I agree with Hugh. This is getting old, time to move on.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
JK Rowling being sued for plagiarism
- Thread starter Hugh
- Start date
Libra
Active Member
lmao
I am not going to get into an argument. I have told the truth. Years of design effort is being plastered over by the act of plagiarism. Believe me, I am not being amusing. I am not lying, and I'm not trying to claim someone elses story. If you want to see something amusing then watch Mr. Bean. My name is clearly seen on the face of the image of the book shown in post No. 13. From the very first post on this column there appears to have been a lean towards the backing of a plagiarist. I hope that is a misunderstanding of the facts. I brought information, that is true, to the forum that was going nowhere. Have a good look at the book cover art and notice letter 'S' is designed in the right-front root of the stump. It is not letter J, K, or R. The image shown is clear enough to see the name drawn on the front of the stump. Letters 'GS' can be found midway up the left vine. It is formed in the vine itself. It is the closest part of the vine near to the left side of the trunk. It is not a type font. An air brush of a paint program, on the PC, was used to form the artwork. I don't need to take credit from someone elses creations. I want the truth to be revealed. If my marks can be seen on the image then I can reveal others. If it is not of anyone's interest in finding out the truth then I won't continue to release relevant id details to the forum.
That is all.
That is all.
The Harry Potter books are very derivative - even the 'wizard/witch at school for wizards/witches' theme was done before in a British children's television series called 'The Worst Witch' (or a name similiar). That other authors have seen similarities between their own work and Rowling's cannot, therefore, be a surprise. Had she not made a fortune from it, there probably wouldn't be lawsuits for copyright infringement. But she has made a lot of money with a derivative formula, and that angers many. Had she been more original . . .
For those who would defend her, I would like to point out that before Shakespeare's King Lear, there was King Leir, and before Shakespeare's Hamlet, there was the 'Ur-Hamlet', and before Sherlock Holmes, there was C. Auguste Dupin. Great art, particularly literature, is often created by stealing from lesser works. (These days, however, copyright laws prevent this, and so we are still waiting for the modern classics.)
One day, a great writer will rip-off the Harry Potter books and turn them into great literature.
For those who would defend her, I would like to point out that before Shakespeare's King Lear, there was King Leir, and before Shakespeare's Hamlet, there was the 'Ur-Hamlet', and before Sherlock Holmes, there was C. Auguste Dupin. Great art, particularly literature, is often created by stealing from lesser works. (These days, however, copyright laws prevent this, and so we are still waiting for the modern classics.)
One day, a great writer will rip-off the Harry Potter books and turn them into great literature.
Focus on the special edition of the book 'The Tales of Beedle The Bard', see the image above; #77, at a point midway up the vine on the left of the cover. Jotting inwards are two letters; 'GS'. They lean downwards, as if they are pointing towards the tree stump. They were designed to do so by the creator of the cover graphics. On the right front root of the stump can be seen the letter 'S'. Above that, following onto the top of the trunk is shaded line markings that were to represent letter 'G'. They were designed to be a hieroglyph of the creator of the cover image. My three letter initials are 'GRS'. My home number is 71. The letter 'G' can be found in the boy's name 'Harry' in the center of letters 'Ha'. In the name 'Potter', between letters 'Po', is letter 'S', it is flipped, so as to meld in with the letters so as not to be too obvious the mark was of intrinsic value . Anything I claim to have designed is verifiable or is of my original creation. I am the original creator of the Harry Potter concept. This is why the inclusions are known to be in the productions and books. If you take a close look at the vertical leg of letter 'P', in Potter, number '71' can be seen in some of the graphic of film titles.
Happy Days
Mylord
Happy Days
Mylord
Do take your own advice. :flowers:
beer good
Well-Known Member
Dude, you're losing momentum here. Sure, what you're posting is completely insane, but it's the same complete insanity that you've already posted several times. You have to develop the theme.
Hugh
Member
mylord reminds me of the guy who always sees their bright idea for a new invention/product/service stolen from them on a store shelf or late night infomercial.
BTW, have you guys ever heard of "Edible Arrangements"? They arrange cute little platters of different colored fruit into custom designs. I had that idea years ago. No, seriously I did. I thought of it long before they did.
Seriously.
No really. I did.
BTW, have you guys ever heard of "Edible Arrangements"? They arrange cute little platters of different colored fruit into custom designs. I had that idea years ago. No, seriously I did. I thought of it long before they did.
Seriously.
No really. I did.
beer good
Well-Known Member
And getting back to the original post, unsurprisingly, the case has now been thrown out of court.
