AfterDawn: Tech news

JK Rowling wins Harry Potter copyright case

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 11 Sep 2008 14:23 User comments (24)

JK Rowling wins Harry Potter copyright case The US District Court has ruled in favor of Harry Potter author JK Rowling which was suing author Steven Vander Ark over his publication of the encyclopedia "Harry Potter Lexicon." Rowling had called the publication "wholesale theft of her work" and it appears a judge agreed.
Judge Robert Patterson says the encyclopedia would cause "irreparable harm" to Ms. Rowling as a writer and with his decision the book is now blocked from publication, permanently.

Additionally, Ms. Rowling and the publisher Warner Bros Entertainment received 3,850 in damages.

"I went to court to uphold the right of authors everywhere to protect their own original work,"
Rowling added.

"The court has upheld that right."

RDR Books, who was publishing the Lexicon admitted it was disappointed with the decision but is considering "all of its options."

The publisher did add however that "we are encouraged by the fact the court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop the publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works."

Judge Patterson agreed that reference materials are generally useful but that Vander Ark took too much of Rowling's work.

"While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled,"
he said. "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide".

Previous Next  

24 user comments

111.9.2008 16:02

You have to laugh at a woman who is a billionaire , obsessively suing every minor infringement relating to Harry Potter when the reality is that everything she wrote is a complete hybrid of Lord of The Rings and 4th Form at Mallory Towers

Harry Potter = Frodo
Ron = Sam
Hermione = Galadriel
Dumbledore = Gandalf
Voldemort = Sauron (both exist as shadows unable to take a physical presence and are known as the dark lord )
Malfoy = Saruman
Dementors = Black Riders / Nazgul
Fred & George Weasley = Pippin and Merry
The Philospher's Stone = The One Ring
Azkaban = Mordor
Hogwarts = Rivendell

amazes me that the executors of Tolkien's estate didn't sue the thieving copying bimbo herself.

211.9.2008 16:33
Dragula96
Inactive

^^ ditto...

311.9.2008 16:47
tavek
Inactive

This chick makes more $ in 1y then I will ever see in a lifetime, thnkfully she spent some on her plastic surgery unless her new hubbie performed it himself.

411.9.2008 18:09

@domie, I agree with you a lot. She is the richest woman in the world as far as I know and she sues some creative Joe for 3,850?

That amount is pocket change to her, she probably spends that much on the tip for her stylist for a single haircut.

511.9.2008 19:53

she sues everybody - it's ridiculous

- she sues this guy for writing a reference book in honour of her work
- she sued in India because someone made a temporary replica of Hogwarts for a kids exhibition fair
- she sued the New York Daily News for tens of millions for publishing 1 extract from the book a day before its release
- she sued ebay in india for ebook copies of one of the HP books


and then she has the balls to say " I took no pleasure at all in bringing legal action and am delighted that this issue has been resolved favorably,it has caused me a lot of stress and suffering Ms. Rowling said in a statement

damn that b*tch has some nerve doesn't she ?

611.9.2008 22:07
atomicxl
Inactive

You guys really hate artists don't you?

First, no song is worth even 99 cents and all music is crap and should only be stolen or given away for free.

Then it was every movie made is crap and should be stolen. Buying movies is stupid and all writers and actors should burn in hell for all eternity if they think people should pay to watch movies.

Now its all authors should have their work stolen from them or they are greedy money hungry bitches...

The arts in America is doomed. When did this radical change happen?

And its always the people who worked hard to make something that you enjoy that are greedy. Its never the people who enjoy the content yet steal it and refuse to pay for it that are greedy. Your boss should tell you that its greedy of you to expect a paycheck... and then turn around and say you're the best employee the company has ever had.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 11 Sep 2008 @ 22:11

711.9.2008 22:43

Well Komerade bend over and pucker up because if you do not have the balls to say no and see what they are doing to rights of people and the quality of media, then you deserve the anal probing they are more than willing to give you.


I would say its not a breach of copy right its an encyclopedia, whats next Websters CPing the dictionary format and suing everyone else who dares make a fcking dictionary.

CP owners are becoming arrogant nobility given to much power by the kings and queens of the lands who are generally placed into power by the people that elected them.

811.9.2008 23:25

Originally posted by atomicxl:
You guys really hate artists don't you?

First, no song is worth even 99 cents and all music is crap and should only be stolen or given away for free.

Then it was every movie made is crap and should be stolen. Buying movies is stupid and all writers and actors should burn in hell for all eternity if they think people should pay to watch movies.

Now its all authors should have their work stolen from them or they are greedy money hungry bitches...
Well I believe part of the problem we have with artists, authors etc. is the fact that most of the ones who complain about their work being stolen and sue people have already made, and continue to make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year or more.

Yet, despite making millions or more, J.K. Rowling's fortune was tallied in March of this year by Forbes and was reportedly over $1 billion, yet she sues a man for 3,850 or ~$6,740.

I believe this is one of the reasons for people attacking her on this situation.

911.9.2008 23:49

Quote:
Yet, despite making millions or more, J.K. Rowling's fortune was tallied in March of this year by Forbes and was reportedly over $1 billion, yet she sues a man for 3,850 or ~$6,740.


Does anyone actually think that she sued for the money? She sued to protect her work. As for copying LOTR, the same could be said of Tolkein ripping off Charles Dicken or William Shakespeare. It's the structure of stories and nothing more...you have a protagonist, antagonist etc. If she was really greedy she wouldn't have stopped writing the Potter stories and released a few more books for a few more billion.



1012.9.2008 0:06

Quote:
Quote:
Yet, despite making millions or more, J.K. Rowling's fortune was tallied in March of this year by Forbes and was reportedly over $1 billion, yet she sues a man for 3,850 or ~$6,740.


Does anyone actually think that she sued for the money? She sued to protect her work. As for copying LOTR, the same could be said of Tolkein ripping off Charles Dicken or William Shakespeare. It's the structure of stories and nothing more...you have a protagonist, antagonist etc. If she was really greedy she wouldn't have stopped writing the Potter stories and released a few more books for a few more billion.

But we are not talking about stories which by themselves can not be CP'd, the characters and names of things can be as long as hey are not to generic.(I believe ucus managed to sue into the ground anyone who used lazer blaster/lazer gun and light saber and anything with anyhting that used a light saber like weapon in it at least he did for a few years. )

I mean whats next suing wikipedia for having names and info of CP characters!

Theres comes a point you can not sue over generic information.

1112.9.2008 1:12

While it is true that she sued to protect her work, had it been for money she could have sued for much more.

However, I wonder were the small sum came from as opposed to just saying "I don't want you to sell your book" and that's it.

1212.9.2008 4:25
susieqbbb
Inactive

You know this is stupid the guy wrote a encyclopedia not a story book.

Man is j.k homeless oops i mean Rowling really need more money.

1312.9.2008 9:45

Originally posted by atomicxl:
You guys really hate artists don't you?
.
not at all - I believe artists' work should be copyright protected but not in the case of a thieving b*tch who plagiarised virtually everything she ever wrote , made a billion and then dedicates her remaining years on the planet to suing those who do the exact same thing she is guilty of - copyright theft and at the same time says how stressful it is for her.

i'm sure you'll agree there is a huge difference between "all artists" and this one in particular .

some more blatant copyright theft from Rowling

1) Harry Potter's invisibility cloak - remember the elven cloaks that Galadriel gave to Frodo and Sam in Lothlorien that made them invisible ?

2) Frodo Baggins is an orphan and taken in by his Uncle Bilbo - HP is an orphan taken in by his Uncle Vernon

3) Dumbledore is a name JRR Tolkien gave to clouds of ferocious insects that terrorised hobbits and can be read about in any of the Vocablary Encylopaedias on his work - it also just happens tobe the name of the Wizard headmaster of Hogwarts - coincidence ?

4) The Giant Spider in "The Chamber Of Secrets" - anyone remember "Shelob" in the Return Of The King

5) Tom Bombadil is a gamekeeper on the edge of the dark forest as the Hobbits begin their journey - he rescues them and takes them to his cottage on the edge of the forest
- and where does hagrid live and what does he do ?

How has this Rowling fraudster got away with all this without anybody suing her ?

1412.9.2008 9:48

She has been sued. Unfortunately it was a case of whoever threw most money at it won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_dispu...y_Potter_series

1512.9.2008 10:32

Yup but there are 2 interesting points raised by that Wikipedia article

1) It shows in grim detail what a nasty self obsessive piece of work she really is
2) The executors of the Tolkien estate have never sued her - and they have more claim, reason and money than anyone else to bring the b*tch to her knees , whether with or without the support of Warner Bros who masquerade as her guardian angels.

This is my favourite quote from the shameless b*tch herself though .......

Rowling has never openly credited any single author with inspiration, saying, "I haven't got the faintest idea where my ideas come from, or how my imagination works. I'm just grateful that it does, because it gives me more entertainment than it gives anyone else

just how she sleeps at night is beyond me - without a conscience undoubtedly

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Sep 2008 @ 10:37

1612.9.2008 12:21

The rights to Lord of the Rings were sold years ago for a pittance, Tolkien's estate has no say over what happens with it, whereas they still control the rights to the Hobbit.

1712.9.2008 13:46

CP creators are more offten than not, not the CP owners the CP owners are rich conglomerates that bully the public for every penny they can get.

1812.9.2008 14:01
varnull
Inactive

Thing is.. the difference. Christopher Tolkien doesn't believe he is owed a living from his fathers work. he completed The Silmarillion because he wanted his fathers work to be finished and published for people who wanted to read it. I believe (probably like him) that all copyright should die with the creator of the work, but that's another matter. Why do the children, grandchildren and businesses think they should continue to benefit from the works of the dead and buried? I don't agree.. Once the creator of the work is gone that should be the end of it.. no 75 or 95 years.. copyright expires upon death of the author/creator.

Does this work take "too much" or is it something which will inspire people to obtain and read the Potter books.. I have a feeling the judge while agreeing that maybe there was a little too much taken verbatim from the books the small.. nay minimal.. amount of the settlement shows how insignificant he feels the damage to be. Far less than the mpaa/riaa want for you sharing one track or a film clip with somebody.

