4 ms·

Whenever the topic of copyright comes up on HN, the prevailing view in comments section is that copyrights should be relatively short and cultural artifacts sho

Whenever the topic of copyright comes up on HN, the prevailing view in comments section is that copyrights should be relatively short and cultural artifacts should be available to everyone to use as they please. So I find it interesting ("interesting") how people seem to universally appreciate that Calvin & Hobbes are protected from any 3rd-party use, meanwhile they universally revile Disney for not allowing people to do what they want with (and to) Mickey Mouse.

dpkirchner 2y ago
As one of those people I guess I can just say: I'd prefer that people respect Watterson's opinion about merch and knock-offs but that I'd also prefer the government not enforce that beyond 14 or so years.
jjulius 2y ago
Well, life is incredibly nuanced, there's no black and whites and we often have to deal with double-edged swords. :) To me, there's a bit of a difference between the two. In one instance, you've got a single corporation owning all the rights to a property and getting all of the cash from the sale of goods related to that property. This is a single party who gets to decide what to do with the IP, and often times this can irk fans and rub them the wrong way. In another instance, you've got C&H released from copyright. Nobody owns the rights, so anybody can do anything with it - assholes can make cheap merchandise for the sake of fast cash the way Disney might with its own IP, but now that there are plenty of other vendors making like-products, we have choices and don't have to buy from one person. The alternatives available are also likely to be made by actual fans with a passion for the project. Broadly speaking, fans can't get irked the way they do when Disney makes a change, because whatever is out there by a third-party is just their creative take on it, not the single rights holder going, "This is the way the IP's universe is now, and what has been canon for thirty years is no longer so, please keep giving us cash". You're right - one decision impacts another in a less than ideal way. But there's a balance and we have to find the right balance. :)
CSMastermind 2y ago
Watterson's motivation seems to be to preserve the integrity of his art. Disney's motivation seems to be to preserve their profit margins on hyper commercializing the creations of others.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- khazhoux 2y ago
  Watterson is motivated by integrity, I have no doubt of that. But Disney is also motivated --at least partly-- by integrity. Yes, they want to control profits, clearly. But I have no doubts they want to preserve the integrity of their character also. > the creations of others Others? Even after Walt's death, Mickey Mouse has been overseen by a continuous line of people who care about the character's integrity.
  - endemic 2y ago
    Corporations aren't people
    - khazhoux 2y ago
      Many things are not other things. In this case, Disney Inc is staffed by people who care deeply about the Disney legacy. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single employee who was not awe-struck walking the halls on the first day.
      - alexashka 2y ago
        How do you know that? This is a rhetorical question, meaning to elicit introspection and a rare act of thought, prior to speech.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - 2y ago
walterbell 2y ago
A living artist exercising creative control is different from an immortal corporation repeatedly lobbying governments to extend copyright beyond an artist's lifetime.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  It's disingenuous to suggest people are mainly interested in Watterson's ability to control the profits of C&H during his lifetime. No, it's because we cherish C&H's purity and are protective of it. I claim it's a purely emotional thing.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    No claims were made about the interests of "people".
hinkley 2y ago
We don’t revile Disney for not letting us make Mickey Mouse slash fiction. We revile them because in order to protect a 90 year old mouse cartoon they’ve made it so no English teacher below high school can teach any literature that is younger than 100 years old, because it’s too expensive to reprint it.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  That is an excellent distinction, thank you.
CrazyStat 2y ago
Mickey Mouse (and Calvin and Hobbes) would still be protected by trademark if copyrights were much shorter.
aidenn0 2y ago
A couple of points: 1. If copyright lasted 40 years, then C&H would still be under copyright, and the first 46 years of Mickey would be not; The first C&H strip is closer to today than it is to the first Mickey cartoon. 2. There is a difference between picking the rules and picking the preferred behavior under existing rules; if someone thought copyright should only last 20 years, then one reasonably believe both that C&H ought not be under copyright and respect Watterson's anti-merchandising point of view. Plenty of people who say that "Every billionaire is a policy failure" may also laud the donations of particularly philanthropic billionaires.

dpkirchner 2y ago

As one of those people I guess I can just say: I'd prefer that people respect Watterson's opinion about merch and knock-offs but that I'd also prefer the government not enforce that beyond 14 or so years.

jjulius 2y ago

Well, life is incredibly nuanced, there's no black and whites and we often have to deal with double-edged swords. :) To me, there's a bit of a difference between the two. In one instance, you've got a single corporation owning all the rights to a property and getting all of the cash from the sale of goods related to that property. This is a single party who gets to decide what to do with the IP, and often times this can irk fans and rub them the wrong way. In another instance, you've got C&H released from copyright. Nobody owns the rights, so anybody can do anything with it - assholes can make cheap merchandise for the sake of fast cash the way Disney might with its own IP, but now that there are plenty of other vendors making like-products, we have choices and don't have to buy from one person. The alternatives available are also likely to be made by actual fans with a passion for the project. Broadly speaking, fans can't get irked the way they do when Disney makes a change, because whatever is out there by a third-party is just their creative take on it, not the single rights holder going, "This is the way the IP's universe is now, and what has been canon for thirty years is no longer so, please keep giving us cash". You're right - one decision impacts another in a less than ideal way. But there's a balance and we have to find the right balance. :)

CSMastermind 2y ago

Watterson's motivation seems to be to preserve the integrity of his art. Disney's motivation seems to be to preserve their profit margins on hyper commercializing the creations of others.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
khazhoux 2y ago
Watterson is motivated by integrity, I have no doubt of that. But Disney is also motivated --at least partly-- by integrity. Yes, they want to control profits, clearly. But I have no doubts they want to preserve the integrity of their character also. > the creations of others Others? Even after Walt's death, Mickey Mouse has been overseen by a continuous line of people who care about the character's integrity.
- endemic 2y ago
  Corporations aren't people
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    Many things are not other things. In this case, Disney Inc is staffed by people who care deeply about the Disney legacy. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single employee who was not awe-struck walking the halls on the first day.
    - alexashka 2y ago
      How do you know that? This is a rhetorical question, meaning to elicit introspection and a rare act of thought, prior to speech.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - 2y ago

walterbell 2y ago

A living artist exercising creative control is different from an immortal corporation repeatedly lobbying governments to extend copyright beyond an artist's lifetime.

khazhoux 2y ago
It's disingenuous to suggest people are mainly interested in Watterson's ability to control the profits of C&H during his lifetime. No, it's because we cherish C&H's purity and are protective of it. I claim it's a purely emotional thing.
- walterbell 2y ago
  No claims were made about the interests of "people".

hinkley 2y ago

We don’t revile Disney for not letting us make Mickey Mouse slash fiction. We revile them because in order to protect a 90 year old mouse cartoon they’ve made it so no English teacher below high school can teach any literature that is younger than 100 years old, because it’s too expensive to reprint it.

khazhoux 2y ago
That is an excellent distinction, thank you.

CrazyStat 2y ago

Mickey Mouse (and Calvin and Hobbes) would still be protected by trademark if copyrights were much shorter.

aidenn0 2y ago

A couple of points: 1. If copyright lasted 40 years, then C&H would still be under copyright, and the first 46 years of Mickey would be not; The first C&H strip is closer to today than it is to the first Mickey cartoon. 2. There is a difference between picking the rules and picking the preferred behavior under existing rules; if someone thought copyright should only last 20 years, then one reasonably believe both that C&H ought not be under copyright and respect Watterson's anti-merchandising point of view. Plenty of people who say that "Every billionaire is a policy failure" may also laud the donations of particularly philanthropic billionaires.