Harry Potter books stripped of J.K. Rowling's name are then resold by 'bookbinder artist'

[craftsman 1,045]

Jeez....

'Book artist' takes used books, removes Rowling's name — a project 'spurred by her transphobia,' he claims

A 23-year-old individual in Toronto, Canada, has been hard at work "removing" J.K. Rowling's name from used "Harry Potter" books and replacing not just the book covers with his own custom covers — but removing her name from the copyright pages and titles pages as well, according to SWNS reporting.

The individual has completed at least 30 newly "re-bound books" — offering them for sale in their newly bound form.

Artist Laur Flom, who runs a website in Canada, apparently started the project to "help out" any "Harry Potter" fans who find they have ethical issues with the author while reading her bestselling books.

Flom began the work a year ago, saying his motivation was the allegations of transphobia that were made against the British author, according to SWNS.

Rowling faced backlash a few years ago for comments that were considered by some to be controversial about the transgender community.

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/harry-potter-books-stripped-jk-rowling-name-resold-bookbinder-artist

[Djgb13 2,339]

Sounds like a crime to me 

[craftsman 1,045]

11 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Sounds like a crime to me 

It's like buying a Ford and disliking Henry Ford so much you change out the Ford name on the car and replace it with a Chevy label.

I hope this book thing is a crime and he gets nailed for it. Liberals always want to censor everything.

[RLLD 4,233]

The misuse of " transphobia," is an easy way to pick out an underdeveloped person.

[Cdub100 3,910]

The left's war against Women continues.

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

12 hours ago, Djgb13 said:

Sounds like a crime to me 

Not sure what the Canadian laws are on copyright protection vs "Book Artist' right to express himself. If it were in the States it would be interesting to see how it played out in the courts.  Other than that...rats azz.  

[RLLD 4,233]

24 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

The left's war against Women continues.

I never thought anyone or group would be able to face off against the feminazis….. this is fascinating to watch

[Voltaire 5,317]

Just now, RLLD said:

I never thought anyone or group would be able to face off against the feminazis….. this is fascinating to watch

Who knew the feminazis would be sympathetic and I'd want to reach out to them in political alliance against somebody else but here we are. I want to help them them to win this argument as soon as possible, then go back to thinking they're crazy later.

[RLLD 4,233]

32 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Who knew the feminazis would be sympathetic and I'd want to reach out to them in political alliance against somebody else but here we are. I want to help them them to win this argument as soon as possible, then go back to thinking they're crazy later.

This is what is really interesting.

They are doing something that the liberals refuse….remaining philosophically honest.

Their entire dogma was based on the notion that they were historically oppressed and as a result they were socially “behind” and such.

So when the other groups use that same excuse to exact the normalization of their mental illness into society…..feminists could not push back, because these people just hijacked the very maneuver used by the feminists 

They had to allow women to be harmed, or sacrafice the basis of their entire ideology

[Djgb13 2,339]

44 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Not sure what the Canadian laws are on copyright protection vs "Book Artist' right to express himself. If it were in the States it would be interesting to see how it played out in the courts.  Other than that...rats azz.  

He’s essentially taking a Starbucks drink, pouring it into his cup, and reselling it. That’s illegal. 

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

5 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

He’s essentially taking a Starbucks drink, pouring it into his cup, and reselling it. That’s illegal. 

Not sure about that.  If I buy a new car and do something "artistic' to that car, I can resell that car with my artistic expression., essentially that's what this guy is doing.  Even your Starbucks example, I don't think would be illegal, If someone wants to pay more for it, what crime has he committed?

[Djgb13 2,339]

7 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Not sure about that.  If I buy a new car and do something "artistic' to that car, I can resell that car with my artistic expression., essentially that's what this guy is doing.  Even your Starbucks example, I don't think would be illegal, If someone wants to pay more for it, what crime has he committed?

A lot of companies sue people like that too. Especially if they erase their brand logo or name and try to make it as it’s yours and not the authors. I can see artistic expression but this isn’t artistic. Hell, look at Lil Nas X. He used Nikes for his Satanic shoes and they sued him for that. This is them being triggered so bad they want the authors name removed. THAT is illegal and I hope they not only get sued but go to jail 

[RLLD 4,233]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Not sure about that.  If I buy a new car and do something "artistic' to that car, I can resell that car with my artistic expression., essentially that's what this guy is doing.  Even your Starbucks example, I don't think would be illegal, If someone wants to pay more for it, what crime has he committed?

