JK Rowling Accused Of Plagiarizing Harry Potter... Yet Again

from the not-again? dept

For years, there have been various accusations that JK Rowling "stole" the characters or ideas for her series of Harry Potter books. The claim that got the most attention was Nancy Stouffer's book "The Legend Of RAH And The Muggles" which not only uses the word "muggles" (used in Rowling's work as well) but also has a character named Larry Potter (who has some resemblance to Harry's character). But, of course, that wasn't all. Last year, we wrote about a 1986 movie called Troll that also had a character named "Harry Potter." But apparently, that's not enough. The latest is that Rowling's publisher, Bloomsbury Publishing, has been sued again for plagiarism over the Potter books, this time by the estate of Adrian Jacobs. It seems that Jacobs once wrote a book about a boy wizard called Willy The Wizard that has some distant similarities to some stuff that happens in the Potter books.

The whole thing is pretty silly, of course. The publisher is vehemently denying any copying, and it seems unlikely that any copying did actually happen. However even if you did grant the premise and say that Rowling was "inspired" by some other book, so what? Did it really change the economics of the original book? If anything, this latest claim is just a clear money grab, designed to give new attention to a long-ignored book. No one could claim with a straight face that Rowling's work took away any value from the other book.

Of course, the side note to all of this is how aggressive Rowling has been about trying to "protect" her own copyright on the Potter books. Last year, author Orson Scott Card tore apart Rowling for her aggressive enforcement of copyright, while noting some amusing "similarities" between his own classic, Ender's Game, and the Harry Potter series -- pointing out that lots of people have similar ideas or are inspired by others -- and trying to shut them down is a mistake.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Another Author Shows JK Rowling How To Embrace Fans

from the don't-sue-them,-for-starters dept

We covered the ridiculous lawsuit that JK Rowling had filed against a fan who created a reference book, The Harry Potter Lexicon to supplement her massively popular novels. At the actual trial, it appeared that Rowling didn't have much of a legal argument against the publication, so she went for an emotional argument that can be summed up as: she just didn't like it.

Contrast that to situation around author Stephenie Meyer and her Twilight Vampire books (as pointed out by Against Monopoly). Meyer actively embraced the fan community as much as impossible -- including encouraging fans to create a comparable Twilight Lexicon reference guide, Meyer not only was thrilled, she helped fill in some characters' back stories. And, it's worked. The community has responded to her and become huge evangelists for the series and everything associated with it. These days, if your fans want to help advertise your works for you, it seems pretty backwards to then sue them for it. Nice to see that other successful authors aren't following Rowling's awful lead.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Orson Scott Card Rips Apart JK Rowling For The Lexicon Lawsuit

from the read-the-whole-thing dept

We recently pointed to Neil Gaiman's comments on JK Rowling's lawsuit against the author of the Harry Potter Lexicon guidebook. Now, Slashdot points us to the even more brilliant dissection of the case by famed author Orson Scott Card. It's really worth reading the whole thing, as he makes a ton of fantastic points including: (a) every author borrows ideas from others -- including Rowling, (b) the Lexicon is clearly fair use, (c) the Lexicon's website helped promote the Harry Potter books for many years and made Rowling a ton of money, while the Lexicon's author made nothing, (d) if she's so upset by the quality, why doesn't she just write her own, and (e) the end result is of this attempt to gain "respect" is going to widely damage Rowling's reputation. Here are some snippets from the piece, but it's really worth reading in its entirety:

"This frivolous lawsuit puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction. Any student writing a paper about the Harry Potter books, any scholarly treatise about it, will certainly do everything she's complaining about. Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited.... She let herself be talked into being outraged over a perfectly normal publishing activity, one that she had actually made use of herself during its web incarnation. Now she is suing somebody who has devoted years to promoting her work and making no money from his efforts -- which actually helped her make some of her bazillions of dollars. Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress."

88 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Neil Gaiman On JK Rowling, Fair Use And The Flattery Of Derivative Works

from the flattery-will-get-you-everywhere dept

Copyfight points us to a fun blog post from Neil Gaiman where he discusses the lawsuit involving the "Harry Potter Lexicon" that JK Rowling is so upset about. He makes a bunch of good points about fair use and derivative works, saying that he'd be flattered if someone had done something similar with his works, and also notes that his own first books probably could be found as violating copyrights as well, and he's happy that no one acted like Rowling in trying to sue him for his work:

Lots of emails from people asking me to comment on the JK Rowling/ Steve Vander Ark copyright case. My main reaction is, having read as much as I can about it, given the copyright grey zone it seems to exist in, is a "Well, if it was me, I'd probably be flattered", but that obviously isn't how J.K. Rowling feels. I can't imagine myself trying to stop any of the unauthorised books that have come out about me or about things I've created over the years, and where possible I've tried to help, and even when I haven't liked them I've shrugged and let it go.

Given the messy area that "fair use" exists in in copyright law I can understand the judge not wanting to rule, and assume that whatever he says the case will head off to the court of appeal.

My heart is on the side of the people doing the unauthorised books, probably because the first two books I did were unauthorised, and one of them, Ghastly Beyond Belief, would have been incredibly vulnerable had anyone wanted to sue Kim Newman and me on the grounds that what we did, in a book of quotations that people might not have wanted to find themselves in, went beyond Fair Use.

He also goes on to note, if somewhat tangentially, that others have accused Rowling of copying his own works -- specifically The Books of Magic that involve a young magician "with potential" who (at one point) goes off to a magic school. Gaiman points out that he does not believe Rowling took the idea from him (or even that she read his works), but that people writing within a certain genre are always going to overlap with ideas -- some of which they glean from others and some of which they come up with themselves. And that's a good thing. It's only in this unfortunate era when people seem to think that all ideas must spring brand new from a virgin mind that the ideas of sharing, building on the works of others and creating new derivative works are seen as being bad.

55 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Harry Potter And The Doctrine Of Fair Use

from the why-do-fans-need-approval? dept

Harry Potter author JK Rowling has something of a reputation for being a bit overly aggressive when it comes to enforcing intellectual property rights around her characters -- though, years ago, we noted that she wasn't bothered by fan fiction... assuming it wasn't pornographic or for sale in China. Once again, Rowling is being quoted as saying that fan fiction is okay and can be posted on the web without fear of a visit from the mean old copyright lawyer, as long as the fan fiction makes it clear that it's not by Rowling and doesn't involve pornography or racism. However, it does seem a bit silly that people feel they need "permission" to write fan fiction. For years, fan fiction has always been a sign of just how popular a fictional world has become. It's the sort of thing that should automatically be encouraged, rather than having people waiting for the official "go ahead" that an author won't prosecute. In most cases, it seems likely that fan fiction is perfectly legal anyway -- but we now live in such an age that ridiculous copyright lawsuits are everywhere you look, and the simple act of celebrating fictional characters you like somehow requires "permission." For a law that's supposed to encourage creativity, it seems to have only encouraged legalistic thinking. What a shame.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..