| |
In lugnet.castle, Jonathan Lill writes:
> There is a difference between these two occurences. The Harry Potter lawsuit
> is over the fact that both books use the term "muggles" though to mean
> different things. Also there is a character in suer's book named Larry
> Potter but he in no other way resembles Harry Potter. As far as I know that
> is where the resemblance ends and it sounds purely accidental and in no way
> actionable.
Not sure about this--here's a snippet culled from the ABC News site
(excerpted here for purposes of review and discussion and intending no
challenge to the copyright status of that fine site!)
"Both books have characters known as Muggles. They are non-wizards in the
Rowling books, but in Stouffer's book they use magic to transform their dark
homeland into a happy place."
Does "Muggle" have precedence before Stouffer? If so, then obviously she
can claim no exclusive authorship of the name. If not, then she has a case,
regardless of Rowling's different use of the term. Still, if I make "Ronald
McDonald" my Scottish-themed restaurant's mascot, claiming that the name
existed before the Golden Arches grabbed it, do you think I wouldn't be sued?
"There is also a character called Lilly Potter in both books. In Rowling's
books, Lily, with one L, is Harry's mother. In Stouffer's, Lilly is Larry's
cousin."
This is at the very least a weird coincidence, though I don't think either
writer could claim copyright of a mundane, real-world name like this.
Nonetheless, if one perceives one's copyright to have been pirated, odd
similarities like this don't make one less inclined to pursue litigation.
"Stouffer says her rights to her characters, especially "Muggles," have been
hijacked and superceded — crushed by the weight of promotion of the Harry
Potter characters, which invalidated her own characters, even though her
work predates Rowling's by 10 years or more."
This is probably the most important point. The copyrighted existence of
intellectual properties a full decade before one's competitor would seem
significant when one is seeking compensation from that competitor.
Dave!
I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen one played on TV.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Disney actually did this with "Lion King"
|
| In lugnet.castle, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) Funny you mention this, i remember seeing a story on a news show (dateline?)that there was a resturant named McDonalds, I think in Scotland, that is a very fancy, high class place. And (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Disney actually did this with "Lion King"
|
| (...) There is a difference between these two occurences. The Harry Potter lawsuit is over the fact that both books use the term "muggles" though to mean different things. Also there is a character in suer's book named Larry Potter but he in no (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.castle)
|
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
