by Mike Masnick
Tue, Jun 3rd 2008 2:14am
A friend of mine sent me to Garfield minus Garfield a few months back. It's a slightly bizarre and surreal showing of Garfield comic strips where the lead character, Garfield the cat, is removed from the cartoon, leaving only his owner Jon Arbuckle. The result is that it totally changes the meaning of some of the strips, leading to a sort of... existential despair. The NY Times wrote a story about it this week, which I read -- but perhaps the most interesting point is noted by Mathew Ingram: Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield isn't bothered by it. In fact, he seems to enjoy it, having thanked the creator of the site, and noted that it made him go back and look at the entire body of Garfield comics in a very different light. What's somewhat sad about this is the fact that a content creator not reacting angrily or threatening to sue (or just filing suit) over a derivative work is considered so rare to merit mentioning. Clearly, we still have a long way to go.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Russian Copyright Law Allows Entire News Site To Be Shut Down Over A Single Copied Article
- IP Lawyers Tell Copyright Office To Stop Screwing The Public By Opposing Cable Box Reform
- But Wait: Copyright Law Is So Screwed Up, Perhaps The Rolling Stones Are Right That Donald Trump Needed Their Permission
- How A Supreme Court Case On Cheerleader Costumes & Copyright Could Impact Prosthetic Hands And Much, Much More
- IsoHunt Settles The Last Of Its Lawsuits, Laughably Agrees To 'Pay' Recording Industry $66 Million