> 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 hard to believe it was truly that simple, I wonder what additional nuance there might be to it.
Though I have no idea where I'd even begin to research that besides random web searches.
Simple is more likely than complicated, I would think. Given no law suites were involved.
It probably isn't a coincidence that a goodwill gesture was made in the context of a good corporate Christmas story already, around the generation of a new Christmas story. The company's story behind the story got better, while no doubt feeling like a genuine act of good by the decision maker.
"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 and renewed,"
I'm sorry but this is perverse. It's bad enough that we pretend ordinary property should be heritable, much less intangible knowledge.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another illustration of how absurd current IP laws are. A company has exclusive rights to a character created 87 years ago by a guy who died 50 years ago.
It makes for a nice "holly-jolly Christmas" story that Montgomery Ward give an employee the rights to something they had already paid him to create.
It's completely absurd and rather "Scrooge-like" that there's a bureaucracy that has been micromanaging its use for half a century after the creator died, and will continue to do so for decades to come.
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
> 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 hard to believe it was truly that simple, I wonder what additional nuance there might be to it.
Though I have no idea where I'd even begin to research that besides random web searches.
Simple is more likely than complicated, I would think. Given no law suites were involved.
It probably isn't a coincidence that a goodwill gesture was made in the context of a good corporate Christmas story already, around the generation of a new Christmas story. The company's story behind the story got better, while no doubt feeling like a genuine act of good by the decision maker.
I looked up Montgomery Ward on Wikipedia. It seems very plausible there's no nuance at all.
"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 and renewed,"
I'm sorry but this is perverse. It's bad enough that we pretend ordinary property should be heritable, much less intangible knowledge.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
Another illustration of how absurd current IP laws are. A company has exclusive rights to a character created 87 years ago by a guy who died 50 years ago.
It makes for a nice "holly-jolly Christmas" story that Montgomery Ward give an employee the rights to something they had already paid him to create.
It's completely absurd and rather "Scrooge-like" that there's a bureaucracy that has been micromanaging its use for half a century after the creator died, and will continue to do so for decades to come.
I'm sure that this 50 years deceased guy is still promoting the progress of science and useful arts from his grave.
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
This is actually the second time today I’ve seen a story on the copyright surrounding Rudolph. Weird.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FltI_v7Am6U
It is not Rudolf?