Home  ›  Harry Potter Characters Read the Books Fanfic

Harry Potter Characters Read the Books Fanfic

Written By Tuesday, March 1, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series

Since showtime coming to wide discover in the late 1990s, the Harry Potter book series by J. K. Rowling has been the subject area of a number of legal disputes. Rowling, her diverse publishers and Time Warner, the owner of the rights to the Harry Potter films, have taken numerous legal actions to protect their copyrights, and also accept fielded accusations of copyright theft themselves. The worldwide popularity of the Harry Potter serial has led to the appearance of a number of locally-produced, unauthorised sequels and other derivative works, leading to efforts to ban or contain them.[2] While these legal proceedings take countered a number of cases of outright piracy,[3] other attempts have targeted not-for-profit endeavours and accept been criticised.[4]

Another area of legal dispute involves a series of injunctions obtained by Rowling and her publishers to prohibit anyone from distributing or reading her books earlier their official release dates. The sweeping powers of these injunctions have sometimes fatigued criticism from civil liberties and free speech campaigners and led to debates over the "correct to read".[5] [6] One of these injunctions was used in an unrelated trespassing case every bit precedent supporting the issuing of an injunction confronting a John Doe.[7]

Exterior these controversies, a number of particular incidents related to Harry Potter have also led, or almost led, to legal action. In 2005, a man was sentenced to four years in prison house after firing a replica gun at a journalist during a staged bargain for stolen copies of an unreleased Harry Potter novel, and attempting to bribery the publisher with threats of releasing secrets from the book.[8] Then in 2007 Bloomsbury Publishing contemplated legal activity against the supermarket chain Asda for libel after the company defendant them of overpricing the last Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[9]

Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement against Rowling [edit]

Nancy Stouffer [edit]

In 1999, American author Nancy Kathleen Stouffer alleged copyright and trademark infringement by Rowling of her 1984 works The Legend of Rah and the Muggles (ISBN 1-58989-400-6) and Larry Potter and His All-time Friend Lilly.[i] The primary basis for Stouffer's case rested in her own purported invention of the give-and-take "Muggles", the name of a race of mutant humanoids in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, and Larry Potter, the title character of a serial of activity booklets for children. Larry Potter, similar Harry Potter, is a bespectacled boy with dark hair,[ten] though he is not a graphic symbol in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles.[xi] Stouffer also drew a number of other comparisons, such as a castle on a lake, a receiving room and wooden doors.[10] Portions of Rah were originally published in booklet form in 1986 by Ande Publishing Company, a company founded by Stouffer together with a group of friends and family.[12] Ande Publishing filed for defalcation in September 1987 without selling any of its booklets in the The states or elsewhere.[12] Rowling has stated that she first visited the U.s.a. in 1998.[13]

Rowling, along with Scholastic Press (her American publisher) and Warner Bros. (holders of the serial' film rights), pre-empted Stouffer in 2002 with a suit of their ain seeking a declaratory judgment that they had not infringed on whatever of Stouffer'south works. The courtroom establish in Rowling's favour, granting summary judgment and holding that "no reasonable juror could discover a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the two parties' works".[12] During the grade of the trial, it was held that Rowling proved "past clear and convincing evidence, that Stouffer has perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of fraudulent documents as well every bit through her untruthful testimony",[12] including changing pages years after the fact to retroactively insert the word "muggle".[12] Her case was dismissed with prejudice and she was fined $l,000 for her "pattern of intentional bad religion conduct" in relation to her employment of fraudulent submissions, every bit well as existence ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiffs' legal fees.[12] Stouffer appealed the determination in 2004, merely in 2005 the Second Excursion Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.[14] In 2006 she stated on her website that she was planning to republish her books and was entertaining the possibility of some other lawsuit against Warner Bros., J. G. Rowling and Scholastic Press.[15]

The Legend of Rah and the Muggles is out of print. In early 2001, it was published by Thurman House, LLC, a Maryland publishing company.[12] Thurman House, formed by Ottenheimer Publishers to republish the works of Nancy Stouffer, was closed when Ottenheimer ceased operations in 2002 after filing for bankruptcy.[16] Stouffer later asserted that any copies of the book published by Thurman House are unauthorized because the publisher failed to accolade its contractual obligations to her.[fifteen]

The Wyrd Sisters [edit]

In 2005, Warner Bros. offered CAD$five,000 (later CAD$50,000) to the Canadian folk band the Wyrd Sisters for the rights to utilise their name in the film version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.[17] Rowling had written a scene in the novel in which a band called the Weird Sisters appeared at a school dance, and the grouping owned the rights to the proper noun in Canada. Withal, the offer was declined, and instead the ring undertook a legal activity confronting Warner Bros., also as Jarvis Cocker of Pulp and Jonny Greenwood and Phil Selway of Radiohead, who were to play the band in the motion picture.[18] All plans to use the name in the picture show were afterward abandoned. Despite that decision, the Canadian band filed a CAD$xl-million ($39 1000000) lawsuit against Warner in Ontario court. In connexion with the lawsuit, the band brought an interlocutory injunction hoping to prevent the release of the pic. The injunction application was dismissed.[nineteen] The entire adapt was dismissed in November 2005. In June 2006, an Ontario judge decreed that the band pay Warner Bros. CAD$140,000 in legal costs, describing their lawsuit as "highly intrusive".[19] [xx] The group stated that they planned to entreatment the conclusion.[19] Jarvis Cocker initially wished to release an album of "Weird Sisters"-themed music with collaborators including Franz Ferdinand, Jack White and Iggy Popular, but the projection was dropped as a upshot of the lawsuit.[twenty] The Wyrd Sisters reported expiry threats from irate Harry Potter fans.[21] As of March 2010, the lawsuit has been settled out of court, the details sealed.[22]

Adrian Jacobs [edit]

In June 2009, the estate of Adrian Jacobs, a children's author who died in 1997, sued Rowling's publishers, Bloomsbury, for £500 million, accusing her of having plagiarised "substantial parts" of his piece of work in writing the novel Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.[23] In a statement, Jacobs'due south family claimed that a scene in Goblet of Burn was substantially similar to Jacobs's book The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: Livid State: "Both Willy and Harry are required to piece of work out the exact nature of the principal task of the competition which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in gild to detect how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a customs of half-human being, half-animal fantasy creatures."[23] They also launched a joint suit confronting Rowling and her publishers. Bloomsbury countered with a argument of its own, saying that "This claim is without merit and will be defended vigorously," and that Rowling "had never heard of Adrian Jacobs nor seen, read or heard of his book Willy the Wizard until this claim was first made in 2004, almost vii years after the publication of the commencement Harry Potter book."[23] The Jacobs estate, driven past his son and grandson, have published a website with details and excerpts from the book, according to the Toronto Star.[24] In July 2010, the estate filed arrange against Rowling's American publisher, Scholastic, demanding that the company burn all copies of Goblet of Fire.[25] [26]

On 6 January 2011, the The states lawsuit against Scholastic was dismissed. The approximate in the case stated that there was not plenty similarity between the 2 books to make a case for plagiarism.[27] In the UK courts, on 21 March 2011, Paul Allen, a trustee of the Jacobs manor, was ordered to pay as security to the courtroom 65% of the costs faced by Bloomsbury and Rowling, amounting to over £1.5million, to avoid the merits being struck out. It was reported in The Bookseller [28] that Paul Allen has appealed against paying this sum. Every bit a condition of the entreatment, he paid £50,000 to the courtroom in May 2011.[29] The merits was formally struck out in July 2011 after the borderline for Allen'due south initial payment was missed.[xxx]

International publications [edit]

In 2002, an unauthorised Chinese-linguistic communication sequel titled Harry Potter and Bao Zoulong (Chinese: Simplified: 哈利波特与豹走龙, Traditional: 哈利波特與豹走龍, Hanyu Pinyin: Hālì Bōtè yǔ Bào Zǒulóng) appeared for sale in the People'due south Republic of People's republic of china. (In English-language media this was mistranslated every bit Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon.) According to translated excerpts, the book principally consists of the text of J. R. R. Tolkien'southward The Hobbit, only with most names changed to those of Harry Potter characters.[31] The volume was quickly recognised by media outlets as a simulated.[32] Rowling and Warner Bros. took steps to terminate its distribution.[31] Copies were briefly distributed effectually the world, including eastward-book copies traded on the Internet. In November 2002, the Bashu Publishing Firm, in the southwestern metropolis of Chengdu, agreed to pay a £one,600 (U.s.a.$3,400) fine and publish an apology in Prc'due south Legal Times for printing and distributing the novel.[33] As of 2007, the identity of the anonymous "author" has not been discovered. The opening of Harry Potter and Bao Zoulong, translated into English, was included in several news manufactures.[33] Equally of 2007, information technology is estimated that in that location are xv million copies of fraudulent Harry Potter novels circulating in China.[34] In 2007, Rowling'south agents, the Christopher Little Literary Agency, began to discuss the possibility of legal proceedings concerning a false version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that appeared in China x days before the actual book'due south publication.[34]

In 2003, legal force per unit area from Harry Potter's publishers led an Indian publisher to stop publication of Harry Potter in Calcutta by Uttam Ghosh; a work in which Harry meets figures from Bengali literature.[35] [36] The instance was settled out of court.[37]

Also in 2003, courts in the Netherlands prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, the commencement of Dmitri Yemets' popular Russian series about a female amateur wizard. Rowling and her publishers sued, arguing that the Grotter books violate copyright law. Yemets and his original Moscow-based publishers, Eksmo, argued that the books constitute a parody, permitted under copyright.[two] The Dutch courts ruled that the books did non constitute parody and thus were not immune to be sold in the netherlands.[38] Later that year, as the Dutch translation Tanja Grotter en de magische contrabas was all the same legal in Belgium, the Flemish publishers Roularta Books decided to print 1,000 copies (and no more) in order to let people decide whether it was plagiarism, hoping that nether those circumstances Rowling and her publishers would not sue.[39] Rowling did non sue, simply equally there was a lot of interest in the book (Dutch people could purchase the volume by postal order from another Flemish publisher, Boekhandel VanIn) it was shortly sold out.[39] The books continue to be published in Russia and take spawned several sequels.[40]

In August 2008, Warner Bros. filed a lawsuit against production company Mirchi Movies due to the similarity of the title of their Bollywood moving picture Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors to the Harry Potter film series. Mirchi Movies CEO Munish Purii claimed there is very piffling similarity betwixt Hari Puttar and any elements in the Harry Potter franchise, and explained that Hari is a popular Indian name, while "puttar" means "son" in Punjabi, although Indian versions of Harry Potter also translate Harry's name to Hari Puttar.[41] The motion picture was delayed until tardily September. Warner Bros. claimed that the title was confusing, but Mirchi Movies claimed they registered the proper name in 2005.[42] On 24 September 2008, the court in Delhi rejected Warner Bros.' claim, saying that Harry Potter readers were sufficiently able to distinguish between the two works. They also accused Warner Bros. of delaying the action, since they were enlightened of the motion picture as far dorsum equally 2005.[43]

Other accusations of infringement [edit]

In 2000, in the lead-up to the release of the first Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone; Warner Bros., the film's distributor, sent a series of letters to owners of Harry Potter fansites, enervating that, to protect their copyright, they hand over their domain names.[4] The action resulted in negative publicity for the company when the 15-year-former webmaster of the British fansite harrypotterguide.co.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland was reduced to tears by what were described past her father every bit unnecessary bully tactics. Eventually the corporation backed downward in the face of media opposition and alleged that, equally the site was non-commercial, it did non violate the trademark.[iv] [44]

In their May 2004 issue, the US Army publication The Preventive Maintenance Monthly, which instructs soldiers on how to maintain their equipment, featured a spoof comic based on Harry Potter, featuring a character named Topper who resided at Mogmarts School under Professor Rumbledore.[45] The publication received notice from Rowling'southward lawyers that the comics breached copyright, though the magazine's editor, Ken Crunk, claimed that no violation had taken identify, as "[t]he drawings do not look like any of the characters from Harry Potter".[45] After a give-and-take with Rowling's representatives, the magazine agreed not to use the characters once again.[46]

In 2004, Rowling and Time Warner launched legal actions confronting bazee.com, now the Indian branch of the online auction site eBay. The site had hosted illegally created e-books of Harry Potter, which Rowling had never agreed to exist published.[47] In 2005, Rowling warned her fans on her website that diverse "signed" Harry Potter memorabilia appearing for sale on eBay did not in fact use her signature. She urged her fans to protest eBay to prevent other children from beingness swindled.[48] In 2007, Rowling launched lawsuits confronting a number of users of the site,[49] obtaining a series of stay orders preventing them from selling her piece of work. However eBay claimed that in her dealings with the media, Rowling had falsely claimed that her injunctions had been against eBay itself.[50] In June 2007, eBay filed papers with the Delhi Loftier Court, alleging that Rowling had caused them "immense humiliation and harassment".[l] The Loftier Court circumvented the application, claiming that it could not make such a judgment until the example went to trial.[50]

In Oct 2007, Warner Bros. sued a group amalgam a façade during a Hindu religious festival in the Indian metropolis of Kolkata for ₹2 1000000 (United states$27,000), claiming that they had erected a behemothic replica of Harry Potter's school, Hogwarts, without their permission. Initial reports stated that, every bit the effort was not for profit, it did non violate Rowling's copyright.[51] The Associated Press claimed that the High Court of Delhi, where the petition was filed, immune the organisers to carry on with the temporary structure with an social club that the structure had to exist dismantled after the festival was over[51] and that the court refused to impose any bounty on the basis that the organisers were involved in a "non-profit making enterprise".[52] Even so, these statements were after retracted: the courtroom had in fact ruled in favour of Warner Bros., but no fine had been ordered, and Warner Bros. claimed that they had only requested a fine because such activity was necessary nether Indian law.[53] In November 2007, Rowling discussed the case on her website, listing the rumours that she had targeted a non-profit arrangement as "Toxic" and saying, "The defendants were not religious charities, and theirs was not a religious commemoration. On the reverse, it was a big-scale, commercial, sponsored result involving corporations that included a major Indian loftier street depository financial institution. The effect was, however, gear up while a Hindu festival was going on ... The court ruled that Warner Bros. rights had indeed been infringed, and that events such every bit the 1 in question would demand Warner Bros.' permission in the future. The courtroom also restrained all the defendants from any hereafter events infringing Warner Bros. rights."[54]

On 31 October 2007, Warner Bros. and Rowling sued Michigan-based publishing firm RDR Books to block the publication of a 400-page volume version of the Harry Potter Dictionary, an online reference guide to her work.[55] Rowling, who previously had a good human relationship with Lexicon owner Steve Vander Ark, reiterated on her website that she plans to write a Harry Potter encyclopedia, and that the publication of a like book before her own would hurt the proceeds of the official encyclopedia, which she plans to give to charity.[56] A gauge later barred publication of the book in whatever class until the case was resolved.[57] In their suit, Rowling's lawyers besides asserted that, as the book describes itself every bit a impress facsimile of the Harry Potter Lexicon website, it would publish excerpts from the novels and stills from the films without offer sufficient "transformative" fabric to exist considered a split piece of work.[58] The trial ended on 17 April 2008.[59] On 8 September 2008, the judge ruled in her favour, challenge that the book would violate the terms of fair use.[60] In Dec 2008, a modified (and shorter) version of Vander Ark's Dictionary was approved for publication and was released 16 Jan 2009 equally The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction.

In November 2007, The Scotsman reported that Rowling had threatened legal activeness against American computer programmer G. Norman Lippert for allegedly violating her intellectual holding rights by producing and publishing the online novel James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing, an unofficial and unauthorised continuation of the Harry Potter series. Written equally a fan fiction projection for Lippert's married woman and sons, the novel is set eighteen years subsequently the end of the terminal official instalment in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and describes the adventures of Harry Potter'southward son, James Sirius Potter, during his outset year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.[61] A specialist in intellectual property law at Strathclyde University commented that, "If an insubstantial character from a novel is taken and built up by another author in a new story, that tin can be a defence confronting copyright infringements."[61] Withal, after Lippert offered Rowling an advance re-create of the novel, Rowling dismissed her threat[62] and said she supported the novel and any others like it.[62] Lippert subsequently produced a sequel, James Potter and the Curse of the Gatekeeper.[62] Afterward the novel offset appeared online in early November 2007, some Harry Potter fans on the Cyberspace initially speculated that the site might be part of an elaborate viral marketing entrada for an official continuation or spinoff of Harry Potter, one either written or at to the lowest degree approved by Rowling herself.[63] On 9 November 2007, Rowling's agent Neil Blair denied that Rowling was in any way involved with the purported projection,[64] and Warner Bros., the studio which owns the rights to the Harry Potter film series, denied that the novel was in any manner connected to the official Harry Potter franchise.[65]

Legal injunctions [edit]

Boxes of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince awaiting delivery

Rowling and her publishers accept brought a series of legal injunctions to ensure the books' secrecy before their launch. These injunctions have drawn criticism from civil liberties campaigners over their potentially sweeping powers over individual freedoms.

In 2003, in an attempt to maintain secrecy over the impending release of the fifth Harry Potter volume, Harry Potter and the Social club of the Phoenix, Rowling and her publishers sought and received a groundbreaking injunction against "the person or persons who has or take concrete possession of a re-create of the said book or any office thereof without the consent of the Claimants".[vii] The ruling obtained, for the kickoff fourth dimension in British law, an injunction confronting unnamed or unknown individuals; before then, injunctions could just be obtained against named individuals. Lawyers Winterbothams noted that, "The new Harry Potter style injunction could be used if you lot expected a demonstration or trespass to have place, but which had not nonetheless begun, so long as you could observe a clarification for the people expected which the Court was satisfied identified 'those who are included and those who are non'".[7] The "Potter injunction" was later used against a army camp of Roma travellers.[7] In 2006, pharmaceutical visitor GlaxoSmithKline employed the injunction against bearding animal rights campaigners who had sent threatening messages to their investors.[66]

The series garnered more than controversy in 2005 with the release of the sixth book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, when a Real Canadian Superstore grocery store accidentally sold several copies before the authorised release date. The Canadian publisher, Raincoast Books, obtained an injunction from the Supreme Court of British Columbia prohibiting the purchasers from reading the books in their possession. A annotate past a media lawyer that "there is no human correct to read" led to a debate in the public sphere about whether free admission to information was a human right. Michael Geist, the Canada Enquiry Chair of Cyberspace and East-commerce Constabulary at the University of Ottawa, said in response, "The copyright law claim was specially puzzling. While copyright law does provide copyright owners with a basket of sectional rights, the right to prohibit reading is not among them. In fact, copyright law has very little to say virtually what people can exercise with a book once they have purchased information technology."[6] [67] Free-spoken language activist Richard Stallman posted a statement on his weblog calling for a boycott until the publisher issued an apology to the public.[five] Solicitors Fraser Milner and Casgrain, who represented Raincoast and formulated the legal argument for the embargo,[68] accept rebutted this, saying that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies but to the government, not to private litigation, and does not offer any protection of the right to read in any example, and the innocent purchasers of the Harry Potter book had no more correct to read information technology than if they had come up into possession of someone's secret diary.[69]

In 2007, Scholastic Corporation threatened legal activeness against two booksellers, Levy Home Amusement and DeepDiscount.com, for selling copies of the final novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, earlier its release date of 21 July. In an official statement, Scholastic appealed "to the Harry Potter fans who bought their books from DeepDiscount.com and may receive copies early requesting that they proceed the packages hidden until midnight on 21 July."[lxx] Customers who agreed not to read the volume received a special Harry Potter t-shirt and a $50 coupon for Scholastic's online store.

Blackmail [edit]

In June 2005, Aaron Lambert, a security guard at a volume distribution middle in Corby, Northamptonshire, England, stole a number of pages from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 6 weeks before its intended publication date. He was arrested a twenty-four hours later later negotiations to sell them to John Askill, a journalist from The Lord's day, turned violent. Lambert reportedly fired a shot from his imitation Walther PPK pistol, but Askill was unharmed.[71] At his trial the post-obit October, Lambert pleaded guilty to threatening Askill and to attempting to bribery Harry Potter's publishers, Bloomsbury.[72] In January 2006, Lambert was sentenced to iv and a half years in prison.[8] In November 2011, in her testimony before the Leveson Research, Rowling said that the Sun had attempted to "blackmail" her into a photo-op in return for returning the stolen manuscript.[73]

Accusation of libel [edit]

In July 2007, a dispute arose between Harry Potter's British publisher, Bloomsbury, and Asda, a British supermarket chain owned by the US corporation Wal-Mart. On 15 July, a week earlier the release of the last Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Asda issued a press release accusing Bloomsbury of unfairly fixing their prices. Asda spokesman Peter Pritchard claimed that Bloomsbury was "property children to bribe" and that, "[i]t seems like Bloomsbury need to do a quid-ditch as they have sent their prices up north on the Hogwarts Limited. By setting the recommended retail price at this level tin only exist seen [sic] as blatant profiteering on their office." Pritchard went on to say that Asda was acting to "champion the right of immature readers", and that the recommended retail cost was "twice the boilerplate kid's pocket money and £five more than than the average children'due south bestseller".[9] Asda had planned to sell the book equally a loss leader at £8.87 ($xvi.30), or half Bloomsbury'south recommended retail price of £17.99 ($33.00) and below the wholesale price of £9.89 ($18.00).

2 days later, Bloomsbury responded that the claims were "potentially libellous" and that:

Asda's latest attempt to draw attention to themselves involves trying to leap on the Harry Potter bandwagon. This is just another example of their repeated efforts of appearing as Robin Hood in the face of controversy about their worldwide group, which would suggest they are perceived equally more akin to the Sheriff of Nottingham. Loss leaders were invented by supermarkets and have nothing to do with Bloomsbury Publishing or Harry Potter and we deeply regret having been dragged into their toll-wars.[9]

Bloomsbury stated that the price hike of £1 from the previous Harry Potter novel was due to it having been printed on recycled paper. "There is a price to exist paid by the consumer for environmental best exercise", a Bloomsbury spokeswoman said.[74]

Bloomsbury CEO Nigel Newton said, "[They have] unleashed a very disingenuous, self-interested attack on us. This is complete nonsense and all they're doing is grandstanding as they've done on the cost of aspirin and bread. They endeavour to turn it into a big deal as though it'southward a moral cause for them, but it'due south zilch of the kind."[74]

That same twenty-four hour period, Bloomsbury cancelled all Asda'due south orders of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, or roughly 500,000 copies, citing unpaid bills from the company totalling £38,000 ($70,000) for unauthorised returns of the 6th Harry Potter volume.[74] "The two matters are completely unrelated", said a Bloomsbury spokeswoman, "We decided today that nosotros couldn't risk having arrears with anybody."[9] The dispute had been "going on a while – going on for weeks actually."[75] Asda responded that Bloomsbury owed them £122,000 ($224,000) ("for pulping and for other book trade issues and work we have done for them"[74]) and that, as one company spokesman claimed, "Information technology just seems funny that after nosotros expose the potty Potter cost hike, Bloomsbury are trying everything they tin to end kids getting concur of Harry Potter at a price they can afford."

Asda paid the pecker inside hours, and claimed that Bloomsbury would be in alienation of contract if it did non let the store to sell its books. However, Bloomsbury claimed that the cake on Asda'due south orders was even so in place as, "Unfortunately, we've now had to initiate a significant libel claim confronting them. That matter will accept to be dealt with. If they desire their 500,000 books, they'll accept to come and brand peace with the states ... It could exist good news for all their disappointed customers, because they don't have to go to a soulless Asda shed to buy their book and they tin can share the magic of Harry Potter at an contained or specialist bookstore instead."[74]

Upon receipt of Bloomsbury's legal letter, Asda responded that, "At that place is nothing defamatory in our press release. Everything in that location is factual. It is a commentary on how nosotros see things."[74] Said another Asda spokesperson, "If they don't supply us with the books, it will take a massive implication and [be] a breach of contract – only I don't recall they will do that."[74]

Later that day, however, Asda released a statement retracting its original comment: "We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for [our] press release dated xv July and withdraw our statement. Nosotros wait forrad to a good human relationship with Bloomsbury going forward, including selling the latest Harry Potter book from 00:01 am BST on Saturday 21 July and many other Bloomsbury books in the future".[76] In response, Bloomsbury lifted the block and Asda was immune to sell its books. The original press release was then expunged.[77]

The rationale behind Asda's initial printing release remains uncertain. Neill Denny, commentator for thebookseller.com, opined that "the whole episode has the whiff of a badly-conceived PR stunt by ill-briefed senior executives at Asda out of touch with the subtleties of the book world."[78] Ralph Baxter of Publishing News concurred: "For Asda ... information technology may be seen equally mission accomplished, a high-risk strategy to maximise publicity for its Harry Potter offer rewarded with tv set, radio, Net and newspaper coverage. And the association of Asda with low prices has no doubt been entrenched in a few more minds."[79]

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b "Potter author zaps court rival". CNN. 19 July 2002. Archived from the original on 29 June 2007. Retrieved 11 March 2007.
  2. ^ a b "Rowling seeks 'Grotter' ban". BBC News. 13 March 2003. Archived from the original on vi November 2018. Retrieved 31 March 2006.
  3. ^ "Simulated Harry Potter novel hits China". BBC News. iv July 2002. Retrieved 11 March 2007.
  4. ^ a b c McCarthy, Kieren (21 Dec 2000). "Warner Brothers bullying ruins Field family Xmas". The Annals . Retrieved iii May 2007.
  5. ^ a b Stallman, Richard (2005). "Don't Purchase Harry Potter Books". stallman.org. Retrieved 13 March 2007.
  6. ^ a b Geist, Michael (17 July 2005). "Harry Potter and the Right to Read". michaelgeist.ca. Retrieved 12 October 2007. Geist, Michael (xviii July 2005). "Appeared in". The Toronto Star . Retrieved 26 September 2008.
  7. ^ a b c d Sir Andrew Morritt V.C (2004). "Hampshire Waste Services Ltd v. Intending Trespassers upon Chineham Incinerator Site". Loftier Courtroom of Justice (Chancery Division) Ch D. Retrieved 23 Baronial 2008. (kept at: Oxford Heart for Higher Pedagogy Policy Studies)
  8. ^ a b Oliver, Mark (xix January 2006). "Human jailed for Potter theft". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 23 May 2007.
  9. ^ a b c d Reynolds, Nigel (17 July 2007). "Asda barred from selling seventh Harry Potter". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
  10. ^ a b "Muggle Versus Wizard". The Washington Mail service. 28 March 2001. Archived from the original on 18 May 2007. Retrieved xi March 2007.
  11. ^ Italie, Hillel (xix September 2002). "'Harry Potter' Prevails In Courtroom". CBS News. Retrieved viii May 2008.
  12. ^ a b c d e f g Scholastic, Inc. v. Stouffer 221 F. Supp. 2nd 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
  13. ^ "All Things Considered: Harry Potter". NPR Radio. 3 December 1998. Retrieved 3 September 2008. (Rowling interview)
  14. ^ Scholastic Inc. v. Stouffer, 81 F. App'x 396 (second Cir. 2003)
  15. ^ a b Stouffer, Nancy. "realmuggles.com". Archived from the original on 28 October 2007. Retrieved eighteen October 2007.
  16. ^ "Ottenheimer Closing Down". Publishers Weekly. 17 June 2002. Archived from the original on 15 July 2011. Retrieved 19 September 2008.
  17. ^ "Winnipeg'due south Wyrd Sisters However Fighting Harry Potter". Nautical chart mag. vii April 2006. Archived from the original on five April 2009. Retrieved 23 September 2008.
  18. ^ "'Wyrd Sisters' cannot stop Harry Potter". Canadian Dissemination Corporation. 4 September 2005. Archived from the original on 27 May 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2008.
  19. ^ a b c "Wyrd Sisters continue Harry Potter boxing with studio". The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 3 July 2006. Archived from the original on seven May 2007. Retrieved 23 Dec 2007.
  20. ^ a b Humphreys, Adrian (ane July 2006). "Winnipeg folk band that took on Harry Potter ordered to pay $140,000 courtroom costs". The National Post. Archived from the original on 16 October 2007. Retrieved three September 2008.
  21. ^ Collins, Leah (four August 2007). "Wyrd Sisters go on fighting the good fight, fan mail or non". The Vancouver Dominicus. Archived from the original on 29 September 2015. Retrieved 26 September 2008.
  22. ^ Lambert, Steve (2010). "Wyrd five-twelvemonth courtroom battle over Harry Potter movie ends with secret settlement". Winnipeg: Canadian Press. Archived from the original on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 28 March 2010.
  23. ^ a b c "Rowling didn't plagiarise". Reuters. 2009. Archived from the original on 19 June 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
  24. ^ Lesley Ciarula Taylor (18 February 2010). "J.K. Rowling sued for plagiarism". Toronto Star . Retrieved 20 July 2010.
  25. ^ Sloan, Karen (2010). "It's Harry Potter and the Allegation of Plagiarism". The National Law Journal . Retrieved 15 July 2010.
  26. ^ "J.K. Rowling Accused of Stealing Ideas from 1987 Children's Wizard Volume". Archived from the original on 3 July 2015. Retrieved 3 July 2015.
  27. ^ "Harry Potter plagiarism instance dismissed". BBC. 7 January 2011. Retrieved 16 April 2015.
  28. ^ The Bookseller Trustee of Willy the Wizard Makes Appeal over Court Costs (29 April 2011)
  29. ^ The Bookseller, 24 May 2011
  30. ^ "Harry Potter plagiarism claim struck out". The Guardian. 18 July 2011.
  31. ^ a b Eimer, David (nine November 2005). "Beatrix Potter court victory deals blow to China's publishing pirates". Independent on Lord's day. London: Independent News and Media Limited. Archived from the original on 31 Jan 2009. Retrieved 6 August 2007.
  32. ^ "Fake Harry Potter novel hits Cathay". BBC News. 4 July 2002. Retrieved 8 January 2011.
  33. ^ a b Legal magic spells win for Harry in China Oliver August and Jack Malvern, The Times, 2002-11-02 Retrieved on: 2007-09-25
  34. ^ a b Howard W French (31 July 2007). "What is the seventh Potter book called in Red china?". International Herald Tribune . Retrieved ane August 2007.
  35. ^ Wu, Tim. "Harry Potter and the International Social club of Copyright." Slate. Friday 27 June 2003. Retrieved xi May 2009.
  36. ^ Sutton, William (12 October 2007). "Who won the race to translate 'Harry Potter'?". The Times. London. Retrieved 21 May 2009.
  37. ^ Subramanyam, Chitra; Nagchoudhury, Subrata (2003). "Pirates Potter Around Kolkata". The Indian Limited . Retrieved twenty July 2010.
  38. ^ "Rowling blocks Grotter release". BBC News. 3 April 2003. Retrieved 27 March 2007.
  39. ^ a b 'Tanja Grotter' wel in België te lezen Archived 20 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Nieuws.nl, 2003-09-25. Retrieved on 2008-09-25 (in Dutch)
  40. ^ "Tanya Grotter title list". Tanya Grotter official site. Archived from the original on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 25 September 2008. (in Russian)
  41. ^ "Republic of india's "Hari Puttar" caught in Harry Potter spell". NewsDaily. 27 August 2008. Retrieved seven September 2008.
  42. ^ Vaswani, Karishma (12 September 2008). "Court delays Puttar film release". BBC News . Retrieved xiii September 2008.