1912.9.2008 14:07

Originally posted by varnull:
Thing is.. the difference. Christopher Tolkien doesn't believe he is owed a living from his fathers work. he completed The Silmarillion because he wanted his fathers work to be finished and published for people who wanted to read it. I believe (probably like him) that all copyright should die with the creator of the work, but that's another matter. Why do the children, grandchildren and businesses think they should continue to benefit from the works of the dead and buried? I don't agree.. Once the creator of the work is gone that should be the end of it.. no 75 or 95 years.. copyright expires upon death of the author/creator.

Does this work take "too much" or is it something which will inspire people to obtain and read the Potter books.. I have a feeling the judge while agreeing that maybe there was a little too much taken verbatim from the books the small.. nay minimal.. amount of the settlement shows how insignificant he feels the damage to be. Far less than the mpaa/riaa want for you sharing one track or a film clip with somebody.
The definition of CP needs to change and it needs to focus on "for profit" venues that duplicate the work more than what most call "refrance marital".

CP should be for the owners to protect them agisnt their "peers" leaving the public to share it if the publishers wont maintain its publication. Hell as long as there is no profit motive one should be able to distribute anything they want!


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

2012.9.2008 16:50

I watched a really bad B movie mythological horror movie the other day " Troll " ( 1986 )

It was released 2 years before Rowling began writing her first book - the name of the boy who battles the troll in the movie ? - Harry Potter.

Rowling's response ? " ermm the name Harry Potter comes from a combination of an old school friend ( Ian Potter ) and my favourite boy's name "Harry"

Yeah right Rowling - we believe you 100 %

2114.9.2008 17:51

This is great news for Mrs JK and i love hearing this happening because she deserves that.

The only question i have in regards to this article is why did we post it on AfterDawn seeing how aD is a technology based website.

2214.9.2008 22:53

Quote:
Originally posted by atomicxl:
You guys really hate artists don't you?

First, no song is worth even 99 cents and all music is crap and should only be stolen or given away for free.

Then it was every movie made is crap and should be stolen. Buying movies is stupid and all writers and actors should burn in hell for all eternity if they think people should pay to watch movies.

Now its all authors should have their work stolen from them or they are greedy money hungry bitches...
So what you are saying, that because of all the money she makes that moral principles no longer matter, and that she should just forget about it because she is so rich? That's why so much is stolen on the internet! The attitude is, that it doesn't matter, while in fact it is still against the law, and people should be punished for breaking those laws! It's not like she sued for an exorbitant sum! She could have sued for a lot more according to the laws, but she didn't!

theonejrs

Well I believe part of the problem we have with artists, authors etc. is the fact that most of the ones who complain about their work being stolen and sue people have already made, and continue to make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year or more.

Yet, despite making millions or more, J.K. Rowling's fortune was tallied in March of this year by Forbes and was reportedly over $1 billion, yet she sues a man for 3,850 or ~$6,740.

I believe this is one of the reasons for people attacking her on this situation.

2315.9.2008 2:04

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by atomicxl:
You guys really hate artists don't you?

First, no song is worth even 99 cents and all music is crap and should only be stolen or given away for free.

Then it was every movie made is crap and should be stolen. Buying movies is stupid and all writers and actors should burn in hell for all eternity if they think people should pay to watch movies.

Now its all authors should have their work stolen from them or they are greedy money hungry bitches...
So what you are saying, that because of all the money she makes that moral principles no longer matter, and that she should just forget about it because she is so rich? That's why so much is stolen on the internet! The attitude is, that it doesn't matter, while in fact it is still against the law, and people should be punished for breaking those laws! It's not like she sued for an exorbitant sum! She could have sued for a lot more according to the laws, but she didn't!

theonejrs

Well I believe part of the problem we have with artists, authors etc. is the fact that most of the ones who complain about their work being stolen and sue people have already made, and continue to make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year or more.

Yet, despite making millions or more, J.K. Rowling's fortune was tallied in March of this year by Forbes and was reportedly over $1 billion, yet she sues a man for 3,850 or ~$6,740.

I believe this is one of the reasons for people attacking her on this situation.

I agree! But if you think about it, it wasn't like she made money on it. It cost her more for a lawyer than the judgment. BTW I reall laughed about the Lord of the Rings someone mentioned earlier. Time to change his meds! LOL!!

theone

2427.5.2009 17:52
sidian3
Inactive

It's very obvious that most of the people who disagree with the ruling are NOT authors. When a writer spends 20+ years of her life working on a storyline, it is HER. It is every part of her. It is her entire life. I am a writer and I agree 100% with the ruling and I would sue each and every person who every tried to use my characters and the lives I created for them. I think the amount she got was minimal. It certainly did not teach the thief a lesson since it sounds to me he will try other avenues to steal her work. He is obviously way too lazy and lacks the creativity to write his own books. Anyone who disagrees with this ruling lacks the understanding of what actually goes into being a writer and the lives of the characters.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive