Talk:Legal disputes over Harry Potter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Legal disputes over Harry Potter has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 2, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

Image:Dumbledore.jpg

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

GA This article has been rated as Class GA on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click Show → Merge articles that we have agreed to merge at Notability Work on pages in our improvement drive to bring them to GA or FA status Remove original research from every article that has it Check the to do list for the Harry Potter article to help get it to FA Improve plot sections in accordance with WP:WAF Perform some much-needed work on fair use images Help expand content at the Muggles' Guide Expand factual subsections of HP book pages (such as editions and translations) Help the article Horcrux Add critical reviews to all book pages edit tasks

	This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project. Children and Young Adult Literature Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: WikiProject Children's Literature Open Tasks Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to Children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Update: Author Biography articles and write about new books written for children Expand: articles in the Demonata series by Darren Shan Create new articles relating to Children's Literature Add this template ( {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} ) to the talk pages of articles relating to Children's Literature. Expand and Edit Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature Cooperate with Wikipedians belonged to similar WikiProjects Discuss matters involving Children's literature on this wikiproject's talk page Cleanup the Philip Ardagh article. edit

Contents 1 Lambert - which book? 2 Porri Gatter 3 The Wyrd Sisters 4 Fake foreign versions 5 Minor edits 6 GA Nomination 7 GA hold 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Rahmuggles.jpg 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg 10 RDR 11 Defining the nature of a legal dispute 12 Verbatim? 13 Reference 16 14 Citations

[edit] Lambert - which book?

Under "legal injunctions," the article says "In 2003, after the theft by Aaron Lambert (see below) of a number of pages from an advance copy of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix from a secure depot..." but below that, in the section about his case, it says that he actually stole pages from HBP in 2005, not OotP in 2003. Which one is it? (Also, the Winterbothams link in the references isn't working for me...) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have made a mistake there... The sentence is removed. As regards the link, it doesn't appear to be dead; I think the server may be down. I'll try it again in 24 hours. Serendipodous 07:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porri Gatter

Most of the interest in Rowling challenging Russian parodies has focused on Tanya Grotter, but apparently another Russian parody, Porri Gatter, has also been challenged, though I can only find one source, this one, which explicitly claims that Porri Gatter has faced any sort of legal sanction. Does anyone else have anything more comprehensive? Maybe someone who speaks Russian? Serendipodous 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wyrd Sisters

A Canadian musical group named the Wyrd Sisters tried to prevent the release of Goblet of Fire because of a (claimed) copyright infringement by the book and its use of the name "The Weird Sisters" The case was dismissed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd_Sisters_%28band%29

[edit] Fake foreign versions

This is an interesting link to a blog post about fake foreign versions of the books, with nice scans of pictures of covers. Probably not needed for this article, but you never know. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

I made two minor edits.

The first was to this sentence:

• "By setting the RRP at this level can only be seen (sic) as blatant profiteering on their part...

I changed "(sic)" to the standard [sic].

The other change was to this sentence:

• "We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for its press release (sic)...

Even with the (incorrectly written) "sic" this sentence is confusing. Therefore I inserted, within brackets, the word [our] which makes the sentence comprehensible. This is standard style manual practice in English.

Corrected sentence reads:

"We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for [our] press release..."

Obviously, these are minor corrections.

PainMan 06:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

I'm unsure as to whether or not to fail or hold this one, so I'm going to ask you if you think you can do everything that's needed in this article in a week. I know that I'd get it done, but it'd be tough.

Ok, what we need is a number of things: The lead is a great length, but needs to have a more consistent flow and to achieve this, you need a slight structural adjustment. There are several ways this could be done, but choose one and go with it. Another matter is that the lead is unreferenced. Much of the nature of this article pertains to touchy and highly contentious pieces of information. For this reason, the article needs to double its efforts to both represent a neutral point of view and also provide ample references (possibly twice as many as a regular article, and maybe as a guide, look at legal articles and articles about court cases to see a guide as to what the expectation is (any of these should give you an indication of what I mean). I believe the article has a bit of a pro-Harry Potter voice, and I would like to see the article take a more neutral stance than is present right now.

