Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Calliopejen1 (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 12 September 2008 (c/e). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Since first coming to wide notice in the late 1990s, there have been a number of legal disputes over the Harry Potter book series by J. K. Rowling. Rowling, her publishers and Time Warner, the owner of the rights to the Harry Potter films, have taken numerous legal actions to protect their copyright, and also have fielded accusations of copyright theft themselves.[1] 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.[2] While these legal proceedings have countered a number of cases of outright piracy,[3] other attempts have targeted not-for-profit endeavours and have been criticised as a result as too draconian.[4]

Another area of legal dispute involves a series of injunctions obtained by Rowling and her publishers to prohibit anyone from reading her books before their official release date. These injunctions have very sweeping powers and have occasionally drawn fire from civil liberties and free speech campaigners and sparked debates over the "right to read".[5][6] The powers afforded by these injunctions have even been used in subsequent cases unrelated to publishing.[7]

Outside these controversies, a number of particular incidents related to Harry Potter have also led, or almost led, to legal action. In 2005 a man was sentenced to four years in prison after an altercation with a weapon over stolen pages from an unreleased Harry Potter novel,[8] while in 2007 Bloomsbury Publishing came close to legal action against the supermarket chain Asda for libel after the company accused them of overpricing the final Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.[9]

Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement

File:Rahmuggles.jpg
The Legend of Rah and the Muggles

Nancy Stouffer

In 1999, American author Nancy Kathleen Stouffer quietly began to allege 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.[1] The primary basis for Stouffer's case rested in her own purported invention of the word "Muggles", non-magical elongated 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.[10] Despite the reports of some news agencies,[11] Larry Potter is not a character in The Legend of Rah and the Muggles.[12] Stouffer also drew a number of other comparisons, such as a castle on a lake, a receiving room and wooden doors.[10] Portions of Rah were originally published in booklet form by Ande Publishing Company in 1986, a company founded by Ms. Stouffer together with a group of friends and family.[13] Ande filed for bankruptcy in September 1987 without selling any of its booklets in the United States or elsewhere.[13] Rowling has stated that she first visited the United States in 1998.[14]

Rowling, along with Scholastic Press (her American publisher) and Warner Bros. (holders of the series' film rights), pre-empted Stouffer with a suit of their own seeking a declaratory judgment that they had not infringed on any of Stouffer's 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,"[15] including changing pages years after the fact to retroactively insert the word "muggle".Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Ms. 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.[16] 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.[16]

Claire Field

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 threatening letters to owners of Harry Potter fansites, demanding that, to protect their copyright, they hand over their domain names.[17] 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.[4][18]

Unauthorised Chinese Harry Potter books

File:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg
Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon

In 2002, an unauthorised Chinese-language sequel titled Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon appeared for sale in the People's Republic of China. According to translated excerpts, almost the entire book consists of the verbatim text of The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien with most names changed to those of Harry Potter characters.[19] The book was quickly recognised as fake. Rowling (as well as movie rights holder Warner Bros.) took steps to stop its distribution.[19] Copies were briefly distributed around the world, including e-book copies traded on the internet. When the actual novel Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released in 2003, interest in the unauthorized book quickly faded.

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.[20] As of 2007, the identity of the anonymous "author" has not been discovered. The opening of Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon, translated into English, was included in several news articles.[20]

Also in 2002, the China Braille Publishing House published Harry Potter and the Porcelain Doll. It is estimated that there are fifteen million fraudulent Harry Potter novels circulating in China today.[21] In 2007, Christopher Little, Rowling's literary agents, 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 publication.[21]

Dimitry Yemets

Main article: Tanya Grotter
File:Tanya Grotter.jpg
Tanya Grotter

In 2003, courts in the Netherlands prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, the first of Dimitry 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.[2] The Dutch courts ruled that the books did not constitute parody and thus were not allowed to be sold in the Netherlands.[22]

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.[23] 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.[23] The books remain popular in Russia and have spawned several sequels, as well as numerous adaptations and much merchandise.[24]

Preventive Maintenance Monthly

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.[25] 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".[26]

eBay

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.[27] 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 being swindled.[28] In 2007, Rowling launched lawsuits against a number of users of the site,[29] 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.[30] In June, 2007, eBay filed papers with the Indian High Court in New Delhi, alleging that Rowling had caused them "immense humiliation and harassment."[30] The High Court circumvented the application, claiming that it could not make such a judgment until the case went to trial.[30]

Wyrd Sisters

In 2005, after being offered CAD$50,000 by Warner Bros., Canadian folk band the Wyrd Sisters undertook a legal action against Warner Bros., Jarvis Cocker of Pulp, and Jonny Greenwood and Phil Selway of Radiohead, because of a scene in the film version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire which featured a band named The Weird Sisters.[31] All plans to use the name in the movie were later abandoned. Despite that decision, the Canadian band filed a CAD$40-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.[32] The entire suit was dismissed in November 2005. Additionally, in June 2006, the band was ordered to pay Warner Bros. CAD$140,000 in legal costs.[32] The group claimed they planned to appeal the decision.[32] 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.[33]

Kolkata lawsuit

In October 2007, Warner Bros. sued a group constructing a facade during a Hindu religious festival in the Indian city of Kolkata for two million rupees ($50,000), 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.[34] 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[35] and that the court refused to impose any compensation on the basis that the organisers were involved in a "non-profit making enterprise".[36] However, these statements were later retracted; the court had in fact ruled in favour of Warner Bros., but no fine had been ordered, and Warners claimed that they had only requested a fine because such action was necessary under Indian law.[37]

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."[38]

RDR Books

Main article: Warner Bros. and JK Rowling vs. RDR Books

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.[39] 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 proceeds of the official encyclopaedia, which she plans to give to charity.[40] A judge later barred publication of the book in any form until the case was resolved.[41] 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. Such borrowing is allowable if no profit is intended. However, the book is intended to be sold commercially.[42] The trial concluded on 17 April 2008.[43] On September 8, 2008, the judge ruled in her favour, claiming that the book would violate the terms of fair use.[44]

Mirchi Movies

In August, 2008, Warner Bros. filed a lawsuit against production company Mirchi Movies due to the similarity of the title to the Harry Potter film series of their Bollywood film Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors due to be released on the 12th September 2008, Mirchi Movies CEO Munish Purii claims 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 the Punjabi language, although Indian versions of Harry Potter also translate Harry's name to Hari Puttar.[45]

Legal injunctions

There have been a series of legal injunctions brought by Rowling and her publishers 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".[7] 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'".[7] This principle was later used against a camp of Roma travellers.[7] In 2006, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline employed the injunction against anonymous animal rights campaigners who had sent threatening letters to their investors.[46]

The series garnered more controversy in 2005 with the release of the sixth book, 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 media lawyer Korieh Duodu 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.[6][47] Free-speech activist Richard Stallman posted a statement on his blog calling for a boycott until the publisher issues an apology.[5] Solicitors Fraser Milner and Casgrain, who represented Raincoast and formulated the legal argument for the embargo,[48] have rebutted this, saying that the 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.[49]

In 2007, 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 July 21. In an official statement, Scholastic made an appeal "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 July 21."[50] Customers who agreed not to read the book received a special Harry Potter t-shirt and a $50 coupon for Scholastic's online store.

Other legal actions

Blackmail

In June 2005, Aaron Lambert, a security guard at a book distribution centre in Corby, Northamptonshire, England, stole a number of pages from 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 Mr. Askill was unharmed.[51] At his trial the following October, Lambert pleaded guilty to threatening Mr. Askill and to attempting to blackmail Harry Potter's publishers, Bloomsbury.[52] In January 2006, Lambert was sentenced to four and a half years in prison.[8]

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 July 15, 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 their prices. Asda spokesman Peter Pritchard claimed that Bloomsbury was "holding children to ransom" and that, "[i]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 RRP at this level can only be seen [sic] as blatant profiteering on their part."[9] Pritchard went on to say that Asda was acting to "champion the right of young readers", and that the RRP was "twice the average child's pocket money and £5 more than the average children's bestseller."[9] Asda had planned to sell the book as a loss leader at £8.87, or half Bloomsbury's recommended retail price of £17.99 and below the wholesale price of £9.89.[53]

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 Publishing or Harry Potter and we deeply regret having been dragged into their price-wars.[9]

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.[54]

Bloomsbury CEO Nigel Newton said, "[t]hey've 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."[54]

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 for unauthorised returns of the sixth Harry Potter book.[54] "The two matters are completely unrelated", said a Bloomsbury spokeswoman, "We decided today that we couldn't risk having arrears with anybody."[9] The dispute had been "going on a while - going on for weeks actually."[55] Asda responded that Bloomsbury owed them £122,000 ("for pulping and for other book trade issues and work we have done for them"[54]) 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."[55]

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."[54]

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."[54] Said another Asda spokesperson, "If they don't supply us with the books, it will have a massive implication and [be] a breach of contract - but I don't think they will do that."[54]

Later that day, however, Asda released a statement retracting its original comment: "We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for [our] press release dated July 15 and withdraw our statement. We look forward to a good relationship with Bloomsbury going forward, including selling the latest Harry Potter book from 00:01am BST on Saturday 21 July and many other Bloomsbury books in the future".[56] In response, Bloomsbury lifted the block and Asda was allowed to sell its books. The original press release was then expunged.[57]

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."[58] 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."[59]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "Potter author zaps court rival". CNN. 2002-09-19. Retrieved 2007-03-11.
  2. ^ a b "Rowling seeks 'Grotter' ban". BBC News, 13 March 2003. Accessed 21 March 2006."
  3. ^ "Fake Harry Potter novel hits China". BBC. 2002-07-04. Retrieved 2007-03-11.
  4. ^ a b Kieren McCarthy (2000). "Warner Brothers bullying ruins Field family Xmas". The Register. Retrieved 2007-05-03.
  5. ^ a b Richard Stallman (2005-07-13). "Don't Buy Harry Potter Books". stallman.org. Retrieved 2007-03-13. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)
  6. ^ a b Michael Geist (2005). "Harry Potter and the Right to Read". michaelgeist.ca. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
  7. ^ 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 2008-08-23. (kept at: Oxford Center for Higher Education Policy Studies)
  8. ^ a b "Harry Potter thief sent to prison". CBBC Newsround. 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
  9. ^ a b c d e Nigel Reynolds (2007). "Asda barred from selling seventh Harry Potter". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  10. ^ a b "Muggle Versus Wizard". The Washington Post. 2001-03-28. Retrieved 2007-03-11.
  11. ^ "Larry Potter returns to print". BBC News. 2001. Retrieved 2007-06-11.
  12. ^ Hillel Italie (2002). "'Harry Potter' Prevails In Court". CBS News. Retrieved 2008-05-08.
  13. ^ a b "Scholastic, Inc., et al. v. Stouffer, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17531". scrivenerserror.com. 2002. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
  14. ^ "All Things Considered: Harry Potter". NPR Radio. 1998. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  15. ^ Jessie Beeber and Edward Rosenthal. "Harry Potter And The Uncommon Award". Frankfurt Kurnit Klein and Seltz PC. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
  16. ^ a b Nancy Stouffer. "realmuggles.com". Retrieved 2007-10-18.
  17. ^ Mike Ingram (2001). "AOL-Time Warner threatens children running Harry Potter fan sites". World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
  18. ^ Kieren McCarthy (2000). "Warner Bros backs down on Harry Potter Web site". The Register. Retrieved 2007-05-03.
  19. ^ a b "Beatrix Potter court victory deals blow to China's publishing pirates". Independent on Sunday. Independent News and Media Limited. 2005-09-11. Retrieved 2007-08-06. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)
  20. ^ a b Legal magic spells win for Harry in China Oliver August and Jack Malvern, The Times, November 2, 2002
  21. ^ a b Howard W French (2007). "What is the seventh Potter book called in China?". International Harald Tribune. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  22. ^ "Rowling blocks Grotter release". BBC News. 2003. Retrieved 2007-03-27.
  23. ^ a b 'Tanja Grotter' wel in België te lezen, Nieuws.nl, October 23, 2003 (in Dutch)
  24. ^ "Harry Potter triumphs over Russians". Briffa creative law. 2003. Retrieved 2007-03-27.
  25. ^ "The Preventive Maintenance Monthly" (PDF). 2004. Retrieved 2007-09-08.
  26. ^ "Army mag draws Potter comparisons". BBC News. 2005. Retrieved 2007-09-08.
  27. ^ Jack Malvern (2007). "Potter author sues eBay over pirate books". The Times. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  28. ^ JK Rowling (2005). "E-Bay Users Once Again". jkrowling.com. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  29. ^ Candace Lombardi. "Harry Potter author fights e-book fraud on eBay". c:net. Retrieved 2007-03-27.
  30. ^ a b c Cade Metz (2007). "JK Rowling badmouths eBay". The Register. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  31. ^ "'Wyrd Sisters' cannot stop Harry Potter". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2005. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  32. ^ a b c "Wyrd Sisters continue Harry Potter battle with studio". cbc.ca. 2006. Retrieved 2007-12-23.
  33. ^ Adrian Humphreys (2006). "Winnipeg folk band that took on Harry Potter ordered to pay $140,000 court costs". The National Post. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  34. ^ "Rowling sues Indian festival for building replica of Hogwarts Castle". AFP. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
  35. ^ "Rowling sues Hogwarts Castle replica in India". AFP. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
  36. ^ Harish V Nair, 'Pottermania defeats Rowling at Salt Lake', Hindustan Times, Kolkata Edition, October 13, 2007
  37. ^ "Correction: Festival-Harry Potter story". Associated Press. 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-16.
  38. ^ JK Rowling (2007). "Rubbish Bin: J K Rowling demands 2 million rupees from religious charities in India". jkrowling.com. Retrieved 2007-11-16.
  39. ^ David B. Caruso (2007). "Rowling Sues to Block Harry Potter Book". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  40. ^ Joanne Rowling. "Companion Books". jkrowling.com. Retrieved 2007-11-01.
  41. ^ "Row delays Harry Potter Lexicon". BBC News. 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-16.
  42. ^ "Harry Potter Lexicon update". RDR Books. 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  43. ^ "Rowling Says Fan's Book Could Endanger other Authors". Epoch Times. 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-26.
  44. ^ "U.S. judge halts unofficial Harry Potter lexicon". Reuters. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
  45. ^ "India's "Hari Puttar" caught in Harry Potter spell". NewsDaily. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
  46. ^ Dan Tench (2006). "Animal extremists can no longer hide behind a web of secrecy". Timesonline. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
  47. ^ Jack Malvern (2005). "Reading ban on leaked Harry Potter". Timesonline. Retrieved 2007-10-11.
  48. ^ "Important Notice: Raincoast Books". 2005. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
  49. ^ Barbara Grossman, Aaron Milrad and Annie Na (2005). "Understanding the Harry Potter Injunction: Protecting Copyright and Confidential Information" (PDF). Fraser Milner and Casgrain. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
  50. ^ "Scholastic will take action against Harry Potter distributors". Reuters. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
  51. ^ "Guard admits to Harry Potter theft". JR Roberts Security Strategies. 2005. Archived from the original on 2008-01-24. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
  52. ^ "Potter book thief admits threats". BBC News. 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
  53. ^ "Potter book firm clashes with supermarket over price". TimesOnline. 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  54. ^ a b c d e f g Katherine Rushton (2007). "Bloomsbury: Asda must make peace". thebookseller.com. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  55. ^ a b "Asda Apologises following Potter Book Row". UK News Lifestyle Extra. 2007. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  56. ^ Philip Jones (2007). "Asda apologises to Bloomsbury". thebookseller.com. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  57. ^ Graeme Warden (2007). "Harry Potter and the Asda Apology". Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  58. ^ Neill Denny (2007). "Opinion: Asda's climbdown". thebookseller.com. Retrieved 2007-08-01.
  59. ^ Ralph Baxter (2007). "The Great Stand-Off". Publishing News Online. Retrieved 2007-08-01.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series&oldid=237830734"