Copyright Strikes Again: 'Real Calvin And Hobbes' Shut Down By Copyright Claim

from the but-copyright-isn't-about-censorship? dept

Tue, Feb 26th 2013 5:51am — Mike Masnick

It's early in the week, but it seems like there have been a whole bunch of stories already about copyright being used (and abused) to take down content. The latest victim, tragically, is the blog that was Real Calvin and Hobbes by Michael Den Beste, in which he would take scenes from the classic comic strip Calvin and Hobbes and place them in "real photographs."

Like many people of my generation, I grew up completely addicted to Calvin & Hobbes. I bought all the books, and even now, decades later, I keep The Complete Calvin & Hobbes on my night table, and I enjoy reading it with my son. While I know that Watterson always fought back against attempts to license out the work, it still seems fairly ridiculous that his publisher, Andrews McMeel Universal, has told Den Beste that he needs to take down the works because they are infringing, in their view.

For what it's worth, this (at least) was not a legal nastygram, but rather a response to Den Beste himself asking if what he was doing was okay. John Glynn at Andrews McMeel Universal was at least somewhat friendly about it, but told him the images needed to go:

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

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).

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bill watterson, calvin and hobbes, censorship, copyright, fan art, john glynn, michael den beste
Companies: andrews mcmeel universal

120 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 4:21am

I'd invite our usual critics to tell us more about it but they are going to take the usual maximalist route telling the publisher is being harmed, that such "transformative" works diminish the value of the original (really, what a half-assed imbecile attempt of a lame excuse) etc and so.

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 ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 11:16am
  
  Re:
  Seems like you've sure got us "usual critics" figured out. No need to comment when you're willing to put all the words in our mouths, I guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, you are pretty easy to predict. The usual critic is really only here to whine about Mike Masnick's beliefs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Though trolling to no end seems not to help some of the more sane AC comments here who actually do have relevant rebuttals.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You may find this hard to believe, but there are more than just one or two "usual critics" of the content here, and we don't represent some monolithic belief system.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't find that hard to believe at all my good man. All I'm saying is that some people just troll on about how everything anyone says is wrong. You may find this hard to believe, but it really sheds a sociologically bad light on the rest of you when one or two act like morons.
        
        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. :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        FYI, I wasn't responding to you (unless you were the AC).
        
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 4:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "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. :-)"
        
        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?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I cannot help but notice new emerging technologies. This is off subject for the article though......
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This is off subject for the article though......"
        
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ��Why are you hashing up old arguments that nobody but you really care about by this time?????
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hakon, 23 Oct 2017 @ 3:02am
  
  Re:
  First of all: no, this is not transformative: The elements of the original in it have simply been copied and moved into a different context, and they are still the major part of it so no de minimis argument can be made that the photo is the essence of the pictures. As such, it is as clear a case of infringement as I have ever seen.
  
  It would have been nice to live in a world where artists were free to do anything they wanted from any starting point. I think art and culture moves forward faster if that is the case. Since art has become a big commercial product, however, there is unfortunately a need for laws to protect the rights of creators.
  
  The problem with copyright laws today, and which goes against many of the express purposes of earlier laws, is that it should not extend after the death of the copyright holder. After the person who created something is dead, he or she can no longer be the only person to make financial gain from their own creations, and so it should go into the public domain. Allowing copyrights to be inherited and even consequently renewed by the heirs, just goes completely against any of the original intent.
  
  I also think a certain time after a work is published should be sufficient before people can make derivative works with no fear of being taken to court, say 25-50 years, which would have given you ample time to make the derivations you'd want to make yourself, and of course with the caveat that it should be made clear that the originator should always be credited in a standardised way making it obvious that he or she is not the one benefitting from the commercial profit of that particular product, allowing consumers to choose whether to support the originator or the derivator when they select the products they choose to pay for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:05am

