https://www.thelegalartist.com/blog/on-bill-wattersons-refusal-to-license-calvin-and-hobbes THE [LEGAL] ARTIST * Home * About * Services * Fees * Contact * Blog THE [LEGAL] ARTIST * Home/ * About/ * Services/ * Fees/ * Contact/ * Blog/ THE [LEGAL] ARTIST Blogspace THE [LEGAL] ARTIST * Home/ * About/ * Services/ * Fees/ * Contact/ * Blog/ January 19, 2016 On Bill Watterson's Refusal To License Calvin and Hobbes January 19, 2016/ Greg Kanaan [image-asse] Maybe the best way to build a lasting and beloved brand is to not spend any time building one. When Calvin and Hobbes went out of print twenty years ago, I think most people assumed it would eventually return. I know I certainly did. Calvin and Hobbes was a formative part of my youth - the sly brilliant writing and stark black and white illustrations providing color to my sense of childhood wonder and adventure. Watterson had the innate ability to put on the page something that spoke directly to the brash creative misfit lurking deep inside of me (or maybe not so deep if my mother is to be believed), like he was illustrating the comic for an audience of one. With something so clearly loved by its creator and so personal, I just couldn't envision a world where there would be no more new ones. And if Calvin and Hobbes had been created by anyone other than Bill Watterson, we probably wouldn't have heard the last of it. But Watterson famously refused to license his creation to anyone for any reason other than publishing. No movies, no cartoons (although he almost relented when approached by Pixar), no toys, no hats or t-shirts. Nothing. When asked in an interview why licensing his characters was out of the question, Watterson said: [L]icensing is inconsistent with what I'm trying to do with Calvin and Hobbes... [it] isn't a gag strip... The humor is situational, and often episodic. It relies on conversation, and the development of personalities and relationships... To explore character, you need lots of time and space. Note pads and coffee mugs just aren't appropriate vehicles for what I'm trying to do here. I'm not interested in removing all the subtlety from my work to condense it for a product... I have no aversion to obscene wealth, but that's not my motivation either. I think to license Calvin and Hobbes would ruin the most precious qualities of my strip and, once that happens, you can't buy those qualities back. But the public loves the strip, so why not indulge them? I'm convinced that licensing would sell out the soul of Calvin and Hobbes. The world of a comic strip is much more fragile than most people realize. Once you've given up its integrity, that's it. I want to make sure that never happens. Instead of asking what's wrong with rampant commercialism, we ought to be asking, "What justifies it?" In the old days, there was this idea of "selling out" and we as a culture decided that it was bad. Monetizing a thing immediately called into question its integrity, and more importantly, the integrity of the artist. But then an interesting thing began happening in the late 90's and early 00's. The idea of selling out lost its negative connotation. Got your song featured on a prominent TV show? Had your artwork featured on a toy ad? Sold your graffiti mural to a major tech company to use in the lobby of its corporate headquarters? These all became good things because they raised awareness of your brand and they allowed you to financially capitalize on that name recognition. Which is what makes Watterson's position so fundamentally at odds with what we consider normal behavior. How could he not want to profit from Calvin and Hobbes? Even after all this time it's still popular, and lord knows people have tried to get him to come around. One - possibly apocryphal - story has him setting ablaze a box of stuffed toy Hobbeses that a doll manufacturer had mailed him to convince him to change his mind. He's been reclusive, giving maybe a half dozen interview in the intervening years. Any image that you've ever seen of either Calvin or Hobbes that doesn't come directly from one of his books - like those awful "Calvin peeing" and "Calvin praying" car decals - are unlicensed and illegal. He once quipped that he should hire a copyright lawyer to prevent unauthorized reproductions, but he mostly expressed bemusement at them, joking in a recent interview that "long after the strip is forgotten, those decals are my ticket to immortality." In the twenty years since Calvin and Hobbes disappeared from newspapers, Watterson never signed on to this modern way of thinking. He stuck to his guns in a stubborn, and frankly impressive, attempt to ensure the long term integrity of his creation. I've talked in the past about creators who exert immense control over their properties. The Tolkien estate famously hated The Lord of the Rings movies and refuses to license anymore of J.R.R.'s works (J.R.R. Tolkien had personally licensed the movie rights to LOTR and The Hobbit, a decision his son and grandson regretted). The Conan Doyle estate levies substantial licensing fees against anyone who wants to make