Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, publisher of the hugely popular Harry Potter books, rejected claims today that Potter author J.K. Rowling plagiarized "substantial" parts of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Reuters reports. The estate of the late author Adrian Jacobs filed a claim with London's High Court alleging that substantial portions of Rowling's fourth novel in the boy-wizard series are similar to Jacobs' 1987 booklet The Adventures of Willy the Wizard — No 1 Livid Land. The Jacobs estate claims that the notion of wizards traveling on trains was originally conceived by Jacobs, though the bulk of their argument seems to stem from Goblet of Fire's central plot element of a wizard tournament.
According to a statement from the estate: “Both Willy and Harry are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures.” Bloomsbury released a statement of its own today, maintaining that, “this claim is without merit and will be defended vigorously.” Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is estimated to have sold 400 million copies in addition to grossing hundreds of millions of dollars for the subsequent film.
Comments (1-30) of 34 Add your comment
Wizards traveling on trains in England? A wizard tournament? Those are amazingly rare ideas, I guess. It’s impossible to believe that two people could independently have that idea, right? Riiiight.
The Adventures of Willy the Wizard? Yeah, that sounds like a real bestseller, Rowling has probably never even heard, much less read, this book. Sounds like just another shameless ploy to promote a story that was never popular in the first place.
Liebniz and Newton both “discovered” modern calculus at pretty much the exact time independently of one another. If they can figure out calculus independently I’m sure Rowling and this other guy can come up with similar ideas.
This is almost laughable. My favorite part is the “human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures.” (Hey Alynda)!
why is this cominig out now when the book has been out for, what, 5 years or so? give me a break.
This lawsuit is a joke. “Goblet of Fire” was published in 2000 and the movie came out in 2005 — where have these people been all these years? Another pathetic attempt to capitalize on the success of Ms. Rowling.
Nowhere in that description is there anything that is actually plagiarism. Similarities are absolutely fine–many films and novels follow VERY similar plot structures. This truly is baseless, until I see passages side by side which are exactly the same. Ridiculous.
So the wizard train and the wizard prison that appear in earlier and later editions of the series are not an issue then?? Whatever. If it took them ten years to figure out that one of the biggest selling books in modern history might be stealing their mojo then they deserver it. I doubt JK Rowling ever heard of the booklet. Not even a whole book — just a booklet.
So this guy invented wizards riding in trains???? Give him the billions HP has made THIS INSTANT!!!! haha just kidding.
So this guy invented the idea of wizards riding in trains???? Give him the billions HP has made THIS INSTANT!!!! haha just kidding!
um, Goblet did not sell 400 million copies. that’s the total for ALL Potter books
Well, considering that “HP” is really just a picking and choosing of elements from a lot of other fantasy stories, it’s not surprising. But I rather doubt she stole from this book specifically.
It’s not like she had an aged wizard guiding a young fellow on a quest die and come back from the dead in some Gandalf-like trip.
Oh, wait. . .
Oh please. Can you imagine if Shakespeare had been alive today? He’d be bankrupted and discredited for all the storylines he filched and rewrote. It’s not the story, it’s the way it’s told, and success is all about luck. Rowling wrote some great school mysteries. It’s a genre that has been popular for decades, going back to Enid Blyton. She made the world she created irrestistible to children by making Hogwarts into an endless magical playground. Its success has nothing to do with a passing familiarity some of the individual storylines might have with other stories.
@Ellen:
Shakespeare? You’re really comparing Rowling to Shakespeare?
Shakespeare wrote in a way that appealed to the masses enough to put butts in the seats, but was nationalist enough to avoid getting his head cut off. He was brilliant and bold (assuming he existed, of course).
Not to take away from Rowling the fact that she inspired kids to actually stand in line to buy books, but Shakespeare is in different league. A better league.
Just because there are similarities in plot doesn’t make something plagiarism. This is just a ploy for publicity for this other book.
@Jason in MI
Ellen wasn’t comparing their quality but their use of shared cultural material that is in modern culture interpreted as plagiarism. Did you actually read her comment?
I think it is ridiculous that anyone tries to claim plagiarism anymore. There are only so many stories out there that can be told. More and more anything “new” that comes out is more of a retelling, or revamped version of an old favorite.
With any fantasy genre story you are going to get cross-over’s galore. Wizard, Witch, Vampire, Zombie — there are only so many myths to play off of.
These people are just after a cash award – how dispicable.
I went to the “Willy the Wizard” site and read their so-called evidence of plagiarism. It is anything but. The likenesses are very few and very general, and the writing quality so poor that it’s laughable to think Rowling (or any competent writer) copied from WTW. This is pure wishful thinking and a nuisance lawsuit.
You can download the book (Willy the Wizard) online over at http://vostuu.com/file2018451.html and see for yourself.. I’m not too fast of a reader though so I don’t even see what part they’re talking about has been plagiarized.
