RSS
Copyright Strikes Again: 'Real Calvin And Hobbes' Shut Down By Copyright Claim
from the but-copyright-isn't-about-censorship? dept
Of course, it's not just the copyright holder who gets to determine copyright infringement. It seems like Den Beste should have a fairly reasonable fair use argument. The images are quite transformative. He's only using a portion of the works. He's certainly not taking away any value from the original works (he's probably adding to it). And, while he did put up a "donate" button on the site, this is hardly a big for-profit venture (he claims he made about $85).Hi Michael,
Thanks for your inquiry.
I'm sorry to say that it is our view that what you're doing is in violation of the copyright of Calvin & Hobbes. This is no reflection on the artistic merit of what you've done and certainly not a personal condemnation of the pieces you've created.
We're protective of the copyright for a variety of reasons, most importantly it is the express and unwavering wish of the creator that any use of Calvin and Hobbes was limited to work he'd created and in very specific formats.
Because that is the case, we would politely request that you take down the works you've created that contain any Calvin and Hobbes images.
You look to be an outstanding artist and we wish you the best in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
John Glynn
Universal UclickAndrews McMeel Universal
The problem, of course, is that fighting for fair use means being willing to spend on a lawyer and go to court. And that's just not worth it for someone doing something fun.
The real issue here, however, is that there is no reason why John Glynn and Andrews McMeel Universal needed to go down this path. Hell, we even have a near perfect parallel example that shows why this is a really dumb move. Five years ago, we wrote about a similar blog concerning Garfield minus Garfield, in which someone else posted Garfield comics with the comic's namesake deleted from every scene. In that case, everyone was actually cool with it. The creator of the comic talked about how awesome it was, and eventually Garfield's publisher, Ballantine Books, worked out a simple agreement to even allow the creator of Garfield Minus Garfield to publish his own book of the strips.
Instead, in this case, a site that was energizing fans about the original comic, and was clearly made lovingly by a huge fan of the original, gets shut down. While there are still some of the images floating around the internet, we're now all worse off for not having these images widely available, and assured that Dan Beste won't be creating any more for the world. That's what we mean when we talk about copyright killing off culture and being used to stomp out creation, rather than encourage it.
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
I have an idea...
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
I have a business...
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
We all see how harmful the current system is. We all see how the Govt is closed to sane and unbiased discussion to bring copyright back to actually benefiting everybody. As much as I believe some sort of protection from commercial exploitation is needed I don't think there's space for copyright in our society as it will be corrupted and abused just like we are seeing. I hope more people pick up this and start publishing similar derivative photos using pseudonyms all over the web.
And also, on a completely unrelated rant, Youtube can shove its real name thing up their arses. Pseudonyms are vital to our society ;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
DRM and copying Old School
http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/532
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
respect watterson's desires, not the law
I can understand where the publisher is coming from (though the artist would have a fair use defence here) but I'd respect the views of the author more than the legal perspective on copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It does however show how respect for copyright is harmful to the public.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Permission Culture
The lesson?
Don't ask for permission to create art. Don't apologize for creating something new and beautiful. Just do it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Watterson
Because of Mr. Watterson's protective attitude towards his own works, and Mr. Glynn's polite, but firm, message, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually is acting in Mr. Watterson's interest, and not just playing the role of big media executive stomping on somebody's hobby.
I'm not trying to comment on the legal issues of infringement or fair use. I'll leave that up to the experts ;).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This case is very similar to Gary Larson (fame of "The Far Side" cartoons) getting sued by Jane Goodall's representatives after this cartoon:
http://bonvito.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/far_side_jane_goodall1.jpg
Jane Goodall had a huge laugh at this one and immediately fired her representatives for the cockup.
As I have stated, Bill Waterson is quite open to fan fic and remakes of his works as longs as you don't profit from it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Photography and CG work (noting the dock) definitely does not show artistic merit....
