Who owns Rudolph's nose?
16 points
2 hours ago
| 4 comments
| creativelawcenter.com
| HN
nkrisc
1 hour ago
[-]
> 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.

reply
cbdevidal
46 minutes ago
[-]
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

reply
ralph84
1 hour ago
[-]
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.
reply
dlcarrier
1 hour 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.

reply
mzmzmzm
1 hour ago
[-]
"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.

reply