If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Dirt)   Remember the warm and fuzzies you got when you saw Calvin and Hobbes photoshopped into real life photos? I hope you do because the copyright fairies have struck again   (techdirt.com) divider line 72
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7789 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Feb 2013 at 6:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-27 05:23:23 PM
Don't fark with Bill Watterson
 
2013-02-27 05:24:10 PM
how bout the calvin pissing decals, because i can never start laughing at those.
 
2013-02-27 05:34:58 PM

SpikeStrip: how bout the calvin pissing decals, because i can never start laughing at those.


+1

Oh, and people need to RTFA because the headline has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-02-27 05:37:22 PM
not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.
 
2013-02-27 05:42:04 PM

SpikeStrip: how bout the calvin pissing decals, because i can never start laughing at those.


I like these better because they're so true to the character!

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-27 06:21:31 PM
That was the nicest cease and desist I've ever read.
 
2013-02-27 06:22:27 PM
Were the photos he was using even his?  Or was he ripping those off to?

I don't see much to be outraged about.  He was cutting and pasting someone else's work onto photos (which themselves may have belonged to a different person) and posting them online.  He wrote to the publisher/rights holder of Calvin, asked if what he was doing was a violation of their copyrights, and they politely wrote back and said in their opinion he was.

Had he kept his mouth shut he probably would have flown under their radar, but by drawing their attention, he brought this on himself (or herself, I'm too lazy to check the gender of the "artist").

The next step would be writing back to find out if he could get a non-commercial license to the artwork, which it appears he hasn't asked for.  Then again this is Watterson, so he may have just told him to pound sand anyway.
 
2013-02-27 06:48:16 PM
And as a copyright holder, they have to go after anyone who uses the work in any capacity, or it diminishes their ability to assert in more egregious cases.
 
2013-02-27 06:48:56 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.


Sorta like your politics tab posts?
 
2013-02-27 06:51:22 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That was the nicest cease and desist I've ever read.


brokenpianoforpresident.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-27 06:57:08 PM
 
2013-02-27 07:18:16 PM

machodonkeywrestler: tenpoundsofcheese: not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.

Sorta like your politics tab posts?


all of my politics tab posts respect the rights of the copyright holders.
I
 
2013-02-27 07:23:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: machodonkeywrestler: tenpoundsofcheese: not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.

Sorta like your politics tab posts?

all of my politics tab posts respect the rights of the copyright holders.
I


I've never ONCE see you credit Norman Lear for writing your material.
 
2013-02-27 07:25:28 PM

unlikely: And as a copyright holder, they have to go after anyone who uses the work in any capacity, or it diminishes their ability to assert in more egregious cases.


You're thinking of Trademarks, where you can lose it if you don't rigorously defend it.
 
2013-02-27 07:26:42 PM
Aww I was the subby of the original article a few days ago. I thought it was a cute and creative idea, and I'm sad to see it shut down. It was nice while it lasted :(
 
2013-02-27 07:44:31 PM

RexTalionis: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That was the nicest cease and desist I've ever read.

[brokenpianoforpresident.files.wordpress.com image 850x1093]


Wow, that is a great.
 
2013-02-27 07:44:47 PM

ShawnDoc: unlikely: And as a copyright holder, they have to go after anyone who uses the work in any capacity, or it diminishes their ability to assert in more egregious cases.

You're thinking of Trademarks, where you can lose it if you don't rigorously defend it.


I'm not a lawyer but I work with a lot of writers and artists who deal with this daily.
I defer to their professional understanding, which has always been as I expressed previously.
 
2013-02-27 07:49:41 PM
Lame idea, and lame execution...    He didn't even put their reflection in the pond, which presumably should've been obvious.
 
2013-02-27 07:54:56 PM
I'm OK with this. Those were shiatty.
 
