(Apologies if this isn’t the right place to post this—happy to remove if needed.)

With the recent DMCA takedowns and copyright claims reportedly hitting the Calvin and Hobbes subreddit on Reddit—mainly from GoComics/Andrews McMeel—I’m wondering how [email protected] handles these kinds of concerns?

Reddit’s C&H sub had to purge years of shared comic panels and memes due to GoComics enforcing their rights under the DMCA. Given that Lemmy is a federated, open-source alternative with different infrastructure and visibility, I’m curious:


Does this community have a stance or policy on posting actual strips or screenshots of Calvin and Hobbes? Has anyone here run into similar DMCA threats or copyright takedowns?

Would love to hear how the mods or longtime members view this—especially as Lemmy communities grow and draw more attention.


The post I hoped to avoid. The end of C&H Subreddit.

Calvin and Hobbes is temporarily down.

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I run the posting bot.

    GoComics gave me a hard time for a bit with constant breaking changes every few days. But it’s been stable for a while now.

    That said, I want to point out that while posts on the fediverse are decentralized, images are not.

    Instances can re-host post media, but it’s only a temporarily cached thumbnail, or temporary proxied image. Instances do not re-host every piece of media on the fediverse, rather, while the post metadata is duplicated, the media url in the post, even as it federates to other instaces, always points to the original posters home instances image-rs server. Which is where every person opening the post url will load it from.

    A DMCA takedown request would absolutely be enforcable.

  • Taalnazi
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    14
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I say screw corporations. Precisely that was what Bill Watterson gently protested against.

    So in his spirit, I think we should let them have it on their bum - we do what we want. When a law is unreasonable, it is time to decide for ourselves.

    Let the comics stay here and don’t attract too much attention, but when they try to take it down here too, make a loud, big fat stink about it to sympathetic people (while readying another place).

    It will also make our image stronger, as everyone likes Calvin and Hobbes, and getting those taken down by that guy will result in him getting a big side eye.

    • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bill Watterson has clearly expressed dislike for corporations and profit seeking, but there’s also no question that he’s in favor of very strong copyright protection. It’s how he enforced his vision of preventing unauthorized use of the Calvin and Hobbes characters.

    • TeknevraOP
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I totally agree with you, although I personally would consider potentially looking into various avenues, and try to potentially ready myself beforehand, so that I’m not scrambling / caught off-guard when they inevitably do come.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is no difference between what is being done here, and bumper stickers of Calvin pissing on Obama. Watterson has always maintained control of his creation. This is well known. Anyone who knows that would understand that he likely would not be happy about unauthorized syndicated redistribution.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          English
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          3
          Aquileo | arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is not a meaningful difference. Copyright law doesn’t grant fair use exceptions if you’re not trying to piss anyone off. Think about it like a grown up for a moment. They are both unauthorized uses that erode Watterson’s control of his property.

          • m_fM
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            English
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your comment would be better without the “Think about it like a grown up for a moment” bit, which comes across as insulting. I got a report about the comment, but think it’s better to explain what’s wrong than to just remove it.

          • Taalnazi
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            English
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            4
            Aquileo | arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It does, actually. Your “think like a grown-up” when I’ve not said anything immature, doesn’t seem to be in good faith, I’m afraid.

            • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
              Aquileo | link
              Aquileo | fedilink
              English
              Aquileo | arrow-up
              2
              Aquileo | arrow-down
              1
              ·
              Aquileo | edit-2
              1 year ago

              Your thinking is not informed by legal and financial realities, nor by the history of litigation by Watterson that clearly expresses his preferences in this matter. You are willing to substitute your own wishful thinking for things that are on the record. I think you are choosing not to use your capacity for “grown-up” (could have chosen a better term) thought because there is a specific conclusion you wish to reach.