Live data from Hacker News

Who owns Rudolph's nose?

creativelawcenter.com

21–24 of 24 posts

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#21
post #20
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.

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.

I think that is a different take than supporting their poor struggling grandchildren. In general authors, aren’t making money off writing.

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#22
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

Re: Who owns Rudolph's nose?

#23
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…

I think this thinking is very common at the end of life. You want to do Something Meaningful for your family, and passing on the fruits of your labor to grandchildren is meaningful, giving them education, medical care and opportunity.

There are lots of tax laws that support this.

Do you think it is immoral for creative ip, ip in general, or even money?

Post reply on HN