Agree. I think an issue might arise if the artist appeared to be passing  the book off as their own work….but otherwise I do not see a legal issue 

Artists are usually dooshbags anyway, so this is keeping with normal

[MDC 7,444]

I’m surprised that’s not a copyright violation. Otherwise rat’s ass.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

Based on the article, what this guy is doing is clearly plagiarism.  He's changing the cover with his own work.  That part, and selling it, is fine.  Where he's breaking the law is where he's removing all acknowledgements of  Rowling's name, and replacing it with his own.

"Flom then removes the covers and the copyright pages of the books — and replaces them with his own uniquely created versions, SWNS reported."

He's selling Rowling's book, as is, but as his own work.  At the very least, it's plagiarism, at worst, it's theft of intellectual property.

[Voltaire 5,317]

On the one hand, you've got a clearly blatant act of plagiarism by every definition of the word. On the other hand it's a trans activist doing the plagirism. 

it may seem like a clear cut, but this is Canada. The case will either come before a judge who is a totally brainwashed leftoid activist that got the job by celebrating tranny rights, or else it will come before a judge who has had to pretend to be a totally brainwashed leftoid hack celebrating tranny rights and has always ruled in their favor in order to keep the job.

In other words, what the tranny is doing will be found to be perfectly legal in Canada.

[edjr 6,598]

2 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

The left's war against Women continues.

How is that possible when they can't define what a woman is

[MDC 7,444]

I don’t think it’s plagiarism - the guy changing the books don’t putting his own name on them. It’s some type of copyright violation though - Rowling’s publisher should go after him.

[Djgb13 2,339]

20 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Based on the article, what this guy is doing is clearly plagiarism.  He's changing the cover with his own work.  That part, and selling it, is fine.  Where he's breaking the law is where he's removing all acknowledgements of  Rowling's name, and replacing it with his own.

"Flom then removes the covers and the copyright pages of the books — and replaces them with his own uniquely created versions, SWNS reported."

He's selling Rowling's book, as is, but as his own work.  At the very least, it's plagiarism, at worst, it's theft of intellectual property.

This is what I was getting at. Removing the authors name cause he doesn’t like her and replacing it with his own? Yea, that’s illegal. Clear cut plagiarism 

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

6 minutes ago, MDC said:

I don’t think it’s plagiarism - the guy changing the books don’t putting his own name on them. It’s some type of copyright violation though - Rowling’s publisher should go after him.

According to the article, he is doing that.  He's removing her name from the book and putting his on it, in it's place.

It looks like he only sold a small amount.  My guess is that the publisher is just going to tell him to stop.  If he doesn't, he'll probably get sued.

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

According to the article, he is doing that.  He's removing her name from the book and putting his on it, in it's place.

It looks like he only sold a small amount.  My guess is that the publisher is just going to tell him to stop.  If he doesn't, he'll probably get sued.

Where does it say he puts his name in it's place and is taking her work and passing it off as his own.  As I stated earlier, even he were to get sued(not sure of Canada law), but in the US, I'd bet the artistic expression things lets him skate. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

10 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Where does it say he puts his name in it's place and is taking her work and passing it off as his own.  As I stated earlier, even he were to get sued(not sure of Canada law), but in the US, I'd bet the artistic expression things lets him skate. 

It's in my prior post.  According to origin of the story, SWNS... "Flom then removes the covers and the copyright pages of the books — and replaces them with his own uniquely created versions"

 

He's removing her name and putting in its place... or his own "copyright".  Same thing really.

[Djgb13 2,339]

11 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Where does it say he puts his name in it's place and is taking her work and passing it off as his own.  As I stated earlier, even he were to get sued(not sure of Canada law), but in the US, I'd bet the artistic expression things lets him skate. 

He states it above. Try reading his post for once 

[MDC 7,444]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

It's in my prior post.  According to origin of the story, SWNS... "Flom then removes the covers and the copyright pages of the books — and replaces them with his own uniquely created versions"

 

He's removing her name and putting in its place... or his own "copyright".  Same thing really.

I had Honcho’s question. “His own uniquely created versions” doesn’t necessarily mean his name. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,864]

I always hear how great medical care is in Canada but here we have an obviously mentally ill person that needs help.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

5 minutes ago, MDC said:

I had Honcho’s question. “His own uniquely created versions” doesn’t necessarily mean his name. 

Apparently you both do give a rats ass. 

My guess is that it's one in the same.  If something is unique to you, I'm thinking that's as good as your own name.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

1 minute ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

I always hear how great medical care is in Canada but here we have an obviously mentally ill person that needs help.  

This is true as well.

[MDC 7,444]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Apparently you both do give a rats ass. 

My guess is that it's one and the same.  If something is unique to you, I'm thinking that's as good as your own name.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to this guy. I’m surprised Rowling’s publisher hasn’t lowered the hammer yet. 

