Warner Bros. v. HP websites

[nlpnt at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 7756

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "Steve Vander Ark" <vderark at b...> 
wrote:
> One thing I noticed in that article was a reference to images which 
> Warner objected to. I can see their point here. There are fan sites 
> all over the place that blatantly use copyrighted logos, 
> illustrations, etc. It seems to me that if you do that, you're 
asking 
> for trouble. It's one thing to use the name "Harry Potter" on your 
> site. It's another to scan his picture from the cover of one of the 
> books and slap it on there. It ISN'T legal use, but some folks seem 
> to think it's okay, after all, I'm a fan!


This actually is a case of one of Fluffy's heads getting mixed up in 
another head's business, if you will; WB owns ONLY the movie and 
merchandising rights, not the overall rights. JKR owns those, and the 
illustrations belong to either the publishers or artists.
 My take on this is it may take WB Legal a while to get used to this; 
they're used to dealing with characters their employer owns outright. 
If somebody puts an entire page of Bugs Bunny stills, WB has the 
right (both legal and moral) to react however they wish. With Harry, 
they are morally obligated to consult JKR's lawyers (or her 
personally); and allow her to control "franchise" policy. This would 
also place them on firmer legal cround for any action they might 
decide to take.

 Hope I made sense there; it's late and my brain's in Christmas mode.