fchan

discussion

Calvin and Hobbes DNP? The hell?

Pages:1
1Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 22:46

Someone on a recent (and recently deleted) Calvin and Hobbes thread said that ANY pics of the characters from it is considered DNP. I found this odd; I haven't heard of any declaration to that end, and unless the creator of the series is actively hunting down and suing websites who post fan porn of his work, there shouldn't be any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

So, does anyone know why this stipulation is in place?

2Report
at 17 Apr 2008: 22:52

Tell them they're wrong.  Like Lex Luthor.  NO! No, the other thing!  WROOONG!!!

3Report(capped) (sage)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 18 Apr 2008: 00:46

We respect Bill Watterson and his trademarks here.

4Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 02:20

>>3
I thought he actually lost his Trademark/Copyright, due to lack of 'reasonable efforts' to protect it, which is why anyone can make/sell/buy those stickers of Calvin pissing on, well, pretty much anything? 

5Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 08:46

>>3
Since when?  I've seen dozens of calvin and hobbes threads here, all with a decent amount of content..

6Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 11:59

I agree with 4 and 5; the pissing Calvin stickers pretty much shows that the trademark was lost, or at least disputed and failed to make an impact on the practice, and I've seen porn on here for several trademarked characters, none of which was deleted as DNP. What was that thread of that star-eyed radio dog mascot, again? Yeah, that's right.

Such a stand is hypocritical and severely insulting to us on Fchan; there is absolutely no way for you to justify DNPing ONE SINGLE PERSON'S COMMERCIAL WORK due to a "respect of trademark", yet allow so many other trademarked and copyrighted character porn on here. There hasn't been any new Calvin and Hobbes media produced for years, and I STILL haven't read ANYWHERE that the creator is actively against porn of his characters. So really, what's the real reason why Calvin and Hobbes porn is DNP on here?

7Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 12:19

Actually, the reason Calvin & Hobbes is no longer produced is because Waterson pulled it from syndication as a result of pirated images and illegal commercialization.  The stickers are not endorsed nor are they legal, and I believe the original perps have been prosecuted.  Unfortunately, once you let the genie out of the bottle...

But that doesn't mean that the trademark was lost, especially as the C&H books are still in print.

I do agree, though, that it seems hypocritical to enforce trademark protection for one specific commercial resource, and ignore all others.

8Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 12:31

From what I was able to find, the makers of the original Calvin pissing image stickers were forced to change it to some unspecific kid.  But the original images already made are still floating around out there.

9Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 15:36

>>6

Wow. The butthurt is strong in this one. It's their site. If they're Watterson fans who don't want his work sullied here, it's their right to say so.

Is it just trolling, or do people seriously seem to think that there's some quality of being on the internet that makes every site/community/server/etc. a democracy?

/Not brown-nosing, just speaking from experience as an admin of some other parts of the internets.

10Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 16:10

>>9

How is making a suggestion to the administrators, or calling them on something they've imposed that makes no sense trolling? Most of the people on here contribute to the site, and without those contributors this site WOULD NOT EXIST, so it's a democracy in the sense that we as the contributers and consumers that keep the site as it is have a right to point out when the administrators do something that doesn't sync with the rest of the site.

Okay, so stuff like the urinating Calvin decoes are still not legal, but they were sold COMMERCIALLY. This isn't a commercial site, and the stuff posted on here usually isn't from commercial sites or sources, either. Mr. Watterson probably doesn't even KNOW this place or porn of his characters exist, and if he does, he's probably either too busy to worry about it (since it's not being sold and, thus, isn't commercializing his work), or sees it as quaint (from what I read, he's a decent connoisseur of art who would possibly appreciate the hard work the fan artists are doing with his characters). So unless he specifically went to the administrators and demanded he be put on the DNP list like every other artist on there, there's no reason why he should be DNP unless the administrators are severely biased towards him.

As for the "It's there site, so they can do whatever they want with it" angle is really getting tiresome. Like I said, they might have made the site and are administrating it, but without the contributors, the site would go dead. Not saying that they don't have the right to have the final word on it, but with a group so reliant on outside contributions to stay running, they really CAN'T do whatever the hell they want on here without SOME sort of consensus from the contributors.

11Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 20:05

blah blah blah, trademark or not, calvin and hobbes is too sacred for porn. I approve the banning of all calvin and hobbes porn.

