IIRC, “Pet Rock” is also trademarked. It’s a twofer infringement ripoff here.
Jen
10 years ago
Thank you Nathan!! I am laughing so hard over this one! That little green dude looks like a cross between Oscar the grouch and E.T.! He just climbed out of his trash can and now he’s royally pissed!
Jen
10 years ago
I just noticed the cover says for ages 2 to 222.
I guess that’s appropriate if you’re one of the living dead.
James F. Brown
10 years ago
Hmmm, somehow I missed seeing this front cover blurb:
Is the sequel ‘An Unauthorized Harry Potter Lawsuit’? Seriously, I can at least respect someone who has put effort into getting out a reasonably original idea, even if the execution is poor. But I have no respect for plagiarism, even if it’s honest plagiarism (and I suspect in this case that writing the Harry Potter franchise name on the cover is their idea of marketing).
Parody is not plagiarism, and a parody CAN be original.
(Not that this is the case with this book, of course.)
Axolotl
10 years ago
Also notice that the person with the lipstick and the yellow Afro in a pink dress appears to be standing forward of Harry Potter by the position of their feet, and yet has an arm behind his back? Is she meant to be holding him up by the scruff of the neck?
Yes, but (a) saying up front that it’s unauthorized neuters the claim some might make that “I thought it was something Rowling approved!”, and (b) saying that it’s unauthorized makes it seem all edgy and transgressive.
No. NO! NO MAKE IT STOP!
Knowing J K Rowling, she’ll be suing for millions on copyright infringement any day now.
IIRC, “Pet Rock” is also trademarked. It’s a twofer infringement ripoff here.
Thank you Nathan!! I am laughing so hard over this one! That little green dude looks like a cross between Oscar the grouch and E.T.! He just climbed out of his trash can and now he’s royally pissed!
I just noticed the cover says for ages 2 to 222.
I guess that’s appropriate if you’re one of the living dead.
Hmmm, somehow I missed seeing this front cover blurb:
“Soon to be a NYT Book Review Best Seller.”
Hey – maybe I’LL try that flim-flam! 😉
I guess saying it’s a parody makes it OK.
Is the sequel ‘An Unauthorized Harry Potter Lawsuit’? Seriously, I can at least respect someone who has put effort into getting out a reasonably original idea, even if the execution is poor. But I have no respect for plagiarism, even if it’s honest plagiarism (and I suspect in this case that writing the Harry Potter franchise name on the cover is their idea of marketing).
Parody is not plagiarism, and a parody CAN be original.
(Not that this is the case with this book, of course.)
Also notice that the person with the lipstick and the yellow Afro in a pink dress appears to be standing forward of Harry Potter by the position of their feet, and yet has an arm behind his back? Is she meant to be holding him up by the scruff of the neck?
She also looks a couple of feet taller than him.
In fact, it looks like he’s her ventriloquist dummy. She’s working him through levers in the back, and dangling him in the air.
It totally does! Now I’m laughing even more! The flying pig is a pleasant touch too.
What makes this specially stupid is that the author doesn’t realize that a parody needn’t be authorized.
Yes, but (a) saying up front that it’s unauthorized neuters the claim some might make that “I thought it was something Rowling approved!”, and (b) saying that it’s unauthorized makes it seem all edgy and transgressive.
the dunce cap is a nice touch.