Harry Potter course cut at University of New Hampshire
I cannot BELIEVE more people aren't talking about this. Mugglenet reported on it sometime last week, but since then, I have not heard a peep. Important disclaimer: I have not personally seen the course content, so perhaps it grossly infringes in some way I'm not aware of.
As reported by New Hampshire Public Radio, here.
Here is a link to the Cease and Desist letter: sent, as you'll notice, to the professor, not to the school. Professors seldom profit from the courses they teach. This might be an exception, but I doubt it. It's also directed to "Mr." Krasner, which is weird, because he's almost certainly "Dr." and calling him "Mr." in a professional capacity is super-rude.
Samples from the letter: he is allowed to use the Harry Potter books in his course (gee, how thoughtful. I've never heard of a publisher being allowed to block the teaching of their books before), but they object to the fact that: "Your course is entirely themed around the HARRY POTTER Properties and makes extensive use of them for commercial and marketing purposes" and "Other elements of Hogwarts are used, such as “prefects,” and school houses, etc., all of which are obviously designed to mimic an experience in the fictional world of Hogwarts. Moreover, the website uses trademarks owned by Warner Bros. to promote the course. These include the name “Hogwarts,” “Harry Potter,” and depictions of the lightning bolt and glasses - all derived from and associated with the HARRY POTTER Properties."
Hmm. So prefects and school houses are all trademarked WB now. I wonder if Eton and Harrow know this.
Finally, the letter suggests: "we cannot permit you to use the HARRY POTTER Properties in this manner. To do so would violate our intellectual property rights and would likely mislead the public into believing that Warner Bros. is in some way connected with, or is sponsoring your class. " I also did not know that motion picture studios directly sponsored courses now, or that Warner Brothers was moving into the university or school course business.
UNH disputes the idea that they've violated intellectual property law, but are making modifications. Among other things, the words "Harry Potter" will not appear in the course title or course description (because that is "marketing.")
Again, I haven't seen the course or its promotional materials, but the course is on Blackboard and presumably only visible to enrolled students.
Here is a letter from the mom of a student who took the course, which was aimed at 8-12 year olds. Sounds like he had a great time.
Now, it's possible that Warner Bros. problem was with scale. This was a MOCK, or a MOOC for kids, marketed for $200 a pop. So while access was limited to enrollees, the number of "students" was potentially very large.
Still, the implications are that colleges and schools going forward won't be able to offer Harry Potter based courses or courses with Harry Potter in the title.
I suppose I could have ignored this, but I was afraid of what my school would do if I didn't. You see, my school's policy is that it's the professor's responsibility not to keep up with intellectual property law and his or her liability if it's broken. They could theoretically discipline me, throw me to the wolves, or shrug it off if WB decided to sue for a million bucks. But how was I to know that Harry Potter wasn't Harry Potter, but HARRY POTTER ™?
I contacted Warner Bros. to ask. Probably shouldn't have done so and/or let my school handle it, but I wanted clarification. If this is true, every course in the country with "Harry Potter" in the title could be in trouble.
I also asked Keith Hawk about this, and he said the course was using a lot of material, including images, and not to worry. It's the title and course description I'm concerned about. I've got no issue with adding that it's not affiliated with Warner Brothers in the syllabus, although we're very restricted about what can appear in a course description.
Here's how mine appears in the course catalog: Seminar on Harry Potter series as literature. Emphasis on critical reading, thinking, and discussion. (4 units.) But the school paper has taken pictures of me wearing Gryffindor robes at lectures.
I'm really puzzled, too. The TEACH act permits me to use "short clips," but according to the lady at WB, I could show all eight movies, in their entirety, no problem, as long as it was related to course instruction. I just couldn't use "Harry Potter" in the title or course description, or --a bunch of other vague things. The Unofficial Harry Potter Cookbook is ok, but not this course: professors can call themselves Hogwarts Professors, but not mention it in class?
I really hope this is clarified, because this could spill over into other courses, too--everything that says "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" or anything in the title. Meanwhile, I think it should be discussed among Harry Potter academics, professors and students alike, so we ALL know what's going on.
