Legal disputes over Harry Potter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since first coming to wide notice in the late 1990s, the Harry Potter book series by J. K. Rowling has engendered a number of legal disputes. Rowling, her publishers and Time Warner, the owner of the rights to the Harry Potter films, have taken numerous legal actions to protect their copyright, and also have fielded accusations of copyright theft themselves.[1] The worldwide popularity of the Harry Potter series has led to the appearance of a number of locally produced, unauthorised sequels and other derivative works, sparking efforts to ban or contain them.[2] While these legal proceedings have countered a number of cases of outright piracy,[3] other attempts have targeted not-for-profit endeavours and have been criticised as a result as too draconian.[4]

Another area of legal dispute involves a series of injunctions obtained by Rowling and her publishers to prohibit anyone from reading her books before their official release date. These injunctions have very sweeping powers and have occasionally drawn fire from civil liberties and free speech campaigners and sparked debates over the "right to read".[5][6] The powers afforded by these injunctions have even been used in subsequent cases unrelated to publishing.[7]

Outside 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 after an altercation with a weapon over stolen pages from an unreleased Harry Potter novel,[8] while in 2007 Bloomsbury Publishing came close to legal action against the supermarket chain Asda for libel after the company accused them of overpricing the final Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[9]

Contents

[edit] Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement

The Legend of Rah and the Muggles
The Legend of Rah and the Muggles

[edit] Nancy Stouffer

In 1999, American author Nancy Kathleen Stouffer quietly began to allege 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 Best Friend Lilly.[1]

The primary basis for Stouffer's case rested in her own purported invention of the word "Muggles", non-magical elongated humanoids, in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, and Larry Potter, the title character of a series of activity booklets for children. Larry Potter, like Harry Potter, is a bespectacled boy with dark hair.[10] Despite the reports of some news agencies,[11] Larry Potter is not a character in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles.[12] Stouffer also drew a number of other comparisons, such as a castle on a lake, a receiving room and wooden doors.[13] Portions of Rah were originally published in booklet form by Ande Publishing Company in 1986, a company founded by Ms. Stouffer together with a group of friends and family.[14] Ande filed for bankruptcy in September 1987 without selling any of its booklets in the United States or elsewhere.[14][15] Rowling has stated that she first visited the United States in 1998.[16]

Rowling, along with Scholastic Press (her American publisher) and Warner Bros. (holders of the series' film rights), pre-empted Stouffer with a suit of their own seeking a declaratory judgment that they had not infringed on any of Stouffer's works. During the course of the trial, it was proven "by clear and convincing evidence, that Stouffer has perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony,"[15] including changing pages years after the fact to retroactively insert the word "muggle".[15][17]

Her case was dismissed with prejudice and she was fined $50,000 for her "pattern of intentional bad faith conduct" in relation to her employment of fraudulent submissions, along with being ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiffs' legal fees.[18] Stouffer appealed the decision in 2004, but the appeals court upheld the ruling, stating that "no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the two parties' works".[17]

The Legend of Rah and the Muggles is currently out of print. In the spring of 2001, it was published by Thurman House, LLC, a Maryland publishing company.[14] 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.[19] Ms. Stouffer later asserted that any copies of the book published by Thurman House are unauthorized because the publisher failed to honor its contractual obligations to her.[20] She states on her website that she is planning to republish her books and is entertaining the possibility of another lawsuit against Warner Bros., J. K. Rowling and Scholastic Press.[20]

Rowling vehemently denied Stouffer's claims. "I am deeply offended that my integrity and good character have been besmirched by the ludicrous allegations that I stole [anything]", she said during the court case.[21] In an interview with Time Magazine the following year, Rowling admitted how deeply she had been affected by the accusations: "It felt as if some strange woman had come out of nowhere saying she was my children's mother ... It was like a punch in the stomach. People think that if you have been successful, you are insulated from normal feelings of hurt, but you aren't."[22]

[edit] Claire Field

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 threatening letters to owners of Harry Potter fansites, demanding that, to protect their copyright, they hand over their domain names.[23]

Harry Potter and Leopard Walk Up to Dragon
Harry Potter and Leopard Walk Up to Dragon

