Harry Potter Lawsuits And Where To Find Them

On July 31, 2015, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling celebrates her 50th birthday, according to muggle sources. The enormous success of Rowling's literary creation and its associated multimedia empire has spawned countless jealousies, countless imitators, countless parodists and countless pirates. The franchise has kept dozens if not hundreds of lawyers busy with precedent-setting copyright cases, trademark disputes, First Amendment battles over religious expression, and even the occasional breaking and entering. Indeed, it appears that Ms. Rowling and her works pop up in court more than any author since Charles Dickens — and that's saying something considering that Dickens, unlike Rowling, wrote books about lawyers. To commemorate this semi-centennial, we have created this guide to the most notable and interesting of the Harry Potter legal disputes.

EXPECTO SUBPOENAS!

Nothing breeds intellectual property lawsuits like success. From the time Harry Potter was first published, the books have been challenged by other artists who contend that they — not Rowling — are responsible for all or part of the magic. Rowling has never been anything but vindicated, so why were these cases brought in the first place? Perhaps Harry Potter is like the Mirror of Erised, in which potential plaintiffs see what they want to see. Or perhaps, as Ginny Weasley once opined, it's because "you sort of start thinking anything's possible if you've got enough nerve."

Stouffer v. Scholastic: In 1999, just after the first Harry Potter book was released in the United States, American author Nancy Stouffer started writing letters to Scholastic, Rowling's U.S. publisher, in which she claimed to have authored books in the 1980's entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles and Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly. Stouffer alleged that the Harry Potter books infringed her copyrights and trademarks in a number of ways, including because one of Stouffer's books had a race of beings called "Muggles," and another had a protagonist whose name rhymed with Harry Potter and who wore glasses. Scholastic filed an action in the Southern District of New York, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

In 2002, the Court in granted summary judgment to Scholastic, finding that Rowling's use of the term "muggles" to refer to ordinary human beings was unlikely to be confused with Stouffer's "Muggles," who were "tiny hairless creatures with elongated heads who live in a fictional, post-apocalyptic land." As to the 'Larry = Harry' allegation, the Court held that the fact that two boys with brown hair were wearing glasses was not sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion for trademark purposes or a substantial similarity for copyright purposes.

The Court conducted its infringement analysis under the assumption that Stouffer in fact did author the works she claimed to have authored at the times she claimed to have authored them. But when it was done with that infringement analysis, the Court dropped the assumption and really let Stouffer have it. The Court credited evidence that Stouffer's book in the 1980's was originally entitled simply "Rah," and that only later did she add the words "The Legend of" and "the Muggles" in order to bolster her court case. The Court also found that the only copy of the Larry Potter book offered into evidence had been falsely dated. Stouffer was ultimately found to have committed several frauds on the court, and she was ordered to pay a $50,000 sanction. The Second Circuit later affirmed.

Wyrd Sisters v. Weird Sisters. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the band at the Yule Ball was the Weird Sisters, a fictional wizard rock band. In 2005, when it came time for Warner Brothers to make the movie, a folk music act from Manitoba stepped forward. The folk band, called the Wyrd Sisters, filed suit in an Ontario court to prevent the film's distribution in Canada, lest Harry Potter fans unwittingly start showing up at Wyrd Sister gigs. Warner Brothers reportedly offered the Wyrd Sisters $50,000 to go away, but they rejected the offer and continued to pursue damages in the neighborhood of $40 million. Unlike the Weird Sisters from Macbeth, however, the Wyrd Sisters from Manitoba could not see the future. It was reported that the Ontario Court found the suit to be "highly intrusive," and also that it was not pleased with the band's public comments about the case. The Wyrd Sisters were ordered to pay $140,000 in court costs. By that time, however, any reference to the name had been removed from the film, and the band that played Do the Hippogriff at the Yule ball was called . . . well . . . it "needed no introduction."

Smith v. Rowling. In 2010, Elijah Smith brought a pro se claim against Rowling in the Eastern District of California. The allegation was simple: "I'm the author who write Harry Potter. . ." As to the relief sought, Mr. Smith stated:

Mrs. J.K. Rowling will make a great teacher . . . I'll be gladly to help Mrs. J.K. Rowling after she pay me $18 billion.

Mr. Smith's complaint was dismissed shortly after it was brought, and his request to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. Mr. Smith, who at the time the complaint was filed resided in a California state prison, has brought similar claims against Michael Jackson, Lil Wayne, Snoop Dog and Sam Cooke.

Willy the Wizard: In 2010, the estate of author Adrian Jacobs brought suit against Scholastic in the Southern District of New York for copyright infringement (and a similar suit in London against Rowling's U.K. Publisher, Bloomsbury). The suit alleged that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was copied in part from The Adventures of Willy the Wizard, a 16-page booklet about an adult wizard who, among other things, participates in a contest in order to win a place in a wizard retirement home.

In 2011, the Court allowed Scholastic's motion to dismiss because "any serious comparison of the two strains credulity." The only substantive points of comparison were that the main character in each work was a wizard who participates in a contest (for Harry, it was the triwizard tournament), and that at some point each wizard has an idea in the bathtub (a hackneyed device since Archimedes).

But the Court didn't stop there, also taking the opportunity to describe Willy the Wizard, unlike Harry Potter, as "devoid of a moral message or intellectual depth" and for the most part "lack[ing] any cohesive narrative elements that can unify or make sense of its disparate anecdotes - a generous reading may infer that its purpose is to engage a child's attention for a few moments at a time, much like a mobile or cartoon." In fact, the Court opined, "it is unlikely that a rudimentary character like Willy can be infringed upon at all." Perhaps not wishing to invite similar literary criticism from the Second Circuit, the estate did not appeal. The U.K. case subsequently came to a similar end.

Harry Potter v. The Future President of the United States. The most recent allegation of copying against Rowling came earlier this year in the Eastern District of New York. The pro se plaintiff submitted a complaint which accused a Hollywood studio (but not one that had anything to do with Harry Potter) of stealing several ideas from an autobigoraphy she had submitted. Among other things, the complaint alleges: "Harry Potter scar on forehead is related to hospital emergency room visit I witnessed of 2 of my family members that wish to remain unnamed." As to damages, the Complaint asked for $20 billion, the basis for which was that "I now am seeking the United States presidency & a Congressional run prior that require funding that I do not have." The Court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, then quickly dismissed the complaint as frivolous.

SHE WHO MUST NOT BE COPIED

For every author who claims that Rowling copied part of Harry Potter from them, there are a hundred instances of unauthorized copies of Rowling's work by others. Much of this copying falls into traditional categories of pirating and counterfeiting. For example, the Central District of California in Warner Brothers v. Slaughter put the kibosh on an operation that was selling unauthorized copies of Harry Potter movies through Amazon.com. And in Rowling v. Shukla, an Indian court put a stop to the distribution of unlicensed Marathi language translations. Rowling has taken a special interest in the sale of counterfeit books and "J.K. Rowling" signatures on eBay, and in 2007 she obtained an injunction against the auction site from the Delhi High Court.

Harry Potter has also...