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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 22 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report