NB: This has jack to do with the Whimsic Alley lawsuit, which is another kettle of fish entirely.
As reported by New Hampshire Public Radio, here.
Here is a link to the Cease and Desist letter: sent, as you'll notice, to the professor, not to the school. Professors seldom profit from the courses they teach. This might be an exception, but I doubt it. It's also directed to "Mr." Krasner, which is weird, because he's almost certainly "Dr." and calling him "Mr." in a professional capacity is super-rude.
Samples from the letter: he is allowed to use the Harry Potter books in his course (gee, how thoughtful. I've never heard of a publisher being allowed to block the teaching of their books before), but they object to the fact that: "Your course is entirely themed around the HARRY POTTER Properties and makes extensive use of them for commercial and marketing purposes" and "Other elements of Hogwarts are used, such as “prefects,” and school houses, etc., all of which are obviously designed to mimic an experience in the fictional world of Hogwarts. Moreover, the website uses trademarks owned by Warner Bros. to promote the course. These include the name “Hogwarts,” “Harry Potter,” and depictions of the lightning bolt and glasses - all derived from and associated with the HARRY POTTER Properties."
Hmm. So prefects and school houses are all trademarked WB now. I wonder if Eton and Harrow know this.
Finally, the letter suggests: "we cannot permit you to use the HARRY POTTER Properties in this manner. To do so would violate our intellectual property rights and would likely mislead the public into believing that Warner Bros. is in some way connected with, or is sponsoring your class. " I also did not know that motion picture studios directly sponsored courses now, or that Warner Brothers was moving into the university or school course business.
UNH disputes the idea that they've violated intellectual property law, but are making modifications. Among other things, the words "Harry Potter" will not appear in the course title or course description (because that is "marketing.")
Again, I haven't seen the course or its promotional materials, but the course is on Blackboard and presumably only visible to enrolled students.
Here is a letter from the mom of a student who took the course, which was aimed at 8-12 year olds. Sounds like he had a great time.
Now, it's possible that Warner Bros. problem was with scale. This was a MOCK, or a MOOC for kids, marketed for $200 a pop. So while access was limited to enrollees, the number of "students" was potentially very large.
Still, the implications are that colleges and schools going forward won't be able to offer Harry Potter based courses or courses with Harry Potter in the title.
I suppose I could have ignored this, but I was afraid of what my school would do if I didn't. You see, my school's policy is that it's the professor's responsibility not to keep up with intellectual property law and his or her liability if it's broken. They could theoretically discipline me, throw me to the wolves, or shrug it off if WB decided to sue for a million bucks. But how was I to know that Harry Potter wasn't Harry Potter, but HARRY POTTER ™?
I contacted Warner Bros. to ask. Probably shouldn't have done so and/or let my school handle it, but I wanted clarification. If this is true, every course in the country with "Harry Potter" in the title could be in trouble.
I also asked Keith Hawk about this, and he said the course was using a lot of material, including images, and not to worry. It's the title and course description I'm concerned about. I've got no issue with adding that it's not affiliated with Warner Brothers in the syllabus, although we're very restricted about what can appear in a course description.
Here's how mine appears in the course catalog: Seminar on Harry Potter series as literature. Emphasis on critical reading, thinking, and discussion. (4 units.) But the school paper has taken pictures of me wearing Gryffindor robes at lectures.
I'm really puzzled, too. The TEACH act permits me to use "short clips," but according to the lady at WB, I could show all eight movies, in their entirety, no problem, as long as it was related to course instruction. I just couldn't use "Harry Potter" in the title or course description, or --a bunch of other vague things. The Unofficial Harry Potter Cookbook is ok, but not this course: professors can call themselves Hogwarts Professors, but not mention it in class?
Click to viewI really hope this is clarified, because this could spill over into other courses, too--everything that says "Star Wars" or "Star Trek" or anything in the title. Meanwhile, I think it should be discussed among Harry Potter academics, professors and students alike, so we ALL know what's going on.
NB: This has jack to do with the Whimsic Alley lawsuit, which is another kettle of fish entirely.