2013-02-27 07:56:47 PM

cretinbob: Don't fark with Bill Watterson


I doubt Watterson would have been too upset about this particular infringement. He disliked/dislikes rampant commercialization... I don't know if he would have a problem with a derivative artistic work that wasn't being sold. That being said... who knows really. Nobody's heard from him for decades.
 
2013-02-27 07:58:04 PM

unlikely: And as a copyright holder, they have to go after anyone who uses the work in any capacity, or it diminishes their ability to assert in more egregious cases.


That's trademarks.
 
2013-02-27 07:58:14 PM
So, what does this mean for Hobbes and Bacon?
 
2013-02-27 08:00:31 PM

unlikely: I'm not a lawyer but I work with a lot of writers and artists who deal with this daily.
I defer to their professional understanding, which has always been as I expressed previously.


Ha ha ha, like they'd know.  No, ShawnDoc is right, at least in theory.  Trademark rights derive from association and continued use, and so you have to defend them.  Copyright is granted legally and so you have protection regardless of whether you defend.

Presumably a good lawyer might be able to make a common law argument that by egregiously refusing to assert copyright protection one releases the work into the public domain.  That might be what the authors you speak of were thinking.
 
2013-02-27 08:00:40 PM
Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?
 
2013-02-27 08:07:18 PM
don't give a shat about calvin or hobbes but i read the original post and thought the pics were pretty cool.  Looks like i'll go back to not giving a shat about c&h
 
2013-02-27 08:08:20 PM
One of my lottery millionaire fantasies is to contact Watterson and commission paintings from him.  I wouldn't even ask for Calvin and Hobbes stuff, I'd tell him to just do whatever he felt like doing.
 
2013-02-27 08:08:39 PM

miscreant: cretinbob: Don't fark with Bill Watterson

I doubt Watterson would have been too upset about this particular infringement. He disliked/dislikes rampant commercialization... I don't know if he would have a problem with a derivative artistic work that wasn't being sold. That being said... who knows really. Nobody's heard from him for decades.


Props to Jim Davies and the way he handled Garfield Without Garfield. Say what you like about the strip, and I like it, but the guy is great by all accounts. There was a Fark thread a couple of years ago about a web comic who put a Garfield cameo in their strip and Davies sent them a hand drawn original Garfield.
 
2013-02-27 08:11:11 PM

insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?


Just for you:

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-27 08:12:25 PM

miniflea: One of my lottery millionaire fantasies is to contact Watterson and commission paintings from him.  I wouldn't even ask for Calvin and Hobbes stuff, I'd tell him to just do whatever he felt like doing.


From what I've read, you would have a hell of a time finding him.
 
2013-02-27 08:14:49 PM

Flint Ironstag: Props to Jim Davies and the way he handled Garfield Without Garfield. Say what you like about the strip, and I like it, but the guy is great by all accounts. There was a Fark thread a couple of years ago about a web comic who put a Garfield cameo in their strip and Davies sent them a hand drawn original Garfield.


I don't doubt it. Davies has made money had over fist with that cat. I doubt he worries much about copyright infringement much at this point. I don't find Garfield funny at all... but it was a riot when I was 5.
 
2013-02-27 08:28:00 PM

SpikeStrip: how bout the calvin pissing decals, because i can never start laughing at those.


There was a time when Calvin's copyright was accidently allowed to expire. Many bumper sticker rednecks pounced on the accident for their own benefit.
 
2013-02-27 08:40:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.


Why?  No one respects copyright.  Just go into any pirate bay or illegal downloading discussion.
 
2013-02-27 08:41:19 PM

stuhayes2010: There was a time when Calvin's copyright was accidently allowed to expire.


[citation needed]
 
2013-02-27 08:43:54 PM

RexTalionis: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That was the nicest cease and desist I've ever read.

[brokenpianoforpresident.files.wordpress.com image 850x1093]


Holy crap, that's so awesome, I may even buy a bottle to toast their awesomeness!