The action resulted in negative publicity for the company when Claire Field, the then 15-year-old webmaster of the British fansite harrypotterguide.co.uk, was reduced to tears by what were described by her father as unnecessary bully tactics. Eventually the corporation backed down in the face of media opposition and declared that, as the site was non-commercial, it didn't violate their trademark.[4][24]

[edit] Chinese publishing houses

In 2002, an unauthorised Chinese-language sequel entitled Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon appeared for sale in the People's Republic of China. The work of a Chinese ghostwriter, the book contains verbatim text of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit with Rowling's characters added.[25] Rowling's lawyers successfully took legal action against the publishers, who were forced to pay damages.[3] Also in 2002, the China Braille Publishing House published Harry Potter and the Porcelain Doll. It is estimated that there are fifteen million fraudulent Harry Potter novels circulating in China today.[26] In 2007, Christopher Little, Rowling's literary agents, began to discuss the possibility of legal proceedings concerning a fake version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that appeared in China ten days before the actual book's publication.[26]

[edit] Dimitry Yemets

Main article: Tanya Grotter
Tanya Grotter
Tanya Grotter

In 2003, courts in the Netherlands prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, the first of Dimitry Yemets' popular Russian series about a female apprentice 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.[2] The Dutch courts ruled that the books did not constitute parody and thus were not allowed to be sold in the Netherlands.[27]

Later that year, as the Dutch translation Tanja Grotter en de magische contrabas was still 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 under those circumstances Rowling and her publishers would not sue.[28] Rowling did not sue, but as there was a lot of interest in the book (Dutch people could buy the book by postal order from another Flemish publisher, Boekhandel VanIn) it was soon sold out.[28] The books remain popular in Russia and have spawned several sequels, as well as numerous adaptations and much merchandise.[29]

[edit] Preventive Maintenance Monthly

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.[30] The publication received notice from Rowling's lawyers that the comics breached copyright, though the magazine's editor, Ken Crunk, claimed that no violation had taken place, as "[t]he drawings do not look like any of the characters from Harry Potter".[31]

[edit] Wyrd Sisters

In 2005, after being offered CAD$50,000 by Warner Bros., Canadian folk band the Wyrd Sisters undertook a legal action against Warner Bros., Jarvis Cocker of Pulp, and Jonny Greenwood and Phil Selway of Radiohead, because of a scene in the film version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire which featured a band named The Weird Sisters.[32] All plans to use the name in the movie were later abandoned. Despite that decision, the Canadian band filed a CAD$40-million lawsuit against Warner in Ontario court.[33] In connection with the lawsuit, the band brought an interlocutory injunction hoping to prevent the release of the film. The injunction application was dismissed.[34]

The entire suit was dismissed in November 2005. Additionally, in June 2006, the band was ordered to pay Warner Bros. CAD$140,000 in legal costs.[33] The group claimed they planned to appeal the decision.[35] Jarvis Cocker initially wished to release an album of "Weird Sisters"-themed music with collaborators including Franz Ferdinand, Jack White and Iggy Pop, but the project was dropped as a result of the lawsuit.[36]

[edit] eBay

In 2007, Rowling launched a series of lawsuits against a number of users of the auction site eBay, alleging that they were selling illegally created e-books of her work.[37]

[edit] Kolkata lawsuit

In October 2007, Warner Bros. sued a group constructing a facade during a Hindu religious festival in the Indian city of Kolkata for two million rupees ($50,000), claiming that they had erected a giant replica of Harry Potter's school, Hogwarts, without their permission. Initial reports stated that, as the effort was not for profit, it did not violate Rowling's copyright.[38] The Associated Press claimed that the High Court of Delhi, where the petition was filed, allowed the organisers to carry on with the temporary construction with an order that the structure had to be dismantled after the festival was over[39] and that the court refused to impose any compensation on the basis that the organisers were involved in a "non-profit making enterprise".[40] However, these statements were later retracted; the court had in fact ruled in favour of Warner Bros., but no fine had been ordered, and Warners claimed that they had only requested a fine because such action was necessary under Indian law.[41]