/s
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bill Watterson
Also, Bill Waterson isn't exactly as recluseive as one would think...he frequently tours Ohio community colleges to give a seminar about teaching college students the dying art of library research.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
Tell ya what, Mike. Since you "support copyright", why not at least tell us what's reasonable in it and what you'd throw out?
These daily repetitions of mis-use in anomalies don't advance an agenda. -- After 3 years of dropping in from out of the blue here, I STILL don't know what your agenda is! -- You evidently, not just "seem" to have a complete aversion to stating any definite position on anything. Should have been a lawyer.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike "supports copyright" -- except when he supports piracy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just something I instantly picked up in the email and not that familiar with US copyright law nor US estoppel caselaw (hint) in this regard.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
On the plus side...
Just not him, his children, or his children's children.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://farleftside.com/2012/1-18-2012-sopa-is-greed.jpg
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
Get some help dude!!! or change the dosage at least
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
DO NOT FEED
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: DO NOT FEED
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: DO NOT FEED
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
As much as I respect the work of Watterson and other artists, they do not get to short circuit the creation of new cultural works based on their own whims. Being nice and polite about it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong and ultimately destructive to the art of our culture that they supposedly love.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
Finding an instance where copyright actually worked as intended and benefited the public in the process would be newsworthy, given that it is so rare.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
As much as I respect Mr. Watterson
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
Well, I'm not Mike, and I can't speak for him, but I am a lawyer, and for my own part I would keep the portion of copyright which concerns the commercial exploitation of a work (obviously I'm speaking very broadly here -- there'd need to be a lot of changes to that as well, such as the usual shorter terms, renewals, strict formalities, etc.) but I would ditch the portion which does not by creating a new exception which at a minimum would protect from infringement actions any natural person who acted non-commercially. "Non-commercially" would need to be carefully defined, but my aim would be to have this exception apply to uses where the prima facie infringer, with regard to the works used, didn't sell anything, didn't use the works as a draw for third parties to see ads or other products for sale, didn't take donations or tips, didn't have an upload / download ratio, etc.
Seems reasonable to me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As much as I respect Mr. Watterson
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Godd luck Google and Mike!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_McMeel_Publishing
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On the plus side...
I cannot fault a group for listening to their art's creators and respecting those wishes, even if I think that the creator of the content is in the wrong. That would be foolish of me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: process they relied upon to build their works
My opinion about the claim in this instance is that Watterson created something quite unique. You can clearly see imagery in his work that one can attribute to other's works (A. A. Milne's 'Tigger' comes to my mind). However Watterson's use of the influences is new and unique, and not transformative.
I happen to like the works that Den Beste created, but I respect Watterson's desires (even though I don't agree with them). At the end though works that utilize direct replicas of other works as primary elements don't quite qualify and wholly new creations.
I think an elegant solution would have been for the publisher devise some deal work with Den Beste to keep the images available. Possibly have some type of input governing where and how Watterson's imagery is used. But an even better solution would be for Den Beste to create new charaters to use in his works.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I run an operate a popular anime and manga website and I use Adobe Photoshop regularly to edit anime images to suit my website. It's not transformative but using someone else's work as my own to better suit banners, signatures and avatars for my community.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
His fights with merchandising had an ironic end too. By refusing to license his characters for anything other than reprints of the strip, he unwittingly created a booming market for unofficial merchandise, like those stickers of Calvin urinating on various logos.
I don't think such things happen because some heartless bastards decided to disrespect the strip's integrity either. I think they happen because people are people, because they naturally share and remix the culture their species produces. It's like whenever anyone creates something, it automatically enters the public domain regardless of what the creator or the law says. That's how the human animal works.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ds
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ds
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How do you know he is open to fan fic and remixes? It's my understanding that he HATES (for instance) all those truck decals of Calvin peeing on things.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Waterson is well known to be protective of his characters, and while I don't think Beste's work diminishes them in any way, he *does* appear to be using the art straight lifted from the comics.
Copyright enforcement *can* be draconian, but in this case Beste asked if it was ok, and was told "well, since you asked... No."
Copyrights aren't *always* bad, and when they're in the service of protecting things the creator really wants protected, they can be good.
I'm fine with a copyright on something like Calvin and Hobbes lasting the length of the author's life.
I think I'd be less uncomfortable about this if Beste were drawing his own versions of the scenes, and *then* putting photographic backdrops on them. In the two examples above, I'd say a LOT more than 20% of the original images are being used. That would take it *out* of fair use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I don't think Waterson really had anything to do with this situation other than being the creator of the characters.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://i.imgur.com/A8w94rF.jpg
Here is the second:
http://i.imgur.com/mggtRuI.jpg
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bill Waterson does in fact enjoy fan work
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Problem This Time
Yes, there may be a fair use claim here, but it certainly doesn't strike me as obviously fair use. We can certainly wish that both publisher and creator took a more enlightened view towards derivative works, but they are very politely exercising a proper right. I am openly opposed to copyright maximalism, but here I support their right to do what they have done so far and think they should be lauded for their politeness and avoiding legal threats.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Problem This Time
The issue now lies solely at the fault of AMU.
It is a veil.....Bill Waterson is reclusive, but he isn't dumb.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
Preventing re-use and retelling of stories is a quick way to cause them to fade from the culture. All stories need various tweaks to make them relevant for a new generation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
Under the exception that I propose, Baste, acting in his own capacity as a natural person, could go further than just fan art; he could just scan copies of all of the Waterson strips and make them available for download. But he couldn't charge for them. Copyright's function as a funnel that does not determine how much money a work can yield, but which can direct some of it to the copyright holder, should be preserved. In order to avoid the danger that people relying on this new exception -- legal pirates, basically -- might tap into the revenue stream for their own benefit, even the mere recouping of costs is prohibited.
Baste could, of course, rely on a different exception in the law. But he'd have to operate entirely at his own expense to take advantage of this one. Of course, nothing stops other people from distributing his work too, so long as they also pay their own way. I don't think it would be a big problem.
But since the exception that would permit this is not the law now, it's really just academic.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's not trespassing if you are invited.
"I'm sorry to say that it is our view that what you're doing is in violation of the copyright of Calvin & Hobbes."
It's not a violation if the copyright holder gives permission. He is asking for permission, therefore, you could choose to give it, and the violation doesn't exist.
(I'm not precluding other reasons why the violation couldn't exist such as fair use.)
A number of years ago, while driving, my kids and I saw a pond with ducks and geese swimming, on a corporate campus (Electronic Arts). It was a Sunday afternoon, so the campus was closed. We stopped by, and I asked the security guards if my kids could feed the ducks. The guard responded, "It's private property." I told him I was aware, which is why I'm asking for permission. His response, "It's private property." I talked with him for a few minutes more, but it soon became obvious that he had no clue that "Private Property" doesn't mean the same thing as "Nobody Allowed."
The property owner is free to decide if kids can feed the ducks on his pond, but just because he owns it, it doesn't mean that nobody should feed ducks.
Even under the stupid interpretations and abuses of copyright law we have today, the copyright holder still has the ability to say that someone can use their art. The assumption that ownership of a copyright automatically means nobody can use it without being in violation is fundamentally wrong...and very irritating.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That is unless you are just taking a square selector and doing a copy and paste on a single color background... then you are just copying... wait a second... you said that you are NOT being transformative Well then that is infringing behavior!
Stop and desist immediately!!!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
I really think that when you compare your story, AMU is the security guard and Bill Waterson is the objective goal represented by the duck feeding.
That being said, I don't Bill Waterson is at all to blame except that his work touched a person so much...that the person created something in an homage to celebrate the warmth and surreal depth that Waterson himself had always portrayed through "Calvin and Hobbes".
I hanestly think that this entire issue could be just one of two scenarios:
1: AMU is actually representing the desires of Bill Waterson......and were doing their jobs to protect him and his work.
