The Artist he is referring to is making money off of Calvin and Hobbes. She has them labeled as Malvin and Cobbes. They look identical to Calvin and Hobbes. They are not in comic strip form. They are mostly used to sell Tshirts. The success of her store and her popularity is dependent on the hard work that was forged by other artists. She didn't create calvin and hobbes comics, she never created their original look. she didn't spend the years necessary to get those comic characters noticed and grow a fan base. She built on an already existing popularized idea and is making profit from someone else's work. She steals Disney, Cartoon Network, Warner Bros, Pixar, and the namesake of this article, Bill Watterson. Out of all the folks she leaches off of, Bill is the one who, turned down millions in order to keep his work as a comic strip. He didn't want mugs, or cartoons, or feature films. He created the comics strip and wants it to stay that way. This entire article would not even exist had Watterson been a bank teller his whole life and never made the comic. He created it. he built on it. You don't own someone else's thoughts, and you don't get to say how long he should own his thoughts.
This leach shouldn't make money off of the hard work forged ahead by others.
Right, I am glad you are honing in on the semantics. Please tell me, where were Calvin and Hobbes before Watterson created them? I'd like to see the pre-Watterson Calvin and Hobbes.
I must say, that if you don't respect his desires or views, then you can't truly respect his art. The man turned down potential millions to keep his comic in the format he created. A comic. Read what the man wrote, and let his words and imagery inspire your own creativity. He is more of an inspiration to me because he didn't sell out.
I like that this article mentions Garfield in contrast. I have seen this same contrast between Garfield and Calvin before, but it was discussing how one artist chose to sell his art in every format that pays, and the other artist chose to do the exact opposite because he didn't want his beloved art form of the comic to ever be watered down.
Artists create. Talent copies. Were the photos being used even the property of the Den Beste? Assuming they were, would his photos have been noticed without the aid of all the hard work and time put into the comic by Watterson? Watterson spent years devoted to creating something from nothing.
There are words for this type of work from Den Beste, however beautiful it is perceived. Leaching, Piggy Back, Stow Away, Siphoning. Those words aren't the prettiest. But is fact, that is what he was doing.
Are you an Artist who creates something from nothing? Or are you an illustrator, or graphic wiz who likes to copy and paste, photoshop, two things you like together? Did you get to where you were all on your own? Or did you leach off of the success made by a hard worker? Was that hard worker filthy rich? Or did he deny millions to keep his art form the way he wanted?
This comic strip was his Canvas. He fought hard to get the space he wanted to create larger works in the Sunday Comics. And more importantly, he did not sell out. I respect him more than others on that fact alone.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Haren K.
Re: Re:
The Artist he is referring to is making money off of Calvin and Hobbes. She has them labeled as Malvin and Cobbes. They look identical to Calvin and Hobbes. They are not in comic strip form. They are mostly used to sell Tshirts. The success of her store and her popularity is dependent on the hard work that was forged by other artists. She didn't create calvin and hobbes comics, she never created their original look. she didn't spend the years necessary to get those comic characters noticed and grow a fan base. She built on an already existing popularized idea and is making profit from someone else's work. She steals Disney, Cartoon Network, Warner Bros, Pixar, and the namesake of this article, Bill Watterson. Out of all the folks she leaches off of, Bill is the one who, turned down millions in order to keep his work as a comic strip. He didn't want mugs, or cartoons, or feature films. He created the comics strip and wants it to stay that way. This entire article would not even exist had Watterson been a bank teller his whole life and never made the comic. He created it. he built on it. You don't own someone else's thoughts, and you don't get to say how long he should own his thoughts.
This leach shouldn't make money off of the hard work forged ahead by others.
Re: Re: Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
Right, I am glad you are honing in on the semantics. Please tell me, where were Calvin and Hobbes before Watterson created them? I'd like to see the pre-Watterson Calvin and Hobbes.
Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
I must say, that if you don't respect his desires or views, then you can't truly respect his art. The man turned down potential millions to keep his comic in the format he created. A comic. Read what the man wrote, and let his words and imagery inspire your own creativity. He is more of an inspiration to me because he didn't sell out.
I like that this article mentions Garfield in contrast. I have seen this same contrast between Garfield and Calvin before, but it was discussing how one artist chose to sell his art in every format that pays, and the other artist chose to do the exact opposite because he didn't want his beloved art form of the comic to ever be watered down.
Artists create. Talent copies. Were the photos being used even the property of the Den Beste? Assuming they were, would his photos have been noticed without the aid of all the hard work and time put into the comic by Watterson? Watterson spent years devoted to creating something from nothing.
There are words for this type of work from Den Beste, however beautiful it is perceived. Leaching, Piggy Back, Stow Away, Siphoning. Those words aren't the prettiest. But is fact, that is what he was doing.
Are you an Artist who creates something from nothing? Or are you an illustrator, or graphic wiz who likes to copy and paste, photoshop, two things you like together? Did you get to where you were all on your own? Or did you leach off of the success made by a hard worker? Was that hard worker filthy rich? Or did he deny millions to keep his art form the way he wanted?
This comic strip was his Canvas. He fought hard to get the space he wanted to create larger works in the Sunday Comics. And more importantly, he did not sell out. I respect him more than others on that fact alone.