In November 2007, Rowling discussed the case on her website, listing the rumours that she had targeted a non-profit organisation as "Toxic" and saying,"The defendants were not religious charities, and theirs was not a religious celebration. On the contrary, it was a large-scale, commercial, sponsored event involving corporations that included a major Indian high street bank. The event was, however, set up while a Hindu festival was going on ... The court ruled that Warner Bros. rights had indeed been infringed, and that events such as the one in question would need Warner Bros.' permission in the future. The court also restrained all the defendants from any future events infringing Warner Bros. rights."[42]

[edit] RDR Books

On 31 October 2007, Warner Brothers and Rowling sued RDR Books to block the publication of a 400-page book version of the Harry Potter Lexicon.[43] Rowling, who previously had a good 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 similar book before her own would hurt the proceeds of the official encyclopedia, which she plans to give to charity.[44] A judge later barred publication of the book in any form until the case was resolved.[45] In their suit, Rowling's lawyers also asserted that, as the book describes itself as a print facsimile of the Harry Potter Lexicon website, it would publish excerpts from the novels and stills from the films. Such borrowing is allowable if no profit is intended. However, the book is intended to be sold commercially.[46]

On her website, Rowling said, "Despite repeated requests, the publishers have refused to even countenance making any changes to the book to ensure that it does not infringe my rights."[47] On his website, Steve Vander Ark responded, "I have worked dilligently with everyone associated with the books to make sure we don’t violate copyright. There have been a number of times when I have talked with Jo's people and held back information they didn’t want published or modified material on the Lexicon to make sure they approve. I got specific permission from Warner Bros. to use film images and the illustrations from the books. I have been just as diligent with the rights of fans who have allowed me to use their writing and artwork. In each case I have listed the copyright owner and made sure that they were credited and that they retained their copyright."[48]

"There have been a huge number of companion books that have been published", said Neil Blair of Rowling's literary agency, Christopher Little, "Ninety-nine percent have come to speak to us. In every case they have made changes to ensure compliance. They fall in line. But these guys refused to contact us. They refused to answer any questions. They refused to show us any details."[49]

A group of intellectual property lawyers at Stanford Law School said they would help defend RDR Books' right to publish. Fair Use Project Executive Director Anthony Falzone said the Lexicon is protected by U.S. law that has long given people "the right to create reference guides that discuss literary works, comment on them and make them more accessible."[50]

On January 16, 2008, Rowling and Warner Bros. filed their full, 1,100 page complaint against RDR Books, citing that the book "compiles and repackages Ms. Rowling's fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight, or criticism. Defendant's attempt to cloak the Infringing Book in the mantle of scholarship is merely a ruse designed to circumvent Plaintiffs' rights in order to make a quick buck."[51]

On 25 January 2008, RDR submitted a request to Judge Robert Patterson, United States District Court that Rowling and her publishers hand over to them all potential source material for the planned encyclopedia, including, "The notes that JKR has made on the seven novels ... Cheryl Klein's [the novels' continuity editor] full index ... Bloomsbury's 'comprehensive bible'" and "The 'further material from Ms. Rowling's creative mind'".[52][53] Patterson refused, but did grant "statements contained in the publications listed in the plaintiffs' response" to Warner Bros. claims.[52]

In February 2008, Steve Vander Ark said, in an interview with the British fan magazine Ansible,[54]

The book is not simply a cut and paste of the Lexicon website. The entries on the website provide much more detailed and complete information than the entries in the book. We took the information on the site and did a lot of editing, condensing, and in some cases complete rewriting. We avoided direct quotations whenever we could and clearly cited any quotations that we kept in. In the case of entries from Rowling's own "encyclopedia"-style books, we intentionally left a lot out and urged readers in the introduction to the book to go buy her books for the complete information ... While I was working on the Lexicon book, I received assurances from several copyright and intellectual property experts that the book we were creating was legal.

Vander Ark dismissed Rowling's claim to copyright:

Part of the problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the part of many that Rowling has the right to completely control anything written about the Harry Potter world. That's quite a huge power grab on her part and from everything I can tell, not legal. You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others. We always try to do that in a legal and respectful way. However, if Rowling manages to extend her reach that far into our subculture, she will choke us off very quickly. And if she doesn't, what's to stop the next person from taking this legal precedent to even more dangerous places?

On February 8, 2008, RDR Books published their official memorandum in response to Warner Bros injunction, saying, in part, "[Rowling] appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction. This is a right no court has ever recognized. It has little to recommend it. If accepted, it would dramatically extend the reach of copyright protection, and eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements."[55]

Rowling and Warner Bros. responded on February 27, saying, "The book consists of 400 pages of material taken from the series. Its 2437 entries use the series' fictional facts, long plot summaries and paraphrased character descriptions, all of which is actionable,"[56] and that, "RDR's argument that the book is "transformative" is wrong because . . . the book does not create "new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings."[56] The statement claims that Warner Bros "have shown that the book is devoid of analysis, commentary or anything else rising to the level of scholarship,"[56] and that, "Of the book's 2437 entries, 2034 simply lift information straight from the series."[56]

Rowling supported the injunction, saying, "I am particularly concerned about RDR's continued insistence that my acceptance of free fan based websites somehow justifies its efforts to publish an unauthorised Harry Potter "lexicon" directly contrary to my stated intention to publish my own definitive Harry Potter Encyclopedia,"[57] and that, "RDR's position [that fans could simply buy both books] is presumptuous because it assumes that everyone would want to have two Harry Potter encyclopedias and insensitive in thinking that everyone who would want to have both could afford to purchase both."[57] She concluded by saying, "I am very frustrated that a former fan has tried to co-opt my work for financial gain. The Harry Potter books are full of moral choices and ethical dilemmas, and, ironically, Mr. Vander Ark's actions tend to demonstrate that he is woefully unfit to represent himself as either a "fan of" or "expert on" books whose spirit he seems entirely to have missed."[57]

The trial began on 14 April 2008 in a lower Manhattan district court, with Rowling testifying on day one and Vander Ark testifying on day two.[58] During her testimony, Rowling reiterated her claim that the Lexicon contained minimal commentary and merely recycled her writing, adding nothing other than "facetious asides and etymologies of the easiest kind."[59] Rowling referred to the Lexicon as "wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work", and criticized it as "sloppy" and characterized by "very little research". In sometimes emotional testimony, Rowling recalled beginning the Potter books when she was a impoverished 25-year-old single mother, nearly coming to tears when saying, "These characters continue to mean so much to me over a long period of time. The closest you could come is to say, 'How do you feel about your children?'" Rowling also revealed that the lawsuit has "decimated her creative work" over the prior month, causing her to cease work on a new novel.[60] In his testimony, Vander Ark said that he too had had reserves about publishing the encyclopedia and that the publishing company had talked him into it. "It's been difficult because there has been a lot of criticism, obviously, and that was never the intention. ... This has been an important part of my life for the last nine years or so," he said.[61]

Wary of the consequences of a legal ruling, the presiding judge, Robert P. Patterson, Jr., urged the parties to settle, saying, "I’m concerned that this case is more lawyer-driven than it is client-driven. The fair use people are on one side, and a large company is on the other side. . . . The parties ought to see if there’s not a way to work this out, because there are strong issues in this case and it could come out one way or the other. The fair use doctrine is not clear."[62]

The plaintiffs made their closing remarks on the third day of the trial. Rowling claimed that "This case is about an author's right to protect their creation. If this book is allowed to be published the floodgates will open. Are we, or are we not, the owners of our own work? It's not just my work that is endangered."[63] In addition, she claimed that the Lexicon was "sloppy, lazy" and "filled with errors,"[63] though RDR Books lawyer Anthony Falzone noted that "Copyright law does not permit an author to suppress a book because she doesn't like it."[63]

On day three, the two sides reached a limited settlement involving the use of any Rowling endorsements on the book. It was agreed that, should it be published, neither her name nor her previous endorsement of the website would be used to promote it.[64]

Each side employed a literary expert to testify whether or not the Lexicon had copied text without attribution.[63] RDR hired a literature professor from the University of California, Berkeley, who cited reference guides to The Lord of the Rings and C.S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia as precedents to the Lexicon's book.[65] David Hammer, lawyer for RDR, claimed that the need for a reference guide was greatest when the work being discussed is most creative, and fantasy is presumably the most creative form of literature. [64]