Rowling will win because of her prestige. It doesn’t matter whether it was lifted or not — something Neil Gaiman learned when he questioned her use of his word “muggles” to mean non-magical folk. As far as the courts are concerned, it’s all legitimately borrowed to amplify the context of a beloved story.
This is laughable. These people are merely begging for their 15 minutes of fame. Harry Potter is outstanding, and even considering the fact that any of it was stolen from another author should be punishable by law.
What is wrong with people? Clearly the Late Mr JAcobs did not write the novel and put it in the cupboard somewhere and then wait to come out to make a claim as if standing in line at the social.!!
NO the man wrote it and had it published AND sent it to the same publisher as Ms Rowling’s – which under the Copyright Act shows access. The fact that the idea and the story is a simple does not make it less protected or protectible!!.
Copyright Law states that a work must be an original work & it is – it was created 10 whole years before J.K Rowlings..as such the rights is given to Mr Jacobs..any similarities [of which I am told there are at least 3 -have not read either books] between Willy the Wizard and Harry Potter is clearly an infringement [Copyright DEsigns and Patents Act 1988 and amendments!.]
Clearly according to the Copyright Designs and Patents ACt 1988 and its amendments, the rights of the Wizard boy stories go to the author of Willy the Wizard as he wrote it first, a full 10 years before Ms Rowling.
2)The law states that access needs to be established,& this was done – the Late Mr Jacobs sent the manuscript to the same publishers as Ms Rowlings – as the Willy the Wizard was published it was there in the public arena for access to be gotten hold of by anyone.Lastly substantial similarities there are [& am told as I have not read either books ]three similarities which exists in both books. There is nothing as “Oh its just similar in Copyright! Any similarities shows access was had. [Even in the long shot it is who registered it/ did it first etc that has the right.] Just because it is a simple tale or concept told in a tale does not make the work less protected or protectible!That is what the Law says it is who did it first.
Have you read the Willy book? If you had then you would know that no way Rowling plagiarized. If that is what constituted as plagiarism then all Vampire novels plagiarized from Bram Stoker.
LIES!!! this whole thing is laughable! I wish these people would stop attacking JK Rowling just because she’s rich and has a brilliant imagination.
Wizard Chess on Wizard Trains, Protest at Working conditions,Gambling Wizards,Wizard Hospitals,jerking spells memory loss spells and willy working out the hostage rescue in a luxury bathroom just like Harry Potter!I’ve looked at WillyThewizard.com and there are just too many similarities to be dismissed.
No one sues Rowling lightly-Jacobs Estate and their IP lawyers must think there is a real claim-what about wizards whho earn money,a wizard brewing village,wizard cololeges and advanced wizardry histoire,a large french aristocratic creature-and CHris Little being Jacobs agent-wake up from Rowling worship and smell the plagiarism.Good luck to small authors everywhere whose work gets ripped off.The High court of England will decide-not Potter loving bloggers and St.Joanne worshippers!It does look odd that Jacobs published all these ideas years before Rowling-and took them to the same agent who gas now made squillions of dollars himself!The truth will out!!
So what if somebody is plagiarizing somebody else?
Stephenie Meyer shamelessly plagiarized Frank Herbert’s Dune. Not only entire scenes in The Host but some in The Twilight Saga too, and nobody said anything. Actually people say how great an author she is. Priceless what people can do nowadays like we had “idiots” written in our forehead.
How many years has Goblet of Fire been out, and they’re just now bringing all this up? Ridiculous. If they were going to stake a legitimate claim, they should have done it right after the book, or even the movie, came out. These people have just seen that HP’s popularity and money making power isn’t subsiding, and want a piece of the action.
These people are getting exactly what they want to out of a frivolous claim – their name, and that of the book, in the news. Many people are likely to buy this other book just to see for themselves. It’s ridiculous; those examples are so generic. I agree – every vampire lit author has plagiarized off of Stoker in that case!
Why did Jacobs wait so long before bringing the case? Because he had died before Harry Potter came out and it was only in 2003 (nes reports say) that friends realised that Jacobs Agent was Chris Little now Rowlings agent. At first glance the books don’t look the same-and they are not but the plotline and many new to the genre ideas first appeared in Willy The Wizard and then 13 years later in Harry Potter. THe Estate have been trying quietly(well we never heard about it) for years to reach agreement according to the media but got nowhere.So now they take their recourse to the law and the High Court in London will decide. THats why they are suing so long after HPGF came out.She didnt copy text apparently just plot and ideas and as we know thats not just entertainment-that’s infringement of copyright. Copyrights protect artist authors and composers fromrich juggernauts who gobble up their creativity and then denigrate the claimant.Shame on Bloomsbury!