a Sherlock Holmes show, movie, or book. George R.R. Martin claims that he will not let the Westeros saga leave his family's hands. Before he sold Lucasfilm to Disney, George Lucas had complete say over everything that happened in the Star Wars universe. Ditto for J.K. Rowling's influence over the Potterverse. All of these creators make decisions they think will protect the integrity of their work. And the reason we're okay with them having so much control is because it's ultimately in our best interest. The audience benefits from these decisions because it means we get to enjoy the movies, TV shows, comic books, toys, and other useless merchandising crap spawned from them. Whatever decisions Lucas and Rowling and Martin made regarding the integrity of their work, they were tempered by the need to ensure their properties were also profitable. Conventional wisdom says that's how you build brand recognition. But Watterson stands apart from his fellow creators because he rejected that wisdom. Which ironically has led to the exact thing Watterson didn't want... the creation of a brand identity. People remember Watterson for his refusal to play the game as much as his artwork. His refusal to license is only one part of the equation, however; the other being his choice not to draw anymore strips. The only Calvin and Hobbes we will ever get occurred between 1985 and 1995. We will never see how Calvin reacts to the internet or iPhones or hoverboards. Calvin and Hobbes is a self-contained work that requires no follow up. It is relevant regardless of time, age, or political affiliation. It is as meaningful in 2016 as it was in 1986. To make anymore would cheapen the whole enterprise, wreck its fundamental integrity. I've always been a little skeptical of letting creators have so much control, because that's how you end up with things like the Star Wars Special Editions or Jo Rowling claiming she should've killed off Ron so Harry and Hermione could get together. If enough time passes, creators can lose touch with what makes their work so special in the first place. That's why I support a "death of the author" approach over the long haul - maybe the author's intent isn't as important as we assume. Once the work is out there, it belongs to the people, regardless of what copyright law says. I've even advocated for shortening copyright terms to a flat 75 years in order to limit that control. But that's what makes Watterson's position so fascinating and unique. Maybe he's one of the few creators who can truly make unbiased choices about his work. After all, he's resisted the twin siren calls of licensing and marketing for his entire career. I don't think Watterson's path is the only one, or even necessarily the right one. But someone that disciplined and resolute in his convictions can probably teach us all something about integrity. That's how you build a lasting brand. That's how you build meaning. January 19, 2016/ Greg Kanaan/ 8 Comments Protecting The Brand, Branding, Comics, Copyright Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes, Copyright, Protecting The Brand, Branding, Licensing Greg Kanaan * Great Teamwork Makes Great Films, ... * Sweat The Business Stuff: What Type ... * Home/ * About/ * Services/ * Fees/ * Contact/ * Blog/ THE [LEGAL] ARTIST Sign up to receive the latest news, updates, and blog posts! Email Address [ ] Subscribe Thank you! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Instagram Feed View fullsize Check it out at the link in bio! And check out @art.prof who conducted the interview and has so many great resources for artists! View fullsize Different creative businesses have different needs. That’s why there are different business entity types you can choose from when starting out. LLCs are the most common form of business type for creatives but corporations (or C-Corps) have th View fullsize Like most things, negotiation requires practice. But luckily there are tricks of the trade which can immediately improve your negotiation game.Here are the three tips and tricks I always counsel my clients on when they’re about to enter into View fullsize A successful business, creative or otherwise, makes sure to focus not just on closing deals and performing the work, but also on the things that make the business run. Things like:- Contracts- Taxes- Budgeting- Client relations- MarketingThes View fullsize You own the copyright to a particular work, but what does that mean, exactly? A primer for the rights associated with copyright is key for any artist to protect their work, so that’ s exactly what I’ve done for you here. Enjoy!..... View fullsize There’s no perfect business type, but for creatives, sole proprietorships and LLCs make the most sense, and they work for the vast majority of creative start-ups.So what are the differences? Flip through the slides above and decide for your --------------------------------------------------------------------- Blog Archive * April 2022 1 * January 2022 2 * December 2021 1 * November 2021 2 * May 2020 1 * March 2020 1 * February 2020 2 * January 2020 3 * December 