Hacker News Reader

Comment by grellas | Hacker News Reader

The actor has little or nothing to do with these products and seems not to have brought legal action. People are strangely moved to make this stuff and others to purchase it.

Every actor/celebrity (indeed, every person in theory) has a right to control what others do with his name, image, and likeness - this is what the law calls the "right of publicity."

So you can't just paste a photo or drawing of a famous person onto mugs, etc. and sell them for profit.

That is, apparently, unless that person is Bill Murray. He certainly could act to stop this but he hasn't.

I guess this fits with his eccentric-oddball persona. Very odd, legally speaking, but a nice way to relate to the people. Don't know the first thing about the man personally but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to know someone who can be so engagingly goofy.

View on HN

It's a smart business move, regardless of his reasons. If he were to sue, there wouldn't be a Bill Murray trend to write about in the Times.

The analogy to Che Guevara seems right. The image has taken on a life of its own, independent of the man. Che's image in the U.S. seems to represent a blank slate revolutionary.

A counter-analogy is MLK. Why are there so many Che shirts but no MLK shirts? In part because the King family will sue you for any use of his image or words without a subsequent payday. This has prevented MLK from being the omnipresent cultural presence he should be.

I don't think Bill Murray worries too much about "remaining relevant".

He's pretty much been in semi-retirement for some time now, as far I know, and doesn't seem to care if people notice him. Just my take - don't follow so closely.

Perhaps he's thinking of his legacy.

This seems incredibly unlikely.

Can you explain why? I find it hard to believe that an actor at his age wouldn't be thinking of how they'll be remembered.

Seriously, a guy acting as humble and goofy as he does is pondering something as ridiculously ego-laden as legacy?

Thinking about your legacy is "ridiculously ego-laden"? I'm having the trouble seeing how it's "ridiculous" to reflect, in the later part of your life, on what your contribution to the world may have been.

This post is its own refutation: like a snake eating its own tail.

And this post is so empty of content that one questions whether it actually ever existed: like a fart in a hurricane.

Alright I agree, obfuscating lack of anything interesting to say with attempts at being poetic is pretty fun. That being said, I gather from the fact that you felt you had to post a comment that somewhere in the fog you somehow disagree with some part of my comment. I'd be interested in seeing your second try at expressing what your actual disagreement is.

It's not ridiculous for someone else, but in the context of Bill Murray, it is, at least if his persona matches his actual personality. He exemplifies someone who doesn't plan and doesn't scheme, but just treats people well and keeps calm and carries on.

Wanting to be a famous actor is "ridiculously ego-laden" too -- for certain various of ridiculous.

Bill Murray is a person after all.

Because he seems well above that.

A little more concretely, because his personality is in many ways the opposite of the Machiavelli [1].

1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262615...

The MLK thing is amazing to me. We celebrate this person every year as a national event but unlike are presidents his speeches are under enforced copyright so nobody hears his famous thoughts or words. Even on his day people reference the I have a dream speech but nobody hears it or even references portions of it. It's a weird shadow of remembrance.

Here, provided by the US government: http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

The video of the full speech is also on YouTube.

In a pinch, you can use a copyright-free version of the MLK speech. Sample:

    > "I Have An Idea"
    >
    > I'm super happy to join with you today in what 
    > will go down as a noteworthy demonstration for 
    > freedom in the history of our nation.  One hundred
    > years ago, a great president --his statue is behind 
    > me-- signed the Emancipation Proclamation.  Good
    > stuff, that.
    >
    > I have an idea that one day we'll will rise up
    > and live out: "We hold these truths to be 
    > self-evident, that all men are created equal."
    >
    > I have an idea today!
    >
    > Free finally!  Free finally!
    > Thank the Maker, we're free finally!

Bill Murray gets the big picture: life's too short. He simply doesn't give a crap either way. Suing people over a tee shirt is a waste of time.

Whether that's exactly his reasoning or not, there's no doubt that it's exactly the vibe that he gives off, and exactly why he is so beloved. People are attracted to the sense of existential authenticity that he exudes.

Well it does help that he probably has no need for any extra income.

If this were the same for some other person who sees that money is being possibly taken out of his pocket because of someone else using his likeness without his permission, and he isn't quite set for life money wise the reaction might be understandably quite different.

I'm sure he's rich, but he never earned the kind of money other A listers earned, the tens of millions per film. And many other actors seem to have an unquenchable desire for more.

His lack of an agent and the difficulty of getting him to agree to actually do a film suggests that money is not a motivator for him generally.

Yeah, it's a tactic. It works for some, not for others. Try doing that with taylor swift .. lol.

Oh he, or at least some agency representing him, does. Even though it's not clear why some business are targeted (small face-mug class) and not others (e.g etsy). But you might get a mail if you piggy back on the Bill Murray ride.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com