Diseased Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Also I have a question, do museums have to pay royalties to artists to exhibit their works? I know that museums do buy pieces and such. But what happens with stuff like Harry Potter, Marvel and Star Wars?

It depends on the type of exhibit. If you make one that is, for example, every Lego Harry Potter set, you wouldn't have to pay anyone anything, as they're artifacts that you can purchase.

But if you wanted to go further, you could potentially run into issues - most real museums work quite closely with the property, not only to avoid complications but also to get access to unreleased/backstage works.

For example, this is a legal book in the USA: https://www.amazon.com/Unofficial-Harry-Potter-Cookbook-Knickerbocker/dp/1440503257/ - because it talks about facts and doesn't duplicate, but it's about as close to the edge as you can get.

JK Rowling hasn't changed, her books haven't changed, it's these people who became emotional wrecks screaming about anything that goes against their orthodoxy.

I still think a big part of it is having the books thrown back in their faces as they've gotten so insane you can use voldemort as a caricature of them. They took any excuse available to tear down their own heroes (it's almost the defining part of the left, they need something to rebel against; they cannot be the ones in power).

 

[TheDataHorder]

honesty, i wouldn't be surprised if j.k sent a cease and desist letter to them saying either they restore any and all mentions of her or they aren't allowed to use the franchise in the museum.

 

[Hillary Clinton's Ass]

It depends on the type of exhibit. If you make one that is, for example, every Lego Harry Potter set, you wouldn't have to pay anyone anything, as they're artifacts that you can purchase.

But if you wanted to go further, you could potentially run into issues - most real museums work quite closely with the property, not only to avoid complications but also to get access to unreleased/backstage works.

For example, this is a legal book in the USA: https://www.amazon.com/Unofficial-Harry-Potter-Cookbook-Knickerbocker/dp/1440503257/ - because it talks about facts and doesn't duplicate, but it's about as close to the edge as you can get.

So, there is a chance that Rowling is getting a check from the museum? That means the actions of the little pooner amounted to essentially a temper tantrum and JK still gets her money.

lmao, what's the point of hiding her name or image, then? Protecting the pooner's and other soy adults feelings? People are still going to call you a woman. Prevent people from associating Rowling with Harry Potter? How? When you google Harry Potter, her name is literally in the first results.

Also, when I googled "Harry Potter" just now a bunch of media sites were talking about this little airbrush incident, now more people know that a supposedly grown-ass "man" can't handle seeing some woman, reading her name or mentioning her name at his work. Keep in mind, that this woman has never done anything personally against this "man".

Man, pooners are really something else.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

So, there is a chance that Rowling is getting a check from the museum? That means the actions of the little pooner amounted to essentially a temper tantrum and JK still gets her money.

The chance is probably minor, if anything it was a promotional deal with the publisher.

However, if such existed for funds or no funds, they're probably violating it. Most promotional deals have things about how to market, etc. I doubt one exists, and I doubt even if it did would anything be done about it, but it is amusing to imagine.

I love how they can never articulate exactly WHAT queen terf of terf island DID (even with the farms they have a standard rote description they can point to).

 

[Cryptosporidium 136]

lmao, what's the point of hiding her name or image, then?

Keep in mind that these are the same people that think trigger warnings and minor censoring - for example, “su*cide” - saves lives.

 

[Pissmaster]

Got any cool places that aren't in states that regularly violate the Constitution? This is an honest question, not me taking a piss - you seem pretty knowledgeable about your unlimited play arcades and pinball places, and I actually want to hear your opinion, not trying to be a faggot.

One place on my to-go list is Arcade Monsters. They have several locations in FL, one's just north of Orlando.

 

[Drama Fan]

Also I have a question, do museums have to pay royalties to artists to exhibit their works? I know that museums do buy pieces and such. But what happens with stuff like Harry Potter, Marvel and Star Wars?

Do you write a check to JKR every time you post in this thread?
The obvious answer is no, copyright isn't so hellish yet that you have to give royalties to talk about a piece of media that was released.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Do you write a check to JKR every time you post in this thread?
The obvious answer is no, copyright isn't so hellish yet that you have to give royalties to talk about a piece of media that was released.

Oh.

I need to call my bank.

 

[Hillary Clinton's Ass]

Do you write a check to JKR every time you post in this thread?