Clean is good though.

12Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 20:17

>>11

Most stuff on /toon/ could be considered "Too sacred for porn". Doesn't stop anyone from making and posting it, though. And if they are allowed on here, then Calvin and Hobbes should be no different.

13Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 20:59

>>12


Could be, but shouldn't be. Calvin and Hobbes is above cheesy saturday morning cartoon riffraff and all that other jazz.

14Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 21:21

>>13

Please. What's so damn sacred about Calvin and Hobbes that makes it so immune to being corrupted like all other anthro-related stuff out there? I've seen porn of Garfield and Snoopy, for god's sake, and they're just as iconic and "sacred" as C&H are.

Face facts: there is nothing, NOTHING that warrants C&H being DNP; unless the administrators can prove that the creator himself asked for them to put him on the list, the only reason why it's on there is pointless bias, and nothing more. Just because YOU think it's too good to have porn made out of it, doesn't mean that EVERYONE does; my mate feels Tails is too pure and "sacred" to have porn of him made, yet he's not demanding for people to pull the Tails stuff they made off of their accounts. At least he realizes that not everyone shares his view of the character, and doesn't try to enforce his opinions on them because he dislikes what they're doing.

15Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 21:21

>>12

Ha. I have good memories of the strip, but if it were done well I see no reason why C&H porn would be any kind of bad. I could easily see it done very well in Karabiner's style (do note that if you visualize this yourself you may be violating the DNP).

Nothing is too sacred for porn, though some stuff is just not suited for it.

16Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 21:25

call this trolling if any of you so should choose to do so.
it would show real respect to artists to treat all works the same way, not just a few select artists. to not do so is very dishonerable.

17Report(capped)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 18 Apr 2008: 21:37

>>14 I do not have to prove anything to you or anyone else.

I placed his name and all derivatives on the DNP. The reason why I do not need to explain to you or anyone. If you do not like it, there is a cute little button to close your browser.

18Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 22:27

>>17

Right. So you admit that you posted it arbitrarily. You felt that it deserved special treatment, not because of any pressure from the creator himself. How pathetic.

I'm sorry, but I ask again: what makes Calvin and Hobbes so damn special that they must be excluded from porn by everyone, hmm? Doesn't matter, because any justification you give for it could just be attributed to Robin Hood, Mickey Mouse, Tony the Tiger, and pretty much every single franchise and media posted on /toon/. It's just like when someone bitches for cub porn to be removed, when they are somewhere else posting and downloading vore, scat, and snuff; just because YOU don't like it, and YOU feel the subject is too good or sacred or pure to have porn made of it, doesn't mean that EVERYONE feels that way, nor should you be able to say that it SHOULD be banned, while everything else YOU enjoy isn't. You're not "honoring" the artist or his trademark with this move; all you're doing is pissing off a lot of fans of such fan art, and making yourself out to be a huge douchebag for the hypocrisy of it all.

You don't have to like Calvin and Hobbes porn, but unless the artist himself comes on here and demands to have it taken off, or you've got proof that he asked to be put on the DNP list, you have no right and no justification to ban it and ONLY it. Otherwise, you might as well ban ALL fan art and get rid of /too/, because as >>16 mentioned, you do more to DISHONOR the other artists whose stuff is porn-ized on here by ONLY banning Calvin and Hobbes, than you do honoring Mr. Watterson.

19Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 22:52

Oh, BTW, here's this to consider: the DNP list requires the artist to REQUEST that they be put on it before they are; until then, their art is fair game to be posted. If the administrators can arbitrarily put one artist on there (commercialized or no, he IS an artist and subjugated to the same rules on here; even YouTube needs someone to flag something as copyright infringement before they take it down, usually from the owners of the show/movie being posted), then what's to stop them from arbitrarily putting artists and works they don't want to see on the DNP list, and taking OFF those that they DO want to see, without those artists' knowledge or permission? I know, it's a slippery slope argument, but if it fits...

20Report
at 18 Apr 2008: 23:17

>>18 Hey, open your own porn site and let them post it there! Problem solved.

21Report(capped) (sage)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 18 Apr 2008: 23:34

>>18 >>19 I admit nothing of that nature.

Now, I do not have time for this, or you right now, so please understand, it is nothing personal when I say, goodbye.

22ReportDeleted!
Deleted! at 19 Apr 2008: 00:08

Deleted!

24Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage