(5182, 'Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement br Nancy Stouffer br 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 filed for bankrup tcy 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 br 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 their favour stating 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 proven 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 h er 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 appeals court upheld the ruling She states on her website that she is planning to republish her books and is entertaining the possibility of another lawsuit against Warner Bros J K Rowling and Scholastic Press br The Legend of Rah and the Muggles is currently out of print In the spring of 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 unauthorised because the publisher failed to honour its contractual obligations to her br Claire Field br In 2000 in the lead up to the release of the first Harry Potter film 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 trademark br Unauthorised Chinese Harry Potter books br In 2002 an unauthorised Chinese language sequel titled Harry Potter and Bao Zoulong Chinese Hanyu Pinyin Hl Bt y Bo Zulng 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 Tolkien s The Hob bit but with most names changed to those of Harry Potter characters The book was quickly recognised 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 br 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 opening of Harry Potter and Bao Zoulong translated into English was included in several news articles br Also in 2002 the China Braille Publishing House published Harry Potter and the Porcelain Doll As of 2007 it is estimated that there are fifteen million 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 fa ke version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that appeared in China ten days before the actual book s publication br Uttam Ghosh br 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 br Dmitri Yemets br Main article Tanya Grotter br In 2003 courts in the Netherlands prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass the first of 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 Moscow based publishers 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 br 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 br Preventive Maintenance Monthly br 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 t 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 br eBay br 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 pap ers 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 br Wyrd Sisters br In 2005 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 39 160 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 As of August 2007 the band were still pursuing their claim with hopes to bring it to the federal level The band has reported receiving death threats from irate Harry Potter fans br Kolkata lawsuit br In October 2007 Warner Bros sued a group constructing a faade during a Hindu religious festival in the Indian city of Kolkata for Rs 160 2 million US 160 43 000 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 br 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 a nd 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 160 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 br RDR Books br Main article Warner Bros and JK Rowling vs RDR Books br On 31 October 2007 Warner Bros and Rowling sued 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 owner Steve Vander Ark reiterated on her website that she plans to write a Harry Potter encyclopaedia and that the publication of a similar book before her own would hurt the procee ds of the official encyclopaedia 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 br Mirchi Movies br 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 popula r 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 2005 br Adrian Jacobs br 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 Wil ly and Harry are required to work out the exact nature')
iAutoblog the premier autoblogger software
沒有留言:
張貼留言