/ Hmm, maybe Gentleman Jack, not Old No. 7
 
2013-02-27 08:47:19 PM
www.nerfnow.com
 
2013-02-27 08:47:30 PM

miscreant: miniflea: One of my lottery millionaire fantasies is to contact Watterson and commission paintings from him.  I wouldn't even ask for Calvin and Hobbes stuff, I'd tell him to just do whatever he felt like doing.

From what I've read, you would have a hell of a time finding him.


He's not hard to find if you know which small Ohio town he has roots in.   I have family that knows his family.

/he's really private and really against his work being used in a commercial sense, so best of luck to his attorneys
 
2013-02-27 09:04:06 PM

ha-ha-guy: miscreant: miniflea: One of my lottery millionaire fantasies is to contact Watterson and commission paintings from him.  I wouldn't even ask for Calvin and Hobbes stuff, I'd tell him to just do whatever he felt like doing.

From what I've read, you would have a hell of a time finding him.

He's not hard to find if you know which small Ohio town he has roots in.   I have family that knows his family.

/he's really private and really against his work being used in a commercial sense, so best of luck to his attorneys


I know, and I respect him for it.  In one of his collections he wrote a bit about why he fought so hard to prevent licensing and merch, despite the fact that he was giving up probably millions of dollars.  It made sense, and honestly I think he is correct in saying that stuff cheapens the creative work.

Honestly, the response (if I got one) I expect would be a polite "no, thank you", but a man can dream.
 
2013-02-27 09:10:33 PM

insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?


i.imgur.com
Sure, why not?
 
2013-02-27 09:11:44 PM

miscreant: insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?

Just for you:

[media.tumblr.com image 402x511]


I know it was obligatory, but now I'm depressed.
 
2013-02-27 09:37:25 PM


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 Uclick

Andrews McMeel Universal
 
2013-02-27 09:44:36 PM

RexTalionis: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: That was the nicest cease and desist I've ever read.

[brokenpianoforpresident.files.wordpress.com image 850x1093]


http://27bslash6.com/covers.html

Less nice, but much funnier
 
2013-02-27 09:47:15 PM
And then you get the ones who don't even understand parody.

/schlock fans will understand
 
2013-02-27 09:50:20 PM

machodonkeywrestler: tenpoundsofcheese: not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.

Sorta like your politics tab posts?


Can you keep whatever petty bs you two have to the politics tab?
 
2013-02-27 09:56:34 PM
How is this not parody?

And, for the Record, this is why Jim Davis published under Paws Inc after buying the rights to his own work.
 
2013-02-27 09:57:39 PM

miscreant: insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?

Just for you:

[media.tumblr.com image 402x511]


So uh...I was having a pretty good evening. Then you posted this. God dammit.
 
2013-02-27 10:02:48 PM

TheZorker: How is this not parody?


Parody requires some kind of commentary on the original work. These pieces don't really do that.
 
2013-02-27 10:10:19 PM
 
2013-02-27 10:11:18 PM
Oh, and one of his original paintings for a Calvin and Hobbes calendar hit the market somehow.
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2012/02/comics-a-m-calvin-and-h ob bes-watercolor-sells-for-107000/
 
2013-02-27 10:34:53 PM

miscreant: insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?

Just for you:

[media.tumblr.com image 402x511]


Man, I especially hate that one because that's @#%#@ NOT HOW ADHD MEDICATION WORKS.
 
2013-02-27 10:38:30 PM

insano: miscreant: insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?

Just for you:

[media.tumblr.com image 402x511]

I know it was obligatory, but now I'm depressed.


Eddie Ate Dynamite: So uh...I was having a pretty good evening. Then you posted this. God dammit.


Then allow me to post this nifty antidote, courtesy of Pants Are Overrated (Dan & Tom Heyerman & Hazel Mae Donovan):
i.imgur.com
This is strip #1 of 4. The others can be found easily enough with an image search,

There have been other "Calvin Grown-Up, Has Child, Gives Him/Her Hobbes" tributes (including someone else doing sequels to these), but none that I know of that could be this easily mistaken for Watterson's work.
 