DRM and copying Old School
nerfnow webcomic

http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/532
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
henry, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:22am

respect watterson's desires, not the law
I think the main point here is that Bill Watterson didn't want any other use of C&H. He never merchandised the characters, refused all attempts to do anything other than have them in newspapers and books, and stopped the series before it ran out of ideas.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Keroberos (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
  The authors desires and views on copyright and the use of his works are irrelevant. Once you publish a work it becomes part of our common culture. This is why copyright law has limitations on it in the form of fair use (which have sadly been eroded over time). For a creator to say, "You can't build off of my works" destroys the very process that they relied upon to build their works in the first place (nothing is ever created in a vacuum).
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:11am
    
    Re: process they relied upon to build their works
    Certainly all artist take inspiration from everywhere. Anything an artists sees, hears or feels throughout their life contributes to any work they create.
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
    I think I have to disagree w/ Mike's conclusion about the publisher's response.
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Haren Kallion, 15 Dec 2013 @ 9:54am
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 15 Dec 2013 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
      Are you an Artist who creates something from nothing?
      
      There are no artists who create something from nothing. All artists draw from previous works to create their art.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Haren K (profile), 15 Dec 2013 @ 6:09pm
        
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 15 Dec 2013 @ 7:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
        Please tell me, where were Calvin and Hobbes before Watterson created them? I'd like to see the pre-Watterson Calvin and Hobbes.
        
        Perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn't say "all art is exact copies of something else". Is that what you think I said? I said that all artists use previous art as inspiration and input for their work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- markmeld (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:35am
  
  Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
  Totally agree. Techdirt has a knee jerk reaction when it should be responding to the complete disrespect of the author's/artist's original work and wishes. If Beste and "mashers" like him think they have some kind of talent, they should develop their own characters and comics or stories.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - VMax, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
    And musicians should stop riffing off of other musicians. That would finally stop those insidious "Jam" sessions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
    To be fair to Andrews McMeel Universal, that is probably the most politely-worded C&D I've ever seen. And I can see where they're coming from (not that they're in the right, IMO, but they are indeed respecting the creator's wishes - something that a certain other industry could learn a lot from.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
      And I can see where they're coming from (not that they're in the right, IMO, but they are indeed respecting the creator's wishes
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
    So parents can't create new stories based on the children�s favourite characters, or allow their children to create new images or stories based on the same characters?
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
      "So parents can't create new stories based on the children�s favourite characters, or allow their children to create new images or stories based on the same characters?"
      
      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).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CK20XX, 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
  I dunno. Once you start reading about Bill Watterson himself, he sounds slightly demented and ridiculously reclusive. A lot of his views expressed in Calvin and Hobbes then become harsher in this light, making you wonder what kind of poor, troubled life he's led.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: 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."
    
    Perhaps that was his idea....but those logos differ from the actual appearance of Calvin in general.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 11:40am
  
  Re: respect watterson's desires, not the law
  The thing is, it might not have been Bill Waterson's desire to have this taken down. AMU is simply overeating. They could have just asked him to stop and not go with the donations but no....they pulled a Stop and Desist letter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:24am

Anyone ever notice how many other comics these days are reusing C&H's snowman theme?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:25am

To be fair, asking a question is meaningless unless you are equally willing to take a polite no as much as an enthusiastic yes and of course there is no suggestion in the article that Den Beste asked in any other spirit.

It does however show how respect for copyright is harmful to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:27am

Its a wonder that Disney is not filing copyright charges against the artist for drawing Tigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:35am
  
  Re:
  "Its a wonder that Disney is not filing copyright charges against the artist for drawing Tigger."
  
  They probably tried, but Hobbes is different enough from Tigger that no judge could call him an infringment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:28am

doing something for fun and making no money from it are exactly the scenarios that the entertainment industries love and exploit. rather than receiving them for what they are, they use their ultimate desire of total control to shut down as many sites/objects/whatever that they can, even when no harm is being done and they literally are not legally entitled to do so. typical, unstable, bully-boy tactics!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:31am

Permission Culture
So again, we have a promising artist creating new content that tried to do the "right" thing and ask for permission. What did it get him? Shut down. Silenced. Censored. By copyright.

