Rowling's Publisher Sued for Plagiarism
Tuesday June 16, 2009
A strange lawsuit by the estate of Adrian Jacobs alleges that "substantial parts" of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the fourth book in J.K. Rowling's worldwide bestselling series, were cribbed from the late author's 1987 fantasy short story The Adventures of Willy the Wizard, No. 1: Livid Land.
The suit was filed against Bloomsbury Publishing, the British publishers of Rowling's books. Scholastic, the American publishers, and Rowling herself, are not yet named in the £500 million lawsuit put forward by Jacobs's son and grandson.
Bloomsbury responded that the suit was without merit, asserting that Rowling had never heard of Jacobs or his book until the claim was first floated in 2004 by a lawyer for Jacobs's son.
The nature of the alleged plagiarism is conceptual, not textual, involving ideas like wizard contests and wizards traveling on trains. "Both Willy and Harry," representatives of the estate claimed in a statement, "are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures."
In terms of Harry Potter, this refers to Harry's completion of the second task, which involves deciphering a message underwater in the prefects' bathroom with the help a a ghost and another competitor, and then rescuing hostages from the merpeople.
The suit, as Bloomsbury's statement points out, fails to identify any specific text in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire based on wording from Jacobs's book. Meanwhile, what appears to be the official website for Willy the Wizard makes a considerable effort to make the book seem like Harry Potter, highlighting terms like "empowered child wizard" and the like, despite the fact that Willy is full-grown adult. According to the site, only 5,000 copies were printed, and the sequel went unpublished.
Most Harry Potter infringement suits a taken by Rowling and her publishers, not against them, as in Rowling's action last year against RDR Books over the print version of The Harry Potter Lexicon (now resolved), earlier lawsuits blocking translations of the Russian take-off Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, and so on. But Jacobs's family might perhaps have taken closer to heart the lesson of what happened to Nancy Stouffer, whose allegations a decade ago that Rowling had stolen the word "Muggle" from Stouffer's works resulted in a fine of $50,000 plus legal fees against Stouffer for suing in bad faith, levied in 2004.
The suit was filed against Bloomsbury Publishing, the British publishers of Rowling's books. Scholastic, the American publishers, and Rowling herself, are not yet named in the £500 million lawsuit put forward by Jacobs's son and grandson.
Bloomsbury responded that the suit was without merit, asserting that Rowling had never heard of Jacobs or his book until the claim was first floated in 2004 by a lawyer for Jacobs's son.
The nature of the alleged plagiarism is conceptual, not textual, involving ideas like wizard contests and wizards traveling on trains. "Both Willy and Harry," representatives of the estate claimed in a statement, "are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures."
In terms of Harry Potter, this refers to Harry's completion of the second task, which involves deciphering a message underwater in the prefects' bathroom with the help a a ghost and another competitor, and then rescuing hostages from the merpeople.
The suit, as Bloomsbury's statement points out, fails to identify any specific text in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire based on wording from Jacobs's book. Meanwhile, what appears to be the official website for Willy the Wizard makes a considerable effort to make the book seem like Harry Potter, highlighting terms like "empowered child wizard" and the like, despite the fact that Willy is full-grown adult. According to the site, only 5,000 copies were printed, and the sequel went unpublished.
Most Harry Potter infringement suits a taken by Rowling and her publishers, not against them, as in Rowling's action last year against RDR Books over the print version of The Harry Potter Lexicon (now resolved), earlier lawsuits blocking translations of the Russian take-off Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, and so on. But Jacobs's family might perhaps have taken closer to heart the lesson of what happened to Nancy Stouffer, whose allegations a decade ago that Rowling had stolen the word "Muggle" from Stouffer's works resulted in a fine of $50,000 plus legal fees against Stouffer for suing in bad faith, levied in 2004.
Comments
On the willythewizard.com website there aappear to be many similarities to Harry Potter.Yet This book was published in 1987. Willy appears to be an older Wizard who remenisces about his boyhood when he didn’t know he was a wizard. You are right it appears that the claim is not about text but it says it is about plot which seems to be echoed in Goblet of Fire Let them have their day in court!It can’t be a light decision to sue JKR!!.Stouffer was sued by Rowling not the other way about. I think small authors often have their work taken and good luck to The Estate(who according to AP newswire)are bringing the action-not as you state the Family FP
I agree that it should be reviewed in court and not dismissed out of hand. The excerpts on the Willy site seem in my opinion to accentuate similarities in two stories about wizards, but sure, the big authors and publishers have huge advantages and small authors’ claims can get pushed aside. My understanding of the Stouffer case is that the author started to bring action but was preempted by Rowling’s action, which eventually resulted in a court decision that Stouffer’s accusations were unwarranted.
Anyone ever play the computer game *Simon the Sorceror*? Young British wizard-child blundering through his spells. Definitely some similarities.