The James Bond we know is so far removed from Ian Fleming's bigotry that you might as well attribute the cinematic James Bond to Albert Broccoli. The movies - while extremely chauvinistic for their time, at least the earliest ones - actively cut back on a lot of Fleming's views.
Disney has its own problems, like all of their "first gay characters" being either so vague that you can ignore it or so clearly sectioned off from the rest of the movie that you can remove the scenes for foreign markets. But as an amorphous conglomerate, they've moved away from whatever bigoted views Walt Disney might have had. The focus on Disney today is probably more to do with their influence on the legal system (copyright law specifically) and the increasing monopolization of the Disney corporation in the world of media and beyond.
Fleming was a bigot when he was writing the books, and the movies - while products of their time and not perfect - cut a bunch of that out. Walt Disney has been dead since the sixties, and even then you associate the man and his vision with cartoons that are less bigoted than Looney Tunes and with his Disney resorts trying to emulate the cartoon idealism of the movies they've made.
JK Rowling is more pertinent because she made this massive beloved multimedia franchise, and then she went "I think transgender women are an affront to womanhood, I think they're rapists and misogynists and if we don't weed them out nobody will be safe". She used her massive platform to spread pure, undistilled transphobic bigotry to her entire base, she was able to uplift and empower more radical transphobes who undergo more political measures to legally discriminate against transgender people and she uses her massive Harry Potter fortune to contribute to the UK's ongoing campaign against transgender people.
People know James Bond through the more whitewashed movies where he's not as big of a jerkoff. Disney was a lot of things and his corporation is fucked on a bunch of different fronts, but even then, "Walt Disney was an anti-semite" is kind of a recent thing in the zeitgeist - I remember Family Guy being one of the only recent things claiming that.
Harry Potter is both recent and profitable. JK Rowling is still here preaching bigotry and using her money and influence to negatively affect the group she's being bigoted towards. The media, from the books to the movies to the video games, directly affect her through royalties and residuals that she receives directly. You can't say that for Ian Fleming or Walt Disney - they're both dead, and their influence compared to the media they produced has waned. Whereas JK Rowling and her transphobia are inextricably linked to this day.
Death of the author is one thing, but when the author not only clearly and loudly states their position on something and uses the money they make from the property to fund whatever the fuck they're saying, there's still something wrong happening that people can contribute to through their support. You can look at her work and draw your own conclusions, but the continued monetization of her work gives her money and power to pursue her bigotry. "It's death of the author, James Bond and Mickey mouse have a history of bigotry" - and yet the bigoted voices behind those characters are dead, and the money they make don't go to furthering the bigoted agenda of their creators. I can't see those arguments as being made in good faith.
Yeah, death of the author is weird for multifaceted reasons. Like when discussing canon events a lot of the first arguments are literally about what the "authorial intent" is. Like, very few people argue death of the author when it's literally about the thing you are supposed to be using it for: interpreting what the work means. It's not supposed to justify whether or not you buy a thing or not.
Also can't help but remind everyone that Rowling herself said that Trans advocates are literally Death Eaters so you know.
I'm going to Universal Studios in a week and a half from now and riding the Harry Potter rides. I'm also going to Disney World for a day - so I'm financially supporting Saudi Arabia's practices as well. Even if I stayed home, I'd still be supporting that by playing Nintendo games.
Who knows? Maybe the day will come when the story I'm writing now will have its own section of Universal which replaces the Wizarding World. I don't think I'm quite that ambitious though.
What's your point?
---
Bioshock gave us a fictional world showing why libertarianism doesn't work. Cryptos/NFTs gave us the real world example (She/Her)