, McClure. For those reasons, NPP didn't abandon its copyright on Superman and could enforce it.
The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court for more proceedings. At this point, Fawcett had already lost the important question, did it violate NPP's copyright. It knew it would lose the trial. At the same time, sales on CAPTAIN MARVEL had declined. So Fawcett chose to settle, rather than go on with a trial it knew it would lose to publish a character that was slipping. In the settlement, Fawcett agreed not to publish Captain Marvel anymore.
There are many, many more, I will try to post more later, here is the source:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/08/17/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-64/