She's being hitting everybody with one, it's refreshing to see that somebody has recognized what she is; a hack!
SYDNEY – J.K. Rowling has been named in a lawsuit alleging she stole ideas for her wildly popular and lucrative "Harry Potter" books from another British author.
The estate of the late Adrian Jacobs on Wednesday added Rowling as a defendant in a lawsuit it filed in June against Bloomsbury Publishing PLC for alleged copyright infringement, according to a statement released by the estate's representatives, who are based in Australia.
The lawsuit, filed in a London court, claims Rowling's book "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" copied substantial parts of Jacobs' 1987 book, "The Adventures of Willy the Wizard — No. 1 Livid Land." Jacobs' estate also claims that many other ideas from "Willy the Wizard" were copied into the "Harry Potter" books. Jacobs died in London in 1997.
"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is the fourth book in Rowling's series and was published in July 2000.
Sydney agent Max Markson, who is representing the trustee of Jacobs' estate, Paul Allen, said Rowling was added to the lawsuit after Allen learned that the statute of limitations to sue her had not run out, as previously thought.
"I estimate it's a billion-dollar case," Markson said Thursday. "That'll be the decision of the courts, obviously."
There was no immediate comment from Rowling. In June, Bloomsbury said the allegation that Rowling lifted from Jacobs' work was "unfounded, unsubstantiated and untrue." Bloomsbury said Jacobs' estate first approached the company in 2004 with its claims, but was unable to identify any text in the "Harry Potter" books that was copied from "Willy the Wizard."
In a statement, Allen said the estate is also seeking legal advice on whether the Harry Potter films and soon-to-be-opened Harry Potter theme park breach copyright law.
I'm still waiting for Alan Moore to file one against her for lifting the character from his "Book of Magic" series of comics.
Posts
1 comment:
The lawsuit is not new; this has been going on for a few years already.
The problem is that the actual material being sued over it too "open" to be claimed as original intellectual property.
Post a Comment