"it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses."
That was part of my point - Maisel was characterized in a way that made it easier to whip up the mob against him. And that fact that Baio was a wealthy (probably) internet businessman was not mentioned.
Watterson: I love his work, too. His is unique in that he has so much respect for his own work and love for his characters that he has refused any form of licensing whatsoever - imagine how much money he has left on the table. Any time you see any of his characters on a shirt or anywhere outside of the original comics, it's a bootleg. Contrast this with Peanuts, Dilbert[0], or any other successful strip. Eventually his work will pass into the public domain, as it should, and then anyone can legally make a Hobbes toy. But I think that, until then, it's OK that he has some rights over his creations. Just because he can't stop some infringers doesn't mean that he's given up those rights. I don't see this as Watterson hiding anything: anybody can buy his books or check them out of the library.
Warhol: Interesting point. Maybe if Warhol had put his soup can image on a piece of merchandise for sale, like a record, he would have been in trouble. I'm guessing the artistic point of his paintings had something to do with the very fact that they were so close to the originals, compelling people to take a fresh look at familiar iconography. Or he was just a huckster, which was pretty much how he described himself. I think if the exact image on the cover of the "Bloop" album had been hung in a museum rather than used on merchandise, Maisel would have had a tougher case.
I stole "meatspace" from somewhere, long forgotten.
[0] Not meant as a criticism. Scott Adams has said that Watterson is an artist, while he, himself, is a businessman, and so they have different concerns.
That was part of my point - Maisel was characterized in a way that made it easier to whip up the mob against him. And that fact that Baio was a wealthy (probably) internet businessman was not mentioned.
Watterson: I love his work, too. His is unique in that he has so much respect for his own work and love for his characters that he has refused any form of licensing whatsoever - imagine how much money he has left on the table. Any time you see any of his characters on a shirt or anywhere outside of the original comics, it's a bootleg. Contrast this with Peanuts, Dilbert[0], or any other successful strip. Eventually his work will pass into the public domain, as it should, and then anyone can legally make a Hobbes toy. But I think that, until then, it's OK that he has some rights over his creations. Just because he can't stop some infringers doesn't mean that he's given up those rights. I don't see this as Watterson hiding anything: anybody can buy his books or check them out of the library.
Warhol: Interesting point. Maybe if Warhol had put his soup can image on a piece of merchandise for sale, like a record, he would have been in trouble. I'm guessing the artistic point of his paintings had something to do with the very fact that they were so close to the originals, compelling people to take a fresh look at familiar iconography. Or he was just a huckster, which was pretty much how he described himself. I think if the exact image on the cover of the "Bloop" album had been hung in a museum rather than used on merchandise, Maisel would have had a tougher case.
I stole "meatspace" from somewhere, long forgotten.
[0] Not meant as a criticism. Scott Adams has said that Watterson is an artist, while he, himself, is a businessman, and so they have different concerns.