Suit Filed Against Bloomsbury Regarding "Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire;" Bloomsbury States Claim is "Without Merit"
June 15, 2009, 03:02 PM
Today the estate of late children's author Adrian Jacobs filed a suit against Bloomsbury Publishing citing copyright infringement involving Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling. In a press release, the estate claims that "JK Rowling copied
substantial parts of the work of the late Adrian Jacobs, The Adventures of
Willy the Wizard-No 1 Livid Land, and that Bloomsbury in selling the books
have infringed the Estate's copyright." The Bookseller also notes the estate is "seeking an injunction to prevent further sales of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and either damages or a share in the profits made by Bloomsbury. As noted by the Bookseller and the release, the claim says that "both books describe the adventures
of a main character, 'Willy' in Jacobs' book and 'Harry Potter' in Rowling's,
who are wizards, who compete in a wizard contest which they ultimately win.
Both Willy and Harry are required to work out the exact nature of the main
task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues
from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by
a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures, 'the merpeople' in
Harry Potter. "
Bloomsbury, UK publishers of the Harry Potter series, has now responded to this matter at length. In a response sent to Reuters and TLC, reps note "this claim is without merit and will be defended vigorously." They continue:
The allegations of plagiarism made today, Monday 15 June 2009, by the
Estate of Adrian Jacobs are unfounded, unsubstantiated and untrue. JK
Rowling had never heard of Adrian Jacobs nor seen, read or heard of his
book Willy the Wizard until this claim was first made in 2004- almost
seven years after the publication of the first book in the highly
publicised Harry Potter series - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's
Stone and after the publication of the first five books in the Harry
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was written by JK Rowling
before approaching Christopher Little in 1995 and the book was
published in an essentially unaltered form by Bloomsbury in 1997.
the Wizard is a very insubstantial booklet running to 36 pages which
had very limited distribution. The central character of Willy the
Wizard is not a young wizard and the book does not revolve around a
This claim was first made in 2004 by solicitors in London acting on
behalf of Adrian Jacobs' son who was the representative of his father's
estate and who lives in the United States. The claim was unable to
identify any text in the Harry Potter books which was said to copy
Willy the Wizard.
Following correspondence between lawyers over a period of three months
in 2004 rejecting this claim, no more was heard about the claim until a
new set of solicitors put forward the claim on a significantly
different basis four years later in 2008 (eleven years after the
publication of the first Harry Potter book) but still without
identifying any text said to copy Willy the Wizard. These lawyers have
stated that they are acting on behalf of a firm of solicitors in Wagga
Wagga, Australia and on behalf of a West Midlands property developer
who was appointed in 2008 as Trustee of the Estate in order to bring
this claim. The claim is now made in respect of Harry Potter and the
Goblet of Fire, which was published in 2000.
I feel so bad for JK, first with the VanderArk deal and now this, gees. She wrote these amazing books and can’t just sit back and enjoy for a while.
Oh gosh… This unknown author will never win. Why even bother?
what a waste of lawyer fees.. these people should have just saved themselves the work and embarrassment. similar general ideas is not the same thing as plagiarism. there is absolutely no proof that it is anything but coincidence.
Hey Guys! If you wanna support J.K., please feel free to join this group! :)
P.S. sorry for posting this message on another page… I thought it was this page I clicked. I have no idea how it happened =S
It all sounds rather desperate, and is (in essence) not unlike the claim made against Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”. JK and Bloomsbury have nothing to fear.
it’s unbelievable that people would even waste their time trying to sue the Harry Potter franchise, espescially with the intention of taking one of the books off the shelves. It would never happen and would just be a colossal waste of money!
I think that the allegations about plagiarism are unfounded…I mean loads of ideas are recycled nowadays and even though there is a striking similarity between the two plots this is primarily due to this fact…It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack! Definitely a lost cause to me…
Okay, clearly people need to go over the definition of plagerism again.
Plagerism: copying stuff WORD FOR WORD and claiming it as your own.
ideas that are similar? NOT PLAGERISM.
If you want to go after every idea that is similar to yours then everyone would be suing everyone else. In fact, JKR could sue a whole bunch of books that are similar to hers that came out after HP.
Why do people waist the courts time with this crap?
And Harry Potter still continues to be the number one mode to gain quick publicity despite TWO YEARS after the end of the series…I don’t even understand why someone would even ATTEMPT to make such a case, it just sounds absurd!!
J.K. was upset over the Nancy Stouffer business and I hope she doesn’t let herself get upset over this. She shouldn’t spend five minutes worrying about mosquitos like this. Let the lawyers handle it. Lots of authors have been sued by scavengers like this.
Aradion your wrong
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
2. something used and represented in this manner.
Note it IS NOT copying word for word its the use of the ideas
I dont know what plagerism is though.
Ermmm…sounds like someone had way too much time on their hands to sit around and try to bring up old issues. The author is dead, right? God, find something else to do.
Ok, so I’ve read some things at their website (www.willythewizard.com). Whoever wrote the bio of Adrian Jacobs, it sounded pretty biased. And why is “Willy” sometimes spelled “Willie”? It sounds like they threw the whole website together in a few hours. I’m pretty sure they’re stretching the picture and trying to take advantage….
PotterCast should have have one of those “Really?!” segments like on SNL. This would be one of those Really?! kind of moments.
So, stupid and so, pointless. There might be similarities but she has never heard of this and frankly I don’t think any of us have either!
Justice for Jo!