You mean you don't? At any rate the inflation here is my country is bad that by the time she gets her check from my KF sperging, the ink that was used to print the amount is going to be worth much more that whatever I sent her, lmao.

The obvious answer is no, copyright isn't so hellish yet that you have to give royalties to talk about a piece of media that was released.

I get what you mean, and copyright does not (for now) applies to people just discussing Harry Potter in a forum, tweeting about it or even just talking about it with your friends or wife during dinner.

The thing is when it's an organization, or some other entity, that is profiting from having this person's book/art/music/whatever as part of one of your exhibits, then copyright might actually get involved, but like reptile baht said, it all depends of the type of exhibit that the museum has and if there is even a deal between Rowling and the museum.

 

[Drama Fan]

You mean you don't? At any rate the inflation here is my country is bad that by the time she gets her check from my KF sperging, the ink that was used to print the amount is going to be worth much more that whatever I sent her, lmao.


I get what you mean, and copyright does not (for now) applies to people just discussing Harry Potter in a forum, tweeting about it or even just talking about it with your friends or wife during dinner.

The thing is when it's an organization, or some other entity, that is profiting from having this person's book/art/music/whatever as part of one of your exhibits, then copyright might actually get involved, but like reptile baht said, it all depends of the type of exhibit that the museum has and if there is even a deal between Rowling and the museum.

I will consneed that I am not a lawyer nor am I an expert in copyright law. But, there does seem to be a pretty good litmus test (because this has been on my mind due to it being a Twitter controversy). You can take someone's well researched, original youtube video and live comment over it on Twitch, taking several minutes where you add absolutely nothing because you went to take a shit and not get a DMCA. You can also upload it to your YouTube channel and double-dip on the profits! If it's a small youtuber and you're an XQC-level big streamer you're probably going to get way more views by basically doing nothing but sitting in your chair. If talking over something is fair-use (which I think, for better or worse it is legally) then talking about something or displaying something obviously is going to get by that standard.
Having an exhibit in your museum where you put a couple books on display and some fan art with plaques about how Harry Potter was a huge fucking deal and read by millions and then the movies got watched by even more millions is obviously more transformative than what "reaction streamers" do regularly, and it's probably far less profitable. I'm sure there's a lot more considerations, like how you can say Harry Potter was a big deal, and you're only talking about a historical fact that everyone knows and nobody can known that (but I feel like that's redundant at this point).
Finally, I'm sure they have exhibits about Seinfeld and Scrubs and a bunch of other TV shows at this particular museum. I'm sure, if there were any legal standing and/or money to be made that whatever soulless corporate entity that owns those shows would have immediately sued for everything they could get before another company did.

 

[Marvin]

I get what you mean, and copyright does not (for now) applies to people just discussing Harry Potter in a forum, tweeting about it or even just talking about it with your friends or wife during dinner.

The thing is when it's an organization, or some other entity, that is profiting from having this person's book/art/music/whatever as part of one of your exhibits, then copyright might actually get involved

Profiting isn't really the critical distinction. After all, you're absolutely permitted to critique a copyrighted work for profit (say book reviews) and essential to that process is being able to mention aspects of the work in your review. You owe no royalties because your review is its own work, you own the text of your review and you're otherwise permitted to incorporate small chunks of the work you're critiquing to fulfill that purpose.

Even if you're making money, it doesn't change that. (Though the standard of "small chunks of the work" can depend on how badly you affect the ability of the original copyright holder to profit from their work. Although that's less "are you making money?" but more "can they not make money anymore?")

Or another angle is first sale doctrine. Which basically means that if you legally bought a copy of the work, you can do what you want with your copy, aside from some exceptions. (There's weird rules about when exhibiting a movie goes from being a casual movie night with your family versus being a commercial display a la a movie theater.) I can legally buy a movie poster and slap it up in my commercial nerd museum and that's totally unrestricted, more or less.

Really, some other ancillary issues are probably a lot more problematic, like misrepresenting the museum as being endorsed by her, or probably trademark. (Trademark gives the trademark holders a lot more power, with far fewer exceptions, than copyright.)

 

[Manat]

Link/Archive


I don't know who this guy is, but he has continuous skirmishes with terfs and his TL is all about trannies and their rights.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

I don't know who this guy is,

I think he's a retarded faggot.