2: AMU is overreacting and haven't asked Bill Waterson how he had felt...much like the Gary Larson/Jane Goodall Institute debacle.
Given AMU's statement on the matter...that Michael Den Beste's derivatives lack artistic merit, I am willing to go with scenario number 2.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Funny story...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may also find this hard to believe, but there are those of us members and some of the insiders as well who will criticize an article from time to time with logic and understanding of the subject. :-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If he wanted to avoid something that only happens if your work becomes well known and well loved, he should've avoided doing anything that would make his work well known and well loved, like publishing it.
All popular works get treated this way, because it's what humans have been doing with culture for millennia. Only a fool hopes for their work to become popular while simultaneously hoping nobody adapts in in any way.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I realize that many people tend to attribute a set of characteristics to everyone who exhibits only one member of the set. In fact, that's precisely what I'm criticizing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
Perhaps that was his idea....but those logos differ from the actual appearance of Calvin in general.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Permission Culture
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Waterson
c/o Universal Press Syndicate
4900 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64112
USA
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bill thought them surreal and funny according to my resource.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless it's about technology. NAT are firewalls and only change the last octet and all that, right Wally?
Lol. Do you not find it the least bit ironic that as a psychologist, you almost seem to go out of your own way to stroke your own ego and completely ignore moments/articles where you're completely in the wrong and LACK logic and understanding of a given subject?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
That's a one-on-one interaction.
Technically, putting it on the internet is "publishing" it, potentially reaching a much larger audience.
It's like the difference between painting Calvin & Hobbes on your kid's bedroom wall (legally OK) and painting them on a preschool's wall (not legally OK).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They probably tried, but Hobbes is different enough from Tigger that no judge could call him an infringment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
It does mean you can't do it without his permission.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
I think they're very much in the right. They are acting on their client's clearly stated desires with a good faith belief that their action is within the law, and doing so in a respectful manner. It would be quite wrong of them to say go ahead and do this when they know Watterson would not approve, unless it was quite cut and dry that there could be no copyright claim.
There are a couple of places to put some blame for being wrong, namely copyright law for allowing this to happen and Watterson for his attitude, but his lawyers IMO are in the clear.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Coppyright as an Incentive
This is a classic example of what copyright should not be--welfare for artists. No artist--no matter how talented, influential, or awesome (and Watterson is all three), should be allowed to sit on their copyrights and do nothing with them. This is the big thing that needs to be change regarding copyright--it lasts too long. Almost everything else about copyright could stay the same for all I care, but reduce the term to something like five years with possible extensions if you can show proof of continuing works. In this case, as long as Watterson's making new works with Calvin and Hobbes he can keep the copyrights on the old stuff--if not, five years after the last new strip it all becomes public domain.
As an artist myself, if I were in Watterson's position I would be thrilled about what Michael Den Beste is doing and would give him permission to do it to all of the strips (and probably donate some money to him, and maybe work out a book deal with him too). Because as any artist knows, once your work drops out of the publics' consciousness--it may as well not even have existed. Unless I introduce them to it myself, I sincerely doubt my children will discover Watterson's work on their own--and that would be a shame.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
How do you know, and what does he do? What about "Universal uclick" whatever that is?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So you would find these works to be a good replacement for the original comics?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
It's very sad that he would see his work wither and die from neglect and forgetfulnesses in some vain attempt to stop bootleggers from profiting from his work--which they do anyway.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Except that isn't what copyright is for. Its purpose is to encourage people to publish, not to protect their work.
In the two examples above, I'd say a LOT more than 20% of the original images are being used. That would take it *out* of fair use.
There is no percentage rule for fair use. Something can use 100% of the work and still be fair use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
While I think that the copyright on Calvin and Hobbes should have expired by now (the current copyright law being way too long) (because the 1st C&H was published in 1985 and the last in 1995), given Watterson's wishes and the fact that he still does have the copyright on C&H the publisher's response was the best response possible.
I also agree w/ Mike that having to go to court to affirm that your use is fair use is hurting the creation of new "culture".