Jeri Johnson, dean of English at Exeter College, Oxford, spoke for the plaintiffs, decrying Vander Ark's work as unscholarly, and claiming that there was enough material in Rowling's world for serious academic analysis.[65] Rowling's lawyers said that, unlike those guides, the Lexicon consists largely of information taken from the books and contains little interpretation or analysis. RDR's lawyers agreed, but said that such guides can provide other benefits for the reader than analysis.[64]

During the trial, Rowling said on the stand, "I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide, never ever. Do your book, but, please, change it so it does not take as much of my work."[66] However, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, RDR Books' publisher, Roger Rappaport, said, "That opportunity was never presented to us. The only thing they said was: 'Will you stop the book?'"[66]

The judge is not expected to reach a decision for several weeks,[63] and said he expected the case to be appealed, and perhaps to go as far as the Supreme Court.[64]

[edit] Legal injunctions

There have been a series of legal injunctions brought by Rowling and her publishers 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, Rowling and her publishers sought and received a groundbreaking injunction against "the person or persons who has or have physical possession of a copy of the said book or any part thereof without the consent of the Claimants".[7] The ruling obtained, for the first time in British law, an injunction against unnamed or unknown individuals; before then, injunctions could only be obtained against named individuals. Lawyers Winterbothams noted that, "The new Harry Potter style injunction could be used if you expected a demonstration or trespass to take place, but which had not yet begun, so long as you could find a description for the people expected which the Court was satisfied identified 'those who are included and those who are not'".[7] This principle was later used against a camp of Roma travellers.[7] In 2006, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline employed the injunction against anonymous animal rights campaigners who had sent threatening letters to their investors.[67]

The series garnered more 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 comment by media lawyer Korieh Duodu that "there is no human right to read" led to a debate in the public sphere about whether free access to information was a human right.[6][68] Free-speech activist Richard Stallman posted a statement on his blog calling for a boycott until the publisher issues an apology.[5] Solicitors Fraser Milner and Casgrain, who represented Raincoast and formulated the legal argument for the embargo,[69] have rebutted this, saying that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies only to the government, not to private litigation, and does not offer any protection of the right to read in any case, and the innocent purchasers of the Harry Potter book had no more right to read it than if they had come into possession of someone's secret diary.[70]

In 2007, Scholastic Corporation threatened legal action against two booksellers, Levy Home Entertainment and DeepDiscount.com, for selling copies of the final novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows before its release date of July 21. In an official statement, Scholastic made an appeal "to the Harry Potter fans who bought their books from DeepDiscount.com and may receive copies early requesting that they keep the packages hidden until midnight on July 21."[71] Customers who agreed not to read the book received a special Harry Potter t-shirt and a $50 coupon for Scholastic's online store.

[edit] Blackmail

In June 2005, Aaron Lambert, a security guard at a book distribution centre in Corby, Northamptonshire, England, stole a number of pages from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince six weeks before its intended publication date. He was arrested a day later after negotiations to sell them to John Askill, a journalist from The Sun, turned violent. Lambert reportedly fired a shot from his imitation Walther PPK pistol, but Mr. Askill was unharmed.[72] At his trial the following October, Lambert pleaded guilty to threatening Mr. Askill and to attempting to blackmail Harry Potter's publishers, Bloomsbury.[73] In January 2006, Lambert was sentenced to four and a half years in prison.[74]

[edit] Libel threat

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 July 15, a week before the release of the final 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 "holding children to ransom" and that, "[i]t seems like Bloomsbury need to do a quid-ditch as they have sent their prices up north on the Hogwarts Express. By setting the RRP at this level can only be seen [sic] as blatant profiteering on their part."[9] Pritchard went on to say that Asda was acting to "champion the right of young readers", and that the RRP was "twice the average child's pocket money and £5 more than the average children's bestseller."[9] Asda had planned to sell the book as a loss leader at £8.87, or half Bloomsbury's recommended retail price of £17.99 and below the wholesale price of £9.89.[75]

Two 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 as 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 price-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 be paid by the consumer for environmental best practice", a Bloomsbury spokeswoman said.[76]

Bloomsbury CEO Nigel Newton said, "[t]hey've 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 price of aspirin and bread. They try to turn it into a big deal as though it's a moral crusade for them, but it's nothing of the kind."[76]