2013-02-27 10:47:22 PM
i285.photobucket.com
www.whatisdeepfried.com
 
2013-02-27 10:51:28 PM

COMALite J: insano: miscreant: insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?

Just for you:

[media.tumblr.com image 402x511]

I know it was obligatory, but now I'm depressed.

Eddie Ate Dynamite: So uh...I was having a pretty good evening. Then you posted this. God dammit.

Then allow me to post this nifty antidote, courtesy of Pants Are Overrated (Dan & Tom Heyerman & Hazel Mae Donovan):[i.imgur.com image 850x1157]
This is strip #1 of 4. The others can be found easily enough with an image search,
There have been other "Calvin Grown-Up, Has Child, Gives Him/Her Hobbes" tributes (including someone else doing sequels to these), but none that I know of that could be this easily mistaken for Watterson's work.


Jesus, that's beautiful.  I know it's infringing, and all that... but I wish Watterson and his publisher could license that guy to do a full series of those continuing on.
 
2013-02-27 10:58:10 PM

HotWingAgenda: COMALite J: insano: miscreant: insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?

Just for you:

[media.tumblr.com image 402x511]

I know it was obligatory, but now I'm depressed.

Eddie Ate Dynamite: So uh...I was having a pretty good evening. Then you posted this. God dammit.

Then allow me to post this nifty antidote, courtesy of Pants Are Overrated (Dan & Tom Heyerman & Hazel Mae Donovan):[i.imgur.com image 850x1157]
This is strip #1 of 4. The others can be found easily enough with an image search,
There have been other "Calvin Grown-Up, Has Child, Gives Him/Her Hobbes" tributes (including someone else doing sequels to these), but none that I know of that could be this easily mistaken for Watterson's work.

Jesus, that's beautiful.  I know it's infringing, and all that... but I wish Watterson and his publisher could license that guy to do a full series of those continuing on.


I absolutely agree. Want me to post the other three here, or can you find them? You should go to the actual webcomic website and read the comments on them.
 
2013-02-27 11:38:34 PM

COMALite J: insano: miscreant: insano: Well this is a Calvin and Hobbes thread. Is someone going to post the really sad one?

Just for you:

[media.tumblr.com image 402x511]

I know it was obligatory, but now I'm depressed.

Eddie Ate Dynamite: So uh...I was having a pretty good evening. Then you posted this. God dammit.

Then allow me to post this nifty antidote, courtesy of Pants Are Overrated (Dan & Tom Heyerman & Hazel Mae Donovan):[i.imgur.com image 850x1157]
This is strip #1 of 4. The others can be found easily enough with an image search,
There have been other "Calvin Grown-Up, Has Child, Gives Him/Her Hobbes" tributes (including someone else doing sequels to these), but none that I know of that could be this easily mistaken for Watterson's work.


If only all of life's ills could be cured so easily. Thanks!
 
2013-02-27 11:39:20 PM
Nice of the artist Den Beste to ask permission and to acquiesce. Knucklehead writer should know that a loving "huge fan of the original" would know that Watterson has staunchly defended his work. Den Beste knows and respects that, wins points.
 
2013-02-27 11:53:53 PM
What the guy is doing is pretty well covered by the concept of derivative works. Plenty of artists have used elements of copyrighted works in their own art and been just fine because they're only using part of the copyrighted work and altering it in such a way that it's a new work.
 
2013-02-27 11:57:54 PM

COMALite J: I absolutely agree. Want me to post the other three here, or can you find them? You should go to the actual webcomic website and read the comments on them.


LOL, I don't want to get you pegged for distribution.  I'll find them.
 
2013-02-27 11:58:42 PM
www.joeydevilla.com

And all was right with the world, again.
 
2013-02-28 12:06:52 AM

unlikely: And as a copyright holder, they have to go after anyone who uses the work in any capacity, or it diminishes their ability to assert in more egregious cases.


No.  You are thinking of Trademark, which is very different from a legal perspective.
 
2013-02-28 12:54:44 AM

Great_Milenko: tenpoundsofcheese: not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.

Why?  No one respects copyright.  Just go into any pirate bay or illegal downloading discussion.


It's always annoying that people don't understand that art has always been borrowing from earlier works.

Everyone should read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. This country is pretty stupid about copyright law. These laws kill creativity and even industry.
 
2013-02-28 01:40:21 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: SpikeStrip: how bout the calvin pissing decals, because i can never start laughing at those.

I like these better because they're so true to the character!

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-28 01:48:14 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: not cool to rip off Watterson like that.

he should try to create his own art and not just be derivative and not respect copyright holders.


Oh, you... Are you ever not wrong?
 
2013-02-28 02:55:22 AM

felching pen: Nice of the artist Den Beste to ask permission and to acquiesce. Knucklehead writer should know that a loving "huge fan of the original" would know that Watterson has staunchly defended his work. Den Beste knows and respects that, wins points.


This.

i.imgur.com

Sometimes it's not a derivative work, it's an original tribute. (and I wish that one was mine.)

The lawyers can go suck it, for they have not a leg to stand on, but I concur with you and Beste (whose work was derivative but not, in my layman's opinion, infringing) for choosing to respect Watterson's wishes.
 
2013-02-28 03:20:57 AM
I have a lot more respect for people who create something new than I do for people who try to get famous by recreating, re-imagining, or borrowing heavily from someone else's work.

Whether it Timbaland stealing songs and releasing them as his own, or Internet "artists" who only seem to be able to sketch already-published characters for their Etsy products, it's  cheap and  unethical  to use someone else's intellectual property without their permission, and it's basically  stealing  if you do it for a profit.

The only exception I make to this is that which is in the public domain, and even there I think there's a limit to it.You can only do so many re-imaginings of  Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or The Man in the Iron Mask before people realize you're not actually  creating anything, but merely switching around someone else's efforts of imagination and inspiration for your own designs. Once in a while, doing something based on a public domain IP is fine, but making a career of it? That's cheap and I can't respect that as an artist.

In this case, Watterson has made it clear he does not want people to use his characters. They're HIS characters. He created them. He wrote them. He drew them. If you loved them, that's awesome, but don't assume that your love for them gives you any right to add to their story. It's not your story to tell.

It takes a lot of time, effort, creativity, luck, and imagination to come up with something of your own and then see it become published and popular enough that you can make a living with it. Look at it this way: Whatever you do for a career, would you like it if some jackass came along and took credit for all the work you did this month? And wouldn't it piss you off if-- by taking credit for your work-- he got a raise and you didn't? You'd plot the guy's demise! You'd be mad as hell! Whether you're a ditch-digger, accountant, fast food worker, waiter, doctor, or contractor, you'd be rightfully angry if all your efforts, all your work, was copied and modified slightly in order to line someone else's pockets.

And that's what this guy did. He COPIED someone else's work and modified it. He used the popularity that Watterson EARNED to make his own project popular and build his own credit with others. That's not cool. I don't care if it's an homage or a derivative work, it's still basically riding someone else's coattails instead of getting there on your own creativity and steam.

I give points for asking about it, but people who are saying there was nothing wrong with it are failing to understand just how important it is to an artist that their work remains THEIR work.

I'm not talking about file-sharing here. If you're popular enough to have people who want to steal the media you release for their own viewing/listening pleasure, that's kind of cool. It means you made it. I'm talking about people who steal the actual work (or parts of it) and then put it out there as their own creation. That's bogus, it's not creative, and it tells me someone's trying to take the easy/cheap path to success and/or fame.

/Pissing Calvin sticker owners should be locked up in an Iranian prison.
//If anything goes against the spirit of the character, it's those abominations.
 
2013-02-28 03:39:01 AM

ZeroCorpse: I give points for asking about it, but people who are saying there was nothing wrong with it are failing to understand just how important it is to an artist that their work remains THEIR work.


With your mindset most of the Greek plays we have wouldn't exist. Hell we wouldn't have Shakespeare, who borrowed characters and entire plots. The only thing you can count on being Shakespeare's own work is what the characters say. In a way it's no different than what the guy was doing with the pictures, taking what he saw and liked and making something new with it. Shakespeare lifted entire plots from existing plays and then just put in new words to say.
 
2013-02-28 06:14:50 AM

ZeroCorpse: I have a lot more respect for people who create something new than I do for people who try to get famous by recreating, re-imagining, or borrowing heavily from someone else's work.

Whether it Timbaland stealing songs and releasing them as his own, or Internet "artists" who only seem to be able to sketch already-published characters for their Etsy products, it's  cheap and  unethical  to use someone else's intellectual property without their permission, and it's basically  stealing  if you do it for a profit.

The only exception I make to this is that which is in the public domain, and even there I think there's a limit to it.You can only do so many re-imaginings of  Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or The Man in the Iron Mask before people realize you're not actually  creating anything, but merely switching around someone else's efforts of imagination and inspiration for your own designs. Once in a while, doing something based on a public domain IP is fine, but making a career of it? That's cheap and I can't respect that as an artist.

In this case, Watterson has made it clear he does not want people to use his characters. They're HIS characters. He created them. He wrote them. He drew them. If you loved them, that's awesome, but don't assume that your love for them gives you any right to add to their story. It's not your story to tell.

It takes a lot of time, effort, creativity, luck, and imagination to come up with something of your own and then see it become published and popular enough that you can make a living with it. Look at it this way: Whatever you do for a career, would you like it if some jackass came along and took credit for all the work you did this month? And wouldn't it piss you off if-- by taking credit for your work-- he got a raise and you didn't? You'd plot the guy's demise! You'd be mad as hell! Whether you're a ditch-digger, accountant, fast food worker, waiter, doctor, or contractor, you'd be rightfully angry if all your efforts, all your work, was copied and modified slightly in order to line someone else's pockets.

And that's what this guy did. He COPIED someone else's work and modified it. He used the popularity that Watterson EARNED to make his own project popular and build his own credit with others. That's not cool. I don't care if it's an homage or a derivative work, it's still basically riding someone else's coattails instead of getting there on your own creativity and steam.

I give points for asking about it, but people who are saying there was nothing wrong with it are failing to understand just how important it is to an artist that their work remains THEIR work.

I'm not talking about file-sharing here. If you're popular enough to have people who want to steal the media you release for their own viewing/listening pleasure, that's kind of cool. It means you made it. I'm talking about people who steal the actual work (or parts of it) and then put it out there as their own creation. That's bogus, it's not creative, and it tells me someone's trying to take the easy/cheap path to success and/or fame.

/Pissing Calvin sticker owners should be locked up in an Iranian prison.
//If anything goes against the spirit of the character, it's those abominations.


What's your opinion of Paul's Boutique?
 
2013-02-28 07:57:48 AM

SpikeStrip: how bout the calvin pissing decals, because i can never start laughing at those.


These. If it weren't for the meta irony, I'd have one of Calvin pissing on a copyright-symbol.
 
2013-02-28 08:43:17 AM

SirHolo: No.  You are thinking of Trademark, which is very different from a legal perspective.


And I am pretty sure both characters are also trademarked. Waterson is extraordinarily protective of his work, and took less money to retain all of the rights.
 
2013-02-28 09:38:00 AM

WhyteRaven74: What the guy is doing is pretty well covered by the concept of derivative works. Plenty of artists have used elements of copyrighted works in their own art and been just fine because they're only using part of the copyrighted work and altering it in such a way that it's a new work.


Just so you know, "derivative works" are specifically, expressly covered by copyright.  See 17 USC § 106(2) ("Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following . . . (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work . . . .").  What you may be thinking of are the 107 fair use exceptions.  However, I honestly don't think these count as transformative enough to get this guy an out.
 
