Harry Potter Boffo at the Box Office and in the Courtroom

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The copyright infringement suit in the U.K. against Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling (see "TUOL" post 2/18/10) has been derailed by the claimant's inability to post the court-ordered security, Reuters reports.

The estate of children's book author Adrian Jacobs could not raise the 1.6 million pounds ($2,605, 653) required by the court as security against the cost of the case were it to proceed to trial, missing the Friday deadline to come up with the initial 800,000 pounds ($1,384,337). Jacobs was the author of the 32-page The Adventures of Willy the Wizard--No. 1 Livid Land (1987), which his heirs claimed was copied by Rowling in her 734-page Children's Book Award-winning Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, which has sold more than 400 million copies.

In January of this year, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York Shira Sheindlin found "no overlap" in dismissing the Jacobs' estate copyright infringement claim in Paul Gregory Allen, Trustee of the Estate of Adrian Jacobs v. Scholastic, Inc. (Case No. 10-CV-5335) (See "TUOL" post 1/11/11).

Meanwhile, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2 has thus far grossed more than $48 million domestically at the box office, thank you very much, so it's been a good month for Rowling.

Harry Potter Defeats Infringement Claim; Voldemort Next

Image via WikipediaU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Shira Sheindlin has dismissed a copyright infringement claim against the U.S. publisher of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire brought by the estate of the author of The Adventures of Willy the Wizard--No 1 Livid Land, Courthouse News Service reports.

In tossing the 13-page complaint in Paul Gregory Allen, Trustee of the Estate of Adrian Jacobs v. Scholastic, Inc. (Case No. 10-CV-5335), Judge Scheindlin found "no overlap" and "stark differences" in Rowling's epic 734-page Potter book, which garnered a Children's Book Award in 2000, and the late Jacobs' 32-page adventure written in 1987. In a copyright infringement analysis better-suited for the New York Review of Books, Judge Scheindlin declared Willy the Wizard "progresses as a series of fragmented and often tangential scenes" and is "entirely devoid of a moral message or intellectual depth." She also complained that Jacobs' story "offers only narration, not nuance."

In contrast, Judge Scheindlin gives Harry Potter a gavel's up review, describing it as "rich in imagery, emotive and suspenseful."  Moreover, she said the story is "highly developed and complex, and captures the attention of both children and adults for long periods of time."  Not to mention that you can read it while playing John Williams' rousing score in the background, which trumps the 16 pages of illustrations accompanying Willy the Wizard's adventure.

The heirs of Jacobs, who died insolvent in a hospice in 1997, also sued Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, Potter's English publisher, for 500 million pounds. (See "TUOL" post 6/17/09.)

Warner Bros. v. Magic X: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Image via Wikipedia
The Cantonal Court in Schwyz (Switzerland) is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether to ban a product registered in 2006 with Swissreg, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.


The product is the target of a copyright infringement claim by Warner Bros., overseer of the blockbuster Harry Potter film franchise, against manufacturer Magic X. The product? Harry Popper condoms.

As reported by the Website THR, Esq. (http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com) and the online edition of The Daily Telegraph (www.Telegraph.co.uk), the Popper prophylactic's package boasts a cartoon condom adorned in Harry Potter-type glasses holding a magic wand.

Warners is breaking out the big guns to try to cancel the condom company's trademark registration, but counsel for Magic X insists their product is wholly unrelated to author J.K. Rowling's money-making boy wizard.  The battle has been waged throughout Europe, with Warners having successfully prosecuted its claims in Austria and Germany to date.

Despite its opposition to copyright infringement, the health-conscious staff of "TUOL" advocates protected sex, even if it means wearing Harry Popper condoms, to avoid getting "hog warts."

Rowling Added as Defendant in Harry Potter Copyright Suit

Cover of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The estate of the late Australian author Adrian Jacobs has added author JK Rowling as a defendant in its copyright infringement suit against Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, publisher of Rowling's hugely successful Harry Potter series.

The suit (see "TUOL" post 6/17/09) alleges that Rowling's fourth book in the Potter series, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000), lifted liberally from Jacobs' book, The Adventures of Willy the Wizard No. 1: Livid Land.

Rowling denies ever hearing of Jacobs, and dismisses the accusations as unfounded and "absurd." The agent for the Jacobs estate described the dispute as a billion-dollar case, which is Voldemort reason why the matter wound up in litigation.

Sorry.

Potter Publisher: Plagiarism Charges Untrue

Bloomsbury Publishing, PLC, which publishes the popular Harry Potter series written by J.K. Rowling, has vowed vigorously to defend against a copyright infringement suit by the estate of author Adrien Jacobs seeking 500 million pounds.

Lawyers for the estate claim that the fourth book in Rowling's series about boy wizard Harry Potter, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," which has sold more than 400 million copies worldwide since its publication in 2000, reproduces substantial parts of Jacobs' "The Adventures of Willy the Wizard," a 36-page booklet published in 1987. Jacobs died penniless in a hospice in 1997.

Jacobs' estate claims that Jacob had sought the services of literary agent Christopher Little, who subsequently became Rowling's agent. Bloomsbury dismissed the lawsuit as unfounded, contends that Rowling never heard of Jacobs or his work, and notes that the central character of Willy the Wizard is not a young wizard, nor does the story revolve around a school for wizards.

One can only dread what the penalty for plagiarism might be at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.