0370 270 6000

Harry Potter and the alleged plagiarism

13 January 2011

The estate of Willy the Wizard’s creator has suffered a setback in his quest to claim damages for copyright infringement from JK Rowling and Bloomsbury. Readers will remember that the English High Court refused to dismiss the claim at a summary stage, because the case did have some chance of success (though the judge seriously doubted the strength of the claim).

Now, in parallel proceedings brought in the US, the claim has been dismissed, the court concluding that the two books were “distinctly different in both substance and style”.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the claim is doomed to failure over here – a substantial part of the original book must be shown to have been copied, but there have been many cases where this has been demonstrated despite the resulting text looking very different in its totality from the original. But it certainly hasn’t helped Willy’s cause, and may yet prompt a settlement of the UK action.

Related opinions

Dealing with Covid Rent Arrears – an overview but no specifics

Following on from our recent article on the release of the updated Code of Practice for dealing with commercial rent arrears that have accrued throughout the pandemic, we continue to highlight what the overall principles seek to ensure - fairness and proportionality for both landlords and tenants across each step of the arbitration process.

View blog

Relief for landlords as the Court of Appeal confirms that leases have been validly contracted out

One of the requirements for tenants to contract out of the security of tenure regime contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that they make a simple or statutory declaration before entering into the lease.

View blog

The High Court offers no comfort for beleaguered retailers

Whilst this decision may not be surprising, it will undoubtedly send a chill down the spine of retailers in a similar position to The Fragrance Shop.

View blog

Developers: disregard restrictive covenants at your peril

The Supreme Court has decided a significant appeal on the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants pursuant to section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act (“1925 Act”).

View blog

Mark Daniels

Mark Daniels

Partner and Head of Business Services

View profile

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up