Suit Filed Against Bloomsbury Regarding "Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire;" Bloomsbury States Claim is "Without Merit"
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
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.
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
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.
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! :)
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.
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.”
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.
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
If they expect to gain only popularity from the lawsuit, they will, unfortunately, probably get it.
Must…resist…urge….to read…..Willy the Wizard!
Cool the way Bloomsbury sent out a statement directly to Leaky
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.
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. :<
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!
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 EXACTLY DO THEY EXPECT TO TAKE GOF OF THE SHELVES!!?:
“here’s book 1, book 2, book 3 … and book 5.”
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.
Well, that’s so … so … Slytherin! ~ >:(
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.