The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Can the public have a stake in popular, privately owned things?
emnmnme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
When a brand, a mascot, an iconic toy, or a place gain world recognition, does that thing then belong to the world? I don't mean government-owned monuments or pieces you'd find in a museum - I mean things that are privately owned by individuals or corporations but still have a broad enough appeal to weave themselves into different pop cultures. Super memes that last for decades. Mickey Mouse, Ronald McDonald, the White Album, all kinds of sports stadiums, Barbie dolls, Superman, Oprah's TV show, the Super Mario Bros. - these things have a huge impact on pop cultures and even if they're not relevant anymore, they sustain themselves through nostalgia and DVD boxsets.
So, these mascots and stadiums consume a few of our thoughts. They're important to us. Does that mean we all get to symbolically own a piece of them? Take Superman - he's both a symbol of the forthright American values and American imperialism. He's portrayed as a Messiah-like super being that fans look up to and he's recognized by more than half the people on the planet. How can the two creators or a comics publishing company own Superman? Now I don't mean all the Superman fans take home some of the cash the Man of Steel has brought in since the 30's. But there is a responsibility by the publishers to not only keep Superman around, but also keep him consistent in behavior to his golden age self.
When an iconic figure, fictional or not, gets so big they belong to the world, I think that means they can't change. Superman will always catch people falling off buildings, Big Bird will warmly greet young kids and teach them to count, the Pillsbury dough boy will keep rolling out balls of dough every TV commercial like Sisyphus rolls a boulder. The icons can't change or stop or else there'd be a confused outcry.
Do creators/owners lose power over their creations/property when they become too well-known? Do companies have a responsibility to keep these icons going for the loyal fans' sake even if they're not profitable? Do consumers have to protect icons, too? ("American automakers are dying so buy American vehicles!" for example.)
So, these mascots and stadiums consume a few of our thoughts. They're important to us. Does that mean we all get to symbolically own a piece of them? Take Superman - he's both a symbol of the forthright American values and American imperialism. He's portrayed as a Messiah-like super being that fans look up to and he's recognized by more than half the people on the planet. How can the two creators or a comics publishing company own Superman? Now I don't mean all the Superman fans take home some of the cash the Man of Steel has brought in since the 30's. But there is a responsibility by the publishers to not only keep Superman around, but also keep him consistent in behavior to his golden age self.
When an iconic figure, fictional or not, gets so big they belong to the world, I think that means they can't change. Superman will always catch people falling off buildings, Big Bird will warmly greet young kids and teach them to count, the Pillsbury dough boy will keep rolling out balls of dough every TV commercial like Sisyphus rolls a boulder. The icons can't change or stop or else there'd be a confused outcry.
Do creators/owners lose power over their creations/property when they become too well-known? Do companies have a responsibility to keep these icons going for the loyal fans' sake even if they're not profitable? Do consumers have to protect icons, too? ("American automakers are dying so buy American vehicles!" for example.)
emnmnme on
0
Posts
You're probably one of those people that actually thinks Lucas had a responsibility to make Han shoot first. Anyone can screw up their intellectual property as bad as they want to.
Alright, fair enough. But what about routine or tradition?
Is Baskin Robbins capable selling 32 ice cream flavors rather than the traditional 31? I don't think they'd ever want to since they're so well-known for the 31. Consistency is a selling point for some bizarre reason. They're famous for 31 flavors even though being famous for any number of flavors is no good reason to be famous in the first place.
If Baskin Robbins stopped selling 31-derful flavors, people would say, "Fuck those guys! I'm getting some Ben and Jerry's!" If you don't think the backlash would be that severe, remember the riots and looting associated with New Coke. Consumers won't let companies change their recipes.
o_O
Companies change their recipes all the time, often to no or even positive results.
The general consensus is that new coke didn't taste as good and they stopped offering old coke at the same time. If they had just launched new coke while still offering old coke there would have been no back lash, new coke just would have gotten hardly any sales.
Or a real world example, do Muslims all over the world have the right to stop Saudis from building gigantic shrine to capitalism right next to Mecca or redesigning it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shame-of-the-house-of-saud-shadows-over-mecca-474736.html
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/dailynews/2008/11/foster_and_hadid_to_redesign_mecca.html
Hope I'm not going too off-topic here, just thought this is interestihng.
Only if you had a contract with the webcomic creator where you paid him X dollars for Y comics a week. :P
I mean, you can be upset, sure. You can get upset about whatever you like, but the webcomic creator doesn't owe you a webcomic.
can the public, through the government or through lack of protection, have a stake in private things?
of course. it happens every year when rights expire or when they are taken away under eminent domain.
None of this refutes my point. You don't have a stake in anything. These producers have a stake in the public still buying their crap and that's it.
I mean, you can say that this is the way things should be because I say so as much as you want, and indeed you are, but it doesn't really work that way.
Also the public having rights to Sherlock Holmes doesn't mean you get a say in how people anyone writes Sherlock Holmes, let alone how Arthur Conan Doyle did.
Charlie Brown is a world-famous comic strip. Webcomics aren't quite there yet. Still niche.
Don't get me wrong, I'd still drag Bill Watterson back to his doodling desk by force if I could. :P
Here's another one - how about the moon? The moon was claimed for mankind when we first got up there. That makes it extremely difficult to imagine a company or government with the means to develop its surface to claim dominion there.
I bought it on Ebay for $30,000. It is privately owned.
The moon is extremely difficult to get to. When someone goes there, and starts mining Helium 3, good luck stopping them.
It's also a total non starter because the moon isn't a popular, privately-owned thing. It's a celestial body.
I'd say the moon's already pretty popular. If territory could be owned privately in the future is what I'm wondering.
The Earth is pretty popular too, and we don't seem to have a problem owning territory here.
Antarctica is similarly the possession of no singular nation but there are various national camps there.
I still don't see what this has to do with your original argument, which seems to be that things belong to the world when they become popular. They don't. We can certainly dote on them but no matter how big a hard on I have for Dr. House or Coke I neither possess nor have decision making power over them.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said to you.
??....this is the way things are. You keep claiming you have no decision making power but that's my point - the decision rarely comes up. Superman is always Superman. Sherlock Holmes is always a detective. Companies conserve icons because they can't do anything else with them. The value is in the consistency.
EDIT: Let me say this right now: when I write "Can't do anything else with them", please don't link videos of Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum cleaner.
Only if they're paying for it.
People have an inalienable right to be pissed off at any time for any reason. Having the right to be pissed off is distinct from the right for renumeration.
Whether we have the "right" to do anything is moot when we're going to do it anyway. Of course this is quite the slippery slope, as one could argue we don't have the "right" to breathe oxygen. What defines a right, anyway? I don't know, don't really care. I'll let the philosophers figure that one out.
A little more on topic, I'm not sure what is being said here. No, we don't have stake in popular, privately owned intellectual properties. If someone chooses to change that we can, but we currently don't. Companies want to succeed so they will follow current trends in the market and listen to their consumers, but that by no means the consumer has any control over the IP. If the company decides to drive their IP into the ground there is nothing you or I can do about it.
You mention superman a few times, so lets just use him? Do you want all the private rights to superman to be taken away from the people who currently own it? Or is the public supposed to get a percentage stake in it's profits? When do the rights to your own creations get taken away from you? What level of popularity must be avoided so that you don't lose the rights to your own creations?
You are very confusing.
Sounds fun. What are your thoughts on morality clauses?
Essentially, the answer is yes, but it's not a useful yes.
Thread over?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
From the OP:
[strike]Do creators/owners lose power over their creations/property when they become too well-known?[/strike]
Do companies have a responsibility to keep these icons going for the loyal fans' sake even if they're not profitable?
Do consumers have to protect icons, too? ("American automakers are dying so buy American vehicles!" for example.)
Likewise, a customer has no obligation to support a company simply because that company produces a national icon. A company can't be autonomous when it's doing well but expect the support of its customers and even non-customers when they are doing poorly.
The American automobile manufacturers is an unideal example of this, because the reason why you might support them is not because they are national icons but because hundreds of thousands of people rely on them to live.
If it is vital to a great number of people that an "icon" continue to exist and the company cannot sustain it themselves then these people can get together and buy the rights themselves.
No and no. Plenty of icons will come and go. See the "where's the beef?" woman and the Taco Bell dog for starters, as well as the long slow death of American automakers.
More generally, no one has to do anything. News at 11.
Copyright expiration answers your second question and mostly your third question, too. Once copyright expires, the "consumers" or "fans" now have the capability to keep cultural "icons" going if they believe them to be important. And if you want to create an American auto company that doesn't suck, you're perfectly free to.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Keep in mind, pop culture icons aren't immortal. Betty Boop, Popeye, American railways are fading and they have far fewer dedicated fans now compared to a couple decades ago. That doesn't mean a great deal on people know of them and think well of them. You can still buy Popeye's brand spinach and Betty Boop motorcycle seat covers.
A company is a slave to the almighty dollar. A famous individual is a slave to a special set of customs and appearances if they want to remain famous. If they don't keep up an expected image, they're forced to retire. If it helps, think of it this way: Elvis was his own man but Elvis' persona belonged to the world.
And the old Wendy's lady and Taco Bell dog aren't icons!!
Are you saying that these companies or individuals need to bend to the will of consumers or that they should for the sake of the consumers.
What's the difference between them and Popeye? Are we not counting characters from advertising campaigns now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oFpUW11RPs&feature=related
World wide recognition ... lasting appeal ... Leaning tower of Pisa is iconic because people usually identify it instantly. The Budweiser frogs, not so much.