Since first coming to wide notice in the late 1990s, the Harry Potter
book series by
J. K. Rowling
J. K. Rowling has engendered a number of legal
disputes. Rowling, her various publishers and
Time Warner , the owner
of the rights to the
Harry Potter films , have taken numerous legal
actions to protect their copyrights, and also have fielded accusations
of copyright theft themselves. 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. While these legal proceedings have
countered a number of cases of outright piracy, other attempts have
targeted not-for-profit endeavours and have been criticised.
Another area of legal dispute involves a series of injunctions
obtained by Rowling and her publishers to prohibit anyone from
distributing or reading her books before their official release dates.
The sweeping powers of these injunctions have occasionally drawn fire
from civil liberties and free speech campaigners and sparked debates
over the "right to read". One of these injunctions was used in an
unrelated trespassing case as precedent supporting the issuance of an
injunction against a
John Doe .
Outside these controversies, a number of particular incidents related
Harry Potter have also led, or almost led, to legal action. In
2005, a man was sentenced to four years in prison after firing a
replica gun at a journalist during a staged deal for stolen copies of
Harry Potter novel, and attempting to blackmail the
publisher with threats of releasing secrets from the book. Then in
Bloomsbury Publishing contemplated legal action against the
Asda for libel after the company accused them of
overpricing the final
Harry Potter novel,
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows . A comprehensive list of intellectual property and speech
lawsuits involving Harry Potter,
Harry Potter Lawsuits and Where to
Find Them, was compiled by attorney David Kluft in 2015 for the
Copyright Law Blog.
* 1 Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement against
* 1.1 Nancy Stouffer
* 1.2 The Wyrd Sisters
* 1.3 Adrian Jacobs
* 2 International publications
* 3 Other accusations of infringement
* 4 Legal injunctions
* 5 Blackmail
* 6 Accusation of libel
* 7 References
* 8 External links
ALLEGATIONS OF COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AGAINST ROWLING
Harry Potter influences and analogues
In 1999, American author Nancy Kathleen Stouffer alleged 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. The primary basis for Stouffer's case rested in
her own purported invention of the word "Muggles ", the name of a race
of mutant 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, though he is not a character in The Legend of Rah and the
Muggles. Stouffer also drew a number of other comparisons, such as a
castle on a lake, a receiving room and wooden doors. Portions of Rah
were originally published in booklet form by Ande Publishing Company
in 1986, a company founded by Stouffer together with a group of
friends and family. Ande Publishing filed for bankruptcy in September
1987 without selling any of its booklets in the United States or
elsewhere. Rowling has stated that she first visited the United
States in 1998.
Rowling, along with
Scholastic Press (her American publisher) and
Warner Bros. (holders of the series' film rights), pre-empted Stouffer
in 2002 with a suit of their own seeking a declaratory judgment that
they had not infringed on any of Stouffer's works. The court found in
Rowling's favour, granting summary judgment and holding that "no
reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion as to the source
of the two parties' works". During the course of the trial, it was
held that Rowling proved "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",
including changing pages years after the fact to retroactively insert
the word "muggle". 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. Stouffer
appealed the decision in 2004, but in 2005 the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the ruling. In 2006 she stated on her website that
she was planning to republish her books and was entertaining the
possibility of another lawsuit against Warner Bros.,
J. K. Rowling
J. K. Rowling and
The Legend of Rah and the Muggles is currently out of print. In early
2001, it was published by Thurman House, LLC, a Maryland publishing
company. 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. Stouffer later
asserted that any copies of the book published by Thurman House are
unauthorized because the publisher failed to honour its contractual
obligations to her.
THE WYRD SISTERS
Warner Bros. offered CAD$5,000 (later CAD$50,000) to the
Canadian folk band the Wyrd Sisters for the rights to use their name
in the film version of
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire . Rowling
had written a scene in the novel in which a band called the Weird
Sisters appeared at a school dance, and the group owned the rights to
the name in Canada. However, the offer was declined, and instead the
band undertook a legal action against Warner Bros., as well as Jarvis
Cocker of Pulp and
Jonny Greenwood and
Phil Selway of
Radiohead , who
were to play the band in the film. All plans to use the name in the
movie were later abandoned. Despite that decision, the Canadian band
filed a CAD$40-million ($39 million) lawsuit against Warner in Ontario
court. In connection with the lawsuit, the band brought an
interlocutory injunction hoping to prevent the release of the film.
