Hari Puttar ~ A Comedy of Terrors

[rattlesnakeroot]

Well, here comes the next lawsuit by WB!

It's all about a movie from India's Bollywood called Hari Puttar ~ A Comedy of Terrors. The plot synopsis is HERE. It sounds something like Home Alone. The release date is coming soon, September 12, so I wonder if this will be settled by then? The name could be seen as a parody.

Hollywood Reporter says:

NEW

Comments

[aredwitch]

Hee-hee -hee. I think it is parody and fair use. There is another fair use trail shaping up too - the dancing baby trial against 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince' recording company or is he back to a normal name again? Anyway, this case is going to be big.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3777651

[rattlesnakeroot]

I will keep an eye on that one, too. :)

I only believe in one Prince, and that's Snape. *lol*

I was trying to figure out if JKR/WB called Harry by another name in Hindi, thinking that they might have a case if he is called "Hari Puttar" in the books. But according to this blog the name of DH is "Harry Potter aur Half-Blood Prince."

[clair_de_lalune]

Good for the woman in the story! It sounds like she didn't even put Prince's music on the video later - it's just what the baby was already hearing in the background when s/he was boucing around for the video. Saying that's a copyright infringement is just crazy! And, it had been viewed by only a few people, most likely people in her family

[saiphgrl]

Wow, I never thought about it like that. Sometimes I have friends over to watch movies that they don't own themselves! WHOA!
Sometimes I even let people borrow them. Better watch out for the FBI...
(I know that the warning only really includes public showings, but I bet that production companies would be happy to just enlarge that a bit!)

In Germany, you are allowed to rip CDs and DVDs to keep a digital copy for yourself. Technically, this is illegal in the U.S. Here you only own the rights to the physical copy that you purchased.

[potionsmistres]

What, is WB now going to insist that the Punjabi language change the word for "son" so as not to infringe on their precious trademark? Is the whole damned world going to have to pay a royalty to them and JKR every time somebody utters words that sound vaguely like "Harry Potter?"

Golfer: Check out my new putter.
WB Rep: That'll be $1.00 unless you want to face a mult-million copyright lawsuit.
Golfer: You can't do this!
WB: Yes we can. We are WB. We own the world. Bwahahahahahahahaha! /evil laughter.

[rattlesnakeroot]

*lol* How true - it's almost like that now! :)

[saiphgrl]

Well, if you read the Wiki synopsis, it does involve a cousin. Perhaps that's the problem?
It's a good thing that Dickens was already in the public domain, otherwise his lawyers could have sued over the fact that Harry Potter was an orphan, right? And the theme of good vs. evil? I think J.K. was the first to think that up, no? Do they own that, too?

Do you think they know that 'Hari' is not pronounced as 'Harry', but rather as the "har" in "Harlem"? And that the "p" and "t" in "Puttar" are actually different sounds than the ones we make when we say "Harry Potter"? (I knew I wasn't a linguistics major for nothing!)

The expert law student says this is just WB's way of trying to discourage anything in the future that might be more of an infringement by being overly aggressive. They have the money to do it, so why not?

[rattlesnakeroot]

I agree with your law student, but again, just because they can do it will never make it right or ethical. That's their logical fallacy at work.

[potionsmistres]

Hmm...there are some biblical undertones to HP. Maybe God should consider suing JKR/WB.

[kinglear3_4_143]

Actually, GOD has surely more effective means to come down on those that displease her ;)

[rattlesnakeroot]

Lightning Bolts? Bad Hair Days? More Writer's Block? *lol*

[clair_de_lalune]

*lol*

[bnmc2005]

This reminds me of a coffee shop in Tulsa Oklahoma (USA.) they are called the "Double Shot" cafe. Starbucks sent out a notice- or whatever the legal term is- for them to cease and desist from using that name because they have a drink called the "double shot." which comes in a can. Starbucks™ was just trying to "protect" their product from being confused with anything of a similar name- I guess.

So Starbucks sicked their lawyers on a small town independently owned coffee shop for this- and they lost. The law came down on the side of the cafe´ essentially deciding there was absolutely no way the two entities would be confused.

I have a feeling WB is going to lost this one. It's a waste of money.

[rattlesnakeroot]

That's a good parallel story. :)

I agree it's a waste of time and money because

1) "Hari Puttar" is probably not trademarked by WB
2) The plotline is not about a boy wizard

[potionsmistres]

So, if I went to a bar and ordered a double shot of tequila, Starbucks would consider that copyright infringement? Puh-lease!