Suit Filed Against Bloomsbury Regarding “Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire;” Bloomsbury States Claim is “Without Merit”

157

Jun 16, 2009

Posted by SueTLC

Today the estate of late children’s author Adrian Jacobs filed a suit against Bloomsbury Publishing citing copyright infringement involving Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling. In a press release, the estate claims that “JK Rowling copied
substantial parts of the work of the late Adrian Jacobs, The Adventures of
Willy the Wizard-No 1 Livid Land
, and that Bloomsbury in selling the books
have infringed the Estate’s copyright.” The Bookseller also notes the estate is
“seeking an injunction to prevent further sales of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and either damages or a share in the profits made by Bloomsbury. As noted by the Bookseller and the release, the claim says that “both books describe the adventures
of a main character, ‘Willy’ in Jacobs’ book and ‘Harry Potter’ in Rowling’s,
who are wizards, who compete in a wizard contest which they ultimately win.
Both Willy and Harry 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, ‘the merpeople’ in
Harry Potter. ”

Bloomsbury, UK publishers of the Harry Potter series, has now responded to this matter at length. In a response sent to Reuters and TLC, reps note “this claim is without merit and will be defended vigorously.” They continue:

The allegations of plagiarism made today, Monday 15 June 2009, by the
Estate of Adrian Jacobs are unfounded, unsubstantiated and untrue. JK
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
seven years after the publication of the first book in the highly
publicised Harry Potter series – Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s
Stone and after the publication of the first five books in the Harry
Potter series.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was written by JK Rowling
before approaching Christopher Little in 1995 and the book was
published in an essentially unaltered form by Bloomsbury in 1997.
Willy
the Wizard is a very insubstantial booklet running to 36 pages which
had very limited distribution. The central character of Willy the
Wizard is not a young wizard and the book does not revolve around a
wizard school.

This claim was first made in 2004 by solicitors in London acting on
behalf of Adrian Jacobs’ son who was the representative of his father’s
estate and who lives in the United States. The claim was unable to
identify any text in the Harry Potter books which was said to copy
Willy the Wizard.

Following correspondence between lawyers over a period of three months
in 2004 rejecting this claim, no more was heard about the claim until a
new set of solicitors put forward the claim on a significantly
different basis four years later in 2008 (eleven years after the
publication of the first Harry Potter book) but still without
identifying any text said to copy Willy the Wizard. These lawyers have
stated that they are acting on behalf of a firm of solicitors in Wagga
Wagga, Australia and on behalf of a West Midlands property developer
who was appointed in 2008 as Trustee of the Estate in order to bring
this claim. The claim is now made in respect of Harry Potter and the
Goblet of Fire, which was published in 2000.





197 Responses to Suit Filed Against Bloomsbury Regarding “Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire;” Bloomsbury States Claim is “Without Merit”

Avatar ImageHorcruxalej says: suck for JoAvatar ImageHorcruxalej says: i dont think they can win. Jo can afford the best lawyers there areAvatar ImageMuggleQueen says: Another lawsuit :( Btw is it bad that I lol'd when I saw the solicitors are in Wagga Wagga? *Ravenclaw thoughts ftw*Avatar Imagepotter2005 says: sounds totally pointless to me. what do they expect to achieveAvatar ImageKait says: Sounds like a desperate author trying to get attention and sell some copies of a failed book.Avatar ImageSally_Zaar says: There are some similarities as described above, but they seem pretty superficial. Loads of ideas get recycled in fiction these days, intentionally or otherwise. These claims will probably be defeated, it has certainly been a long time since GoF came out!Avatar Imagegirlatty1 says: justice for Jo!Avatar ImageCaracticus says: I should be able to sue Jo because of the following claims "This suit alleges that J.K. Rowling purposefully and with foreknowledge copied aspects of my store, where a "protagonist" does "something" that involves one or more human or non-human sentient beings, who are affected by the actions of other human or non-human sentient beings or the natural environment, in a manner that is entertaining to read about." Where's my cheque!!?!?!??!Avatar Imageiheartpink says: this whole thing sounds like a desperate scam to make money off of the harry potter franchise.Avatar ImageJaymie Brooks says: I don't see the point. "Both Willy and Harry 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, 'the merpeople' in Harry Potter." That sounds like a HUGE exaggeration, in my opinion. First off, just because they both used half-human characters doesn't make it plagiarism. That's just stupid. Also, the second task isn't the "main task" in the Goblet of Fire. That's one exaggeration of their part. Human hostages is commonly used in every form of literature, so that also doesn't make it direct plagiarism. If "Willy the Wizard" actually had merpeople (which the statement seemed to have skated around, predictably), involved Willy growing gills and swimming under a black lake to find the hostages, and in the end helping everyone get out safely, I would believe it. But the idea of saving hostages from half-human/half-animal fantasy creatures isn't enough to STOP SALES OF A HARRY POTTER BOOK. About a bathroom, I don't see that either. Unless Willy had a GOLDEN EGG with a MERMAID CLUE in it, I don't see how it's similar at all. This is all crazy. I hope Jo hires the best lawyers in the world and countersues the pants off of this guy.Avatar Image3 Weasly Twin says: I agree with Kait, it's just another desperate author. It's also interesting that the place in Australia is called Wagga Wagga. Didn't one of Lockheart's books say that there was a werewolf that he supposedly defeated from Wagga Wagga? Just something that I wanted to point out.Avatar ImageLivelaughlovepotter says: They could never take GoF off the shelves. Hello, Harry Potter protestors much? Anyway, I'm glad it didn't go through.Avatar ImageEcrof G says: waste of money...Avatar ImageAishMeist says: That guy should just get over the fact that Rowling obviously made the better books with a better thought out story!Avatar Imagejeannemcl says: JK isn't the only one who has never heard of this person.Avatar ImageSophie Treklemmer says: Hahahah xD That's just ridiculous! I hope the judge dismisses the case. It's just silly!Avatar ImageMidnightSun321 says: and i've never heard of it and that is saying sumthing coz i lurve books!Avatar ImageMidnightSun321 says: my 2nd comment is on pg 2 for sum reason. my first was on pg 3Avatar ImageClaraMoses89 says: I doubt this will get very far. No one has heard of this guy's little book and he found superficial similarities between the two books. He might try to sue, but he won't win. Avatar ImageClaraMoses89 says: I doubt this will get very far. No one has heard of this guy's little book and he found superficial similarities between the two books. He might try to sue, but he won't win. Avatar ImageKirsikka says: Sad what people try to do to get a peny or two.Avatar Imagesimos says: really !Avatar ImageBookworm Jen says: I just can't understand how the estate and its lawyers think this case has merit...perhaps the Wagga Wagga Werewolf is behind the whole thing! ;)Avatar ImageBell Dema says: ...Wagga Wagga exists? LOL. (Apologies to any Wagga Wagga residents, I do not intend to offend. But you have to admit, it IS a funny name).Avatar ImageDeanie says: "either damages or a share in the profits made by Bloomsbury." Well, we know what they want and it has nothing to do with the facts of the case.Avatar Imagehermyone08 says: Geez, another law suit. Jo's so going to win!Avatar ImageExAstrisScientia says: Oh my, this is silly. They're clearly just trying to garner some attention from this suit so they can sell more. The comparisons are so vague, it's ridiculous.Avatar Imagejanspach says: wow... this is just dumb. Avatar ImageThe Hollow says: I think this could get ugly if they choose to dig into this conspiracy theory. Here is an excerpt from the web site, listing concepts in the "book" that strangely mirrors some of Jo's concepts: "Adrian Jacobs’ work 'The Adventures of Willy The Wizard' was well received when it was sent around in manuscript form by his literary agent to potential publishers in 1987. Publishers were enthusiastic about his ideas, including: i. The Year of Wizards’ Contests - the central theme of The Adventures of Willy the Wizard. ii. stories and reminiscences of wizards college. iii. parallel worlds of real places and wizard magic. iv. wizard trains where Wizard Chess is played. v. the theme of alcohol brewing villages. vi. gambling wizards. vii. wizards prison. viii. wizards needing to earn money. ix. the central character of an empowered child wizard. x. Wizard special Hospitals" http://www.willythewizard.com/willy-the-wizard.html I'm scared for Jo. I hope she wins this case (especially since this book was a one-hit wonder in 1987). But I am concerned about the above concepts since Jo has similar things in her stories that made Harry Potter unique. I wish someone has really read this "book" in order to really see if these claims are false and ridiculous.Avatar Imageeaglephot says: GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD luck Adrian Jacobs Estate. You don't mess around with Jo, Harry Potter, WB or any of their publishers. I'll say it again... GOOOOOOOOOOD luck Adrian Jacobs Estate.Avatar Imageliv-wa says: Have fun trying to get HP off the shelves...I'm sure it will be a valiant attempt [: Sucks for Jo though...It just seems like one thing after another doesn't it?Avatar ImageCellar Door says: While obvious plagiarisms have happened, I tend to smirk when I hear that a fantasy author (or those in his place, in this case) accused another fantasy author of plagiarism. Each of them grow up reading the same fantasy and non-fantasy milestones (LotR, Narnia); you can't expect they haven't taken something from it - mostly unconsciously. This happened, happens and will always happen to every author: you just can't avoid influences. This is not a bad thing, but some people try to use it as an excuse to gain some money/popularity - like these "Willy the Wizard" people are doing. In my opinion, the similarities between Harry Potter and Willy the Wizard are just mere coincidences. JKR couldn't possibly know about this 36 pages long forgotten booklet. Most probably both authors were inspired by the same books.Avatar ImageEeyore says: OK, this author and book are so obscure that when I googled both, they didn't even show up. The only Adrian Jacobs that comes up is a South African rugby player. Did anyone actually have this book and read it? Not very likely.Avatar ImageLindsayC14 says: that sucksAvatar ImageDylanAqua says: How ridiculously lame... Avatar Imagesometimesremus says: *groan* another lawsuit! As though the first wasn't enough. Adrian Jacobs does not have anything on Jo though, so it doesn't seem that major. Grrrr... its just really frustrating when people accuse Jo of plagiarism! We need summat to decrease world suck... oh wait i got it! PCLUPINWILLOW!Avatar ImageLoony_Moony says: I agree with most people here. Its just a washed out, never before seen author, trying to sell his worthless book by critisizing one othe te best selling authors in the world. Jo could buy every lawyer in the world, and bribe the jusge by 1 million. Seriously. And who ever heard of him anyway? And aswell, I mean, the Goblet of Fire is an award winning book, sellng over 1 million copies, It would destroy the industry, and fans, to take it down from the shelves. But theres no need to worry.Avatar Imageisc_hector says: "Sounds like a desperate author trying to get attention and sell some copies of a failed book." Compleely agree, Kait... "JK isn’t the only one who has never heard of this person." jeannemclROAR shoots... jeannemclROAR scores! =D "That guy should just get over the fact that Rowling obviously made the better books with a better thought out story!" AishMeist, absolutely true.Avatar Imagepotions_mistress67 says: Willy the Wizard is only a booklet! Does anyone else find it amusing that the lawyers for Willy the Wizard are located in Wagga Wagga (Australia)? :DAvatar ImageGiant Fairy says: The fact that Jo can afford the best lawyers can t be it!!! If she really "rented the ideas" justice should win. But still, everything seems wagga wagga to meAvatar ImageGiant Fairy says: The fact that Jo can afford the best lawyers can t be it!!! If she really "rented the ideas" justice should win. But still, everything seems wagga wagga to meAvatar Imagepipkin3 says: First off - why wait 4 years after the publication of GOF? Secondly, no book nowadays can possibly be entirely original. Anyone can go into a book shop pick up a few random books and immediately see some comparisons between at least two or them! Its silly.Avatar ImageVerity Weasley says: I agree, it's the Wagga Wagga Werewolf out for revenge!Avatar ImageWeasleyRavenclaw says: r.i.d.i.c.u.l.o.u.s. why now when this wonderful book that has brought nothing but good to the world has been out for nearly 5 years?!?!Avatar ImageFresca says: Poor Jo,She doesn't deserve this happening again. it sounds like Jacobs Jr. is trying to make a fast buck with his lawsuit.Avatar Imagenatasha09 says: "This person is just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame." Do none of you idiots realize that Adrian Jacobs is dead? That's kind of "the late Adrian Jacobs" and his "estate" means. He left it in his will that he wanted Jo sued. I was going to comment to show my support for Jo, but Jesus Christ, you people are idiots.Avatar Imagemouse68 says: "Wagga Wagga exists?" Yes, it exists. It's a town in the state of New South Wales in Australia, down towards the border with Victoria. It's an aboriginal name meaning "place of many crows". I've been there several times and no, I didn't see any werewolves, lol.Avatar ImageLP Dantas says: Lawsuit? More like LOLsuit, am I right? ... I'm so sorry about that.Avatar Imagemewthree says: how many more people are going say she copied their book?Avatar Imagemaimiaa says: lame. JK Rowling ftw! Avatar Imagetehwinner says: I have just read all of the stuff from willy the wizard. I suggest you guys do too instead of getting all defensive. It honestly doenst look very promising for JK or Bloomsbury. There are some very interesting points of plagiarism I can see. Remember plagiarism isnt copying word for word its stealing ideas and original concepts. Avatar Imagetehwinner says: I have just read all of the stuff from willy the wizard. I suggest you guys do too instead of getting all defensive. It honestly doenst look very promising for JK or Bloomsbury. There are some very interesting points of plagiarism I can see. Remember plagiarism isnt copying word for word its stealing ideas and original concepts. Avatar ImageLuce_depp says: yes there are similarites, but i think it's just a coincidence....Avatar Imageharrypotterfan5324 says: why the hell would you sue Jo....you will lose and get all of the hp fans pissed at you....duhAvatar Imageericaeeks says: ...Seriously? This lawsuit should be thrown out.. Avatar ImageJustinbro says: THIS IS STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!Avatar ImageDobbyrox says: this is ridiculous..... willy the wizard??? merlin's pants....obviously someone is a little jealous... or just desparately looking for money =PAvatar ImageHeavenly_Horcrux says: This is rediculous.Avatar ImageDobbyrox says: this is ridiculous....willy the wizard??? Is that a picture book? merlin's pants...... obviously someone's a little jealous.... or just desperately looking for money =PAvatar ImageA Chocolate Frog says: This is absurd. Good luck to Jo, although I think it's a pretty clear-cut case.Avatar Imagemonicahp2009 says: It sounds like to me the family for the estate is up to this. They are want the money and this will bring out other family members who want to get paid.Avatar Imageweasleyalltheway says: nice try guys, but jo rowling had nothing nto do with that stupid willy the wizard booklet. it seems odd that harry potter is sucha huge phenomenon and they are just coming to realize the infringement now.whch year did GOF come out aain? because this claim was made WAY too lat, if it was 2004. thats when POA was in theatrs! now way, dude, no way ca they win this. its ludicrous.Avatar Imageloonymoonyy says: they beter not win i wanted a new set of hp books and if they win countless off new hp fans will never read gof its sad. and who the heck cares if the books are similar that willy thing just didn't become popular who cares. Avatar Imageloonymoonyy says: they beter not win i wanted a new set of hp books and if they win countless off new hp fans will never read gof its sad. and who the heck cares if the books are similar that willy thing just didn't become popular who cares. Avatar ImageKaramazov says: I do think people need to take note that the author of Wily the Wizard is in fact dead and it is not his rotting corpse that is doing the suing but his estate, so claiming that it is just some author trying to get notice for his books which must be poorly written due to his litigious nature is rather unfounded.Avatar ImageKaramazov says: I do think people need to take note that the author of Wily the Wizard is in fact dead and it is not his rotting corpse that is doing the suing but his estate, so claiming that it is just some author trying to get notice for his books which must be poorly written due to his litigious nature is rather unfounded.Avatar ImageKaramazov says: I do think people need to take note that the author of Wily the Wizard is in fact dead and that subsequently it is not his rotting corpse that is doing the suing but his estate, so claiming that it is just some author trying to get notice for his books which must be poorly written due to his litigious nature is rather unfounded.Avatar ImageKaramazov says: I do think people need to take note that the author of Wily the Wizard is in fact dead and it is not his rotting corpse that is doing the suing but his estate, so claiming that it is just some author trying to get notice for his books which must be poorly written due to his litigious nature is rather unfounded.Avatar ImageCzechmetz says: Gah, yet another lawsuit. The estate of Adrian Jacobs shall fail miserably, and how sad it is that they likely have no idea what they're getting into!Avatar ImageBwaySaint says: I've never heard of this Willy book... Not to discredit the author's estate, but there are a LOT of books with similarities - and why choose 4 years (and the 8) after GoF was originally published to make your claim??? Sketchy...Avatar Imagealegria35 says: they file a case after 4 years that the book has been released?.. which was not merited.. and now they are filing again?... plagiarism is a case that needs to be substantiated with evidence.. can they prove that the exact wording of the book (WW) is in HP?.. and what book is that? the article says it's a leaflet, who will read that? No offense meant, but will JKR really copy that? there are many books out there with the same plot lines, that are bestsellers, and yet the authors don't sue each other.. i think this is just a ploy to get money out of JKR.. Avatar ImageMera004 says: Wow. Just--wow. I'm sure I share similar opinions as mostly everyone else who's commented so far, but it seems like a very desperate attempt for money, and I don't think it's going to work. It's a really sad, pathetic attempt. =/ Bloomsbury is totally right--"this claim is without merit...Avatar Imagevandy says: it's just a publicity stunt!Avatar ImageBader says: Why NOW? It's like when Louis Vuitton banned Britney's video that had their material ages later. So pointless.Avatar Imagegmoney77786 says: umm yall need to look at this http://www.willythewizard.com/?fn_id=2&fn_mode=fullnews read what the enemy wroteAvatar ImageHorcruxalej says: sucks for them!!!!!!Avatar ImageCourtney Quirke says: wow. this is ridiculous. why is this just coming up?Avatar Imagecghambright says: LAME AND PATHETIC!! This isn' plagarism...These people are just trying to get some of JKR's money because they're grandfather clearly didn't leave them enough. You've got to be kidding me. They seriously need to look up Plagarism in the dictionary. Avatar ImageWON_TWO says: Waste of time....Avatar ImageMushMania says: HOW EXACTLY DO THEY EXPECT TO TAKE GOF OF THE SHELVES!!?: "here's book 1, book 2, book 3 ... and book 5."Avatar ImageZivlok says: Hey, guys, did you know there was a place called Wagga Wagga, Australia? I didn't! I think that's pretty awesome, actually. It's like Walla Walla, Washington! But with g's!Avatar ImageZivlok says: Hey, guys, did you know there was a place called Wagga Wagga, Australia? I didn't! I think that's pretty awesome, actually. It's like Walla Walla, Washington! But with g's!Avatar ImageMuggle-Born-Witch says: oh man. :-\ here we go... Avatar Imageelaphantluv34 says: That's ridiculous. I'm sure Bloomsbury will win. I've read plenty of books with the same main idea but tweaked. Avatar ImageStarlysh says: Oh goodness....people and their accusations of Jo stealing ideas. Again. >_>Avatar Imagewandmastercalum says: I just saw Katies comment and I totally agree with her. I mean if this book is apparently 36 pages then does it really matter? I bet JK hasn't even heard of the book till now... I sure haven't coz but either way the author sounds like a jerk and I would never read the book.Avatar ImageLinnyish says: Another pointless attempt to nick Jo's money.Avatar ImageDolemite says: I don't think so.Avatar Imagekbicprez says: I have no idea how the courts will view this suit, but it seems absurd to me. First the HP Lexicon and now this. If nothing else, I’m sure the sales of “Willy the Wizard” will rise. Maybe that’s all the plaintiff is after. I hope JKR is not consumed by this silliness. She must be wondering if this is a sign of her future.Avatar ImageLemonPrincess says: It continually amazes me to witness the depths of villainous absurdity people are willing to sink to in the hopes of making a fast (and unearned) buck. They should be so mortally embarrassed by bringing such a worthless suit against Jo that it is actually painful. All for the sake of some complete nonentity of a 36 page booklet. Puuuh-leeeze. I hope Jo laughed her head off at them.Avatar ImageLemonFaerie says: Whoops, forgot to log the daughter out first again! *Sigh* Sorry, *LemonPrincess*! "It continually amazes me to witness the depths of villainous absurdity people are willing to sink to in the hopes of making a fast (and unearned) buck. They should be so mortally embarrassed by bringing such a worthless suit against Jo that it is actually painful. All for the sake of some complete nonentity of a 36 page booklet. Puuuh-leeeze. I hope Jo laughed her head off at them." That was me, not *LP*! :)Avatar ImageMidnightSun321 says: ot sounds pointless and stupid. tbh i think it is for publicity for the guy. I dont think the guy would have any chance against Jo Rowling. *Go Jo!!!*Avatar Imagesachem says: I am repeatedly surprised by the greed of mankind, even though history would teach us not to be surprised considering how often this desire has - regrettably - been the principal cause of our actions. "...humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things which are worst for them." Avatar ImageLadyCake says: This is ridiculous. Thing is the author's not suing...he passed away. To be frank, I don't see how a 36 page book can compare in the details to goblet of fire. From reading the book, you can tell that Jo put alot into planning not only that book, but all of the novels in the series. I also think the person over the estate should be ashamed for doing this. Avatar ImageHudMug1712 says: oh like the bloke can copyright the form of a wizard contest allow this other bloke he is just another basatard trying to swindle jo out of some money remember the people who tried to get her done because their kids had ran head first into the platform 9 3/4 wall and got head injuries pfftt foolsAvatar Imagebeatlefreak9 says: If they expect to gain only popularity from the lawsuit, they will, unfortunately, probably get it. Must...resist...urge....to read.....Willy the Wizard!Avatar Imagekiwimci says: Cool the way Bloomsbury sent out a statement directly to LeakyAvatar Imagecheeserpleaser says: Ridiculous and frivolous lawsuits filling the legal systems of countries inhibits judges and governments from addressing and implementing justice where justice is due. It is a pity that someone filled with greed, coveting the prestige and wealth that J.K. Rowling has accrued, decided to resort to such a desperate gesture in order to secure fifteen minutes of celebrity. The argument he has employed in order to justify his "theory" that J.K. Rowling borrowed from him is incredible and absurd; one could find more obvious "plagiarisms" from other works of literature than that in the Harry Potter books if they tried hard enough.Avatar ImageAngeltown says: That is beyond ridiculous. Jo wouldn't, nor does she need to, copy from another author. It's just a shame she'll have to pay lawyers to defend her against this absurd allegation and squash this guy. :<Avatar Imagekingdom says: i agree completely with Jaymie Brooks, this is crazy! JK doesn't deserve this, her books are a gift to the world, and this is just, for better words, desperate excuse for some writer to make money. this is sad, and indeed, without merit. go ahead JK, fight back and win!Avatar ImageweB3now says: Sounds like the other author is trying to get some much needed press for Willy and trying to interest people enough to go have a read of their book to see how similar they are. It's a scam. They think it will pay off if they motivate people to check out the book. How stupid.Avatar ImageMushMania says: HOW EXACTLY DO THEY EXPECT TO TAKE GOF OF THE SHELVES!!?: "here's book 1, book 2, book 3 ... and book 5."Avatar ImagePeacemaker92 says: I find this rediculous and outrageous. It's amazing how low people will go all for the sake of greed. The fact that the book is only 36 pages long, and that the estate wants a share in Bloombury's profit just shows the absudity in this suit.Avatar ImageFereverto says: Well, that's so ... so ... Slytherin! ~~~ >:(Avatar ImageThe Hollow says: This brings concern since, if you go to the author's site for the 1987 book, there is a list of similar concepts that are supposedly in "Willy" like there is in "Harry, " like wizard chess, wizard school (wizard college), wizard trains and prisons, wizard hospitals...This could harm the Harry Potter series if Jo and Bloomsbury don't hire very good lawyers who can find loopholes.Avatar ImageHarryRichardsPotter says: that's outrageous! Jealousy is such a fitly thing, and everyone already has the book! You can bet on it that most houses have a copy in their house, don't bother silly people. Jo Rowling is the most achieved writer since William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, if you take a single penny she's rightly achieved, then you'll have SO many protestors fighting along side her. Take it from me, really do not bother.Avatar ImagegaylebathanHP says: *:)*Avatar ImageThe Hollow says: Interestingly, there's a children's book called "Willy the Wizard" by Anthony Browne that is about chimps. I wonder if that author has came in contact with a similar lawsuit. Avatar ImageGF_of_Seamus says: if this even makes it to court i will be sad. that other author has no life, stop grasping at straws. honestly. Avatar ImagePompleMoose says: This person is just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. I mean, there's no specific evidence that Jo copied off this guy, because, like this article said, 'still without identifying any text said to copy Willy the Wizard'. So, all these arguments their holding are useless! Like, if this 'Willy the Wizard' is accompanied by three other competitors, one being Russian, and one being a girl who is part Veela, and if 'Willy' turns into a mer-person using some sort of herb, THEN we have a logical argument they can debate about. Until they actually show evidence, this is just idiotic.Avatar ImageLisee_Lu says: How sad that having a wonderful inspiring series also inspires such a remarkable lack of decency from fellow writers (I use this term very loosely) Talk about grasping at straws! These people need to concern themselves more with the quality of their own writing, rather than dig in at Jo, making false claims to justify their own failed works.Avatar ImageLisee_Lu says: How sad that having a wonderful inspiring series also inspires such a remarkable lack of decency from fellow writers (I use this term very loosely) Talk about grasping at straws! These people need to concern themselves more with the quality of their own writing, rather than dig in at Jo, making false claims to justify their own failed works.Avatar Imagephoenixes are in ravenclaw says: Not another lawsuit....Jo never heard of this series or this person. I don't take her as a liar.. And... It took this person how long to make this allegation, it would make more sense if she filed it right after the book came out. BUT IT IS NOT LIKE SHE HASN'T HEARD OF JO. IF HER BOOKS WERE KNOW PEOPLE WOULD GO UP TO HER AND SAY "Hey, this Harry Potter plot is a lot like your book!" Desperate author. 'nuff said.Avatar ImagePompleMoose says: Also, if you look at the press release Sue linked, it says 'It is also alleged that, at the time in trying to get his work published, Mr Jacobs sought the services of a literary agent, Christopher Little, who also later became Ms Rowling's literary agent in the Harry Potter series.' I know what Alleged means, but I got a creditable deffinition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alleged Alleged 1 : asserted to be true or to exist 2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called 3 : accused but not proven or convicted That's another hole in the case. Can you tell I'm 1) Reaaally mad, and 2) Took debate this year?Avatar ImageLoony_Moony says: I agree with most people here. Its just a washed out, never before seen author, trying to sell his worthless book by critisizing one othe te best selling authors in the world. Jo could buy every lawyer in the world, and bribe the jusge by 1 million. Seriously. And who ever heard of him anyway? And aswell, I mean, the Goblet of Fire is an award winning book, sellng over 1 million copies, It would destroy the industry, and fans, to take it down from the shelves. But theres no need to worry.Avatar Imageascendancy33 says: A waste of time if you ask me, all that money and time from Jo dedicated to win this perposterious suit... this will definitely delay her next book (assuming she's writing one lol)Avatar Imagerealspace says: The fact that this assertion has been rejected by the courts in the past should be some indication of the merits of the suit. Bloomsbury should recoup their legal fees from the Jacob's estate. Avatar Imagebudgie says: There are a lot of literary wizard contests. A 36 page booklet could hardly contain enough for one chapter of the Harry Potter series.Avatar ImageProfessor Cassandra says: Wow, this is so ridiculous. There's no way Jo could possibly lose this one.Avatar ImageThe Hollow says: Interestingly, there's a children's book called "Willy the Wizard" by Anthony Browne that is about chimps. I wonder if that author has came in contact with a similar lawsuit. Avatar Imagedinahrose says: It's so disheartening to hear stuff like this! Ugh. Like Sally said above, tons of ideas get recycled in fiction. Tons of ideas get recycled in everything! Music, film, books, science...c'mon peeps! Stop trying to get Jo's money!Avatar ImageFresca says: Poor Jo! This should not be happening to her again. Her stories are fresh and funny, and alos have lots of mystery. Her books are not based on a 39 page booklet either!Avatar ImageFresca says: Poor Jo! This should not be happening to her again. Her stories are fresh and funny, and alos have lots of mystery. Her books are not based on a 39 page booklet either!Avatar ImageSirius B says: I think Jo should just admit she stole every single idea in every HP book from every other book ever written about a boy wizard (or a girl witch) or a witch/wizard school or magical tasks envolving help from friends to complete or good vs evil or adult wizards/witches being in close proximity to teen (or younger) witches/wizards or magical beasts or magic in any form because surely it was and is impossible to come with anything new or on one's own, In fact, there should be no further books written about anything because ALL ideas, plot lines, characters and place settings have most certainly been already written by someone somewhere. (In case you can't tell, I am being 100 % sarcastic - this is absolutely stupid and wrong!!!!) Avatar ImageAlatarielle says: "both books describe the adventures of a main character, 'Willy' in Jacobs' book and 'Harry Potter' in Rowling's, who are wizards, who compete in a wizard contest which they ultimately win." Oh, puh-lease...Avatar ImageSlytherinGirl911 says: Who the heck is this guy!? I've never even heard of this guy! He's probably just doing this because he wants her money. Stupid.Avatar Imagegooseywizard says: This is utterly rediculous! I agree with everyone that since Harry was required to do "something" and was assisted by "someone" there's no basis for a suit. Good job Bloomsbury sticking up for Jo. I also love how it took them 7 years to come up with the suit...gret job! If there really was any basis for the suit (which I don't think there is), it should have come out right away in 2000. People are greedy and stupid! Growl.Avatar ImagePewterWolf says: Sorry, but this seems weird. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire has been published for how long? The series (both book and film) has been popular for how long? To me, reading this feels like a way to make money off Jo's back. Am on Bloomsbury/JK Rowling side on this one! Avatar ImageJaymie Brooks says: This is just ridiculous. How can that idiot even attempt to get a HARRY POTTER BOOK removed permanently from bookshelves? The idea of it all is impossible to comprehend. Not only that, but GoF was probably the second most important book of the series. If they had removed Chamber of Secrets, then that's one thing, but there's no way they can cover up Voldemort's return and the introductions of a dozen new characters. It'd be interesting if the court did rule against Jo. Harry Potter fans would protest like mad while ebay users would raid boostores and buy the remaining copies of GoF by the truckload. Then WB would probably get involved, because there would probably be a lawsuit against their billion-dollar movie after Adrian Jacobs' money-hungry son succeeded in reaping the profits of the book. But anyway, this guy is mad for trying to mess with Bloomsbury, Jo Rowling, Scholastic, and the Warner Brothers. Altogether, they are worth probably tens of billions of dollars, which is enough to buy the best defensive team on the planet.Avatar ImageMaraudingDon says: Will those of you blindly commenting please go read the Bookseller.com article that is linked in the news story. Firstly, it is not "the author" bringing this case - it is his estate. He is dead, therefore clearly not trying to find fame and fortune as several have commented here. There is also more information that is being reported elsewhere, the main point being that it is alleged Christopher Little saw the manuscript at some point, before he agreed to represent the Harry Potter series. Whether this has any foundation in law is another matter, but some of the comments here about "washed out authors trying to sell their worthless books" are just as frivolous as the lawsuit would appear to be. Get the facts first before commenting. Avatar ImageBradyboy says: Wow, this case looks pretty pointless... I mean what is this supposed to achieve, its pretty obvious that JK is going to win this case. I just don't get it. This is just going to create more attention to people reading the Harry Potter Series. Remember, what happended when Umbridge tried to ban the Quibbler in Harry Potter 5? Avatar ImageHPNAIV says: I only have one question: WHO is this?! Geez. This case isn't even worth it.Avatar Imageselene21 says: Get a job instead of asking for money Avatar ImageParkinsonpansy says: What are the chances they will take hp off the shelves. But it must be impossible to be completely Original as a author. Anyone read this book?Avatar ImageGarden State Geek says: Fantasy themes (as in solving riddles or going through mazes) date to pre-history. There is nothing new under the sun. Who knows? They may just want a lump some so they can move on. Avatar Imagepottervfd says: A completely unnecessary (and frankly, stupid) lawsuit. Whoever is defending that estate doesn't stand a chance. @MuggleQueen: No, it's not bad that you lol'd when you read about Wagga Wagga. When I read it, I was like "OMG! Lockhart said he once defeated the Wagga Wagga Werewolf!!" Ravenclaws FTW!Avatar Imagelevi-OH-sa not levio-SA says: willy the wizard?!! lmao that's SAD...this is what happens when ppl WISH they had thought of HARRY POTTER...this is going nowhere, it is the lamest excuse for a lawsuitAvatar Imagechaos35 says: not another one. they can't possibly expect to win. and what they want is to stop the publication of GoF!! the nerve.. some people are so stupid. and adrian jacobs is dead. i bet he didn't want to sue jk. and then the people who manage his stuff want to sue her now for money.Avatar ImageMatea says: IDIOTS!!! They're all jelaous of Jo! come on...there is nothing out there like Harry Potter. its unique! God bless Jo!Avatar Imagesaffran says: Never heard of this Willy wizard. This is just another stupid and gready way for some to try to get a piece of somone elses hard work and deserved fame.Shame on them!Avatar ImageRita_Dumbledore94 says: They can't win..!Avatar ImageHagrid 713 says: nonesenseAvatar ImageCathrynOCamdentowne says: And people don't understand if you say JKR's not completely blessed to have brought us Harry -she's constantly got a pain in the neck (or some even less convenient body part) caused by someone with an agenda. In this case the original author of Willy the Wizard has "gone on" -it's not even the author complaining! This will sound a bit harsh, but I think it's a case of a father with, perhaps, some talent, survived by a son with none who thinks there wasn't enough in the will to suit his appetite. Perhaps he should consider working for a living. In any case, he's not terribly bright-the lawyers would get any benfit here, not the estate, and not the greedy son. In the meantime, booksellers will raise the price of GOF in case someone's silly enough to think they won't sell any more. If you accept the premise of this case, you might as well say that anyone who writes about a witch or a wizard should be sued to death by the estates of Tolkien and L. Frank Baum -ridiculous!Avatar Imagelumosshimmy says: Ok, those "extracts" from Willy the Wizard are ridiculous, and are in no way up the the standards of Jo's writing. Clearly their website was set up in such a way to make it look like Jo copied a lot of concepts, but if you read the exerpts, such as the "Wizard Chess" one, you see that the section titles are misleading. It looks like this author created a world with wizards and so called everything in that world "wizard something." The "wizard chess" just seems like a normal game of chess played between wizards - which, as we know, is very different fron Jo's awesome violent Wizard Chess. I don't think we should worry; the estate for "Willy the Wizard" clearly used titles and links on their site that sound like the Harry Potter world, but the parts from the stories are very different. And even if she were indirectly influenced by those books, her writing is far, far superior - it's the WAY she tells these stories that we all love! Jo and her lawyers are intelligent and have had to fight against this type of claim in the past; I'm sure they're well prepared to deal with it *again*. But I do hope that people stop with the lawsuits; she just finished a beautiful decade-long series, and she deserves a break!Avatar ImageErinM says: Sad attempt to draw monetary gains from a well known author, book series and publishing company. Countersue JKR! Maybe these nonsensical types of lawsuits will finally end! And by the way, a 36 page booklet vs. the building brick we know and love as GoF? Kind of a far stretch, don't you think?Avatar Imagehufflepuff_86 says: I just rolled my eyes. What can I say? It just seems ridiculous to me. *** @ MuggleQueen: If it is, then I'm just as bad as you, LOL.Avatar Imageweasleyalltheway says: nice try guys, but jo rowling had nothing nto do with that stupid willy the wizard booklet. it seems odd that harry potter is sucha huge phenomenon and they are just coming to realize the infringement now.whch year did GOF come out aain? because this claim was made WAY too lat, if it was 2004. thats when POA was in theatrs! now way, dude, no way ca they win this. its ludicrous.Avatar ImageT-Vey says: ^^ @lumoshimmy: Exactly! I read some of the extracts (on this website that was created sometime last year) and they did everything they could to make it sound like it was related to Harry Potter. For example they used a sentence that went something like: "Willy once went to wizard college and took a course in Palermo..." Then, they used that same sentence to make two titles- one for "Wizard College" and a whole separate title for "Wizard Student Courses". Another example that really upsets me was where Willy sees the Wizard Duke Louis with two cockatoos perched on his head. "He could see the cockatoos but no head" - they used that quote and titled the column "Apparently Headless Aristocrat" clearly to make a reference to Nearly Headless Nick. So sometimes, these names don't really have much text to back them up, but the TITLES may, unfortunately, try to put us in a bit of a panic. Must I go on? Each one of us could set up a logical explanation for all of these extracts! Another example that made me explode was: "His strange face with a central eye above a roman nose looked at Willy’s left ear." This extract was titled "Strange Eye Wizard" URRRRRGH! NO! Where does it say he has a strange eye?? Okay! Just one more thing: If you are writing about a magically community that lives in secret, (such as in Harry Potter) wouldn't it make sense that these people also had their own government, hospitals, prisons, and any other buildings and shops containing and varying in anything you can possibly think of???? GAAHHH! That is all.Avatar ImageCellar Door says: As far as I can see, the "Willy the Wizard" website was created with the deliberate intent to mislead people who aren't deeply in-the-know about the Harry Potter series: the captions of the extracts from the aforementioned website are extremely misleading, and the similarities are just few (most probably both Rowling and Jacobs were inspired by the same fantasy and non-fantasy milestones: The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, etc.). No author in the world can escape influences. No book is entirely based on original ideas. And it will always be like this. In my opinion this lawsuit is just a pretentious attempt at gaining some money/fame. And it will end up like the "Nancy Stouffer" lawsuit, with them desperately trying and trying to succeed in winning oer JKR.Avatar ImageLucilla says: Where do these people come from? Out of nowhere? How many years after GoF was published??Avatar Imagesirius17 says: wow like jo honestly needs influence from that book when shes already written three amazing books before it yeah rightAvatar Imagethewandofdestiny says: ah... another lawsuit... well, i hope jo will win. i know she can!Avatar Imagealegria35 says: i think too that the estate of the author just wants money from Jo.. which is really sad... GOF has been released 4 years before they file a case.. it it's really plagiarism.. right then and there they should have said it... and there are many books out there that are bestsellers, which have the same plot lines, and yet the authors don't sue each other... Avatar Imageemilylovegood731 says: Just because their book sucked, and JK did a better job does not mean that have to get their panties in a knot.Avatar Imagedtown says: um, are the excerpts on the 'willy' website real? because they honestly sound as if a first grader wrote them. and a relatively untalented first grader at that.Avatar ImageEmmaLouise says: ha ha, they "Jo-ed" their own website!! I just googled it and the server is down. Now nobody can read the rubbish they say on their own website :)Avatar Imagefelixfelicis11 says: Not another one of these. Not a single one of these claims by anyone has ever been proved true, what do they think they are going to acheive by doing this?Avatar Imagespicefan1978 says: I've never heard of this person or their work either. It's just someone else trying to get money off of JK. Because their book didn't sell or become as popular as JK's. I hope they don't get a dime!!!!!!!!!!Avatar ImageAmber_The_Odd says: There will always be people saying that JKR copied their ideas... They are just desperate for publicity and for money if they think that they can ACTUALLY sue JKR.Avatar ImageFleur-de- Lily says: It's sad what people try to do to get a peny or two. Avatar ImageLauraKeaton says: I love that it isn't even the author of this Willy the Wizard book who is bringing this lawsuit. It's his estate, which implies that he is dead and he has some very money grubbing relatives who can't make money with their own merits, so they decided to go after Jo in hopes that she might settle outside of court and throw some money their way. If this is plagerism based on their flimsy points, then Tolkien's relatives should get busy hiring lawyers, because they could sue about every fantasy author there is. Hopefully the judge has a few more ounces of common sense than the lawyers who brought the suit.Avatar ImageZelda_Zonks says: This is so silly. By the same token, the author of 'the Worst Witch' could claim that JKR 'copied' her work, simply because they are about a school of magic where students learn how to ride brooms and the main character saves the day at the end. But the similarities are so superficial, really they are nothing alike. Its so obviously all about the money. Pathetic.Avatar ImageBookwormjules says: The law suit is rather stupid. BUT people on here really need to stop insulting the author. Because the author has been dead for sometime, and isn't the one issuing the law suit. All of these law suits and "copy right" claims have come from the author's son and others who own what is left of the author's Estate and now hold the copy rights to his book. Also, fair warning, there are fake web sites out there about Willy the Wizard that have spyware or worse on them. Avatar ImageEmmaCMF says: To be frank, if the excerpts on the site are taken verbatim from the booklet, then I seriously doubt that Jo read them - I could feel my brain switching off within seconds. It's dreadfully written, with nonsensical words used for no reason other than to show off, and it actually made my brain hurt. What a load of tosh! I think my favourite example is 'Willy's temples throb'. Ooooooooh, Jo stole Harry's connection to Voldemort giving him a headache from Willy's famous 'Temple Pins', which cause him to 'sport his own special Adren-Lin' upon his brow ... Alas, I think this lawsuit is a much better work of fiction than the allegedly plagerised 'Willy the Wizard'.Avatar Imageele0206 says: "eleven years after the publication of the first Harry Potter book" I guess why they're claiming just now... Ah, money... Go Jo!! Defend your books!!!Avatar Imagestrikefreedom87 says: There's no way that the suit will go through! I've read an excert of the Adrian Jacobs books and they are complete rubbishAvatar ImageAgrippa1 says: Oh, please! This is just a blatant attempt to cash in on Jo's success - they're probably figuring that Bloomsbury can afford to buy them off in order to avoid bad publicity, but I'm sure they won't - Jo's publishers have proven they're willing to fight for her in court, and GoF isn't a copy of anything! It's unique, like all the HP books. Shame on that writer's son!Avatar ImageRita_Dumbledore94 says: They can't win..!Avatar ImageMoose_Starr says: Good grief ... JKR says she's never heard of this guy or his book ... has anyone? It's a weird way to seek publicity. Anyhoo, he claims JKR stole his idea of a wizard (so not a new idea, dude) that has to compete in a tornament (ditto) and win (hmm ditto again ... yeah, sensing a pattern emerging here)... this concept of The Hero's Journey is as old as dirt. :x *doh*Avatar ImageCellar Door says: As far as I can see, the "Willy the Wizard" website was created with the deliberate intent to mislead people who aren't deeply in-the-know about the Harry Potter series: the captions of the extracts from the aforementioned website are extremely misleading, and the similarities are just few (most probably both Rowling and Jacobs were inspired by the same fantasy and non-fantasy milestones: The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, etc.). No author in the world can escape influences. No book is entirely based on original ideas. And it will always be like this. In my opinion this lawsuit is just a pretentious attempt at gaining some money/fame. And it will end up like the "Nancy Stouffer" lawsuit, with them desperately trying and trying to succeed in winning over JKR.Avatar Imagemoglet says: Well I went and had a look at the extracts from Willy the Wizard. Hmm, they're not very good are they? I shouldn't think they would have inspired anyone to copy them but they seem to have given the extracts titles which are desperately trying to look as if they are just like elements of Harry Potter and therefore Jo must have copied them, but when you look at the extracts you have to wonder what planet they are living on if they think they can accuse Jo or Bloomsbury of plagiarism. Well all I can say is it's about time they started living in the real world, do they think we are all that stupid!Avatar ImageKay says: Ok who hires lawyers from Wagga Wagga to get Harry Potter off the shelves,seriously!Avatar ImageDiamondWings says: mmm... ddn't rd t!!! =PAvatar ImageERockHP7 says: JK and jeannemclROAR are one of the many people that haven't heard of this person or these booksAvatar ImageDobbyWinkyKreacher says: The same thing happened to Jk with the 'worst witch series' which were totally unfounded as these ones are. It is just jealousy. I have never heard of willy the wizard, and being a huge fan of such worlds, including the worst witch series, one would think willy the wizard would jump right out waiting to be read. I am so sick and tired of all the petty jealousy that is directed at JK. including the pathetic book burnings by some mentally deranged fundamentalists. Harry Potter will be part of our lives always. Avatar Imagefelixfelicis11 says: Not another one of these. Not a single one of these claims by anyone has ever been proved true, what do they think they are going to acheive by doing this?Avatar Imagebengtson_98 says: WOW... seriously this guys dead who gives a rat butt... Let it Go Harry Potter was a origianl idea and I'm sure JK has the manuscripts to prove that after many re-writes she got that final copy which may or may not have included some similarities.. Avatar Imagecesca says: ok seriously there are loads of books that are about people in contests and the main character winning them in order to save something or somebodies. honestly i think this is a pathetic attempt to get money, y would jo want to copy an infamous book idea, she probably didnt even read the book because like it said those books were sold to limited people. also jo had the plot line of the hp series planned way before the publishing of GOF and this lawsuit ( sorry about writing so much, just had a lot to say)=]Avatar Imagecesca says: i completely agree with everyone who is talking about the willy the wizard website, #1 who would want to read a book called willy the wizard, rele?... #2 that website takes so long to load that i don't think jo would have the patience to wait and look at this siteAvatar ImageLucia Meadows says: Where's Cleo when you need her?Avatar Imageeruwaedhiel says: I feel so bad for JK, first with the VanderArk deal and now this, gees. She wrote these amazing books and can't just sit back and enjoy for a while.Avatar ImageWingardium Leviosa says: Oh gosh... This unknown author will never win. Why even bother?Avatar Imageiceymoon says: what a waste of lawyer fees.. these people should have just saved themselves the work and embarrassment. similar general ideas is not the same thing as plagiarism. there is absolutely no proof that it is anything but coincidence.Avatar Imageelvaldo says: Hey Guys! If you wanna support J.K., please feel free to join this group! :) http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=95636620905 P.S. sorry for posting this message on another page... I thought it was this page I clicked. I have no idea how it happened =SAvatar Imagewizard says: It all sounds rather desperate, and is (in essence) not unlike the claim made against Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code". JK and Bloomsbury have nothing to fear.Avatar Imageerinvandzura says: it's unbelievable that people would even waste their time trying to sue the Harry Potter franchise, espescially with the intention of taking one of the books off the shelves. It would never happen and would just be a colossal waste of money!Avatar ImageAradion says: I think that the allegations about plagiarism are unfounded...I mean loads of ideas are recycled nowadays and even though there is a striking similarity between the two plots this is primarily due to this fact...It's like looking for a needle in a haystack! Definitely a lost cause to me... Avatar Imagefantasylover12001 says: Okay, clearly people need to go over the definition of plagerism again. Plagerism: copying stuff WORD FOR WORD and claiming it as your own. ideas that are similar? NOT PLAGERISM. If you want to go after every idea that is similar to yours then everyone would be suing everyone else. In fact, JKR could sue a whole bunch of books that are similar to hers that came out after HP. Why do people waist the courts time with this crap?Avatar ImagePrenz13 says: And Harry Potter still continues to be the number one mode to gain quick publicity despite TWO YEARS after the end of the series...I don't even understand why someone would even ATTEMPT to make such a case, it just sounds absurd!!Avatar ImageDadgrid says: J.K. was upset over the Nancy Stouffer business and I hope she doesn't let herself get upset over this. She shouldn't spend five minutes worrying about mosquitos like this. Let the lawyers handle it. Lots of authors have been sued by scavengers like this.Avatar Imagetehwinner says: Aradion your wrong Quote: pla⋅gia⋅rism   –noun 1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. 2. something used and represented in this manner. Note it IS NOT copying word for word its the use of the ideas I dont know what plagerism is though. Avatar Imagekayzz says: Ermmm...sounds like someone had way too much time on their hands to sit around and try to bring up old issues. The author is dead, right? God, find something else to do. Avatar ImageScarlette says: Ok, so I've read some things at their website (www.willythewizard.com). Whoever wrote the bio of Adrian Jacobs, it sounded pretty biased. And why is "Willy" sometimes spelled "Willie"? It sounds like they threw the whole website together in a few hours. I'm pretty sure they're stretching the picture and trying to take advantage....Avatar Imagewrockin_maddie says: PotterCast should have have one of those "Really?!" segments like on SNL. This would be one of those Really?! kind of moments.Avatar Imagex_Potter_Lover_Forever_x says: So, stupid and so, pointless. There might be similarities but she has never heard of this and frankly I don't think any of us have either! Justice for Jo! Avatar Imagewandmastercalum says: Its a waste of time and money. We'll never get another book if we have authors with 36 paged booklets are complaining of her copying when its nothing like it.Avatar ImageBrosia23 says: People just want a piece of the fame and fortune that they did not earn. Dan Brown had a similar issue when his fiction novel was brought under fire from the writers of a non-fiction work that offered similar theories. But as he used the work and noted the usage, he was free and clear of plagiarism because Dan's book fictionalized and embellished the theories that multiple people made about Mary and Jesus. Yeah for JK, boo on the attempted usurper!

Write a Reply or Comment

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.