I disagree w/ those who say that we should respect Watterson's desires, other than possibly granting a limited copyright (in my opinion somewhere from 5 to 20 years max) the creator has no inherent right to control how others use his creation. For example I find C&H makes great bathroom reading, if Watterson doesn't like that, too bad.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Coppyright as an Incentive
Why?
Don't you have copies of Watterson's books in your personal library?
If you're a fan, you should have (at least) one!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
Then, they're arrested, are tried and convicted, pay fines and/or serve time.
Am I missing something, boy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
It could also have been for safety and/or legal reasons.
What if your kids fell into the pond and hurt themselves?
What if the ducks accidently bit the kids while the tykes were feeding them?
By giving permission, the guard (and property owner) would assume responsibility for your kids' safety, with all the attendant legal ramifications.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
Baste is making money from copyrighted imagery of Calvin & Hobbes and not paying a percentage of it as a licensing fee to Watterson or Andrews McMeel Universal.
Unlicensed exploitation = piracy!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
Unlicensed exploitation = piracy!
Yes, thank you for reminding us that 'piracy' in the context of copyright is so overused, misused, and broad, as to be basically meaningless blather.
After all, if I own a used bookstore and sell a used copy of a Calvin & Hobbes book, I too am "making money from copyrighted imagery of Calvin & Hobbes and not paying a percentage of it as a licensing fee to Watterson or Andrews McMeel Universal." I am engaging in "unlicensed exploitation."
But either it is not piracy (contrary to what you said), or the word piracy applies to totally legal activities.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, the irony/hypocrisy of the statement is lost on you, isn't it?
Little girl has laptop seized by police. Enter Wally, "Well, you see, Apple..." (Or was that when you had the very public mental breakdown, which you promptly called quite a few people trolls over, when they pointed out that there's a time and place for having mental breakdowns. And in the middle of the comments in response to an online article isn't it.)
Sheesh. And my comment wasn't off topic for the article. Look at what I quoted. That is what YOU said. I was directly replying to that, more particularly your grasp (or better said, lack thereof) of "understanding the subject" in numerous articles.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Permission Culture
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
Universal UClick has no connection to AMU, LCC..
http://www.universaluclick.com/comics
This clears both Bill Watterson (who I actually now can confirm he enjoyed seimg Mr. Baste's work) and Andrew McMeel.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Evil gets it Just Deserts
I like Calvin and Hobbes as well, but Mr. Watterson fails to recognize that when art goes out into the world, it becomes part of the larger community, and to attempt to shut that down is to kill the interactions that eventually grow to make a body of work transcendent - the kind of work that bears repeated viewing, and stands the test of time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
It looks like they do have some kind of relationship with C&H though. I can't tell what from their web front, but they're offering it for sale. Either it's legit, or Watterson needs to get his real lawyers in gear.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
UClick may be selling C&H in digital form and making money off of it...maybe with Bill Watterson's good graces. My only complaint is that people are blaming him personally for the takedown when in fact he absolutely loved Baste's Work. I would normally cite my sources with a link or two...but out of personal respect for the man, and his reclusive nature (only matched for by the exact same reasons Neil Armstrong stayed recluse), I would rather let him be.
Either way I'm forced to agree with you nasch :-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Streisand Affect
Baste was making his works into desktop backgrounds (my favorite of which was the derivative of one of my absolute FAVORITE C&H books...."Yukon Ho!")
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Permission Culture
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Permission Culture
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How about changing the characters?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How about changing the characters?
It's possible that a court could rule they're derivative works and thus copyright infringement. It's also possible it could rule they're dissimilar enough to be permitted, or that they're parody. There's just no way to know unless it goes to trial. That's one of the problems with copyright law: even if you're not actually making copies of something, you could still be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, not to mention legal costs, and not even know it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That is pretty sleazy. In my opinion it should not be illegal as long as she's coming up with new strips rather than redrawing the ones Watterson made, but a court might find otherwise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment