5 ms·

Who owns Rudolph's nose?

43 points by ohjeez 9mo ago

nkrisc 9mo ago
> May told the publisher, Maxton Books for Little People, that he couldn’t agree to a publishing deal because he didn’t own the copyright in the story he had written. > Apparently, that state of affairs didn’t sit well with those in charge at Montgomery Ward and the president of the company, Sewall Avery, gave May back the copyright in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. The book was published on October 4, 1947. Seems hard to believe it was truly that simple, I wonder what additional nuance there might be to it. Though I have no idea where I'd even begin to research that besides random web searches.
- Nevermark 9mo ago
  Simple is more likely than complicated, I would think. Given no law suites were involved. It probably isn't a coincidence that a goodwill gesture was made in the context of a good corporate Christmas story already, around the generation of a new Christmas story. The company's story behind the story got better, while no doubt feeling like a genuine act of good by the decision maker.
- golem14 9mo ago
  I looked up Montgomery Ward on Wikipedia. It seems very plausible there's no nuance at all.
ralph84 9mo ago
Another illustration of how absurd current IP laws are. A company has exclusive rights to a character created 87 years ago by a guy who died 50 years ago.
- dlcarrier 9mo ago
  It makes for a nice "holly-jolly Christmas" story that Montgomery Ward give an employee the rights to something they had already paid him to create. It's completely absurd and rather "Scrooge-like" that there's a bureaucracy that has been micromanaging its use for half a century after the creator died, and will continue to do so for decades to come.
- zdw 9mo ago
  I'm sure that this 50 years deceased guy is still promoting the progress of science and useful arts from his grave.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
mzmzmzm 9mo ago
"Robert L. May died in 1976. But before he did, he established The Rudolph C ompany that holds the rights to Rudolph. Licenses are managed by a professional agency all to the benefit of Mr. May's children and grandchildren. What makes this a holly-jolly Christmas story for me is knowing that the heirs of someone who would have been an unknown author are still benefiting from copyright protection, properly registered and renewed," I'm sorry but this is perverse. It's bad enough that we pretend ordinary property should be heritable, much less intangible knowledge.
- elmomle 9mo ago
  Didn't realize this was such a niche idea that you'd be downvoted. I don't think anybody really benefits when a child or grandchild coasts through life on the basis of their ancestor's success.
  - ____tom____ 9mo ago
    Everyone benefits from the idea that killing off the copyright holder is not profitable. If copyrights expired on creator death, there would be unwholesome motivations.
    - shoxidizer 9mo ago
      Another point for the copyright term being a fixed 5~10 years. The current system already incentivizes such agressive tactics to anyone with sufficient patience. If a teenager's favorite book has just been written by a young adult, they only have one course of action if they want to live to see it in the public domain for a few years.
    - dogsgobork 9mo ago
      Are there any notable instances of murder for copyright reasons? The current law is still extends the copyright of a work until a time after the author's death. So if one wished to hasten the expiration of those rights, the motivation still exists; although perhaps diminished by a 70 year wait.
    - 9mo ago
cbdevidal 9mo ago
This is actually the second time today I’ve seen a story on the copyright surrounding Rudolph. Weird. https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FltI_v7Am6U https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FltI_v7Am6U
0928374082 9mo ago
So if Santa knows who's been bad or good, he had to have known the other reindeer were mobbing Rudolph. Yet he did nothing about it, right up until he needed Rudolph's capabilities to further his own strategic interests. Holly-jolly? Right, right.
- mikestaas 9mo ago
  I believe Santa is only tracking the behaviour of human children who are not aware that he is a fiction.
butlike 9mo ago
I thought this was going to be another seedy story about fighting copyrights in the creative commons a la Micky Mouse or some other kafkaesque run-around, but it's delightful and glad everything worked out
davidfekke 9mo ago
It is not Rudolf?

43 points by ohjeez 9mo ago

> May told the publisher, Maxton Books for Little People, that he couldn’t agree to a publishing deal because he didn’t own the copyright in the story he had written. > Apparently, that state of affairs didn’t sit well with those in charge at Montgomery Ward and the president of the company, Sewall Avery, gave May back the copyright in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. The book was published on October 4, 1947. Seems hard to believe it was truly that simple, I wonder what additional nuance there might be to it. Though I have no idea where I'd even begin to research that besides random web searches.

Nevermark 9mo ago
Simple is more likely than complicated, I would think. Given no law suites were involved. It probably isn't a coincidence that a goodwill gesture was made in the context of a good corporate Christmas story already, around the generation of a new Christmas story. The company's story behind the story got better, while no doubt feeling like a genuine act of good by the decision maker.
golem14 9mo ago
I looked up Montgomery Ward on Wikipedia. It seems very plausible there's no nuance at all.

ralph84 9mo ago

Another illustration of how absurd current IP laws are. A company has exclusive rights to a character created 87 years ago by a guy who died 50 years ago.

dlcarrier 9mo ago
It makes for a nice "holly-jolly Christmas" story that Montgomery Ward give an employee the rights to something they had already paid him to create. It's completely absurd and rather "Scrooge-like" that there's a bureaucracy that has been micromanaging its use for half a century after the creator died, and will continue to do so for decades to come.
zdw 9mo ago
I'm sure that this 50 years deceased guy is still promoting the progress of science and useful arts from his grave.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

mzmzmzm 9mo ago

"Robert L. May died in 1976. But before he did, he established The Rudolph C ompany that holds the rights to Rudolph. Licenses are managed by a professional agency all to the benefit of Mr. May's children and grandchildren. What makes this a holly-jolly Christmas story for me is knowing that the heirs of someone who would have been an unknown author are still benefiting from copyright protection, properly registered and renewed," I'm sorry but this is perverse. It's bad enough that we pretend ordinary property should be heritable, much less intangible knowledge.

elmomle 9mo ago
Didn't realize this was such a niche idea that you'd be downvoted. I don't think anybody really benefits when a child or grandchild coasts through life on the basis of their ancestor's success.
- ____tom____ 9mo ago
  Everyone benefits from the idea that killing off the copyright holder is not profitable. If copyrights expired on creator death, there would be unwholesome motivations.
  - shoxidizer 9mo ago
    Another point for the copyright term being a fixed 5~10 years. The current system already incentivizes such agressive tactics to anyone with sufficient patience. If a teenager's favorite book has just been written by a young adult, they only have one course of action if they want to live to see it in the public domain for a few years.
  - dogsgobork 9mo ago
    Are there any notable instances of murder for copyright reasons? The current law is still extends the copyright of a work until a time after the author's death. So if one wished to hasten the expiration of those rights, the motivation still exists; although perhaps diminished by a 70 year wait.
  - 9mo ago

cbdevidal 9mo ago

This is actually the second time today I’ve seen a story on the copyright surrounding Rudolph. Weird. https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FltI_v7Am6U https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FltI_v7Am6U

0928374082 9mo ago

So if Santa knows who's been bad or good, he had to have known the other reindeer were mobbing Rudolph. Yet he did nothing about it, right up until he needed Rudolph's capabilities to further his own strategic interests. Holly-jolly? Right, right.

mikestaas 9mo ago
I believe Santa is only tracking the behaviour of human children who are not aware that he is a fiction.

butlike 9mo ago

I thought this was going to be another seedy story about fighting copyrights in the creative commons a la Micky Mouse or some other kafkaesque run-around, but it's delightful and glad everything worked out

davidfekke 9mo ago

It is not Rudolf?