US judge zaps Harry Potter plagiarism claim - Yahoo! News
US judge zaps Harry Potter plagiarism claim - Yahoo! News
Hugh
Member
Hugh
Member
Click here to print
Skip to main navigationSkip to main contentSkip to search
.News Home World news Arts Headlines Pictures Most read News Board My Profile Logout Login .
Wednesday, Mar 23 2011 3PM 15°C 6PM 9°C 5-Day Forecast
Author who claimed JK Rowling stole idea for Harry Potter ordered to pay £1.5m 'security' before plagiarism case starts
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:25 PM on 21st March 2011
Comments (12) Add to My Stories .
As if by magic: The man claiming that one of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books was lifted from another work has been ordered to pay more than £1.5 million into court as security for the costs of the author and her publisher
The man claiming that one of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books was lifted from another work has been ordered to pay more than £1.5 million into court as security for the costs of the author and her publisher - or the case will be struck out.
The order was made by Mr Justice Kitchin at a hearing in the Chancery Division of the High Court.
The claim has been brought by Paul Allen, trustee of the estate of the late Adrian Jacobs, who died in 1997, who alleges that the fourth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, was plagiarised from Mr Jacobs' book, Willy the Wizard.
Mr Allen is suing Ms Rowling and her publisher, Bloomsbury, for some £5 million.
Mr Justice Kitchen last year rejected an application by Ms Rowling and Bloomsbury to strike the case out - although he said it had only an 'improbable' chance of success.
Now he has ordered Mr Allen to make a series of staged payments into court as security for 65 per cent of the costs faced by Ms Rowling and Bloomsbury.
He said Mr Allen should pay £322.691 for Bloomsbury's costs and £571,613 for Ms Rowling's costs by April 21, with a further £24,650 for Bloomsbury's costs and £178,441 for Ms Rowling's costs to follow by August 5.
More...'Sometimes I wish I'd never found that Hoard': How sharing £3m find of Saxon gold led to a bitter feud 'Blame it on the super moon!' Five ships run aground off British coast as lunar phenomenon lowers tide
The final payments - £129,373 for Bloomsbury's costs and £318,975 for Ms Rowling's - must be made by November 11.
The judge said failure to make any of the payments into court by the specified time would lead to the claim being struck out and Mr Allen being ordered to pay all the defendants' costs of the action.
Ms Rowling had described the claim that her book was copied from Willy the Wizard as 'not only unfounded but absurd', and said she had never even seen the book until the claim was launched in 2004.
Too similar? It's alleged that Adrian Jacobs' book, Will the Wizard was plagiarised by the Harry Potter author to produce Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mr Justice Kitchin said that while Mr Allen's claim was not so bad as to be fanciful, it was improbable that it would succeed - and the chances of success were so poor that the court was justified in exercising its discretion to make an order for payments as security for the defendants' costs.
Mr Allen, the judge said, was a nominal claimant since he had no personal connection with the dispute over copyright, no role in raising funds to pursue litigation, and no final interest in the outcome of the claim.
There was reason to believe that he would not be able to pay all the defendants' costs if he had to.
In addition, nearly six years had passed between the original copyright infringement suggestion and the launch of the case, and there had been no explanation for the delay.
Dispute: Mr Justice Kitchin said that while Mr Allen's claim was not so bad as to be fanciful, it was improbable that it would succeed
The court had earlier held that many parts of Mr Allen's claim could not be sustained, but he had done nothing to change the claim, and was therefore still carrying on with elements which the court had already rejected.
In addition, Adrian Jacobs' son, Jon Jacobs, to whom copyright in Willy the Wizard was assigned, was the obvious beneficiary of the claim as he was the only beneficiary of his father's estate, had substantial means, and should be able to provide the security for costs sought by Ms Rowling and the publisher, Lawtel reported.
The case is set down for a 10-day trial in February next year, assuming the payments into court are made.
The order is a second major setback for Mr Allen in the claim.
In January it was comprehensively rejected by a judge in United States District Court in New York.
Inconsistencies: nearly six years had passed between the original copyright infringement suggestion and the launch of the case, and there had been no explanation for the delay
Judge Shira Sheindlin, sitting in the Manhattan-based District Court for the Southern District of New York, said 'the contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity'.
In that case Mr Allen, for Mr Jacobs' estate, had sought to sue Ms Rowling and her American publisher, Scholastic.
A spokesman for Mr Allen said after Judge Sheindlin handed down her decision on January 4 that the estate's US lawyers were studying the decision with a view to launching an appeal.
But Mr Allen pledged then, in a statement issued by an Australian-based PR firm, that the action in the High Court in London would go ahead.
..
Skip to main navigationSkip to main contentSkip to search
.News Home World news Arts Headlines Pictures Most read News Board My Profile Logout Login .
Wednesday, Mar 23 2011 3PM 15°C 6PM 9°C 5-Day Forecast
Author who claimed JK Rowling stole idea for Harry Potter ordered to pay £1.5m 'security' before plagiarism case starts
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:25 PM on 21st March 2011
Comments (12) Add to My Stories .
As if by magic: The man claiming that one of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books was lifted from another work has been ordered to pay more than £1.5 million into court as security for the costs of the author and her publisher
The man claiming that one of JK Rowling's Harry Potter books was lifted from another work has been ordered to pay more than £1.5 million into court as security for the costs of the author and her publisher - or the case will be struck out.
The order was made by Mr Justice Kitchin at a hearing in the Chancery Division of the High Court.
The claim has been brought by Paul Allen, trustee of the estate of the late Adrian Jacobs, who died in 1997, who alleges that the fourth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, was plagiarised from Mr Jacobs' book, Willy the Wizard.
Mr Allen is suing Ms Rowling and her publisher, Bloomsbury, for some £5 million.
Mr Justice Kitchen last year rejected an application by Ms Rowling and Bloomsbury to strike the case out - although he said it had only an 'improbable' chance of success.
Now he has ordered Mr Allen to make a series of staged payments into court as security for 65 per cent of the costs faced by Ms Rowling and Bloomsbury.
He said Mr Allen should pay £322.691 for Bloomsbury's costs and £571,613 for Ms Rowling's costs by April 21, with a further £24,650 for Bloomsbury's costs and £178,441 for Ms Rowling's costs to follow by August 5.
More...'Sometimes I wish I'd never found that Hoard': How sharing £3m find of Saxon gold led to a bitter feud 'Blame it on the super moon!' Five ships run aground off British coast as lunar phenomenon lowers tide
The final payments - £129,373 for Bloomsbury's costs and £318,975 for Ms Rowling's - must be made by November 11.
The judge said failure to make any of the payments into court by the specified time would lead to the claim being struck out and Mr Allen being ordered to pay all the defendants' costs of the action.
Ms Rowling had described the claim that her book was copied from Willy the Wizard as 'not only unfounded but absurd', and said she had never even seen the book until the claim was launched in 2004.
Too similar? It's alleged that Adrian Jacobs' book, Will the Wizard was plagiarised by the Harry Potter author to produce Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Mr Justice Kitchin said that while Mr Allen's claim was not so bad as to be fanciful, it was improbable that it would succeed - and the chances of success were so poor that the court was justified in exercising its discretion to make an order for payments as security for the defendants' costs.
Mr Allen, the judge said, was a nominal claimant since he had no personal connection with the dispute over copyright, no role in raising funds to pursue litigation, and no final interest in the outcome of the claim.
There was reason to believe that he would not be able to pay all the defendants' costs if he had to.
In addition, nearly six years had passed between the original copyright infringement suggestion and the launch of the case, and there had been no explanation for the delay.
Dispute: Mr Justice Kitchin said that while Mr Allen's claim was not so bad as to be fanciful, it was improbable that it would succeed
The court had earlier held that many parts of Mr Allen's claim could not be sustained, but he had done nothing to change the claim, and was therefore still carrying on with elements which the court had already rejected.
In addition, Adrian Jacobs' son, Jon Jacobs, to whom copyright in Willy the Wizard was assigned, was the obvious beneficiary of the claim as he was the only beneficiary of his father's estate, had substantial means, and should be able to provide the security for costs sought by Ms Rowling and the publisher, Lawtel reported.
The case is set down for a 10-day trial in February next year, assuming the payments into court are made.
The order is a second major setback for Mr Allen in the claim.
In January it was comprehensively rejected by a judge in United States District Court in New York.
Inconsistencies: nearly six years had passed between the original copyright infringement suggestion and the launch of the case, and there had been no explanation for the delay
Judge Shira Sheindlin, sitting in the Manhattan-based District Court for the Southern District of New York, said 'the contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity'.
In that case Mr Allen, for Mr Jacobs' estate, had sought to sue Ms Rowling and her American publisher, Scholastic.
A spokesman for Mr Allen said after Judge Sheindlin handed down her decision on January 4 that the estate's US lawyers were studying the decision with a view to launching an appeal.
But Mr Allen pledged then, in a statement issued by an Australian-based PR firm, that the action in the High Court in London would go ahead.
..
Don't forget the page numbers, I bet the Jacobs book had a page 27 too!