The lesson?
Don't ask for permission to create art. Don't apologize for creating something new and beautiful. Just do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: Permission Culture
  and you left off finding himself faced with an opponent with much cash willing to fight a battle that maybe they shouldn't win but will because their resources will outlast the artist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:11pm
  
  Re: Permission Culture
  new content? taking a live photo, did he even take the phto's? and then taking the C&H and putting them in it...seems like he is just trying to make something from someone else and make himself famous for it, create your own art
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2013 @ 4:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Permission Culture
    Honestly, you have no idea how art is created. This is actually a prime example of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 4 Mar 2013 @ 5:32am
    
    Re: Re: Permission Culture
    Yes, that scam artist Turner, all he did was copy a live scene, he didn't actually do the 'hard' work of lining up the carts, ploughing the fields or terraforming a clear sky. And that Monet, stealing the images of water-lillies owned by 'Nature'. And then there is that renegade Michaelangelo...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zbmott, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:39am

Bill Watterson
I know we love to hate on Big Media around here, but Bill Watterson is pretty well known for defending his creations from licensing attempts (Wikipedia). He is also (somewhat ironically) well-known for being reclusive.

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 ;).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:51am
  
  Re: Bill Watterson
  The works were not being licensed at all by Dan Beste. It was purely fanfic.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:42am

What's really amazing is that while cartoonist Bill Waterson does in fact enjoy fan work, using his characters for your personal gain is out of the question.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  I quite like the Far Left Side. Not to be confused by anyone of reasonable intelligence with that 'other' strange comic. The Far side
  
  http://farleftside.com/2012/1-18-2012-sopa-is-greed.jpg
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    It was that exact corporate greed that made cartoonist Bill Waterson afraid to license his works outside of syndication. He earned money in retirement through the compilation books of "Calvin And Hobbes". When I had a class at Ohio State while working on my psych doctorate...my English classes were at a satellite campus of Ohio State at Central Ohio Technical College. I actually got to meet Bill Waterson in person, and trust me when I say this, he is about the single nicest guy you would ever meet in your entire life. He enjoys fanfic of his characters. He is as friendly as any human being would ever be. He had a genuine fear of his works with Calvin and Hobbes would be tainted if he gave into licensing of any kind outside of syndication.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  Do you have a source on this? Watterson is famously reclusive, and hardly ever gives interviews.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    People making money on the childish truck decals is exactly the sort of thing he wanted to avoid. It's a far cry from the sort of thing being discussed here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "People making money on the childish truck decals is exactly the sort of thing he wanted to avoid."
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dargon (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Bill Waterson does in fact enjoy fan work
  I'm curious about something. The letter from John Glynn says "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." I'm pretty sure that Bill Waterson would not have specifically said, I don't want my work used for anything beyond books and decals on trucks of Calvin peeing, because Calvin peeing is an acceptable use of my work. I think John Glynn is totally full of it and it wouldn't surprise me if if this transformative work suddenly has an "official" version appear in a year or two.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Shane Den Beste, 27 Feb 2013 @ 3:54am
  
  Re:
  False. See my blog http://realcalvinandhobbes.tumblr.com/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:44am

Did someone make a backup of all the images? I'd love to see 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:45am

"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."

Photography and CG work (noting the dock) definitely does not show artistic merit....

/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:56am

Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
a VERY NARROW focus: "it seems like there have been a whole bunch of stories already about copyright being used (and abused) to take down content." -- Yeah, Mike, cause you cherry pick for exactly that! While NOT mentioning the everyday benefits of copyright.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:02am
  
  Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
  Not to be confused with your narrow minded and very narrow blinkered focus on basically trying to stalk Mike and Techdirt at every opportunity.
  
  Get some help dude!!! or change the dosage at least
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Howard (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:06am
  
  DO NOT FEED
  the troll
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: DO NOT FEED
    But but..but.. *kicks rock looking downcast* okaaaaayyyyyy mum
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Howard (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:11am
      
