Calvin and Muad'Dib

[shoju]

I'm concerned about the effect it might have on creativity. But, it is also used as a means to stifle speech.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29

Do you think the soup company would have had a DMCA, or copyright complaint?

No. That falls under Fair Use as far as laws are concerned.

If you can't see the difference between the Warhol Image, and Calvin and Muad'Dib, there is a problem, and it isn't the DMCA.

You can't even draw a comparison between the Warhol and your previous example of Hip Hop, and Beats.

Using something to create art, and using someone else's art to create your own art are completely different things. Calvin and Muad'Dib, is different text layed over existing cells of Calvin and Hobbes.

Couple that with Watterson's fierce protective nature regarding Calvin and Hobbes imagery (Very little of what you see on the market bearing resemblance to them is licensed), and this isn't a shocker, and the person who ran that site is either

A.) An idiot who didn't realize that Watterson would come after him.
B.) An idiot who didn't realize that what he was doing is in fact wrong.
C.) A complete tool who didn't care.

I'm accepting that point. Was it Watterson's lawyers who issued a C&D? I doubt it. Anyone can cry foul, and in order to protect themselves from liability, the host/isp must do at least a 15 day take down to cover their butts.

I'm generally speaking about DMCA. Not this one case.

While the DMCA may be able to be misused, it wasn't in this case, even if Waterson's Lawyer's weren't the ones to pull the trigger. And while you may doubt it, After having worked in a business that was selling Legal, authorized, Calvin and Hobbes Prints* and STILL had to deal with his legal team, I don't.

*3x5 Calvin and Hobbes Snow Day Lithos, licensed by Watterson. WE purchased the remaining inventory from the company, that included The Hobbes lithos, Peanuts, Red Baron Lithos (both signed & #'d and unsigned by Schulz), Beatle Baily, and Haggar the Horrible. We had 50,000 total lithograph / prints that we purchased. The only one who called foul at it, was Watterson. We had to provide the paper trail, proving that when the company he licensed to make the prints went out of business, we purchased the inventory.

Oh Hey look, they are still selling the Peanuts Litho

I agree with Hammers. Go make your own. Or, if you want to do mashups, that will violate copyright laws? Do Parody (which doesn't), or GET PERMISSION FIRST

Some artists, are very open, and easy going about allowing people to use their work in mashups / derivative works / etc....

And some are not. Watterson is definitely in the NOT/ category, and I don't have a problem with that. it's his art. It's his mind. It's his vision. He probably looks at Calvin and Muad'Dib with the same Vitriol that he does every single Calvin Pissing on something sticker that gets made without his permission.