Plagiarism = passing someone else’s work off as your own. That doesn’t appear to be what he’s doing.  

[Djgb13 2,339]

14 minutes ago, MDC said:

I don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to this guy. I’m surprised Rowling’s publisher hasn’t lowered the hammer yet. 

Plagiarism = passing someone else’s work off as your own. That doesn’t appear to be what he’s doing.  

If he removed her name, the copyright pages, publishers name, etc. and replaced it with HIS own work which includes HIS name then YES it is. And that’s EXACTLY what he did. It’s 100% plagiarism. I know it’s a foreign concept to ALOT of you cause you never went to college and it’s apparent. That would be like me taking an already done scientific journal article, removing the authors name, replacing it with my own, and turning it in as “my own unique work” THAT is plagiarism. Textbook plagiarism    

[MDC 7,444]

Just now, Djgb13 said:

If he removed her name, the copyright pages, publishers name, etc. and replaced it with HIS own work which includes HIS name then YES it is. And that’s EXACTLY what he did. It’s 100% plagiarism. I know it’s a foreign concept to ALOT of you cause you never went to college and it’s apparent 

Nothing in the article says he’s putting his name on her book or claiming anything but the redesigned cover is his work. HTH

[Djgb13 2,339]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Nothing in the article says he’s putting his name on her book or claiming anything but the redesigned cover is his work. HTH

Bro, it literally said he STRIPPED THE BOOK OF HER NAME AND COPYRIGHT PAGES. What did he also do? REPLACED THEM WITH HIS OWN WORK CREDITING HIMSELF. There’s NO other name, NO copyright page, nothing but HIS own name and being credited. THAT is ILLEGAL and PLAGIARISM. Jesus focking Christ I swear to God even my nieces and nephews understand this concept better than you retards  

[MDC 7,444]

2 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Bro, it literally said he STRIPPED THE BOOK OF HER NAME AND COPYRIGHT PAGES. What did he also do? REPLACED THEM WITH HIS OWN WORK CREDITING HIMSELF. There’s NO other name, NO copyright page, nothing but HIS own name and being credited. THAT is ILLEGAL and PLAGIARISM. Jesus focking Christ I swear to God even my nieces and nephews understand this concept better than you retards  

Reread my last post. Then read it again. 

[nobody 2,678]

Why do people who are not copyright lawyers and haven't even seen the modified work with their own eyes even have such strong opinions?

[Djgb13 2,339]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Reread my last post. Then read it again. 

Reread MY last post  dumbass. Jesus Christ you’re just a focking ignorant moron  

[Djgb13 2,339]

1 minute ago, nobody said:

Why do people who are not copyright lawyers and haven't even seen the modified work with their own eyes even have such strong opinions?

Because I’ve been taught IN COLLEGE about things like this. It’s also pretty focking common sense

[nobody 2,678]

1 minute ago, Djgb13 said:

Because I’ve been taught IN COLLEGE about things like this. It’s also pretty focking common sense

So you're probably familiar with the first sale doctrine then?

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

1 minute ago, Djgb13 said:

Because I’ve been taught IN COLLEGE about things like this. It’s also pretty focking common sense

yes, if anything it only takes a little common sense to know the law.  

[Djgb13 2,339]

Just now, nobody said:

So you're probably familiar with the first sale doctrine then?

I’m familiar with plagiarism. Which this is a textbook example. You can’t rip out everything from the author, publisher, COPYRIGHT pages, and replace it with “your own” stuff then sell it as your work. That’s. A. Lawsuit. Get it through your dumbass head  I swear to God it’s like I’m talking to five year olds who can’t comprehend 2 + 2 = 4 

[nobody 2,678]

Just now, Djgb13 said:

I’m familiar with plagiarism. Which this is a textbook example. You can’t rip out everything from the author, publisher, COPYRIGHT pages, and replace it with “your own” stuff then sell it as your work. That’s. A. Lawsuit. Get it through your dumbass head  I swear to God it’s like I’m talking to five year olds who can’t comprehend 2 + 2 = 4 

How many time do you have to be wrong before you stop dying on these hills?  

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

1 minute ago, Djgb13 said:

I’m familiar with plagiarism. Which this is a textbook example. You can’t rip out everything from the author, publisher, COPYRIGHT pages, and replace it with “your own” stuff then sell it as your work. That’s. A. Lawsuit. Get it through your dumbass head  I swear to God it’s like I’m talking to five year olds who can’t comprehend 2 + 2 = 4 

Please bump when he's sued and again when he loses the lawsuit, so I  can credit you with being right.