      Re: Re: DO NOT FEED
      it's ok, have a cookie :]
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
  Wait, blue might have a point.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cpt kangarooski, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: 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? ... You evidently, not just "seem" to have a complete aversion to stating any definite position on anything. Should have been a lawyer.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
    Legal Question.....Dan Baste sets up a donation scheme to continues his work (which by the way after years of reading Calvin and Hobbes in my local news paper, what Dan Baste is doing is considered Artistic Merit and Homage to Bill Waterson in the form of Fan Fiction) and to only run his website...how is this exploitation of Bill Waterson's creations?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cpt kangarooski, 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
      Well, from the outset, remember that what I was discussing was a change that I'd like to see made to copyright law, not the current state of affairs, not by a long shot.
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
      "Dan Baste sets up a donation scheme to continues his work (which by the way after years of reading Calvin and Hobbes in my local news paper, what Dan Baste is doing is considered Artistic Merit and Homage to Bill Waterson in the form of Fan Fiction) and to only run his website...how is this exploitation of Bill Waterson's creations?"
      
      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!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - cpt kangarooski, 27 Feb 2013 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: 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!
        
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:05am
    
    Re: Re: Evidently can't see that you're "completely addicted" to
    I think two changes would solve almost every problem with copyright and mitigate the rest: opt-in, and short terms. No vague definitions to worry about, very simple.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:57am

Any US lawyers want to jump in and explain what the words in the email by universal stating "This is no reflection on the artistic merit" could actually mean for both transformative and fair use defences?

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:51am
  
  Re:
  legally, nothing. he's trying to say that they personally like the pictures, but cannot allow it, because of the creator's wishes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:00am

On the plus side...
Den Beste's great, great grandchildren will be able to carry on his tradition of transforming C&H.

Just not him, his children, or his children's children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: On the plus side...
  Again, to be fair on Andrews McMeel Universal, they made this request as the behest of the creator, and it is the most politely-worded C&D I've ever seen. But they are respecting the creator's wishes.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:28am

Just a question. Was Mr. Beste crafting new images of the characters themselves, and then insterting them into photographic images, or was he taking existing images of the characters and then inserting them into photographic images? The article here does not say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  I would guess he was taking existing images.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  He's taking parts of the original comics and putting them in real life scenes. If he's not actaully taking the existing images, then he's recreating parts of the original images in exacting detail. The first is a classic (although I don't remember the umbrella in the various wagon scenes), and the second is directly off the cover of one of the books.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:57am

As much as I respect Mr. Watterson
And loved his comics, the law clearly says that transformative works are allowed, 'wishes' of the creator notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:06am
  
  Re: As much as I respect Mr. Watterson
  No, tranformative works are not a fortiori works clear of copyright infringement. Where they do have value in a legal sense is that they tend to receive greater consideration in a fair use analysis.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:18am

Tired of being hassled by DMCA notices, Mike Masnick's bosses at Google have directed him to immediately shift his propaganda campaign towards complaining about bad copyright enforcement outliers.

Godd luck Google and Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  Aww, did the talking points change? Must have missed the memo. I had my soapbox and a rant all ready to go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  Godd is the new villain in my new creation, The Most Superior Man-Spider! He has the appearance of Zeus, and initially is on the Man-spider's side, but then Godd decides that it is time to wipe out all life in Hanmattan, and the Man-spider is the last remaining Knight of the Order of the Clones.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:33am

John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
It has come to my attention after a bit of poking around that one John Glynn does not in fact represent Andrews McMeel Publishing Universal, LCC....which is a branch of the Universal Press (the latter of whom Waterson had frequent contentions with for messing with his comic format structures and standardizing them without his permission).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_McMeel_Publishing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
  It has come to my attention after a bit of poking around that one John Glynn does not in fact represent Andrews McMeel Publishing Universal, LCC.
  
  How do you know, and what does he do? What about "Universal uclick" whatever that is?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:13pm
    
    Re: Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
    Oh you're going to love this....
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 7:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
      Universal UClick has no connection to AMU, LCC..
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: John Glynn does not represent Andrews McMeel Publishing.
        Knowing Watterson, he's likely laughing about the whole stupidity of it. My contact to him happens to be his Godaughter....
        
        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 :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:14am

I have to agree with John Glynn (Universal) and disagree with the stated opinion in this particular article about this work being transformative. It really isn't.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  I personally suck at Photoshoping things so if yours is anywhere decent looking I would say that is transformative.
  
