Harry Potter Sites vs. Warner Brothers
Kinchie writes "Now that Warner Brothers (read clueless Muggles) owns Harry Potter body, soul, and Nimbus 2001, they have begun an all out litigious onslaught against fan sites; check the ZDNET story here. Great public relations move guys. I sure hope that you can manage to intimidate a few hundred children and children-at-heart. Falstaff was right about lawyers."
Neither Tim Berners-Lee nor any recent Presidential candidate could be reached for comment.
Probably at a time before this action, they tried to contact that person, in addition to every other site that had Harry Potter-isms domain names, with the same form letter: posible violation of WB's trademark name. As the ZDnet article states, WB can't tell at the time if the person is a true fan or a cybersquatter and they have to defend their trademark or lose it.
I know people that have dealt with WB before in fan sites verses copyright and generally WB is pretty good. I think, however, in those cases the amount of money that was involved was pittence to Harry Potter. I expect it to rack up money in the BILLIONS, and WB has a strong financial interest to make sure that squatters aren't ripping them off. I do see that WB is trying to make some concessions, particularly if they harm too many fan sites they are going to disenfrantize their primary audience.
But overall, I think this is a problem of slash-and-burn trademark/domain arbitration. With one major cybersquatter apparently ruining it for the rest. ().
Yes, there is the one case of copyright infringement, but this is actually not surprising; I'd think that if you had a signficiant number of images from books, you'd be looking at a C&D. Typical with other studios as well, but these are things that studios should be able to work out with fans.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Anybody out there actually named Harry Potter and wants to cease-and-desist Warner Bros.? Or better yet, get somebody named Warner in there too and file class-action suit to reclaimthe names - Potter, Warner, et al vs. Time Warner...what a beautiful image that would be.
It's actually proper use of a trademark to talk about a specific company or product.
If I start a site that has a trademark in it to talk about the trademarked product or service, isn't that properly identifying that service? That of course is assuming that you are not trying to pass your site/product off as the protected product.
Fight Spammers!
Quite frankly WB is in the right here. This is not fair use its cybersquating.
The cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
...you'd think these guys would realize fan sites are FREE ADVERTISING FOR THEIR PRODUCT.
;-)
Concept: Someone hears of Harry Potter by hearsay. Is interested to learn more. Hops on Yahoo and searches, finds Official Site, little useful info except how to buy it. Finds fan site instead. Pages and pages of gushing praise for Harry Potter. Decides to buy it.
Where's the problem?
(Yeah yeah, I see THEIR problem, with the trademarks and all... "If they're using our TM they must be making money off it somehow! No one does anything except for money! WE sure don't!")
It seems very simple to me. In the corporate mentality, the perfect world would be one where anyone who says, thinks, reads, hears, uses, or sees their trademark/copyright/patent/(insert other no-fair-use-allowed word here) has to pay them a dollar per instance. Otherwise their intellectual property is being "stolen".
I move for all people who have a demonstrated lack of intellect to be stripped of their "intellectual property". Who's with me?? =P
-Kasreyn
P.S. I'm in a bad mood tonight, excuse harsh language of post.
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger