Calvin and Muad'Dib

[Merlinios]

A friend of mine sent this to me a few days ago and it would be a crime to keep it to myself. Thought you folks might appreciate it.

http://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/

[LennyLen]

Enjoy it while it lasts. They got a cease and desist notice so probably won't be around much longer.

[kandrathe]

Enjoy it while it lasts. They got a cease and desist notice so probably won't be around much longer.

DMCA. This is why we can't have nice things. Like, freedom of expression.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/...ch-killer/

In the paper, Seltzer argues that "federal law, through copyright and the DMCA, bears direct responsibility for the chilling restriction on online speech... Depriving speakers of opportunities for publication and dissemination can be tantamount to banning speech; pressuring distribution points can cut them off."

To me; I see the comic strip as both a creative, and fan thing -- taking two passions and mashing them up creating a new thing that is entertaining in its own right. It's sort of like hip hop borrowing riffs from popular music to create a known and familiar hook.

[shoju]

Enjoy it while it lasts. They got a cease and desist notice so probably won't be around much longer.

DMCA. This is why we can't have nice things. Like, freedom of expression.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/...ch-killer/

In the paper, Seltzer argues that "federal law, through copyright and the DMCA, bears direct responsibility for the chilling restriction on online speech... Depriving speakers of opportunities for publication and dissemination can be tantamount to banning speech; pressuring distribution points can cut them off."

To me; I see the comic strip as both a creative, and fan thing -- taking two passions and mashing them up creating a new thing that is entertaining in its own right. It's sort of like hip hop borrowing riffs from popular music to create a known and familiar hook.

There is a difference though. In Hip Hop, they are paying to use that beat. And when they don't pay, they get SUED.

[kandrathe]

There is a difference though. In Hip Hop, they are paying to use that beat. And when they don't pay, they get SUED.

When, and if they get popular enough to get noticed. On the street, you know it's happening all over. Music industry lawyers have got bigger, safer sheep to fleece, rather than stroll around the south side ready targets for gang bangers.

It's just that on the .net we've got web crawlers indexing everything, so somebody can Google it, and safely whack you with a DMCA take down.

[shoju]

That's because on the web, you aren't on the street, trying to make a name for yourself.

And I'm 100% in favor of it. I've been on both sides. I'm a digital designer, wishing, and wanting that I could do more with some of the truly awesome "mash ups" that I've done, but know I can't.

And I'm a musician, who has paid my dues, and would expect, that if someone is wanting to use my song, that I'm getting compensated for it. I wrote it. I did it. I'm just asking for recognition of my work.

Hell, as a band, we had a song that was close enough in idea to a popular song by a band called the Deftones, that we contemplated not recording it, because we weren't sure how we felt about it being that close. It wasn't a rip off, it was never intended to be a rip off. But in the end it sounded at the very least "inspired" by. In the end we ended up recording it, but only having a couple of people who were intimately familiar with the original subject matter listen to it, and said they didn't feel that it was as close as we did.

Calvin and Muad'Dib being served a DMCA is the right thing to do. It may suck, but it doesn't trample on free speech. it doesn't trample on anyone's rights. Not serving it, would have been in the interest of the site, but not of the original creator.

[kandrathe]

Not serving it, would have been in the interest of the site, but not of the original creator.

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?

[Hammerskjold]

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

Except in this case, I doubt that anyone's speech is being stifled.
Unless Bill Watterson gave permission for his work to be used, even if it's 'fair use' it's still considered courtesy to ask for permission. And last I checked Watterson isn't dead yet, and his work hasn't gone into public domain.

What about the person who did the mashup of Calvin + Dune though? Copyright wise, I'd say they should've known Bill Watterson is pretty tight with control over his work. And to any creatives, that is a damn important factor.

Like it or not, it's the guy's work. Using Watterson's work is not a generic thing\idea, it's pretty dang specific. Are you going to stifle Watterson's speech (and original work) in favor of mashups who didn't do their legal homework?

Are you sure you've read Atlas Shrugged right?

