Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who owns Rudolph's nose?

creativelawcenter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#11

Post by ____tom____ »

elmomle wrote: post #8
mzmzmzm wrote: post #6

"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…

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.

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.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#12

Post by shoxidizer »

____tom____ wrote: post #11
elmomle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#13

Post by dogsgobork »

____tom____ wrote: post #11
elmomle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#14

Post by Retric »

____tom____ wrote: post #11
elmomle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Having grandchildren “coast through life” is based on copyright lasting 70 years past the death of the author. But seriously having the rights disappear in 10 years is hardly an incentive for murder.

Honestly, I find it difficult to understand why a fixed 40 year term isn’t long enough to benefit from copyright. Trademark is already indefinite, JK Rowling is hardly going to be meaningfully harmed if someone publishes a work based on the first Harry Potter book in 2037. Less wealthy authors generally need to keep working anyway. Publish a hit at 22 and perhaps it’s time to start saving for retirement just like everyone else.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#15

Post by 0928374082 »

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.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#16

Post by mikestaas »

0928374082 wrote: post #15

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.

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

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#17

Post by consp »

____tom____ wrote: post #11
elmomle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> there would be unwholesome motivations.

Which are life imprisonment for murder. Not some magical "my children must be fed millions without ever working until 70 years after my death".

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#18

Post by golem14 »

nkrisc wrote: post #2

> 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 h…

I looked up Montgomery Ward on Wikipedia. It seems very plausible there's no nuance at all.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#19

Post by golem14 »

____tom____ wrote: post #11
elmomle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Well, after accomplishing the author's untimely demise, the murderer (or facilitator) would have to wait 70 years to profit (unless 70-years future contracts on copyright expirations are a thing, I wouldn't know)

Seems a lot of risk and effort for a small chance of profit.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#20

Post by aidenn0 »

elmomle wrote: post #8
mzmzmzm wrote: post #6

"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…

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.

I have encountered people for whom it is an obvious universal moral truth that authors of works should be able to monopolize their works indefinitely, and any attempt to curtail it is an attempt to steal rightfully earned money from poor struggling authors.
Post reply on HN