Slashdot Mirror


Warner Bros Is Cracking Down On Harry Potter Festivals (apnews.com)

Warner Bros is cracking down on local Harry Potter fan festivals around the country, saying it's necessary to halt unauthorized commercial activity. From a report: Fans, however, liken the move to Dementors sucking the joy out of homegrown fun, while festival directors say they'll transfigure the events into generic celebrations of magic. "It's almost as if Warner Bros. has been taken over by Voldemort, trying to use dark magic to destroy the light of a little town," said Sarah Jo Tucker, a 21-year-old junior at Chestnut Hill College, which hosts a Quidditch tournament that coincides with the annual suburban Philadelphia festival. Philip Dawson, Chestnut Hill's business district director, said Warner Bros. reached out to his group in May, letting them know new guidelines prohibit festivals' use of any names, places or objects from the series. That ruled out everything from meet-and-greet with Dumbledore and Harry to Defense Against the Dark Arts classes. Related story, from 18 years ago: Harry Potter Sites vs. Warner Brothers.

6 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Great business decision.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Turn down free marketing/free publicity for your movies. Also, the books came first -- is the book publisher also harassing festival organizers?

    1. Re:Great business decision.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nomative use is not considered to dilute a trademark.

      Except that is not what is happening. These "fan festivals" charge fees, sell merchandise, are promoted with paid advertising, and are clearly commercial activities.

      It is disingenuous to spin this as WB cracking down on kids playing in their backyard.

    2. Re:Great business decision.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You missed his point: you don't dilute a trademark by using it for the trademarked product.

      You missed the point: The trademark is being used for OTHER PRODUCTS. Specifically, a commercial festival that is not endorsed or affiliated with the owner of the trademark.

    3. Re:Great business decision.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They could also "defend" it by offering an inexpensive licensing deal for small festivals.

      Disney does this for school plays. For a small fee you get scripts, rent-a-costumes, and plans for props for "Show White", "Cinderella", "Beauty and the Beast", etc.

      Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that these stories are centuries old, and Disney does not actually own them. But they do own trademarks for many of the characters, and people are far more familiar with the Disneyfied version of these stories than the originals, which tend to be darker and more violent.

    4. Re:Great business decision.... by The+Rizz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because trademark law offers no "fair use" provisions, which means that a company has to aggressively hunt down anybody who uses their trademarked characters or risk losing the trademarks altogether.

      Absolutely false, and people need to stop repeating this crap. First off, US law definitely has "fair use" protections on trademark usage, such as those related to 1st Amendment protections. Secondly, you cannot ever lose a trademark just because someone else uses it and you don't sue them. To be blunt, there are only two ways to lose a trademark: (1) Non-use; and (2) dilution (i.e. becoming generic).

      Someone else using your mark without permission theoretically could be considered contributory evidence that you've abandoned your mark, but that's also going to require a lot more evidence (basically, extensive non-use, typically meaning your company doesn't do anything with the mark for 5+ years).

      The other risk (dilution/becoming generic) is not a concern for something like "Harry Potter" - this applies to a term becoming used to describe everything in a category. Examples include Kleenex being used to describe all facial tissues, or Google being used as a verb to describe all web searches ("why don't you just google it?").

      As for protecting their rights, it is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. This is why it's actually suggested that trademark holders ignore small uses - because not only is it not worth paying a lawyer to send a C&D, nor the bad publicity, but that it sets a precedent that you are aware of their existence and considered events of that size to be of consequence (i.e. fighting small festivals makes you more likely to lose your trademark).

      If they allow a festival of a certain size to use their trademarks, the another slightly bigger one will want to do the same, then a bigger one, and I think you are smart enough to know where this is going.

      That more and more people are going to be buying Harry Potter merchandise, and getting more and more of a fan fervor worked up for their upcoming series of movies? Oh dear, how horrible for them!

      This actually beings up one of the other fair use provisions that trademarks are bound by: positive identification usage. You cannot use trademark to sue someone for using your trademark to correctly identify your product. It's the same reason why McDonald's can use Burger King's trademark in commercials where they compare their burgers to the other company's. It's the same reason stores can advertise what they're selling without having to get permission from the manufacturers. So, if you want to advertise a "Harry Potter Festival" there is no legal standing to sue you if you are indeed having a festival centered around official Harry Potter products.

  2. Re:next thing you know by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 5, Informative

    This recent article indicates the opposite: Kraft Heinz (owners of the Country Time Lemonade brand) set up a fund to help pay for lemonade stands fees & fines: https://qz.com/1300935/country...