Coke and Warner Bros vs. fan sites

[Rita Winston]

No: HPFGUIDX 12930

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "~*Vicki Granger*~" <junkjunkjunk2000 at h...> 
wrote:

> Yet, while the Australian-born chairman of Coke, Mr Douglas Daft,

Mr. Daft -- yet another JKR type name! 
 
> seems assured that things will go better with Harry, the contract
> places heavy restrictions on the manner in which his company can 
> use the character's name and image.
> Harry dolls are out of the question. Ms Rowling has often stated
> her intense dislike of action figures, among items of Hollywood
> schlock.

Weren't there Harry and Draco action figures at the Toy Fair? -- the 
ones where Harry was standing by the Slytherin banner and Draco by 
the Gryffindor banner?
> 
> Though Coke will be allowed to slap Harry's face on its cans, Ms
> Rowling is adamant there will be no scenes of him slurping the
> sponsor's product in the film.

I fear. Pictures on the Coke cans can be even more vulgar than having 
Harry drink Coke in the film.

> My dad reckons that because Coke is witht he movie that we'll see
> Pepsi being drunk by Dudley or the Slytherins... 

Funny, but not going to happen. First of all, for a movie to depict a 
branded product without a license from the trademark owner is an 
infringement that the movie people can be sued for; ironically, that 
is one reason for product placement: the movie people ask permission 
to use the product and the product people say "only if we like the 
way you use it". Are people here old enough to remember the movie 
E.T. ?? The reason it used Reese's Pieces is that M&Ms refused 
permission.

Second, showing even the bad guys drinking Pepsi counts as pro-Pepsi 
advertising. Look how many of us want to be Slytherins or have an 
affair with Draco! I haven't seen anyone wanting to be Dudley, but the 
product people think that the mere sight of their label will make 
people buy their product.

> ~*Vicki Granger*~

Are you Hermione's sister as well as posting the round number mesage 
$12900?