2019 1 * November 2019 1 * October 2019 2 * November 2018 1 * September 2017 1 * August 2017 4 * May 2017 1 * March 2017 1 * February 2017 2 * October 2016 1 * September 2016 4 * August 2016 1 * July 2016 3 * June 2016 2 * May 2016 4 * April 2016 3 * February 2016 2 * January 2016 6 * December 2015 3 * November 2015 6 * September 2015 5 * August 2015 4 * July 2015 3 * June 2015 4 * May 2015 7 * April 2015 3 * March 2015 7 * February 2015 4 * January 2015 5 * December 2014 3 * November 2014 3 * October 2014 2 * September 2014 3 * August 2014 4 * July 2014 2 * June 2014 3 * May 2014 2 * April 2014 3 * March 2014 4 * January 2014 6 * December 2013 5 * November 2013 3 * October 2013 5 * August 2013 4 * July 2013 4 * June 2013 2 * May 2013 4 * April 2013 5 * March 2013 3 * February 2013 4 * January 2013 1 * December 2012 5 * November 2012 5 * October 2012 4 * September 2012 9 * August 2012 8 Recent Blog Posts Apr 7, 2022 Comment The Importance of Mentors Apr 7, 2022 Comment I represent a number of businesses. Some are small, others not so small. Some are brand new, while others are established. Some are run by young people fresh out of college or grad school, while others are run by people on their second, third, or even fourth careers. They range the gamut from TV production companies to interior design firms to furniture makers, to talent management. It's safe to say that no two businesses I represent are alike, except in one way. They all need mentors. Read More - Apr 7, 2022 Comment Jan 12, 2022 Comment How do NFTs Impact Artists? Jan 12, 2022 Comment Ever since the digital artist Beeple sold an NFT (non-fungible token) of his work for $69 million dollars, there's been a ridiculous amount of excitement surrounding NFTs. Some have called it a revolutionary way to buy and sell copyrights while others have called it a fad, a scam, or worse. The truth is, it's far too early to tell what the true economic or societal impacts of NFTs are, at least until the hype dies down. And I'm far from an expert so I don't think my input on that front is helpful anyway. I'm more interested in the legal impacts of NFTs which are, presently, unclear. Read More - Jan 12, 2022 Comment Jan 5, 2022 Comment You Made a Collage, But That Doesn't Give You Rights In the Underlying Work Jan 5, 2022 Comment The longer I practice law, the more I recognize certain "seasons" in my work; sometimes I'll have a period where all my clients are filmmakers. Perhaps six months will go by where all my work revolves around trademarks in some way. Maybe I'll have ten people in a row ask me about indemnity clauses. Lately many of my clients or prospective clients are visual or graphic artists producing collages. And they all want to know the same thing: can they use the work of others in their collages? Read More - Jan 5, 2022 Comment Dec 14, 2021 Comment The Benefits of Copyright Registration Dec 14, 2021 Comment Oftentimes, I get this question from current or prospective clients: "how do I copyright my work?" I usually tell them, "you don't have to because you (most likely) already own it. Copyright isn't an act one engages in, it's a suite of rights, granted under the U.S. Copyright Act, that attached from the moment your work is 'fixed in a tangible medium of expression.'" That is, the moment your work is recorded somehow - in writing, on paper, on a computer, in audio, video, etc, etc. Among the rights granted to you under copyright law: the right to own, use, exploit, and transfer ownership to the work. Other than creating it, you do not need to engage in any further actions to own it. Read More - Dec 14, 2021 Comment Nov 29, 2021 Comment Repost: You Can't Copyright Style Nov 29, 2021 Comment Shortly after Star Wars: The Force Awakens came out, something happened that no one could have possibly predicted: people started making fan art. Shocking I know, but in a world where Donald Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President, I'm not sure anything's a surprise anymore. Anyway, among those artists was Disney and Marvel illustrator Brian Kesinger. But Kesinger wasn't interested in your run of the mill fan art. He wanted to do something special. The result of his labor: a series of adorable illustrations of Kylo Ren, Han Solo, Leia, and Darth Vader from The Force Awakens done in Bill Watterson's inimitable style. Kesinger not only nailed the famed Calvin and Hobbes look, he also got Watterson's voice. Read More - Nov 29, 2021 Comment [ ] Phone: (203) 745-9996 / Email: info@thelegalartist.com / Hours: Monday to Friday, 9:00am - 4:00pm HOME / ABOUT / SERVICES / FEES / CONTACT / BLOG DISCLAIMER & PRIVACY POLICY The information on this site is for educational purposes only. It should be considered attorney advertising and not be construed as legal advice. Reading this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have any questions about anything presented here, please contact me or another attorney before applying it to your situation. Copyright (c) 2022 The [Legal] Artist, PLLC. All rights reserved. THE [LEGAL] ARTIST(r) is a registered trademark.