2013-02-28 02:11:31 PM

ZeroCorpse: I have a lot more respect for people who create something new than I do for people who try to get famous by recreating, re-imagining, or borrowing heavily from someone else's work.

Whether it Timbaland stealing songs and releasing them as his own, or Internet "artists" who only seem to be able to sketch already-published characters for their Etsy products, it's  cheap and  unethical  to use someone else's intellectual property without their permission, and it's basically  stealing  if you do it for a profit.

The only exception I make to this is that which is in the public domain, and even there I think there's a limit to it.You can only do so many re-imaginings of  Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or The Man in the Iron Mask before people realize you're not actually  creating anything, but merely switching around someone else's efforts of imagination and inspiration for your own designs. Once in a while, doing something based on a public domain IP is fine, but making a career of it? That's cheap and I can't respect that as an artist.

In this case, Watterson has made it clear he does not want people to use his characters. They're HIS characters. He created them. He wrote them. He drew them. If you loved them, that's awesome, but don't assume that your love for them gives you any right to add to their story. It's not your story to tell.

It takes a lot of time, effort, creativity, luck, and imagination to come up with something of your own and then see it become published and popular enough that you can make a living with it. Look at it this way: Whatever you do for a career, would you like it if some jackass came along and took credit for all the work you did this month? And wouldn't it piss you off if-- by taking credit for your work-- he got a raise and you didn't? You'd plot the guy's demise! You'd be mad as hell! Whether you're a ditch-digger, accountant, fast food worker, waiter, doctor, or contractor, you'd be rightfully angry if all your efforts, all your w ...



Since you mention public domain...
It would be awesome if the descendents of writers/artists whose work has entered public domain petitioned Congress to re-write the laws so they could sue the ever loving crap out of disney.
I'll assume you loathe disney as they have become rich and powerful doing exactly what you are railing against.
 
2013-02-28 02:39:36 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: SpikeStrip: how bout the calvin pissing decals, because i can never start laughing at those.

I like these better because they're so true to the character!

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]




Seems weird, him praying to Thor.
 
Esn
2013-03-01 04:07:36 AM

ZeroCorpse: I have a lot more respect for people who create something new than I do for people who try to get famous by recreating, re-imagining, or borrowing heavily from someone else's work.

Whether it Timbaland stealing songs and releasing them as his own, or Internet "artists" who only seem to be able to sketch already-published characters for their Etsy products, it's  cheap and  unethical  to use someone else's intellectual property without their permission, and it's basically  stealing  if you do it for a profit.

The only exception I make to this is that which is in the public domain, and even there I think there's a limit to it.You can only do so many re-imaginings of  Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or The Man in the Iron Mask before people realize you're not actually  creating anything, but merely switching around someone else's efforts of imagination and inspiration for your own designs. Once in a while, doing something based on a public domain IP is fine, but making a career of it? That's cheap and I can't respect that as an artist.

In this case, Watterson has made it clear he does not want people to use his characters. They're HIS characters. He created them. He wrote them. He drew them. If you loved them, that's awesome, but don't assume that your love for them gives you any right to add to their story. It's not your story to tell.

It takes a lot of time, effort, creativity, luck, and imagination to come up with something of your own and then see it become published and popular enough that you can make a living with it. Look at it this way: Whatever you do for a career, would you like it if some jackass came along and took credit for all the work you did this month? And wouldn't it piss you off if-- by taking credit for your work-- he got a raise and you didn't? You'd plot the guy's demise! You'd be mad as hell! Whether you're a ditch-digger, accountant, fast food worker, waiter, doctor, or contractor, you'd be rightfully angry if all your efforts, all your w ...


You are sadly deluded at a most basic, fundamental level about what originality is.

I'll let Nina Paley (a wonderful artist in her own right) write the rebuttal: The Cult of Originality
And also: Your Children Are Not Your Children

 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report