The injunction application was dismissed. The entire suit was
dismissed in November 2005. In June 2006, an Ontario judge decreed
that the band pay
Warner Bros. CAD$140,000 in legal costs, describing
their lawsuit as "highly intrusive". The group claimed they planned
to appeal the decision.
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. The Wyrd Sisters reported death
threats from irate
Harry Potter fans. As of March 2010, the lawsuit
has been settled out of court, the details sealed.
In June 2009, the estate of Adrian Jacobs, a children's author who
died in 1997, sued Rowling's publishers, Bloomsbury, for £500
million, accusing her of having plagiarised "substantial parts" of his
work in writing the novel
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. In a
statement, Jacobs's family claimed that a scene in Goblet of Fire was
substantially similar to Jacobs's book The Adventures of Willy the
Wizard: Livid Land: "'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." They also launched a
joint suit against Rowling and her publishers. Bloomsbury countered
with a statement of its own, saying that "This claim is without merit
and will be defended vigorously," and that 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
Harry Potter book." The Jacobs estate,
driven by his son and grandson, have published a website with details
and excerpts from the book, according to the
Toronto Star . In July
2010, the estate filed suit against Rowling's American publisher,
Scholastic, demanding that the company burn all copies of Goblet of
On 6 January 2011, the US lawsuit against Scholastic was dismissed.
The judge in the case stated that there was not enough similarity
between the two books to make a case for plagiarism. In the UK
courts, on 21 March 2011, Paul Allen, a trustee of the Jacobs estate,
was ordered to pay as security to the court 65% of the costs faced by
Bloomsbury and Rowling, amounting to over £1.5million, to avoid the
claim being struck out. It was reported in The Bookseller that Paul
Allen has appealed against paying this sum. As a condition of the
appeal, he paid £50,000 to the court in May 2011. The claim was
formally struck out in July 2011 after the deadline for Allen's
initial payment was missed.
In 2002, an unauthorised Chinese-language sequel titled Harry Potter
and Bao Zoulong (Chinese: Simplified: 哈利波特与豹走龙,
Hanyu Pinyin : Hālì Bōtè
yǔ Bào Zǒulóng) appeared for sale in the People's Republic of
China. (In English-language media this was mistranslated as Harry
Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon.) According to translated
excerpts, the book principally consists of the text of J. R. R.
The Hobbit , but with most names changed to those of Harry
Potter characters. The book was quickly recognised by media outlets
as a fake. Rowling and
Warner Bros. took steps to stop its
distribution. Copies were briefly distributed around the world,
including e-book copies traded on the Internet. In November 2002, the
Bashu Publishing House, in the southwestern city of
Chengdu , agreed
to pay a £1,600 (US$3,400) fine and publish an apology in China's
Legal Times for printing and distributing the novel. As of 2007, the
identity of the anonymous "author" has not been discovered. The
Harry Potter and Bao Zoulong, translated into English, was
included in several news articles. As of 2007, it is estimated that
there are fifteen million copies of fraudulent
Harry Potter novels
circulating in China. In 2007, Rowling's agents, the Christopher
Little Literary Agency , 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
In 2003, legal pressure from Harry Potter's publishers led an Indian
publisher to stop publication of
Harry Potter in Calcutta by Uttam
Ghosh; a work in which Harry meets figures from
Bengali literature .
The case was settled out of court.
Also in 2003, courts in the Netherlands prevented the distribution of
a Dutch translation of
Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass , the
Dmitri 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
Eksmo , argued that the books constitute a
parody, permitted under copyright. The Dutch courts ruled that the
books did not constitute parody and thus were not allowed to be sold
in the Netherlands. 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. 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. The books
continue to be published in Russia and have spawned several sequels.
In August 2008,
Warner Bros. filed a lawsuit against production
company Mirchi Movies due to the similarity of the title of their
Bollywood film Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors to the Harry Potter
film series. Mirchi Movies CEO Munish Purii claimed there is very
little similarity between
Hari Puttar and any elements in the Harry
Potter franchise, and explained that Hari is a popular Indian name,
while "puttar" means "son" in Punjabi , although Indian versions of
Harry Potter also translate Harry's name to Hari Puttar. The film was
delayed until late September.
Warner Bros. claimed that the title was
confusing, but Mirchi Movies claimed they registered the name in 2005.
On 24 September 2008, the court in Delhi rejected Warner Bros.'
claim, saying that
Harry Potter readers were sufficiently able to
distinguish between the two works. They also accused
Warner Bros. of
delaying the action, since they were aware of the film as far back as
OTHER ACCUSATIONS OF INFRINGEMENT
Warner Bros. and
J. K. Rowling
J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books
In 2000, in the lead-up to the release of the first Harry Potter
Harry Potter and the Philosopher\'s Stone ; Warner Bros., the
film's distributor, sent a series of letters to owners of Harry Potter
fansites, demanding that, to protect their copyright, they hand over
their domain names. 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 did not violate the
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. 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 "he drawings do not look like any of the characters from
Harry Potter". After a discussion with Rowling's representatives, the
magazine agreed not to use the characters again.
In 2004, Rowling and
Time Warner launched legal actions against
bazee.com, now the Indian branch of the online auction site eBay . The
site had hosted illegally created e-books of Harry Potter, which
Rowling had never agreed to be published. In 2005, Rowling warned her
fans on her website that various "signed"
Harry Potter memorabilia
appearing for sale on eBay did not in fact use her signature. She
urged her fans to protest eBay to prevent other children from being
swindled. In 2007, Rowling launched lawsuits against a number of
users of the site, obtaining a series of stay orders preventing them
from selling her work. However eBay claimed that in her dealings with
the media, Rowling had falsely claimed that her injunctions had been
against eBay itself. In June 2007, eBay filed papers with the Delhi
High Court , alleging that Rowling had caused them "immense
humiliation and harassment". The High Court circumvented the
application, claiming that it could not make such a judgment until the
case went to trial.
In October 2007,
Warner Bros. sued a group constructing a façade
Hindu religious festival in the Indian city of
₹2 million (US$31,000), 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. 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
and that the court refused to impose any compensation on the basis
that the organisers were involved in a "non-profit making enterprise".
However, these statements were later retracted: the court had in fact
ruled in favour of Warner Bros., but no fine had been ordered, and
Warner Bros. claimed that they had only requested a fine because such
action was necessary under Indian law. 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."
On 31 October 2007,
Warner Bros. and Rowling sued Michigan-based
publishing firm RDR Books to block the publication of a 400-page book
version of the
Harry Potter Lexicon , an online reference guide to her
work. Rowling, who previously had a good relationship with Lexicon
Steve Vander Ark , reiterated on her website that she plans to
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. A judge later
barred publication of the book in any form until the case was
resolved. 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 without offering sufficient "transformative" material to be
considered a separate work. The trial concluded on 17 April 2008. On
8 September 2008, the judge ruled in her favour, claiming that the
book would violate the terms of fair use. In December, 2008, a
modified (and shorter) version of Vander Ark's Lexicon was approved
for publication and was released 16 January 2009 as The Lexicon: An
Unauthorized Guide to
Harry Potter Fiction.
In November 2007,
The Scotsman reported that Rowling had threatened
legal action against American computer programmer G. Norman Lippert
for allegedly violating her intellectual property rights by producing
and publishing the online novel, James Potter and the Hall of Elders'
Crossing, an unofficial and unauthorised continuation of the Harry
Potter series. Written as a fan fiction project for Lippert's wife and
sons, the novel is set eighteen years after the end of the last
official installment in the series,
Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows , and describes the adventures of
Harry Potter 's son, James
Sirius Potter , during his first year at
Hogwarts School of Witchcraft
and Wizardry . A specialist in intellectual property law at
Strathclyde University commented that, "If an insubstantial character
from a novel is taken and built up by another author in a new story,
that can be a defence against copyright infringements." However,
after Lippert offered Rowling an advance copy of the novel, Rowling
dismissed her threat and said she supported the novel and any others
like it. Lippert subsequently produced a sequel, James Potter and the
Curse of the Gatekeeper. After the novel first appeared online in
early November 2007, some
Harry Potter fans on the Internet initially
speculated that the site might be part of an elaborate viral marketing
campaign for an official continuation or spinoff of Harry Potter, one
either written or at least approved by Rowling herself. On 9 November
2007, Rowling's agent Neil Blair denied that Rowling was in any way
involved with the purported project, and
Warner Bros. , the studio
which owns the rights to the
Harry Potter film series , denied that
the novel was in any way connected to the official Harry Potter
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince awaiting
Rowling and her publishers have brought a series of legal injunctions
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, in an attempt to maintain secrecy over the impending release
of the fifth
Harry Potter book,
Harry Potter and the Order of the
Phoenix , 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". 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'". The "Potter injunction" was later used against a camp
of Roma travellers. In 2006, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline
employed the injunction against anonymous animal rights campaigners
who had sent threatening letters to their investors.
The series garnered more controversy in 2005 with the release of the
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 a media lawyer 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.
Michael Geist , the Canada
Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of
Ottawa , said in response, "The copyright law claim was particularly
puzzling. While copyright law does provide copyright owners with a
basket of exclusive rights, the right to prohibit reading is not among
them. In fact, copyright law has very little to say about what people
can do with a book once they have purchased it." Free-speech
Richard Stallman posted a statement on his blog calling for a
boycott until the publisher issued an apology. Solicitors Fraser
Milner and Casgrain, who represented Raincoast and formulated the
legal argument for the embargo, have rebutted this, saying that the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
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.
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 21 July. In an official statement,
Scholastic appealed "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 21 July." Customers
who agreed not to read the book received a special Harry Potter
t-shirt and a $50 coupon for Scholastic's online store.
In June 2005, Aaron Lambert, a security guard at a book distribution
Corby , Northamptonshire, England, stole a number of pages
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 Askill was unharmed. At his trial the
following October, Lambert pleaded guilty to threatening Askill and to
attempting to blackmail Harry Potter's publishers, Bloomsbury . In
January 2006, Lambert was sentenced to four and a half years in
prison. In November 2011, in her testimony before the Leveson Inquiry
, Rowling said that the Sun had attempted to "blackmail" her into a
photo-op in return for returning the stolen manuscript.
ACCUSATION OF LIBEL
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 15 July, 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
Asda spokesman Peter Pritchard claimed that Bloomsbury
was "holding children to ransom" and that, "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 recommended retail price at this
level can only be seen as blatant profiteering on their part."
Pritchard went on to say that
Asda was acting to "champion the right
of young readers", and that the recommended retail price was "twice
the average child's pocket money and £5 more than the average
Asda had planned to sell the book as a loss
leader at £8.87 ($16.30), or half Bloomsbury's recommended retail
price of £17.99 ($33.00) and below the wholesale price of £9.89
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
Harry Potter and we deeply regret having been dragged
into their price-wars.
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.
Bloomsbury CEO Nigel Newton said, " 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."
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 ($70,000) for unauthorised
returns of the sixth
Harry Potter book. "The two matters are
completely unrelated", said a Bloomsbury spokeswoman, "We decided
today that we couldn't risk having arrears with anybody." The dispute
had been "going on a while – going on for weeks actually." Asda
responded that Bloomsbury owed them £122,000 ($224,000) ("for pulping
and for other book trade issues and work we have done for them" ) 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."
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."
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." Said another Asda
spokesperson, "If they don't supply us with the books, it will have a
massive implication and a breach of contract – but I don't think
they will do that."
Later that day, however,
Asda released a statement retracting its
original comment: "We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for press
release dated 15 July and withdraw our statement. We look forward to a
good relationship with Bloomsbury going forward, including selling the
Harry Potter book from 00:01 am BST on Saturday 21 July and
many other Bloomsbury books in the future". In response, Bloomsbury
lifted the block and
Asda was allowed to sell its books. The original
press release was then expunged.
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." 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."
* ^ A B "Potter author zaps court rival". CNN. 19 July 2002.
Archived from the original on 29 June 2007. Retrieved 11 March 2007.
* ^ A B "Rowling seeks \'Grotter\' ban". BBC News. 13 March 2003.
Retrieved 31 March 2006.
* ^ "Fake
Harry Potter novel hits China". BBC News. 4 July 2002.
Retrieved 11 March 2007.
* ^ A B C Kieren McCarthy (21 December 2000). "Warner Brothers
bullying ruins Field family Xmas". The Register. Retrieved 3 May 2007.
* ^ A B
Richard Stallman (2005). "Don\'t Buy
Harry Potter Books".
stallman.org. Retrieved 13 March 2007.
* ^ A B
Michael Geist (17 July 2005). "
Harry Potter and the Right
to Read". michaelgeist.ca. Retrieved 12 October 2007. Geist, Michael
(18 July 2005). "Appeared in". The
Toronto Star . Retrieved 26
* ^ A B C D Sir Andrew Morritt V.C (2004). "Hampshire Waste
Services Ltd v. Intending Trespassers upon Chineham Incinerator Site".
High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Ch D. Retrieved 23 August
2008. (kept at: Oxford Center for Higher Education Policy Studies)
* ^ A B Oliver, Mark (19 January 2006). "Man jailed for Potter
theft". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 23 May 2007.
* ^ A B C D Nigel Reynolds (17 July 2007). "
Asda barred from
selling seventh Harry Potter". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved 1
* ^ "
Harry Potter Lawsuits and Where to Find Them Trademark and
Copyright Law". www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com. Retrieved
* ^ A B "
Muggle Versus Wizard". The Washington Post. 28 March 2001.
Retrieved 11 March 2007.
* ^ Hillel Italie (19 September 2002). "\'Harry Potter\' Prevails
In Court". CBS News. Retrieved 8 May 2008.
* ^ A B C D E F G Scholastic, Inc. v. Stouffer 221 F. Supp. 2d 425
* ^ "All Things Considered: Harry Potter". NPR Radio. 3 December
1998. Retrieved 3 September 2008. (Rowling interview)
* ^ Scholastic Inc. v. Stouffer, 81 F. App'x 396 (2d Cir. 2003)
* ^ A B Nancy Stouffer. "realmuggles.com". Retrieved 18 October
* ^ "Ottenheimer Closing Down". Publishers Weekly. 17 June 2002.
Retrieved 19 September 2008.
* ^ "Winnipeg\'s Wyrd Sisters Still Fighting Harry Potter". Chart
magazine . 7 April 2006. Archived from the original on 5 April 2009.
Retrieved 23 September 2008.
* ^ "\'Wyrd Sisters\' cannot stop Harry Potter". Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. 4 September 2005. Archived from the original
on 27 May 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2008.
* ^ A B C "Wyrd Sisters continue
Harry Potter battle with studio".
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . 3 July 2006. Archived from the
original on 7 May 2007. Retrieved 23 December 2007.
* ^ A B Adrian Humphreys (1 July 2006). "Winnipeg folk band that
Harry Potter ordered to pay $140,000 court costs". The
National Post . Archived from the original on 16 October 2007.
Retrieved 3 September 2008.
* ^ Leah Collins (4 August 2007). "Wyrd Sisters keep fighting the
good fight, fan mail or not". The
Vancouver Sun . Retrieved 26
* ^ Lambert, Steve (2010). "Wyrd five-year court battle over Harry
Potter movie ends with secret settlement". Winnipeg: Canadian Press.
Retrieved 28 March 2010.
* ^ Ryan Kisiel (16 June 2009). "JK Rowling sued for £500m in
plagiarism lawsuit by family of late Willy The Wizard author". Daily
Mail. UK. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
* ^ A B C "Rowling didn\'t plagiarise". Reuters. 2009. Archived
from the original on 19 June 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
* ^ Lesley Ciarula Taylor (18 February 2010). "J.K. Rowling sued
for plagiarism". Toronto Star. Retrieved 20 July 2010.
* ^ Karen Sloan (2010). "It\'s
Harry Potter and the Allegation of
Plagiarism". The National Law Journal. Retrieved 15 July 2010.
* ^ "J.K. Rowling Accused of Stealing Ideas from 1987 Children\'s
* ^ "
Harry Potter plagiarism case dismissed". BBC. 7 January 2011.
Retrieved 16 April 2015.
* ^ The Bookseller Trustee of Willy the Wizard Makes Appeal over
Court Costs (29 April 2011)
* ^ The Bookseller, 24 May 2011
* ^ "
Harry Potter plagiarism claim struck out". The Guardian. 18
* ^ A B David Eimer (9 November 2005). "Beatrix Potter court
victory deals blow to China\'s publishing pirates". Independent on
Sunday. London: Independent News and Media Limited. Retrieved 6 August
* ^ "Fake
Harry Potter novel hits China". BBC News. 4 July 2002.
Retrieved 8 January 2011.
* ^ A B Legal magic spells win for Harry in China Oliver August and
Jack Malvern, The Times, 2002-11-02 Retrieved on: 2007-09-25
* ^ A B Howard W French (31 July 2007). "What is the seventh Potter
book called in China?". International Herald Tribune. Retrieved 1
* ^ Wu, Tim. "
Harry Potter and the International Order of
Copyright." Slate . Friday 27 June 2003. Retrieved 11 May 2009.
* ^ William Sutton (12 October 2007). "Who won the race to
translate \'Harry Potter\'?". The Times. London. Retrieved 21 May
* ^ Chitra Subramanyam & Subrata Nagchoudhury (2003). "Pirates
Potter Around Kolkata". The Indian Express. Retrieved 20 July 2010.
* ^ "Rowling blocks Grotter release". BBC News. 3 April 2003.
Retrieved 27 March 2007.
* ^ A B \'Tanja Grotter\' wel in België te lezen, Nieuws.nl,
2003-09-25. Retrieved on 2008-09-25 (in Dutch)
* ^ "
Tanya Grotter title list".
Tanya Grotter official site.
Retrieved 25 September 2008. (in Russian)
* ^ "India\'s "Hari Puttar" caught in
Harry Potter spell".
NewsDaily. 27 August 2008. Retrieved 7 September 2008.
* ^ Karishma Vaswani (12 September 2008). "Court delays Puttar film
release". BBC News. Retrieved 13 September 2008.
* ^ Anil Sinanan (25 September 2008). "Harri Puttar free to cast
its spell at Indian box-office". The Times. London. Retrieved 25
* ^ Kieren McCarthy (15 December 2000). "Warner Bros backs down on
Harry Potter Web site". The Register. Retrieved 3 May 2007.
* ^ A B "Army mag draws Potter comparisons". BBC News. 7 February
2005. Retrieved 8 September 2007.
* ^ Lizette Alvarez (9 February 2005). "Arts, Briefly; Harry Potter
Crosses Wands With the U.S. Army". The New York Times. Retrieved 12
* ^ Jack Malvern (26 February 2007). "Potter author sues eBay over
pirate books". The Times. London. Retrieved 8 September 2008.
* ^ JK Rowling (7 September 2005). "E-Bay Users Once Again".
jkrowling.com. Archived from the original on 24 September 2008.
Retrieved 8 September 2008.
* ^ Candace Lombardi. "
Harry Potter author fights e-book fraud on
eBay". c:net. Retrieved 27 March 2007.
* ^ A B C Cade Metz (8 June 2007). "JK Rowling badmouths eBay". The
Register. Retrieved 8 September 2008.
* ^ A B "Rowling sues Indian festival for building replica of
Hogwarts Castle". Agence France-Presse. 11 October 2007. Retrieved 12
* ^ Harish V Nair, 'Pottermania defeats Rowling at Salt Lake',
Hindustan Times ,
Kolkata Edition, 2007-10-13
* ^ "Correction: Festival-
Harry Potter story". Associated Press. 17
October 2007. Retrieved 16 November 2007.
* ^ JK Rowling (2007). "Rubbish Bin: J K Rowling demands 2 million
rupees from religious charities in India". jkrowling.com. Archived
from the original on 16 November 2007. Retrieved 16 November 2007.
* ^ David B. Caruso (1 September 2007). "Rowling Sues to Block
Harry Potter Book".
ABC News . Archived from the original on 2
November 2007. Retrieved 1 November 2007.
* ^ Joanne Rowling (31 October 2007). "Companion Books".
jkrowling.com. Archived from the original on 3 November 2007.
Retrieved 1 November 2007.
* ^ "Row delays
Harry Potter Lexicon". BBC News. 10 November 2007.
Retrieved 16 November 2007.
* ^ Dan Slater (18 April 2008). "Final (For Now!) Reflections on
Harry Potter Trial". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 26
* ^ "Rowling Says Fan\'s
Book Could Endanger other Authors". Epoch
Times . 16 April 2008. Retrieved 26 August 2008.
* ^ "U.S. judge halts unofficial
Harry Potter lexicon". Reuters. 8
September 2008. Retrieved 9 September 2008.
* ^ A B Ross, Shan (19 November 2007). "Rowling goes Potty over US
bid to post Harry\'s son\'s story on web". The Scotsman. Retrieved 19
* ^ A B C "On Eve of James Potter Sequel,
Harry Potter fan Fiction
Heats up: Unlikely Author Poised to Keep the Story Alive". PRWEB.
2008. Retrieved 20 July 2010.
* ^ Schliebs, Mark (9 November 2007). "Web abuzz with Harry Potter
sequel rumours". Archived from the original on 9 November 2007.
Retrieved 9 November 2007.
* ^ Maughan, Shannon (9 November 2007). "RDR Books Agrees to Delay
Potter Title". Archived from the original on 13 February 2008.
Retrieved 28 March 2008.
* ^ CHEESER (9 November 2007). "Elder\'s Crossing, James Potter,
Book 8, RIP". Archived from the original on 11 November 2007.
Retrieved 9 November 2007.
* ^ Dan Tench (23 May 2006). "Animal extremists can no longer hide
behind a web of secrecy". The Times. London. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
* ^ Jack Malvern (13 July 2005). "Reading ban on leaked Harry
Potter". The Times. London. Retrieved 11 October 2007.
* ^ "Important Notice: Raincoast Books". Raincoast Books. 25 August
2005. Archived from the original on 18 October 2007. Retrieved 27
* ^ Barbara Grossman, Aaron Milrad and Annie Na (2005).
Harry Potter Injunction: Protecting
Confidential Information" (PDF). Fraser Milner and Casgrain. Retrieved
30 May 2007.
* ^ "Scholastic will take action against Harry Potter
distributors". Reuters. 18 July 2007. Retrieved 18 July 2007.
* ^ "Guard admits to
Harry Potter theft". BBC News. 13 October
2005. Archived from the original on 24 January 2008. Retrieved 23 May
* ^ "Potter book thief admits threats". BBC News. 20 December 2005.
Retrieved 23 May 2007.
* ^ Richard Allen Greene (2011). "J.K. Rowling chased from home by
press, she says". CNN. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
* ^ A B C D E F G Katherine Rushton (17 July 2007). "Bloomsbury:
Asda must make peace". thebookseller.com. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
* ^ "
Asda Apologises following Potter
Book Row". UK News Lifestyle
Extra. 17 July 2007. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
* ^ Philip Jones (17 July 2007). "
Asda apologises to Bloomsbury".
thebookseller.com. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
* ^ Graeme Warden (17 July 2007). "
Harry Potter and the Asda
Apology". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
* ^ Neill Denny (17 July 2007). "Opinion: Asda\'s climbdown".
thebookseller.com. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
* ^ Ralph Baxter (2007). "The Great Stand-Off". Publishing News
Online. Archived from the original on 13 November 2007. Retrieved 1
Harry Potter portal
* Law portal