  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!!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:12am
  
  Re:
  I have to agree with John Glynn (Universal) and disagree with the stated opinion in this particular article about this work being transformative. It really isn't.
  
  So you would find these works to be a good replacement for the original comics?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I certainly don't, but the artistic value in the work stems from the same surreal depth that the originals once carried. Baste wasn't selling them, he was asking for donations so be could continue them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:19am

It should be noted that the Associated Press also gave Bill Waterson shit about his "Artistic Merit" when he refused to comply with comic columnar standards of a Sunday news paper. Bill Waterson is not to blame at all for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jack, 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am

ds
wow, if the writer of these comics had shit to do with this, hes a total dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jack, 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am

ds
wow, if the writer of these comics had shit to do with this, hes a total dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
akp (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:26am

I don't know... I kind of agree with the Suit. Arguing whether something is transformative "enough" isn't really a good way to go about this, and I like what the artist has done here... But it still does bother me.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  Look at the high resolution images closely compared to the books and syndication. The color strokes are different.
  
  I don't think Waterson really had anything to do with this situation other than being the creator of the characters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Though honestly I do agree with you akp :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  Copyrights aren't *always* bad, and when they're in the service of protecting things the creator really wants protected, they can be good.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:35am

Here is a higher resolution picture of the first image.

http://i.imgur.com/A8w94rF.jpg

Here is the second:

http://i.imgur.com/mggtRuI.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimothyAWiseman, 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:42am

No Problem This Time
I don't see a problem this time. The company sent a very polite letter requesting take down (with no threats, yet), in response to the inquiry. It seems they weren't aggressively going after it, and that they are going with the original creators wishes.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 11:04am
  
  Re: No Problem This Time
  I happen to be waiting for word on Bill Waterson's feelings on the matter through a third-person contact on FaceBook from a freind...I am awaiting results as this friend of mine, whom I have known for years...is a family friend of Bill Waterson......and Bill Waterson happens to be her Godfather.
  
  The issue now lies solely at the fault of AMU.
  
  It is a veil.....Bill Waterson is reclusive, but he isn't dumb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality Check (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:55pm

It's not trespassing if you are invited.
While I do understand what the representative was saying, even in this very polite message, there is a clear assumption made in the very first sentence:
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
  Bill Waterson has stated in the past (and in the "Calvin And Hobbes 10th Anniversary" compilation book) that he was always worried about bootleg products exploiting his works. In his defense, he was very afraid that something he meant for the world to enjoy would be exploited commercially without his permission.
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Keroberos (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
    Bill Waterson has stated in the past (and in the "Calvin And Hobbes 10th Anniversary" compilation book) that he was always worried about bootleg products exploiting his works. In his defense, he was very afraid that something he meant for the world to enjoy would be exploited commercially without his permission.
    This makes little sense. How does not giving any permission to use your works stop the bootleggers from profiting? It doesn't--they profit anyway, because they don't ask for permission.
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
      "How does not giving any permission to use your works stop the bootleggers from profiting? It doesn't--they profit anyway, because they don't ask for permission."
      
      Then, they're arrested, are tried and convicted, pay fines and/or serve time.
      Am I missing something, boy?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
        A brain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
      His work will not wither and die....it is on the same level as Pogo.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:42am
  
  Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
  "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."
  
  It does mean you can't do it without his permission.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
  "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."
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re: It's not trespassing if you are invited.
    You're missing the point. I already pointed out the analogy...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian, 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:00pm

Funny story...
That's crazy. When I saw that website I ordered the complete Calvin and Hobbes on Amazon (~$58). If that website was not created I probably would not have done that.... Free became paid and I chose to do so. Weird that. I wonder if Amazon has some stats on increase in Calvin and Hobbes sales since the website became popular?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shibin, 26 Feb 2013 @ 5:30pm

Lets write letters to the author Bill Waterson requesting him to allow the artist to proceed :

Bill Waterson

c/o Universal Press Syndicate
4900 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64112
USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re:
  That is a tad useless...he lives in Ohio currently. That address belongs to AMU Publishing LCC.
  
