>>113941077>That's your assumption, and you have zero basis for that.
You can literally see the basis for it in almost any of the movies or creative spinoffs of her work, but okay. Maybe you can find a wikipedia article about it written by yourself.>Because it's irrelevant, cretin. Fair use is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Incorrect, you mental reject.>Like when Rowling sued those who violated her copyright?
For selling an actual spinoff to her work. That's the difference. You are so stupid that you take things that aren't related to your argument at all and then perceptively alter them just so it fits in your tiny incorrect worldview. >>113941114
You already got a source telling you why you're fucking stupid, and you ignored it and just went off about JK ROWLING HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT HER RIGHTS ignoring the part where it says that this is a limitation to her rights. You're literally the dumbest person in this entire thread and the world would be better if you were hit by a truck and had both of your hands severed so we couldn't read your stupid, uneducated wikipedia bullshit.
"HERP ALL IP LAW IS THE SAME" >>113940293
- Literally the moment we should have stopped listening to the sub-60 IQ Caveman who didn't know the difference between copyright and trademark but thinks he knows what is or isn't Fair use.
Literally no reason to have a conversation with you since you're too immature to see actual evidence from real legal scholars about why you're wrong, and you ignore it in favor of some wikipedia bullshit. I'm sorry for your caretakers.