[kandrathe]

Like it or not, it's the guy's work. Using Watterson's work is not a generic thing\idea, it's pretty dang specific. Are you going to stifle Watterson's speech (and original work) in favor of mashups who didn't do their legal homework?

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.

[Hammerskjold]

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

The problem with generalities, especially pairing it with 'mah freedom' then working backwards, and ignoring the actual specific case in question. Is that it misses the point, and can throw out the baby with the bathwater.

DMCA has problems, copyright issue in the digital age still has the problem of balancing creator's rights and protection, vs not stifling experimentation and progress. As well as the speed of which technology is always ahead of legislation.

But speaking as someone who is in the creative industry myself, I will say that it's naive to downright dangerous to treat copyright as a single issue thing, or spinning it as 'freedom of expression!!111'.

It has always been freedom with responsibility with creator's protection juggling act.

TL,DR: Pragmatically speaking, if this wasn't on tumblr, no one would raise an objection. That's not stifling 'mah freedom of expression'. If the person(s) that made the mashup didn't have consent, they are taking a gamble on displaying it publically.

Sounds harsh, but them's reality. And guess what, unfair things sometimes do happen. But an imperfect, copyright balancing act is still better than 'MAH FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!' with no responsibility. Wanting absolute freedom without responsibility is wanting to eat ice cream all day, errrday, and not expecting health problems.

Edited addition, hyper blunt edition:

Anyone can cry foul....

This is not, an automagically 100% bad thing all the time. I don't have a team of lawyers to go on seek and C&D missions. I don't even have one lawyer working for me full time.
Consulting with one on a serious matter would be a major expense for me. I have had my work outright stolen, physically. And a few stolen, intellectually.
In case anyone is going to go 'but what is the definitions of stolen...' I'll be blunter. I did not give consent to my work being stolen. One intellectual theft instance
was literally cutting out my sig\ID out of my work, then pasting over the damage with the thief's own signature.


Myself, I am not a big soup company, or even a big company that can laugh off some 'fan-art', and just go 'ohohoho, any publicity is good publicity'.
So excuse my splashing some cold water on this approach that somehow this is all a stifling of 'freedom of expression'. 'Lawl-yers'. Soup company
benefitting from Warhol, therefore everyone is Soup Company.

Here's the real deal. There is a surefire way of not getting C&D letters concerning creative works. Go. Make. Your. Own.

Eg:

-No one owns the elements and principles of visual art. A pad of paper and pencil\ink is cheap.
-No one owns musical notes and chords. Go learn the scales and practice singing in the shower.
-No one owns the alphabet and words. A basic laptop\computer with even built in\freeware word processor is amazingly affordable.
Or, paper and pen, and go learn shorthand. Or pick up a mic and record your audio novel masterpiece.

[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.

[kandrathe]

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.

I don't. Especially Warhol's lithographs of popular cartoons.





I'm still concerned about DMCA, and the gray area surrounding appropriation in art forms.

http://www.artnews.com/2013/05/09/is-any...ation-art/

On your 2nd point, I totally agree with your analysis.

[shoju]

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.

I don't. Especially Warhol's lithographs of popular cartoons.





I'm still concerned about DMCA, and the gray area surrounding appropriation in art forms.

http://www.artnews.com/2013/05/09/is-any...ation-art/

On your 2nd point, I totally agree with your analysis.

I'll be honest, Warhol's Mickey has always confounded me. There is no reason that should have been allowed. That's Intellectual Property. That's Disney's Copyrighted work. How he was able to get away with that, I have no idea.

But Calvin and Muad'Dib, isn't whoever ran that website's work. It's not his art. He didn't even pull a warhol and "Re-draw" it. He used it, frame for frame, and changed the dialog. That's it.

IMO, Warhol's Mickey, and Calvin and Muad'Dib, are both in violation of copyright and IP laws, art appropriation or not.

Also, A good lawyer, will argue that the Campell's can in your previous example, isn't artwork. It's not intended as artwork, and it's use in a piece of artwork doesn't violate any laws.