  Bill thought them surreal and funny according to my resource.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keroberos (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:05am

Coppyright as an Incentive
I think the big thing that all of the copyright maximalists are ignoring is the fact that copyright is supposed to be an incentive for new creation. How long has it been since Watterson produced something new concerning Calvin and Hobbes? Almost 20 years. Since He's not creating anything new, perhaps it should lapse into the public domain.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:32am
  
  Re: Coppyright as an Incentive
  " I sincerely doubt my children will discover Watterson's work on their own--and that would be a shame."
  
  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!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shane (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 6:15pm

Evil gets it Just Deserts
For once, it seems a reactionary self-important artist is getting exactly what he wants - a growing lack of relevance.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:54pm

Streisand Affect
It should be noted that the Streisand Affect is exploding in tiny little pops all over the Internet.

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!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slimmmerman (profile), 9 Apr 2013 @ 6:54pm

How about changing the characters?
I saw this posted on Facebook this week. Someone is selling a deviation of Calvin and Hobbes with a name that isn't even creative (Malvin and Cobbes). Is this infringement and would Watterson or Andrews McMeel Universal have a right to shut her down? She is selling them under the premise that she created these images!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:43am
  
  Re: How about changing the characters?
  Someone is selling a deviation of Calvin and Hobbes with a name that isn't even creative (Malvin and Cobbes). Is this infringement and would Watterson or Andrews McMeel Universal have a right to shut her down?
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
slimmmerman (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 8:48am

For some reason what she is doing just bugs me! I grew up with Calvin and Hobbes and it just bugs me that she is taking Watterson's work and all she did is change the hair color and names and then makes the claim that she came up with the idea and calls it her own work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  it just bugs me that she is taking Watterson's work and all she did is change the hair color and names and then makes the claim that she came up with the idea and calls it her own work!
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Haren K (profile), 15 Dec 2013 @ 6:29pm
    
    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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 15 Dec 2013 @ 7:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      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.
      
      Definitely sounds like a bad actor to me, but that isn't the subject of the original article.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linda, 6 Sep 2013 @ 1:03pm

use of Hobbes picture
How can I get permission to use the picture of Hobbes? If you can help pls let me know. It will be used solely inside a retirement community for some publicity for a series of skits. I downloaded the graphic and found out it might be copyrighted. Posters (6) have already been printed and the Electronic Bulletin Board used is strictly within the community buildings. Our organization is NON-PROFIT. I would appreciate any help you can give me. I am a graphic artist who has worked in this community for over 10 years.
Thanks, L.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:17pm

Fair use
Those of you arguing "fair use" on this thread obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Fair use does not grant anyone the right to copy or use copyrighted material. Fair use is the ability to use small snippets of video or audio (usually limited to 15 seconds), or singular images from a picture or other graphic image for the purpose of rating, reviewing, or otherwise offering commentary on a work as it relates to someone's professional opinion on said work. Please understand the law before citing it as your basis of argument. Copyrighted material is assumed to belong solely to the creator of that work, basically forever, or until such time as they sell their rights to that work to another entity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colecash, 3 Sep 2019 @ 7:35pm

Watterson would never say okay
As a huge fan of Wattersons’ work, I am compelled to speak towards some certain truths. My number one reason for posting this is about understanding Watterson, who hated the commercialization of his work. Hate is to easy a word, Watterson despised the commercialization of his work. So much so that he stopped producing it. Given the option to commercialize or stop, he chose to just stop. As a Calvin kid that grew up reading his works, he is like a unicorn in a field of horses, wanting rather to preserve his work then allow it to be subverted by a capitalistic tendency that he despised. Watterson ultimately stayed true to his values, for better or worse, and Calvin and Hobbes was left to die. But I must respect the artist, as is his right. Any attempt to profit upon Calvin and Hobbes is an attack upon the morality of Watterson. Any time I see a picture of Calvin pissing on a ford or Chevy emblem is a big middle finger to Watterson, and a huge abuse of artistic expression. Calvin and Hobbes is not, nor should it ever be similar to Garfield, to Calvin and Hobbes fans, the comparison is nothing less then disgusting, when considering the wishes of Watterson himself. Any attempt to say otherwise is nothing more then a money grab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]