 

[Miriam Margoyles]

Unexpected cow crossover between the lil' pooner and the big Jessie.

One of my personal cows, Jessie Gender, made a video all about the Seattle Museum of Pop Culture and the drama surrounding their erasure of J.K. Rowling, bringing to light the revelation that he actually used to work there and was and is friends with Chris Moore, the pooner in question, which seems to cement the theory that all of these fucking looney troons somehow all know eachother - addicts attracting other addicts, groomers attracting other groomers, the mentally ill attracting other mentally ill people - creating this sort of hugbox for themselves against the cold truth of reality.

He's so fucking whiny in his attempts to play the victim. His whole argument seems to be, "Oh, well, this isn't even a new story - it had been like that for months, but it was only when the eeevil Telegraph newspaper from TERF Island found out about it that it became a problem!" which, I dunno, forgive me for being hyperbolic, perhaps, is a bit like saying (to use an example that will no doubt be near and dear to the hearts of the troon platoon), "Oh, I was molesting those kids for months, it was only when Chris Hansen caught me doing it and called me out that it became a problem!"

Like, you did a shitty thing, people found out you did a shitty thing, got pissed off and criticised you for it. Own that shit, you simpering fucking tranny narcs. You're not being harassed, you're hearing opinions you don't like.

You see, trans people are just trying to fight back against an unjust system that will never allow them the chance to do what they want... Except for on this occasion where they were... Allowed to do what they wanted... Huh.

Also, this is a really minor point, but they're not fucking called jiggies, Jessie, you fucking fake gamer g̶i̶r̶l̶ boy! Jiggies are the autistic puzzle pieces you collect, those plushies are Jinjos! You'd know that if you ever fucking played Banjo-Kazooie!

 

[Scarlett Johansson]

Still thinking about playing HL...I heard mixed things about replayability though. It just looks neat.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Unexpected cow crossover between the lil' pooner and the big Jessie.

"cancelling JK Rowling" with air quotes when someone is quite literally removing her name from her works is hilariously delusional.
As you say the entire point of "it was done months ago" is it is a defence that essentially says that if you don't find out about it at the time you can't complain about it. Which any sane human can see the issues with
Bwahaha capitalism is what prevents full blown censorship. Oh how close you are. And the cry to destroy the system. The system is the only thing that lets you function the way you are right now.

Deluded idiot.

 

[Terffals]

I’ve been to this museum before, around 2014. They had an exhibit on the history of the music video, which I remember vividly because there was a section on “recontexualizing” videos at the end, which included playing a Spock/Kirk AMV on loop. I recognized it because I was a little fujoshi who had it saved in my YouTube likes already. I can’t remember exactly but I believe the video was set to a Nine Inch Nails song.

ETA: sorry for the off-topic, it was this one. I have forgotten how to embed video.
https://youtu.be/3uxTpyCdriY

Apparently this video was presented in the MOMA too?? Crazy town.

 

[ScooterL]

She wrote the book, entirely on her own. It’s her creation. You can’t just have it be some mysterious nameless entity writing them all.

As usual, trannies are trying to change reality by simple declaration. I'm starting to wonder if reading too much Harry Potter is conditioning these people into believing that magic words are a real thing.

It must be really awkward for them to obsessively love every single detailed idea that comes out of JK Rowling's mind.

And how does that fixes anything?

They seem to think it's going to help stop "anti-trans" legislation, somehow. Magical thinking.

 

[ロボ﹏§¤r﹏h¶rœ]

which included playing a Spock/Kirk AMV on loop.
https://youtu.be/3uxTpyCdriY

They played all the 'fucks' on a loop? In a museum?
Anyway, here is a better version:

 

[teriyakiburns]

I'm starting to wonder if reading too much Harry Potter is conditioning these people into believing that magic words are a real thing.

What they suffer from is a childish mode of thought, in which demanding or declaring things as true will make them true. It's most common amongst children, obviously, but also amongst the poorly educated and people with low intelligence, who can't understand causality in some manner, or who believe that their personal thoughts have a direct effect on the rest of the world. In troons, it's likely a sign of mental regression, either as a psychological response to reality refusing to conform to their demands, or mental problems induced by their lifestyles. Ironically enough, it is often referred to as "magical thinking".