That same day, Bloomsbury cancelled all Asda's orders of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, or roughly 500,000 copies, citing unpaid bills from the company totalling £38,000 for unauthorised returns of the sixth Harry Potter book.[76] "The two matters are completely unrelated", said a Bloomsbury spokeswoman, "We decided today that we couldn't risk having arrears with anybody."[9] The dispute had been "going on a while - going on for weeks actually."[77] Asda responded that Bloomsbury owed them £122,000 ("for pulping and for other book trade issues and work we have done for them"[76]) and that, as one company spokesman claimed, "It just seems funny that after we expose the potty Potter price hike, Bloomsbury are trying everything they can to stop kids getting hold of Harry Potter at a price they can afford."[77]

Asda paid the bill within hours, and claimed that Bloomsbury would be in breach of contract if it did not allow the store to sell its books. However, Bloomsbury claimed that the block on Asda's orders was still in place as, "Unfortunately, we've now had to initiate a significant libel claim against them. That matter will have to be dealt with. If they want their 500,000 books, they'll have to come and make peace with us... It could be 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 can share the magic of Harry Potter at an independent or specialist bookstore instead."[76]

Upon receipt of Bloomsbury's legal letter, Asda responded that, "There is nothing defamatory in our press release. Everything there is factual. It is a commentary on how we see things."[76] Said another Asda spokesperson, "If they don't supply us with the books, it will have a massive implication and [be] a breach of contract - but I don't think they will do that."[76]

Later that day, however, Asda released a statement retracting its original comment: "We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for [our] press release dated July 15 and withdraw our statement. We look forward to a good relationship with Bloomsbury going forward, including selling the latest Harry Potter book from 00:01am BST on Saturday 21 July and many other Bloomsbury books in the future".[78] In response, Bloomsbury lifted the block and Asda was allowed to sell its books. The original press release was then expunged.[79]