  43. ^ Sinanan, Anil (25 September 2008). "Harri Puttar free to cast its spell at Indian box-part". The Times. London. Retrieved 25 September 2008.
  44. ^ McCarthy, Kieren (fifteen December 2000). "Warner Bros backs downwardly on Harry Potter Web site". The Register . Retrieved iii May 2007.
  45. ^ a b "Army magazine draws Potter comparisons". BBC News. 7 Feb 2005. Retrieved viii September 2007.
  46. ^ Alvarez, Lizette (9 February 2005). "Arts, Briefly; Harry Potter Crosses Wands With the U.S. Army". The New York Times . Retrieved 12 September 2008.
  47. ^ Malvern, Jack (26 February 2007). "Potter author sues eBay over pirate books". The Times. London. Retrieved 8 September 2008.
  48. ^ Rowling, JK (vii September 2005). "Due east-Bay Users Once Again". jkrowling.com. Archived from the original on 24 September 2008. Retrieved viii September 2008.
  49. ^ Lombardi, Candace. "Harry Potter author fights e-volume fraud on eBay". c:cyberspace. Retrieved 27 March 2007.
  50. ^ a b c Metz, Cade (8 June 2007). "JK Rowling badmouths eBay". The Register . Retrieved 8 September 2008.
  51. ^ a b "Rowling sues Indian festival for edifice replica of Hogwarts Castle". Agence France-Presse. 11 October 2007. Archived from the original on 20 Oct 2007. Retrieved 12 October 2007.
  52. ^ Harish V Nair, 'Pottermania defeats Rowling at Salt Lake', Hindustan Times, Kolkata Edition, 2007-10-thirteen
  53. ^ "Correction: Festival-Harry Potter story". Associated Printing. 17 Oct 2007. Retrieved 16 Nov 2007.
  54. ^ Rowling, JK (2007). "Rubbish Bin: J K Rowling demands 2 million rupees from religious charities in India". jkrowling.com. Archived from the original on xvi November 2007. Retrieved 16 Nov 2007.
  55. ^ Caruso, David B. (ane September 2007). "Rowling Sues to Block Harry Potter Book". ABC News. Archived from the original on 2 November 2007. Retrieved 1 November 2007.
  56. ^ Rowling, Joanne (31 Oct 2007). "Companion Books". jkrowling.com. Archived from the original on 3 November 2007. Retrieved 1 November 2007.
  57. ^ "Row delays Harry Potter Lexicon". BBC News. 10 Nov 2007. Retrieved 16 November 2007.
  58. ^ Slater, Dan (18 April 2008). "Terminal (For Now!) Reflections on the Harry Potter Trial". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved 26 September 2008.
  59. ^ "Rowling begs judge to block book". Diversity. Associated Printing. 17 April 2008. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
  60. ^ "U.South. judge halts unofficial Harry Potter lexicon". Reuters. 8 September 2008. Retrieved 9 September 2008.
  61. ^ a b Ross, Shan (xix November 2007). "Rowling goes Potty over The states bid to mail service Harry's son's story on web". The Scotsman . Retrieved 19 Nov 2007.
  62. ^ a b c "On Eve of James Potter Sequel, Harry Potter fan Fiction Heats upwardly: Unlikely Author Poised to Keep the Story Alive". PRWEB. 2008. Retrieved twenty July 2010.
  63. ^ Schliebs, Mark (9 Nov 2007). "Web abuzz with Harry Potter sequel rumours". Archived from the original on 9 Nov 2007. Retrieved ix November 2007.
  64. ^ Maughan, Shannon (ix Nov 2007). "RDR Books Agrees to Delay Potter Title". Archived from the original on xiii February 2008. Retrieved 28 March 2008.
  65. ^ CHEESER (nine Nov 2007). "Elderberry'due south Crossing, James Potter, Book 8, RIP". Archived from the original on 11 November 2007. Retrieved nine November 2007.
  66. ^ Tench, Dan (23 May 2006). "Animal extremists can no longer hide behind a web of secrecy". The Times. London. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
  67. ^ Malvern, Jack (13 July 2005). "Reading ban on leaked Harry Potter". The Times. London. Retrieved 11 October 2007.
  68. ^ "Important Notice: Raincoast Books". Raincoast Books. 25 August 2005. Archived from the original on 18 October 2007. Retrieved 27 October 2007.
  69. ^ Grossman, Barbara; Milrad, Aaron; Na, Annie (2005). "Understanding the Harry Potter Injunction: Protecting Copyright and Confidential Data" (PDF). Fraser Milner and Casgrain. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
  70. ^ "Scholastic volition take action against Harry Potter distributors". Reuters. eighteen July 2007. Retrieved 18 July 2007.
  71. ^ "Baby-sit admits to Harry Potter theft". BBC News. 13 October 2005. Archived from the original on 24 January 2008. Retrieved 23 May 2007.
  72. ^ "Potter volume thief admits threats". BBC News. 20 December 2005. Retrieved 23 May 2007.
  73. ^ Richard Allen Greene (2011). "J.K. Rowling chased from domicile past press, she says". CNN. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  74. ^ a b c d e f thou Rushton, Katherine (17 July 2007). "Bloomsbury: Asda must make peace". thebookseller.com. Archived from the original on 26 August 2007. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
  75. ^ "Asda Apologises following Potter Volume Row". Uk News Lifestyle Extra. 17 July 2007. Archived from the original on xiii July 2011. Retrieved 1 Baronial 2007.
  76. ^ Jones, Philip (17 July 2007). "Asda apologises to Bloomsbury". thebookseller.com. Archived from the original on iii October 2007. Retrieved ane August 2007.
  77. ^ Warden, Graeme (17 July 2007). "Harry Potter and the Asda Apology". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
  78. ^ Denny, Neill (17 July 2007). "Opinion: Asda's climbdown". thebookseller.com. Archived from the original on xx August 2007. Retrieved ane August 2007.
  79. ^ Baxter, Ralph (2007). "The Groovy Stand up-Off". Publishing News Online. Archived from the original on xiii Nov 2007. Retrieved 1 Baronial 2007.

External links [edit]

  • Online transcription of the estimate'southward ruling in Rowling v. Stouffer
  • RealMuggles.com, Nancy Stouffer'due south web site
  • Tanya Grotter official website (in Russian)
  • harrypotterguide.co.uk Claire Field'south fansite
  • slate.com on the issues raised by Harry Potter parodies
  • Descriptions of various Asian illegal translations
  • 'Harry Potter plagiarism case struck out'

mercerhappely.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series

0 Response to "Harry Potter Characters Read the Books Fanfic"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel