Share this on

Real Life Wizard Wars

GDA Staff -- Gifts and Dec, 10/21/2010 10:56:22 PM

Have you heard of Willy the Wizard? Chances are pretty good that you haven't. The estate of Adrian Jacobs, author of Willy, however, believes that J.K. Rowling knew of Willy and his magical world at the time she penned at least one of the books in her iconic Harry Potter series. As a result, Scholastic, Rowling's U.S. publisher for Harry Potter, has found itself embroiled in yet another copyright battle.
Harry Potter and the Copyright Lawsuit
     Let's start with what Jacobs will have to prove to prevail. The key to proving copyright infringement is, unsurprisingly, proving copying. But it's rare that someone admits to actually plagiarizing someone else's work.
     With that aspect of human nature in mind, the law allows copying to be established through circumstantial (indirect) evidence. If the alleged copier had access to the original work, and the work that is accused is substantially similar to the original work, then copying is presumed.
     According to the complaint filed against Scholastic, Rowling and her editors had access to Willy. Here's the supposed story: The book was first published in 1987 in the U.K., 13 years before any Potter novel. Jacobs apparently had difficulty getting Willy published. His U.K. literary agent was unsuccessful in finding a publisher, so Jacobs found one himself. Eventually, after getting Willy published in the U.K., Jacobs gave his agent about 1,000 copies of the book to try and get it published overseas. Again his agent was unsuccessful (the book was not published in the U.S.), and the book has apparently not had a wide distribution.
     So what, you ask? Why does Willy's success impact the case? If Willy was a bestseller, available in nearly any bookstore or website, then that would tend to be evidence that Rowling and her editors would have had access to the book. But that's not the case here. However, there is a twist. It turns out that Jacob's literary agent ended up being Rowling's literary agent for at least the first five of the Potter books. According to the complaint, this common link gave Rowling and her editors access to Willy and his magical world. While far from conclusive, it certainly is a plausible theory.
Copyright law doesn't protect merely an idea; it protects the artist's particular expression of an idea.
     Now let's turn to the question of whether the books are substantially similar. The focus of the Complaint is the fourth installment of the Potter series, The Goblet of Fire, and Harry's adventures in the "Triwizard Tournament." At first blush, even suggesting that there is substantial similarity between Willy (a mere 36 page book) and Goblet (a whopping 600-plus pages) seems questionable. But length alone is not determinative.
     The Complaint runs through a litany of comparisons of plots, themes, characters and setting between the two books. For example, both books involve a year-long wizard contest; both involve a wizard attending school in Europe; and both involve competitors from realworld countries. These sorts of general similarities however, are unlikely to cut it in Court. They are more reflective of ideas than specific protectable expression of the ideas. In other words, copyright law doesn't protect merely an idea; it protects the artist's particular expression of an idea. The more specific the expression, the more likely it is to be protectable.
     Beyond these general similarities, the complaint does make comparisons at a more specific level. For example, the central characters in both books are said to be required to deduce the exact nature of a central task in the competition; both receive the central task in a form they can't understand initially and must decode; both uncover the central task covertly in a bathroom; and both involve rescuing hostages imprisoned by half-human, half-animal creatures ("Kanganatives" in Willy versus the "Merepeople" in Goblet).
Marc S. Cooperman is a partner with Banner & Witcoff Ltd., where he focuses on intellectual property litigation, and has extensive experience in the toy industry. He can be reached at mcooperman@ bannerwitcoff.com.     Whether these and other comparisons in the complaint are accurate or the result of clever wording in a legal filing is yet to be seen. However Scholastic and Rowling will have to take the accusations seriously. Jacobs' estate is asking not only for damages (in the U.K. lawsuit a spokesman for the estate has called it a "billion dollar case"), but also that all copies of Goblet that are on bookstore shelves, or in inventory, be recalled and destroyed. That relief (which sounds like one of Voldemort's plans) is, however, saved for only the most egregious bad guys, and is a highly unlikely scenario for Rowling, Scholastic and Harry. We'll see what happens.

Share this on

Talkback

» Submit Feedback

Adrian Jacobs was a lifelong fraud having been in jail at Ford Open Prison where he met Ian Markson and others. He operated boilerroom scam share operations such as Structural Development Group with Michael Preston and Chandra Singh of Ravendale Securities in the early 1980s, fleecing innocent shareholders by selling worthless founder shares, and then watching the company go into liquidation.

He sold cherished number plates with the same number "AJ 1" to several people, was banned for life from dealing with London Stock Exchange members for reneging on deals.

He was permanently looking for dodgy deals, was totally dishonest and in all probability pinched the ideas for his Willy the Wizard from what was available on the market. Could Max Markson and Ian Markson of Ford open Prison, be one and the same?

This group, the so called executors of Adrian Jacobs Estate would appear on the face of it to be undeserving of any benefit as they represent someone who was nothing other than a scoundrel thief and con merchant. I am concerned for my safety if my email address is revealed as Adrian Jacobs was associated with the very worst elements of society while alive, and it seems his team is connected and known to these same elements.

THis whole excercise seems to be just a gang of chancers trying to get some easy money. If they lose the case they wont pay the costs and the Judge will in all liklihood not force them to pay into Court sufficient funds as security for costs as will cover the high costs that the defence have to muster.

Leo Fromm
Leo Fromm - 2010-10-28 03:45:51 EDT

» More

Websites And Wizards

Jan 1, 2009

Also by this author

»MORE

Featured Company

Wright Labels

Bill and Tom Wright founded Wright of Thomasville in 1961 on the idea that printing was a creative medium and the belief that "a promise made is a promise kept." The Wright brothers focused their attention on providing exceptional printing for the... more