The rationale behind Asda's initial press 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."[80] Ralph Baxter of Publishing News concurred: "For Asda... it may be seen as mission accomplished, a high-risk strategy to maximise publicity for its Harry Potter offer rewarded with television, radio, internet and newspaper coverage. And the association of Asda with low prices has no doubt been entrenched in a few more minds."[78]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b "Potter author zaps court rival", CNN, 2002-09-19. Retrieved on 2007-03-11. 
  2. ^ a b "Rowling seeks 'Grotter' ban". BBC News, 13 March 2003. Accessed 21 March 2006."
  3. ^ a b "Fake Harry Potter novel hits China", BBC, 2002-07-04. Retrieved on 2007-03-11. 
  4. ^ a b Kieren McCarthy (2000). Warner Brothers bullying ruins Field family Xmas. The Register. Retrieved on 2007-05-03.
  5. ^ a b Stallman, Richard. "Don't Buy Harry Potter Books", 2005-07-13. Retrieved on 2007-03-13. 
  6. ^ a b Michael Geist (2005). Harry Potter and the Right to Read. Retrieved on 2007-10-12.
  7. ^ a b c d Harry Potter and the Injunctions against Trespassers. Winterbotham's Solicitors (2004). Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
  8. ^ Harry Potter thief sent to prison. CBBC Newsround (2006). Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
  9. ^ a b c d e Nigel Reynolds (2007). Asda barred from selling seventh Harry Potter. The Telegraph. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
  10. ^ Muggle Versus Wizard. Washington Post (2001). Retrieved on 2008-04-20.
  11. ^ Larry Potter returns to print (2001). Retrieved on 2007-06-11.
  12. ^ Hillel Italie (2002). 'Harry Potter' Prevails In Court. Retrieved on 2008-05-08.
  13. ^ "Muggle Versus Wizard", The Washington Post, 2001-03-28. Retrieved on 2007-03-11. 
  14. ^ a b c Scholastic, Inc., et al. v. Stouffer, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17531 (September 17, 2002)
  15. ^ a b c SCHOLASTIC, INC., J.K. ROWLING, and TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, -against- NANCY STOUFFER: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (2002). Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
  16. ^ Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference (2005). Retrieved on 2007-07-11.
  17. ^ a b HPANA: Nancy Stouffer ruling upheld (2004). Retrieved on 2007-04-06.
  18. ^ "Stouffer v. Rowling", eyrie.org, 2002-09-17. Retrieved on 2007-03-11. 
  19. ^ Ottenheimer Closing Down, Publishers Weekly, June 17, 2002
  20. ^ a b Nancy Stouffer. realmuggles.com. Retrieved on 2007-10-18.
  21. ^ Glovin, David. J.K. Rowling harried on wizardry of plagiarism. The Age. 2002. Accessed 25 October 2007.
  22. ^ "The Shy Sorceress" McAllister, J.F.O. and Jeff Chu. Time Magazine. June 23, 2003. Accessed 25 October 2007.
  23. ^ Mike Ingram (2001). AOL-Time Warner threatens children running Harry Potter fan sites. World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved on 2007-10-12.
  24. ^ Kieren McCarthy (2000). Warner Bros backs down on Harry Potter Web site. The Register. Retrieved on 2007-05-03.
  25. ^ Eimer, David. "Beatrix Potter court victory deals blow to China's publishing pirates", Independent on Sunday, Independent News and Media Limited, 2005-09-11. Retrieved on 2007-08-06. 
  26. ^ a b Howard W French (2007). What is the seventh Potter book called in China?. International Harald Tribune. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
  27. ^ Rowling blocks Grotter release. BBC News (2003). Retrieved on 2007-03-27.
  28. ^ a b 'Tanja Grotter' wel in België te lezen, Nieuws.nl, October 23, 2003
  29. ^ Harry Potter triumphs over Russians. Briffa creative law (2003). Retrieved on 2007-03-27.
  30. ^ The Preventive Maintenance Monthly (2004). Retrieved on 2007-09-08.
  31. ^ Army mag draws Potter comparisons. BBC News (2005). Retrieved on 2007-09-08.
  32. ^ "'Wyrd Sisters' cannot stop Harry Potter", Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 
  33. ^ a b "'Winnipeg folk band that took on Harry Potter ordered to pay $140,000 court costs", Canada.com National Post. 
  34. ^ Canadian Group Sues Radiohead, Warner Bros. Over Use Of Name In 'Harry Potter' Flick Long-running folk group claims trademark infringement.
  35. ^ Wyrd Sisters continue Harry Potter battle with studio. cbc.ca (2006). Retrieved on 2007-12-23.
  36. ^ Canadian Wyrd Sisters ordered to pay WB $140,000
  37. ^ Candace Lombardi. Harry Potter author fights e-book fraud on eBay. c:net. Retrieved on 2007-03-27.
  38. ^ Rowling sues Indian festival for building replica of Hogwarts Castle (2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-12.
  39. ^ {India Court Rejects JK Rowling infringement (2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-18.
  40. ^ Harish V Nair, 'Pottermania defeats Rowling at Salt Lake', Hindustan Times, Kolkata Edition, October 13, 2007
  41. ^ Correction: Festival-Harry Potter story. Associated Press (2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-16.
  42. ^ JK Rowling (2007). Rubbish Bin: J K Rowling demands 2 million rupees from religious charities in India. jkrowling.com. Retrieved on 2007-11-16.
  43. ^ Caruso, David B., Rowling Sues to Block Harry Potter Book, <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD8SKHF7G1>. Retrieved on 1 November 2007 
