That one can “own” cloths, makes sense to me. “Owning” land already feels a bit strange to me. How one could own natural resources in the (Ant-)Artic(a) or even on other planets, is even more incomprehensible to me. But “intellectual property” might be even harder to “grasp” (in a very literal sense). [How one could ever even consider to “own” people, is of course another issue.]

Concrete example:

Ellis Kaut invented Pumuckl in 1961. However, the artist behind the drawings is/was Barbara von Johnson.

Pumuckl is a kobold. He doesn’t have any strong gender specific traits but he still is fairly clearly boyish.

Von Johnson now wants to create a girlfriend for Pumuckl!

If you’re not German, you might not be able to feel the full cultural impact of this idea, but just imagine that the cookie monster only ate salads or that Bart Simpson started to be the top student in his class.

Pumuckl’s inventor went to court to prevent this, but she lost. This on its own I agree with (… I think …). I find it strange that a single person should fully “own” Pumuckl. It almost feels like owning Santa Claus. (Actually, has no Christian church ever tried to put a copyright on the brand “Jesus”? Can I still register “heaven” as a trademark? Can I maybe even sue people if they pray to “God” without paying? [Great slogan: “You pray – you pay!”])

Anyways, though I agree with the judges, I’m still terrified by the thought that Pumuckl might get married before me. 🙂