Do you guys think you can topple these issues within 7 days? If so, I'll place the GE on hold. If not, I can fail it and let you guys work on these before re-submitting. --lincalinca 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"You guys" is just me at the moment. I could edit the lead but I doubt I could redraft it to a more NPOV. Someone with little knowledge of Harry Potter would probably be better suited for that. Know anyone? Serendi^podous 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have exceptionally little knowledge of Harry Potter (having trolled the FAC for Emma Watson, I learned a bit, but arguably not a great deal), but to avoid conflict on interest, I'm not going to nominate myself. Possibly search for someone with an understanding of legal matters and legal controversies (maybe again look at editors who've contributed a great deal to any of those American court cases I linked and ask them as a favour). That said, your edits seem rather strong to me, so I don't think it's beyond you. Just try to think instead of acting and writing like a lawyer trying to defend the apologia for either party, write this as a mediating and non-judgemental and impartial third party. I know that if you have any humanity in you, to be completely 50-50 is tough, so I don't expect that, but to swing it out from 25-75 (as it reads to me at the moment) to at least bring it into about a 10% margin (45-55) then I'd be happy. --lincalinca 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead, added a few more citations and made a stab at objectivity. Let me know what you think. Serendi^podous 14:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold

Just a few things before this can be passed. It was fun to read about all of these tiffs, by the way!

• The lead is not a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD. For help on writing leads, see WP:BETTER#Lead section. This is particularly important for this article, since it is kind of a list and each section is dissociated from the next. The lead provides a unifying summary and explanation for the article.

• Better. Awadewit | talk 20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• There needs to be some sort of indication in the lead what the timeframe is for the article's subject matter - when was the series published, for example?

• done.Serendi^podous 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• 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, occasionally drawing fire from civil liberties and free speech campaigners. - I feel like this sentence needs a "because" clause - readers will be left wondering "why" as they are reading otherwise.

• Stouffer contended, and still does to this day, that it is "the cumulative effect of all of it combined" with the other comparisons she lists on her website. - This is vague - could you give a few examples?

• done- one of the examples she gives is "wooden doors" :-| Serendi^podous 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• She doesn't offer any other description of these doors? (I like the other two examples you provided.) Awadewit | talk 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Just "wooden doors." The list on her website is even weirder. Serendi^podous 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• In 2000, in the lead-up to the release of the first Harry Potter film - Include the name of the film and a link to it.

• done.Serendi^podous 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes "Warner Brothers" is spelled out and sometimes it is abbreviated - choose one style and stick to it.

• done.Serendi^podous 14:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• not done Still sometimes "Warner Bros." and sometimes "Warner Brothers". Awadewit | talk 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Done now. Serendi^podous 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• In their potentially sweeping powers over individual freedoms, these injunctions have drawn criticism from civil liberties campaigners. - awkward phrasing

• done.Serendi^podous 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• This principle was later used to stop a demonstration and the growth of a gypsy site. - I don't understand - a demonstration of what? the growth of a gypsy website? do we even use the word "gypsy" anymore? perhaps "Roma"?

• done.Serendi^podous 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Criminal prosecution" doesn't seem like a very good heading - too vague.

• done.Serendi^podous 14:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Jail sentence" doesn't seem quite right either. Let's keep thinking. I'll work on it, too. Awadewit | talk 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think about "Blackmail" - all of the other headings are quite specific. Awadewit | talk 20:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of copy editing as I was reading - I hope it was helpful. If you have any questions about this review, just drop a line on my talk page. Likewise when you want me to re-review it. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've edited everything except the lead, which is going to take some time. I'll get back to it later. Serendi^podous 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the lead. Let me know what you think. Serendi^podous 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rahmuggles.jpg

Image:Rahmuggles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is, so I don't know what you're worrying your mindless bot head about. Still, The Legend of Rah and the Muggles should not have been de-merged, so I put it back. Serendi^podous 12:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg

Image:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RDR

added Warner Borthers to the fact, for whatever reason or part they played, they also filed against RDR on the same date per http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/1/ shadzar-talk 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone catch the peer-review from Orson Scott Card concerning the RDR lawsuit? was pretty scathing. http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html Zarcath (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been quite a few nasty opinions expressed, but I don't think anyone expressing opinions on this case, nasty or not, is in full possession of the facts. I'd prefer to wait until the judge's verdict before adding outside comments. Serendi^podous 06:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining the nature of a legal dispute

Just curious – how are we defining 'legal dispute' in relation to this article? Bradybd (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, an argument that involves lawyers and either goes to court or threatens to. The Troll debate is not a legal dispute; there was a story put out by the Mail on Sunday a few days ago that claimed that a legal dispute was brewing between the director and Warner Bros, but it was declared libel and removed from the web. Serendi^podous 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verbatim?

The article referenced confuses me, and doesn't seem to meet the definition of verbatim. It sounds more like a mash-up of stories, with perhaps large exerpts of verbatim text lifted. The entire story can't be verbatim and include all those new characters. I'm dropping "the verbitim" to allow for the changes.

In 2002, an unauthorised Chinese-language sequel entitled Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon appeared for sale in the People's Republic of China. The work of a Chinese ghostwriter, the book contains the verbatim text of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and characters from the works of other authors, including the title character from L. Frank Baum's The Wizard of Oz.[24]

Libertycookies (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference 16

Do we really need reference 16?I mean, the fact that she came to the U.S then really has nothing to do with the dispute.She still could've heard about the book or known about it somehow. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. In fact almost vanishingly so. Given the books' almost non-existent print run and highly local distribution, not to mention the fact that none of them actually sold any copies, it's almost impossible that she could have heard of it unless she had actually been to the States.Serendi^podous 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or if she had a friend in the States. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Who just happened to be in the same small corner of Pennsylvania where they were being sold, at just the right time? Seems a bit of a stretch. Serendi^podous 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So your saying that Rowling just happened to arrive in Penn. and just happened to find Larry Potter.Why couldn't a friend who lied there have discovered the book before her and told her about it.Didn't she start writing the book in England anyways? Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it could be shown that she had been to that particular part of the States between 1986 and 1987, then yes. But as far as I can determine, she hasn't, which makes her learning of the books very unlikely. Don't forget, the books were not sold, so we're not talking about a book that gets traded around and read by lots of people. The ONLY way someone could have found out about these books would be if said person happened to find them in a bookstore/supermarket and read them without buying them. So someone would have had to have lived in that specific region of the country, during that one 18-month window, gone into one of the few bookstores that sold the books, read the books without buying them, then told Rowling about it. Not impossible, but as I said, very very unlikely. Serendi^podous 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't a friend have lived there before then and walked into one of the bookstores?They are just as likely to find the books as Rowling is. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Rowling is far less likely to have found the books than this mythical friend, since she had not been to the States before 1998. Given that we must create this imaginary friend in order to construct a plausible scenario for her to have heard of the books, I think that speaks volumes for its implausibility. Serendi^podous 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So if the friend is more likely, like you just said, then how is the fact that she arrived in Penn. relevent? Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Rowling hadn't arrived in the US before 1998 eliminates a number of more plausible scenarios for her having heard of these books. Since the books were never sold, and only available for a short time in a small number of locations, the chances of her having heard of them through the grapevine from across the Atlantic are virtually nil. Only our omnipresent anonymous friend can help us construct a workable hypothesis for Rowling having heard of the books, and even then Rowling is just as likely to have had a friend from Penn. as she is a friend from South Dakota or Missouri. Serendi^podous 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So what was her reason for moving to Penn.U.S.then?You don't just move somewhere that you know nobody. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Rowling has never moved to Pennsylvania; as far as I can tell she's never even been to Pennsylvania. Serendi^podous 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

She's only been to the US on book tours. She lives in the UK. Serendi^podous 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmmmm...this arguement is getting us nowhere. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This information is pretty contentious, and since it involves living people it was removed as per WP:BLP. However, should it be cited, it can go back in.

Nevertheless, Warner Bros. and its counsel are the subject of contempt proceedings relating to alleged violations in the evidence provided to the Court on the injunction hearing and the judge that heard the matter, Mr. Justice Colin Livingstone Campbell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is the subject of a complaint to the Judicial Council arising from alleged judicial misconduct and interference with the action in the Ontario courts.

and

However, that Order is being challenged by the group. Justice Colin Campbell who heard the injunction made costs order after he had already disqualified himself for having a private telephone conversation about the case with Warner Bros. lawyers. Justice Campbell is being sued and is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council as a result of this initial conversation with Warner Bros. and further alleged misconduct that followed.

Warner Bros. and their lawyers on the injunction are being sued for offering false testimony on the injunction.

Serendi^podous 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)