Harry Potter Lawsuit

[Amethyst Rose]

March 17 — The publisher of the Harry Potter’s children’s books vehemently denies that the ideas for the books were taken from a Pennsylvania author.
That author claims in a U.S. federal lawsuit that ideas for the wildly popular books originated with her.
Three books about Harry Potter, a young orphaned wizard, have sold 19 million copies in the United States. Their author is J.K. Rowling, a resident of Edinburgh, Scotland. A movie and merchandising of toys are expected.

Harry Potter, Larry Potter
But Nancy K. Stouffer of Camp Hill, Pa., argues in her lawsuit that ideas for the Potter series were lifted from her 1984 book The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, which includes a character named Larry Potter.
“I think coincidences happen, but I still say if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it’s a duck,” said Stouffer, who also claims she owns rights to the word “muggle.”
In Stouffer’s book, muggles are little people who care for two orphaned boys who magically turn their dark homeland into a happy place. In Rowling’s books, “muggles” is the word wizards use for humans.
Stouffer’s book has a character named Lilly Potter; Rowling’s books have a Lily Potter. The Larry Potter book had characters identified as “Keeper of the Gardens”; Rowling’s books have a “Keeper of the Keys.”

Dueling Lawsuits
Stouffer filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on March 6 against Rowling and Scholastic Inc., the U.S. publisher of the Harry Potter books. Her lawsuit also names Time Warner Entertainment Co., which owns the film rights to two of Rowling’s Potter books, and Mattel and Hasbro, both of whom have licenses to create and market related merchandise.
Scholastic, Rowling and Time Warner filed their own lawsuit in November in New York, asking a judge to rule that the Harry Potter books do not violate Stouffer’s trademark and copyright.
Stouffer’s claims are “completely meritless,” said Judy Corman, a spokeswoman for Scholastic.
“Unfortunately, success often leads to frivolous claims, and we’re confident the court will find in our favor,” Corman said.
Stouffer said she published The Legend of Rah and Muggles in 1984. The books were sold mostly on the East Coast, in Giant supermarkets and Rite Aid drugstores.
Stouffer believes Rowling may have come across them when she was on a work-study exchange in Baltimore in 1987 and 1988. The books were also at the Nuremberg Toy Fair in Germany in 1987, she said.
The books were created with the idea of licensing the characters, Stouffer said. Her publisher, Ande, went bankrupt in 1987 and when she tried to bring out the book again in 1998, publishers told her it was likely to be confused with Rowling’s.

[mol]

Sounds like someone is a weeeee bit jealous.

[Niamh]

I read an article on this a few months ago.. that they allegations were made and that the woman would take legal action, etc. I kind of forgot about it. I really want to get my hands on her books to see if there really is any connection. I"ll let you know if I have any luck.

On a side note, Rowling published two supplementary books to the Potter series. One is the Complete History of Quidditch and the other is the Care of Magical Creatures, based on Harry's text book. They're small paperback books. ANd I have to wonder... is she doing this for the kids, or for her pocketbook? And if she's doing it for her pocketbook, is that really a BAD thing?

[amberlaine]

I dont necessarily think doing anything strictly to pad one's bank account is abad thing unless in doing so you are somehow damaging community (either yours or someone else's)

If an author (or singer, of artist or whoever else) decides that she wants to write something sheerly for the market value, then she may have to face up to the criticism of her peers, which may or may not be worth it. Many writers, such as myself, would rather not make the big bucks and would rather be held in high esteem by the community. Other writers, such as Silver Ravenworld, would obviously rather garner the cash. Thats a personal decision. However, in the case of SRW, I think that her blatantly obvious desire for cash is harmful to the community. When she published drivel like Teen Witch and the Teen Witch kit, she only undermines the efforts of those who have taken pains to promote the Wiccan religion as a genuine faith and not some teenaged, new age fad.

So, with regard to Rowling, if she's only writing for the cash--more power to her. She's not hurting anybody by doing this. In fact, I think such books might flesh out Harry Potter's world, which I find very interesting. When Tolkien reted his own language and published a dictionary for it, was that purely for the cash or to add depth and texture to his story?

[Amethyst Rose]

I heard somewhere that the profits from these suplimentary books was going to charity.... but I could be wrong..... I know the profits from some new books of here is going to charity...just not sure which ones.

[Niamh]

Yes, the profits are going to charity... I wanted to play devil's advocate!
I don't think it's necessarily wrong, either. Like you said, Amberlaine, unless it's harming the community, more power to you. And it will be interesting to read these supplementary books that add more depth to the world of Harry Potter. I'm always impressed with writers; they are able to take an entire world alive inside thier minds and share it with the rest of us. It's an incredible talent.

[Mairwen]

What gets me is, has this woman been living under a rock? Where has she been the last few years. You'd think she'd have noticed something when the first book came out.

[Niamh]

TELL me about it!
Next thing you know some teen ager is going to come forward saying she stole his image to create Harry. "I was an orphaned geek with broken glasses and a strange scar on my head! She owes me!"

Forgive me. It's late and I have a cold! :)

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Niamh

On a side note, Rowling published two supplementary books to the Potter series. One is the Complete History of Quidditch and the other is the Care of Magical Creatures, based on Harry's text book. They're small paperback books. ANd I have to wonder... is she doing this for the kids, or for her pocketbook? And if she's doing it for her pocketbook, is that really a BAD thing?

I got these last night, and they're a hoot. And WHY is it a bad thing for an author to write for money? Hmmm?

Regards,

Maggie

[Red Dragon]

Ok, Maggie, then would you say it's ok to do magick for money??? Hmmm? Just wondering...Hee,hee ;)

[reanna]

It is really great. My ds loves it. The small book has many little pretend added notes from Harry, Ron and Hermione. Too cool as far as he is concerned.
Most of the proceeds from the sale of the book are going to Comic Relief up here. Not totally sure about anywhere else.
I was actually going to look it up online and see if I could find any more info.
I'll post if I find anything out.

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Red Dragon
Ok, Maggie, then would you say it's ok to do magick for money??? Hmmm? Just wondering...Hee,hee ;)

I guess my first answer didn't go through, don't see it........

However--I'm too old to get caught like that--I have the traditional answer all ready for you


IT DEPENDS! :D


Regards,

Maggie

[KaimelarFeylove]

.. that both "hogwarts" and "ludo" are in The labryinth as well?.. i don see them fileing suit

[Xander67]

well the Labyrinth doesnt curently have a book deal and you have to admit, this publicity is certainly selling alot of books :)

[PaganLibrarian]

Why is a bad thing to do anything for money?

[Strega Del Vento]

Eh.. Just some random jealous person trying to cash in on Mrs. Rowling's fame and talent. Ridiculous.

The author has come a very long way.

[Mithrea]

Why is a bad thing to do anything for money?

Necromancer! LOL. I don't understand your question . . .

[Faeawyn]

Why is a bad thing to do anything for money?
Only when your greed hurts others.....

[claxon]

“I think coincidences happen, but I still say if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it’s a duck,” said Stouffer, who also claims she owns rights to the word “muggle.”

Do you think that if I made a program to systemmatically generate millions of words, and then had 2 coppies printed and sold them at the shop across the road.... I could 'claim the rights' to those words and sue anyone who uses them in the future? _taparoo_

[mcc]

Do you think that if I made a program to systemmatically generate millions of words, and then had 2 coppies printed and sold them at the shop across the road.... I could 'claim the rights' to those words and sue anyone who uses them in the future? _taparoo_
...

Well it's worth a shot.

Catgut cruces abscondence Polonize cismarine charlatanistic outbreathe colodyspepsia nonfat presidentship milleporite bezantee tuning stereotyped expectedly Notus southbound untrippable preconcert homograph atabek tanak Stizolobium cardionosus conductor Ellerian Bulbilis eclogite Astilbe stateway lighterful antitypal splet ominousness permafrost voltaite fluency Eastre deluminize caboose bronchotome agynarious gavel gamene barricade zoogonidium happiness unremonstrated jaundiceroot chymia governesshood ona khar unvulgarized Kashube accepted Pentacrinidae faunlike judicialness comparate caramelan confinedly Acalephae landbook beetrooty wrenlet inconcinnous skat flyaway salutatorian predrainage afterwisdom plasticity effigy theatron primeval heartikin unweal Rhodesoid inmate boyarism equatorially Septocylindrium larine fodient noticeable faunule intwist methylpentoses slummocky odontostomatous pseudomancy cockaded atrichous dashing Parthenopean unreplied stableboy splenotyphoid rosebud nonborrower Astrantia timothy pyromeconic castle trimmer jalopy counterjumper distinguishingly aerophilatelic Listeria purulence stewardly orphanism lipoidic sphenogram schillerize bleachable waer Rapaces uninventibleness apophylaxis vaginule flacket pummice paleola threader mastoidohumeral annotater recently levitative aldermanlike catacrotism glovey nephremia lutelet rifledom agaricaceae Miliola krama aditus Semitism Gangetic cryptodynamic protoplasmal nanosomus martyrologistic biliteralism fist cash Laguncularia lacerative hemocyanin sinewous ransel descendingly voltinism unrestable filterman spatterdashed vasu nonfacetious sension officialism undervocabularied melancholily perturbatory Jasminaceae adder tunner freckle quadritubercular fulmar Platysomidae arachnological overpuissant untrouble prerestoration microburette prostatotomy waisting crosnes stegodontine oxman wagwag luciform encave synodist aflight Susie ocelligerous sialadenitis determinably adjutant unnaturalist scabridulous rickey yakka scabrate Ceratodontidae tachypnea dimyarian Merluccius satinlike protonephros unrepelled sexisyllable Petiveria madly ascendable deltal bloodless laddie caprification pinkberry scleroblastic beperiwigged proclaimer esophagismus pinjane unwonted twifoldly gutturotetany Cotinus optionally unrefutable Circean mindsight tubercule overcatch sinistrocular nonreducing privity bradysphygmia wallflower reviewable hypogynium raincoat unloosably conchotome clover dilutedly Pinal parthenosperm activator amidulin congius lodginghouse unpent exaggerative darr sclerosal stereomatrix sodiotartrate metrostyle apposiopestic cauliflory obsignatory dolefulness stoach cerebromeningeal emptily byssin gainful columnist preimmigration antiwit hauler guttiform semiphilologist nonelasticity overability enargite renascible Mandibulata providently unguiltiness lanternist Crocodylidae predestinarianism link paauw terminability typhlopid Satanophany herling blueweed Megrez allylate foreutter hydrometallurgy lizardtail paleoethnography paradisian Gamelion inurement paraquinone corruptor passionateness ethanamide discontinuously underriddle slipback supercanonical minchiate zeist pharyngocele soddenness herem ergasterion plausibly weakish nemesic Graptolitha unsleeping undecision ophthalmia khadi denshire extratheistic nonmonarchist Stomoisia instrumentalism hopscotch circumnutate catarrhal gibstaff Asha detailism escalan laureated suriga pediform depriorize unjoking Ithaginis unawareness eddyroot pin enneastylos security unilludedly tout marblewood chaffinch promissionary milter pranksome spa pitahaya drollness scenter Tucuna Chermidae citrus benison cenobitically bicrural athenor tympanoperiotic preinfluence Culicidae Archilochian therewithal hawbuck dullery southwestern wassie reparative ephorate devitrify Danuri suprasphanoidal...

[johenn123]

I read an article on this a few months ago.. that they allegations were made and that the woman would take legal action, etc. I kind of forgot about it. I really want to get my hands on her books to see if there really is any connection. I"ll let you know if I have any luck.

On a side note, Rowling published two supplementary books to the Potter series. One is the Complete History of Quidditch and the other is the Care of Magical Creatures, based on Harry's text book. They're small paperback books. ANd I have to wonder... is she doing this for the kids, or for her pocketbook? And if she's doing it for her pocketbook, is that really a BAD thing?

actually, In uk theres a thing called comic relief which is a charity for poor people in africa and the UK and she made those books so the proceeds would go to comic relief

[Mistress_Ravenshadow]

IF her claims are true then she should get some sort of royalties for the use of the character names etc but then one could also argue that there is really nothing new under the sun..
when all is said and done though it doesn't change the fact that rowlings has written some brilliant books that makes millions of kids happy and as far as i'm concerned thats the bottom line...
this lawsuit could well be career suicide for the other writer.. she would be better off to just write books and get them published.. lawsuits often cause boycotts etc(which i am not encouraging, I don't want to be sued lol)

[Avalonia]

This has been around for a few years now. I first read this... what... three or four years ago. I guess she's starting up again. I'm not sure if you can claim ownership of a word, or of a character name, but I could be wrong.

Methinks she's jealous, too.

[MsFireHaven]

On a side note, Rowling published two supplementary books to the Potter series. One is the Complete History of Quidditch and the other is the Care of Magical Creatures, based on Harry's text book. They're small paperback books. ANd I have to wonder... is she doing this for the kids, or for her pocketbook? And if she's doing it for her pocketbook, is that really a BAD thing?


Ive had both of these books for a few years....My son loves them too

[Lady Valkyrie]

I live very close to this woman (I don't know her of course) and I never knew anything about such claims. I found her website here... http://www.realmuggles.com/ (http://www.realmuggles.com/) Back in 2002 was the last time she updated it and the courts evidently sided with J.K. Rowlings. My guess is Money talks if you know what I mean. She really did have a book about Larry potter. Her claims are valid... she just lost to someone who is now very rich and powerful... J.K. Rowlings.


March 17 — The publisher of the Harry Potter’s children’s books vehemently denies that the ideas for the books were taken from a Pennsylvania author.
That author claims in a U.S. federal lawsuit that ideas for the wildly popular books originated with her.
Three books about Harry Potter, a young orphaned wizard, have sold 19 million copies in the United States. Their author is J.K. Rowling, a resident of Edinburgh, Scotland. A movie and merchandising of toys are expected.

Harry Potter, Larry Potter
But Nancy K. Stouffer of Camp Hill, Pa., argues in her lawsuit that ideas for the Potter series were lifted from her 1984 book The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, which includes a character named Larry Potter.
“I think coincidences happen, but I still say if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it’s a duck,” said Stouffer, who also claims she owns rights to the word “muggle.”
In Stouffer’s book, muggles are little people who care for two orphaned boys who magically turn their dark homeland into a happy place. In Rowling’s books, “muggles” is the word wizards use for humans.
Stouffer’s book has a character named Lilly Potter; Rowling’s books have a Lily Potter. The Larry Potter book had characters identified as “Keeper of the Gardens”; Rowling’s books have a “Keeper of the Keys.”

Dueling Lawsuits
Stouffer filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on March 6 against Rowling and Scholastic Inc., the U.S. publisher of the Harry Potter books. Her lawsuit also names Time Warner Entertainment Co., which owns the film rights to two of Rowling’s Potter books, and Mattel and Hasbro, both of whom have licenses to create and market related merchandise.
Scholastic, Rowling and Time Warner filed their own lawsuit in November in New York, asking a judge to rule that the Harry Potter books do not violate Stouffer’s trademark and copyright.
Stouffer’s claims are “completely meritless,” said Judy Corman, a spokeswoman for Scholastic.
“Unfortunately, success often leads to frivolous claims, and we’re confident the court will find in our favor,” Corman said.
Stouffer said she published The Legend of Rah and Muggles in 1984. The books were sold mostly on the East Coast, in Giant supermarkets and Rite Aid drugstores.
Stouffer believes Rowling may have come across them when she was on a work-study exchange in Baltimore in 1987 and 1988. The books were also at the Nuremberg Toy Fair in Germany in 1987, she said.
The books were created with the idea of licensing the characters, Stouffer said. Her publisher, Ande, went bankrupt in 1987 and when she tried to bring out the book again in 1998, publishers told her it was likely to be confused with Rowling’s.

[WokeUpDead]

I remember hearing about that a few years back. Seems a bit odd.

[taki yume]

I've never heard about any of this!! I feel so lost...I adore Harry Potter...I'd love to meet people like him and his friends. And Dumbledor and Sirius <33

I think her claims are only vaild *IF*, and only if, J.K. Rowling actually *READ* her book.
Does anyone know if Rowling even knew about the book? (I realize that it would be a *huge* coincidence if Rowling never read the book..but...miricals do happen.)

~Taki Yume

[Amethyst Rose]

LOL, yeah, of course people heard about this a few years ago..... the original thread was posted in 2001! hehehe

[Epona44]

Pffftttt yeaah

[DarkDancer]

Actually, a person who has a better claim on a suit(though I think he said he has no interest in persuing it) is Neil Gamon with his Books Of Magic (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563890828//ref=nosim/mysticwickson-20) . They came out in 1994 and could very easily chronicle the life of Harry just before going off to Hogwarts... ;)

[Eldric_Dragonsblood]

Valkyrie, you honestly beleive that this woman has a legitimate claim!?

For those that don't know, as I have been told, "Harry Potter" is a name in England similar to "John Smith"; there are literally thousands of Harry Potters running around England. Concidering the character is supposted to be just an average, unremarkable kid who turns be this uberwizard, I can understand the character have an average, unremarkable name.

Oh, and I was told that muggle is a slang term in England...so this chick can't claim rights to the word.

Next thing we will see is some genius trying to sue Rowling for calling one of her characters "Draco" cause s/he used it in her story for a slimy, draconian character's name....

(Btw, you can copyright names, if the name was completely made up by you. In other words, Elric of Melinbone is copyrighted, but Harry Potter isn't. The character concept can be copyrighted however.)

[PaganLibrarian]

J K Rowlings won because they were able to prove that the women had doctored evidence to make it appear that Rowlings had stolen ideas from her.

JK Rowlings wins (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2268024.stm)