Comments on: The collection of the rarest of Bill Watterson’s artwork http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/ The source for industry news for the professional cartoonist Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:29:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: JM http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-113413 JM Tue, 07 Jun 2011 03:55:54 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-113413 Anyone know what the Watterson signed and numbered Calvin and Hobbes lithograph (numbered 1 - 1000) that was sent to newspapers might be worth? Anyone know what the Watterson signed and numbered Calvin and Hobbes lithograph (numbered 1 – 1000) that was sent to newspapers might be worth?

]]> By: CRB http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-6292 CRB Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:20:04 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-6292 Rather than shoot from the hip, it might be beneficial to spend a few moments reading why Watterson refused to commercialize. Please read his comments in the 10th Anniversery C&H. Rather than shoot from the hip, it might be beneficial to spend a few moments reading why Watterson refused to commercialize.

Please read his comments in the 10th Anniversery C&H.

]]> By: Dave http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-3138 Dave Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:25:41 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-3138 I'm not saying he should have done it only to stop bootleggers. Based on interviews I've read he didn't want to license it because he felt it would be ruined even if it were licensed to death. All I was saying was that other people made relatively innocuous merchandise like t-shirts and mugs and posters (which were hack jobs) and the strip wasn't destroyed and the chraracters didn't die. That should have shown him that it was possible to do some classy stuff with restraint, and not compromise the integrity of the strip. That's all. I respect his integrity, and I repect Universal Press for letting him make the call, because I think creators should have contorl of their creations. And I think you're right that he stopped at the right time, and it definitely benefitted from not being over-merchandized. But it WAS merchandized, just not by him. All I'm saying is that if he had allowed SOME merchandizing it would have given the world GOOD t-shirts or posters, would have smoothed things over with the syndicate and taken money out of the hands of scummy bootleggers. I respect his integrity, but I don't think his total freeze-out had a net positive result in the world. I’m not saying he should have done it only to stop bootleggers. Based on interviews I’ve read he didn’t want to license it because he felt it would be ruined even if it were licensed to death. All I was saying was that other people made relatively innocuous merchandise like t-shirts and mugs and posters (which were hack jobs) and the strip wasn’t destroyed and the chraracters didn’t die. That should have shown him that it was possible to do some classy stuff with restraint, and not compromise the integrity of the strip. That’s all. I respect his integrity, and I repect Universal Press for letting him make the call, because I think creators should have contorl of their creations. And I think you’re right that he stopped at the right time, and it definitely benefitted from not being over-merchandized. But it WAS merchandized, just not by him. All I’m saying is that if he had allowed SOME merchandizing it would have given the world GOOD t-shirts or posters, would have smoothed things over with the syndicate and taken money out of the hands of scummy bootleggers. I respect his integrity, but I don’t think his total freeze-out had a net positive result in the world.

]]> By: Dave http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99448 Dave Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:25:00 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99448 I'm not saying he should have done it only to stop bootleggers. Based on interviews I've read he didn't want to license it because he felt it would be ruined even if it were licensed to death. All I was saying was that other people made relatively innocuous merchandise like t-shirts and mugs and posters (which were hack jobs) and the strip wasn't destroyed and the chraracters didn't die. That should have shown him that it was possible to do some classy stuff with restraint, and not compromise the integrity of the strip. That's all. I respect his integrity, and I repect Universal Press for letting him make the call, because I think creators should have contorl of their creations. And I think you're right that he stopped at the right time, and it definitely benefitted from not being over-merchandized. But it WAS merchandized, just not by him. All I'm saying is that if he had allowed SOME merchandizing it would have given the world GOOD t-shirts or posters, would have smoothed things over with the syndicate and taken money out of the hands of scummy bootleggers. I respect his integrity, but I don't think his total freeze-out had a net positive result in the world. I’m not saying he should have done it only to stop bootleggers. Based on interviews I’ve read he didn’t want to license it because he felt it would be ruined even if it were licensed to death. All I was saying was that other people made relatively innocuous merchandise like t-shirts and mugs and posters (which were hack jobs) and the strip wasn’t destroyed and the chraracters didn’t die. That should have shown him that it was possible to do some classy stuff with restraint, and not compromise the integrity of the strip. That’s all. I respect his integrity, and I repect Universal Press for letting him make the call, because I think creators should have contorl of their creations. And I think you’re right that he stopped at the right time, and it definitely benefitted from not being over-merchandized. But it WAS merchandized, just not by him. All I’m saying is that if he had allowed SOME merchandizing it would have given the world GOOD t-shirts or posters, would have smoothed things over with the syndicate and taken money out of the hands of scummy bootleggers. I respect his integrity, but I don’t think his total freeze-out had a net positive result in the world.

]]> By: Norm Feuti http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-2722 Norm Feuti Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:51:28 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-2722 I have to disagree with the theory that Watterson was somehow to blame for the bootlegging. True, his refusal to license the characters spawned more illegal stuff than probably would have otherwise existed ... but that doesn't mean he should have comprimised his principles to prevent others from doing the wrong thing. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that in the end the strip remained pure. Calvin & Hobbes ended before it became stale and unfunny, and it never suffered the over-merchandising death that other strips have. C&H was an extremely lucrative in those short 10 years even without merchandising ... They may have MISSED OUT on millions ... but they didn't LOSE anything. I have to disagree with the theory that Watterson was somehow to blame for the bootlegging. True, his refusal to license the characters spawned more illegal stuff than probably would have otherwise existed … but that doesn’t mean he should have comprimised his principles to prevent others from doing the wrong thing.

Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that in the end the strip remained pure. Calvin & Hobbes ended before it became stale and unfunny, and it never suffered the over-merchandising death that other strips have.

C&H was an extremely lucrative in those short 10 years even without merchandising … They may have MISSED OUT on millions … but they didn’t LOSE anything.

]]> By: Norm Feuti http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99447 Norm Feuti Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:51:00 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99447 I have to disagree with the theory that Watterson was somehow to blame for the bootlegging. True, his refusal to license the characters spawned more illegal stuff than probably would have otherwise existed ... but that doesn't mean he should have comprimised his principles to prevent others from doing the wrong thing. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that in the end the strip remained pure. Calvin & Hobbes ended before it became stale and unfunny, and it never suffered the over-merchandising death that other strips have. C&H was an extremely lucrative in those short 10 years even without merchandising ... They may have MISSED OUT on millions ... but they didn't LOSE anything. I have to disagree with the theory that Watterson was somehow to blame for the bootlegging. True, his refusal to license the characters spawned more illegal stuff than probably would have otherwise existed … but that doesn’t mean he should have comprimised his principles to prevent others from doing the wrong thing.

Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that in the end the strip remained pure. Calvin & Hobbes ended before it became stale and unfunny, and it never suffered the over-merchandising death that other strips have.

C&H was an extremely lucrative in those short 10 years even without merchandising … They may have MISSED OUT on millions … but they didn’t LOSE anything.

]]> By: Jim Shelton http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-2678 Jim Shelton Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:15:23 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-2678 I agree with Dave. Watterson's specious reasoning concerning merchandising spawned a bootlegging ogre bigger than any dinasaur he ever inked. Sure, there's bootlegging involved with any sucsessful character, but it certainly would've been diluted quite a bit with the introduction of legal merchandising. Universal had to play watchdog and shut down illegal bootlegging operations? Great. How much wasted time and money did that take? I agree with Dave. Watterson’s specious reasoning concerning merchandising spawned a bootlegging ogre bigger than any dinasaur he ever inked. Sure, there’s bootlegging involved with any sucsessful character, but it certainly would’ve been diluted quite a bit with the introduction of legal merchandising. Universal had to play watchdog and shut down illegal bootlegging operations? Great. How much wasted time and money did that take?

]]> By: Jim Shelton http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99446 Jim Shelton Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:15:00 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99446 I agree with Dave. Watterson's specious reasoning concerning merchandising spawned a bootlegging ogre bigger than any dinasaur he ever inked. Sure, there's bootlegging involved with any sucsessful character, but it certainly would've been diluted quite a bit with the introduction of legal merchandising. Universal had to play watchdog and shut down illegal bootlegging operations? Great. How much wasted time and money did that take? I agree with Dave. Watterson’s specious reasoning concerning merchandising spawned a bootlegging ogre bigger than any dinasaur he ever inked. Sure, there’s bootlegging involved with any sucsessful character, but it certainly would’ve been diluted quite a bit with the introduction of legal merchandising. Universal had to play watchdog and shut down illegal bootlegging operations? Great. How much wasted time and money did that take?

]]> By: Dave http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-2667 Dave Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:35:46 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-2667 Well, that's a very good point about the Simpsons. But, while Universal may have shut down what C&H it found, I'm sure it only "found" the tip of the iceberg. And I doubt adding together all the C&H bootleg stuff that was sold all over the world over all the years that it was hot enough to bootleg, that it amounted to "hundreds" of dollars. That's just silly. Seeing as how Universal themselves estimate that they lost at least $300 million on plush toys alone, I'm guessing all those bootleggers made at least $1 million combined. Or, maybe just a couple hundred bucks. You could be right. And while I agree that the creator should have the right to control his own creation (as a fellow creator myself) and I respect Watterson's choice not to license C&H, I guess I just don't respect his reasoning not to. It sounds like he could have controlled the output of licensing even though he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. The syndicate wasn't going to do anything he didn't want to do - period. I guess what I don't respect is over-intellectualizing commercial art and making it into something it's not. To say that putting an image of Calvin & Hobbes on a T-shirt makes it no longer a comic strip is overthinking it to the extreme. After all, people DID put it on T-shirts, and it actually DIDN'T stop being a comic strip, so he was effectively proven wrong anyway. Whatever, just a bete noir, I guess. I survived without a T-shirt because I wouldn't on principle buy any bootlegged stuf ("Get a helmet"? Is that your little thing that you say? I'm guessing you're from somehwere in between California and New York). And as far as copyright goes, it's basically meaningless. The contract states that the creator and the syndicate share the rights 50/50. As long as one of them is listed in the copyright line, it's copyrighted. What it says in the contract means more than what it says in the copyright line. Well, that’s a very good point about the Simpsons. But, while Universal may have shut down what C&H it found, I’m sure it only “found” the tip of the iceberg. And I doubt adding together all the C&H bootleg stuff that was sold all over the world over all the years that it was hot enough to bootleg, that it amounted to “hundreds” of dollars. That’s just silly. Seeing as how Universal themselves estimate that they lost at least $300 million on plush toys alone, I’m guessing all those bootleggers made at least $1 million combined. Or, maybe just a couple hundred bucks. You could be right.

And while I agree that the creator should have the right to control his own creation (as a fellow creator myself) and I respect Watterson’s choice not to license C&H, I guess I just don’t respect his reasoning not to. It sounds like he could have controlled the output of licensing even though he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. The syndicate wasn’t going to do anything he didn’t want to do – period.

I guess what I don’t respect is over-intellectualizing commercial art and making it into something it’s not. To say that putting an image of Calvin & Hobbes on a T-shirt makes it no longer a comic strip is overthinking it to the extreme. After all, people DID put it on T-shirts, and it actually DIDN’T stop being a comic strip, so he was effectively proven wrong anyway. Whatever, just a bete noir, I guess. I survived without a T-shirt because I wouldn’t on principle buy any bootlegged stuf (“Get a helmet”? Is that your little thing that you say? I’m guessing you’re from somehwere in between California and New York).

And as far as copyright goes, it’s basically meaningless. The contract states that the creator and the syndicate share the rights 50/50. As long as one of them is listed in the copyright line, it’s copyrighted. What it says in the contract means more than what it says in the copyright line.

]]> By: Dave http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99445 Dave Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:35:00 +0000 http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2006/08/30/the-collection-of-the-rarest-of-bill-wattersons-artwork/#comment-99445 Well, that's a very good point about the Simpsons. But, while Universal may have shut down what C&H it found, I'm sure it only "found" the tip of the iceberg. And I doubt adding together all the C&H bootleg stuff that was sold all over the world over all the years that it was hot enough to bootleg, that it amounted to "hundreds" of dollars. That's just silly. Seeing as how Universal themselves estimate that they lost at least $300 million on plush toys alone, I'm guessing all those bootleggers made at least $1 million combined. Or, maybe just a couple hundred bucks. You could be right. And while I agree that the creator should have the right to control his own creation (as a fellow creator myself) and I respect Watterson's choice not to license C&H, I guess I just don't respect his reasoning not to. It sounds like he could have controlled the output of licensing even though he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. The syndicate wasn't going to do anything he didn't want to do - period. I guess what I don't respect is over-intellectualizing commercial art and making it into something it's not. To say that putting an image of Calvin & Hobbes on a T-shirt makes it no longer a comic strip is overthinking it to the extreme. After all, people DID put it on T-shirts, and it actually DIDN'T stop being a comic strip, so he was effectively proven wrong anyway. Whatever, just a bete noir, I guess. I survived without a T-shirt because I wouldn't on principle buy any bootlegged stuf ("Get a helmet"? Is that your little thing that you say? I'm guessing you're from somehwere in between California and New York). And as far as copyright goes, it's basically meaningless. The contract states that the creator and the syndicate share the rights 50/50. As long as one of them is listed in the copyright line, it's copyrighted. What it says in the contract means more than what it says in the copyright line. Well, that’s a very good point about the Simpsons. But, while Universal may have shut down what C&H it found, I’m sure it only “found” the tip of the iceberg. And I doubt adding together all the C&H bootleg stuff that was sold all over the world over all the years that it was hot enough to bootleg, that it amounted to “hundreds” of dollars. That’s just silly. Seeing as how Universal themselves estimate that they lost at least $300 million on plush toys alone, I’m guessing all those bootleggers made at least $1 million combined. Or, maybe just a couple hundred bucks. You could be right.

And while I agree that the creator should have the right to control his own creation (as a fellow creator myself) and I respect Watterson’s choice not to license C&H, I guess I just don’t respect his reasoning not to. It sounds like he could have controlled the output of licensing even though he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on. The syndicate wasn’t going to do anything he didn’t want to do – period.

I guess what I don’t respect is over-intellectualizing commercial art and making it into something it’s not. To say that putting an image of Calvin & Hobbes on a T-shirt makes it no longer a comic strip is overthinking it to the extreme. After all, people DID put it on T-shirts, and it actually DIDN’T stop being a comic strip, so he was effectively proven wrong anyway. Whatever, just a bete noir, I guess. I survived without a T-shirt because I wouldn’t on principle buy any bootlegged stuf (“Get a helmet”? Is that your little thing that you say? I’m guessing you’re from somehwere in between California and New York).

And as far as copyright goes, it’s basically meaningless. The contract states that the creator and the syndicate share the rights 50/50. As long as one of them is listed in the copyright line, it’s copyrighted. What it says in the contract means more than what it says in the copyright line.

]]>