  44. ^ Rowling, Joanne, Companion Books, <http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=101>. Retrieved on 1 November 2007 
  45. ^ Row delays Harry Potter Lexicon. BBC News (2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-16.
  46. ^ J.K. Rowling Updates "Companion Books" Article; RDR Books Responds. The Leaky Cauldron (2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-02.
  47. ^ JK Rowling (2007). Lexicon continued. jkrowling.com. Retrieved on 2007-11-16.
  48. ^ Steve Vander Ark. HPL: What's New?. The Harry Potter Lexicon. Retrieved on 2007-11-16.
  49. ^ Joe Nocera (2008). A Tight Grip Can Choke Creativity. New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-02-12.
  50. ^ Stanford Law group enters fray over Harry Potter guide. Associated Press (2007). Retrieved on 2007-12-28.
  51. ^ WB and JKR File Full Request for Injunction of Harry Potter Lexicon (Part 1). The Leaky Cauldron. Retrieved on 2008-01-17.
  52. ^ a b David S. Hammer (2008). Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. RDR Books et al; Filing 44. Attorney, RDR Books. Retrieved on 2008-02-05.
  53. ^ Lexicon Update; Schedule Moved, RDR Request for JK Rowlings' Notes Denied. The Leaky Cauldron (2008). Retrieved on 2008-02-04.
  54. ^ Ansible 247, February 2008. Ansible (2008).
  55. ^ Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. RDR Books et al. Justia (2008). Retrieved on 2008-02-09.
  56. ^ a b c d Dale M Cendali, Claudia Ray, Melanie Bradley (February 27, 2008). Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc and JK Rowling against RDR Books. United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Retrieved on 2008-03-01.
  57. ^ a b c Declaration of JK Rowling in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. United States District Court (February 27, 2008). Retrieved on 2008-03-01.
  58. ^ RDR Trial: Day 1. The Leaky Cauldron. RDR Trial: Day 2. The Leaky Cauldron. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.
  59. ^ John Sellers (2008). Rowling Takes the Stand in RDR Suit. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.
  60. ^ Neumeister, Larry; "J.K. Haunted by Potter 'theft'"; April 15, 2008; Associated Press; amNY; Page 3.
  61. ^ David B. Caruso (2008). 'Harry Potter' fan testifies in trial. Associated Press. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.
  62. ^ Dan Slater (2008). Judge in Potter Trial Calls on Parties to Settle. The Wall Street Journal.
  63. ^ a b c d e Christine Kearney (2008). Rowling says fan's book could endanger other authors. Yahoo News. Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
  64. ^ a b c d Ashby Jones (2008). Notes from the Potter Trial: After a Partial Settlement, the Defense Digs In. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
  65. ^ a b Rowling implores NYC judge to block publication of guide. The Associated Press (2008). Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
  66. ^ a b Patrick T. Reardon. Harry Potter and the battle of the lexicon. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved on 2008-05-05.
  67. ^ Dan Tench (2006). Animal extremists can no longer hide behind a web of secrecy. Timesonline. Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
  68. ^ Jack Malvern (2005). Reading ban on leaked Harry Potter. Timesonline. Retrieved on 2007-10-11.
  69. ^ Important Notice: Raincoast Books (2005). Retrieved on 2007-10-27.
  70. ^ Barbara Grossman, Aaron Milrad and Annie Na (2005). Understanding the Harry Potter Injunction: Protecting Copyright and Confidential Information. Fraser Milner and Casgrain. Retrieved on 2007-05-30.
  71. ^ Scholastic will take action against Harry Potter distributors. Reuters (2007). Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
  72. ^ Guard admits to Harry Potter theft. JR Roberts Security Strategies (2005). Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
  73. ^ Potter book thief admits threats. BBC News (2005). Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
  74. ^ Harry Potter thief sent to prison. CBBC Newsround (2006). Retrieved on 2007-05-23.
  75. ^ Potter book firm clashes with supermarket over price. TimesOnline (2007). Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
  76. ^ a b c d e f g Katherine Rushton (2007). Bloomsbury: Asda must make peace. thebookseller.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
  77. ^ a b Asda Apologises following Potter Book Row. UK News Lifestyle Extra (2007). Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
  78. ^ a b Ralph Baxter (2007). The Great Stand-Off. Publishing News Online.
  79. ^ Graeme Warden (2007). Harry Potter and the Asda Apology. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.
  80. ^ Neill Denny (2007). Opinion: Asda's climbdown. thebookseller.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-01.

[edit] External links

v • d • e
The Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling

Philosopher's
Stone
Film • Game • Soundtrack

Chamber
of Secrets
Film • Game • Soundtrack

Prisoner
of Azkaban
Film • Game • Soundtrack

Goblet
of Fire
Film • Game • Soundtrack

Order of
the Phoenix
Film • Game • Soundtrack

Half-Blood
Prince
Film • Game

Deathly
Hallows
Characters
Universe
Related
Film series • Cast members • Music • Fandom • Influences and analogues • Legal disputes • Parodies • Politics • Religious debates • Translation
Other books
Other games