![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I read an article today that included a reference to another law review article which argued that it's good that Superman is the intellectual property of a single corporation motivated to keep his image pristine, because otherwise there would be a lot of pornography featuring Superman.
...
I like my ivory tower better. Mine is much better stocked with porn.
I have deep theoretical thoughts about the broader issue -- what I call the J. Geils "My Angel Is a Centerfold" problem of people who suffer when their beloved icons are reworked without their consent, and how that should count when we're assessing how much freedom later authors should have to rework characters and situations -- which I will try to write up on my aca-blog. I think of such people as "utility monsters" in the Nozickian sense, because they gain utility by denying it to others (or, they are hurt by other people getting things those others want) -- but perhaps I am being unfair. (Short definition of utility monsters here.)
At least I was able to suggest some sources for the primary article's very casual discussion of Batman, which made the point that corporate ownership hardly ensures preservation of a single original vision of a character. Will Brooker's excellent Batman Unmasked, of course, and Geoff Klock's How to Read Superhero Comics and Why, which I'm enjoying reading, though so far its argument does not seem to justify the title.
...
I like my ivory tower better. Mine is much better stocked with porn.
I have deep theoretical thoughts about the broader issue -- what I call the J. Geils "My Angel Is a Centerfold" problem of people who suffer when their beloved icons are reworked without their consent, and how that should count when we're assessing how much freedom later authors should have to rework characters and situations -- which I will try to write up on my aca-blog. I think of such people as "utility monsters" in the Nozickian sense, because they gain utility by denying it to others (or, they are hurt by other people getting things those others want) -- but perhaps I am being unfair. (Short definition of utility monsters here.)
At least I was able to suggest some sources for the primary article's very casual discussion of Batman, which made the point that corporate ownership hardly ensures preservation of a single original vision of a character. Will Brooker's excellent Batman Unmasked, of course, and Geoff Klock's How to Read Superhero Comics and Why, which I'm enjoying reading, though so far its argument does not seem to justify the title.