Sort of like, Maxx Barry using Nike, and McDonald's, and every other corporation in the world in his novel Jennifer Government.

Or Like me, creating a Fender Bass in a piece of Art, be it drawn, or photographed.

Using something in art, and Using someone elses art, is the heart of the issue.

Think of it more like..... When you are a musician, if you want to record a song that was previously written / recorded by someone else, you need

1.) Their Permission.
2.) Probably some form of formal contract stipulating rights and royalties.

You have to do this, even if you are planning to change up the song. Say.... Dave Matthews Band, recording All Along the Watchtower. They needed to get permission, and pay royalties, on that song to Bob Dylan. Now in the music industry, it's handled a little differently, because you have ASCAP, and other services that allow this to happen.

Even thought he song that they produced was performed in a completely different manner than the Bob Dylan Song, it was still Bob Dylan's Work, and he was still owed the royalties of the song, and DMB still had to get the pre-requisite "permission" from BMI/ASCAP.

While Calvin and Muad'Dib, is "different" than C&H, it's still C&H. They needed to get the pre-requisite permissions, etc... to use it.

They didn't. Had they handled this, the DMCA wouldn't have gone through, unless they were just really stupid, and didn't think ahead to make sure that the information was readily available to the host.

Now, on the other hand, If I write a song, and I reference, Dylan, or All Along the Watchtower, by name, I'm not required to get permission from anyone for that. I could probably even include a line or two (there are stipulations and guidelines for that type of thing already in place), without needing to worry about it.

Just remember Using something in art =/= using someone else's art to make "new" art.

[Hammerskjold]

I'll be honest, Warhol's Mickey has always confounded me. There is no reason that should have been allowed. That's Intellectual Property. That's Disney's Copyrighted work. How he was able to get away with that, I have no idea.

My personal take on that is, it's Warhol. Now I'm saying this as a fan of Warhol, and someone who appreciates his work ethic (he wasn't just a foppish wig wearing proto-hipster dilettante, though he certainly cultivated that image) that's evidenced by his prolific work.

However, for better and worse I think he did usher that 'Warholian' effect. Some of his stuff is IMO similar to Duchamp's, in the sense that 'art can be whatever you can get away with'. His later period started veering towards this.

Unfortunately, I think I've seen way too much 'It's like Warhol' defense with none of Warhol's foundations or original work and thoughts.

I do like the pictures in Kandrathe's previous link. Too bad the text inside is too purpley prose.

TL;DR: Citing Warhol, is great if you're him. But I wouldn't bet on that defense when lawyers are involved.

[kandrathe]

I do like the pictures in Kandrathe's previous link. Too bad the text inside is too purpley prose.

I guess they are written for purpley people.

[Hammerskjold]

I don't. Especially Warhol's lithographs of popular cartoons.

At least in this context, Warhol has a body of work and is an established artist. It can be argued that it might be nothing more, nothing less than pro-grade fan-art. But it's still pro-grade, a lot of people know who Warhol is.

Calvin + Quotes from Frank Herbert novel into speech bubbles, is done by who? That's not sarcasm, I'm genuinely asking who did it? The tumblr page is taken down now. It's possible that it was done by a pro grade, well established artist, but I find that doubtful.

That isn't to say that I didn't find a few of them funny, but if we're talking about things involving lawyers, having a body of work\established well known cred can tip the balance between 'C&D immediately', to 'wow that's so cool that so and so did an homage\tribute!'

Also. It's Bill Watterson. Like shoju said, not exactly known for his frequent permission granting streak involving his work. And that's perfectly within his or anyone else's rights.

I guess they are written for purpley people.

Zounds! Better warn them of possible nearby sighting of purpley people eaters then. Oh the purpley! Oh the people! All those paisley...lost...like tears...in the rain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL1ZH0Ke92A

[Merlinios]

I think the fact that people can generate ad revenue just by posting someone else's work and ensuring a search engine can find it has tightened a lot of C&D policies (be they DMCA or otherwise).

It did not even occur to me when I originally posted that link that the original author would be asinine enough to do that without consent, though.