Suit Filed Against Bloomsbury Regarding "Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire;" Bloomsbury States Claim is "Without Merit"
Legal
Posted by: sue
June 15, 2009, 03:02 PM
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 Comments
271 Points
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.
580 Points
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.
81 Points
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.
81 Points
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.
58 Points
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.
58 Points
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.
58 Points
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.
58 Points
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.
77 Points
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!
141 Points
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…
428 Points
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..
3554 Points
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…
1596 Points
it’s just a publicity stunt!
76 Points
Why NOW?
It’s like when Louis Vuitton banned Britney’s video that had their material ages later. So pointless.
umm yall need to look at this http://www.willythewizard.com/?fn_id=2&fn_mode=fullnews read what the enemy wrote
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.