J.K. Rowling's a Fraud and a Thief [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Common Sense Man

01-16-2002, 09:30 AM

Wow you guys are really letting your liking for Harry Potter blind you to the truth.

This was not sampling, it was plagiarism!

If you can delude yourself into thinking that the original author should be punished I would hate to have you as a jury.

She did not simply take a general idea and expand on it she stole characters and plot points.

I know that when someone is famous and you like them you tend to overlook many things, that is why the jails are not full of the famous.

You see how fast George Lucas shuts down anyone he thinks is even beginning to tread on his turf, this time unfortunately it is the one without the billions behind her that is in the right.

Realistically Rowling will most likely get away with it as she has the money and the popular opinion behind her.

But she is dishonest no doubt about it and that is just another of the many reasons why I will not be sending any money her way.

Out.....

idealdiscountdude

01-16-2002, 09:48 AM

No, I'm just looking at both the facts laid before us, to sit there and to call J.K Rowling a horrible writer is fine....that's your opinion but to call her a fraud and theif is way out of line.......because then you could name nearly every screenwriter, filmmaker, songwriter etc. in the business............

Dachande

01-16-2002, 10:30 AM

I agree with Common Sense Man, J.K Rowling stole from this book. Harry Potter was not just inspired by this book, it was plagiarized. That is illegal no matter how you look at it. Even the names are plagiarized. I guarantee that if someone did that to Harry Potter J.K. Rowling would sue the shit out of them with out thinking twice about it.

CrowTRobot

01-16-2002, 01:31 PM

I'm in agreement with Common Sense Man

If I were to publish a book about some guys named Duke Skywalker and Dan Solo who fly around in spaceships to different planets, I DON'T think I'd be getting away with it.
There's NO reason why this case should be any different just because Rowling is adored and rich.

I also agree that there are VERY few totally original ideas out there. There's the detective noir, the psychological thriller, the gross-out comedy, the slasher movie, the spoof, the romantic comedy, the epic...etc. The trick is to come up with new takes, new ideas, and most impressively, new formal innovations (in writing and filmmaking) that make the material new and their own, rather than somebody elses.
But C'MON, did you READ that article? Larry Potter, Harry Potter? Both child wizards?

If Rowling was a formal prose artist, I'd be more forgiving of her reputation as a talent, but since she writes simple, boring sentences for children,the only creative talent she can claim is her plot ideas: WHICH APPARENTLY SHE DIDN'T EVEN COME UP WITH on her own. This sounds like a reasonable plagiarism case to me.

She probably won't be hurt by this, though. Although I've never read a Harry Potter book, I'm definitely staying away now.

Irene Manor

01-16-2002, 01:50 PM

Stouffer should have a Larry Potter movie made.

Horror whore

01-16-2002, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Irene Manor:
Stouffer should have a Larry Potter movie made.

Yeah! That'd show how much people like Harry better than Larry!!

The Heart Collector

01-16-2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Horror whore:
Yeah! That'd show how much people like Harry better than Larry!!



I guess that makes plagiarism correct.

[This message has been edited by The Heart Collector (edited 01-16-2002).]

Common Sense Man

01-16-2002, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Horror whore:
Yeah! That'd show how much people like Harry better than Larry!!



Wow again missing the point by mile.

I have no problem saying that Harry Potter may be a better read than the original Larry Potter.

But that doesn't make it right.

Hey I feel I could have made a better Phantom Menace, but if I did I would be behind bars.

This is not the simple adaptation of a story idea, if it was I would have no problem.

A perfect example it The Fast and the Furious vs Point Break.

They are the same movie, same basic plot, same character structure.

With one small difference. They did not use the same CHARACTER NAMES, they are not both SURFING movies.

Is Vin Diesel, Patrick Swazye yes, but he is not called Bodhi, and he races not surfs.

And they changed the plot enough that it barely squeaks by legally.

Do I think it is just as bad as this situation almost, definitely a very unoriginal idea and one that could have still been made without stealing the plot from Point Break.

But J.K. Rowling wrote her books about a child wizard with the same basic name and the same supporting cast!

It proves that she was not even inventive enough to make him a child witch instead of a wizard.

Out...........

ColinM

01-16-2002, 08:02 PM

I have what could be a stupid question: Why are we only learning about Larry Potter now? The books have been popular for some time and the movie was released some time ago.

inglourious basterd

01-16-2002, 09:52 PM

For those of you who are okay with the whole Harry/Larry thing, may I peruse some of your scripts? Given my context, why or why not would you let me read your work (given you had any)?

Keeping that in mind...what if I made millions of dollars off your unpublished idea. Would that be right? Is that ethical? Is there any way to prove it?

The thing is that I think Rowling/Rawlings (however you spell her name) is dumb if she did copy the premise (including the names of the characters) of this already published book...it makes no sense to me.

[This message has been edited by psudoazn (edited 01-16-2002).]

Tuukka

01-17-2002, 04:37 AM

"Both books have characters known as Muggles. They are non-wizards in the Rowling books, but in Stouffer's book they use magic to transform their dark homeland into a happy place."

RE: Stouffer has claimed that she invented the word "Muggles", which can be traced back to 1300 century and has been used by several fantasy writers before Stouffer. Does she have a monopoly to a word invented hundreds of years before her birth, huh?

"There is also a character called Lilly Potter in both books. In Rowling's books, Lily, with one L, is Harry's mother. In Stouffer's, Lilly is Larry's cousin."

RE: So, only Stouffer is allowed to use the name Potter? Everyone else who uses it is a plagiarist? Right...

"Stouffer says her rights to her characters, especially "Muggles," have been hijacked and superceded — crushed by the weight of promotion of the Harry Potter characters, which invalidated her own characters, even though her work predates Rowling's by 10 years or more."

RE: Like I already said, that's bullshit.

"The main similarities between the names in J.K Rowling’s books and Nancy Stouffer's are listed below.
Rowling's Harry Potter characters, from books published between 1997 and 2001 are on the left. Characters from Stouffer's Legend of Rah and the Muggles, and other works published between 1984 and 1991 are on the right.

Rowling's Names Stouffer's Names

Harry Potter Larry Potter

Muggles Muggles

Lily Potter Lilly Potter"

RE: I already commented on them.

"Neville Nevils"

RE: Hello? Neville is a common name and it's not even SAME in Rowling's book. So if my book has a name "Jack" and someone else uses name "Jake", he is a plagiarist? Huh?

"Nimbus 2000 Nimbus"

RE: Again, a common fantasy name that is DIFFERENT in Rowling's book.

"Keeper of the Keys Keeper of the Gardens"

RE: I can probably name DOZENS of fantasy books that have a "keeper" of something in them. It's common cliche in fantasy genre.

The point is that Stouffer is a person who tries to take advantage of Rowling's success. She claims that she has a *monopoly* to common names in fantasy and literature in general and if someone else uses those names then thas someone is a plagiarist.

And just for a note, I have not read any of the HP books and I have not seen the movie, so I'm not a fan of Rowling. But this whole issue (which has been going on for years) is common in arts. EVERYTIME when someone creates something succesful, someone else tries to take advantage of it with far-out accusations of plagiarism.

Like it has been pointed out, the similarities in the books are only names, not storylines. Rowling created her own storyline and universe and inhabitatated it with common names that are SLIGTHLY SIMILAR with some of the names in Stouffer's book.

And just for a record, Neil Gaiman's "Books Of Magic" has just as much common with Harry Potter, if not more. And yet you don't see Gaiman sueing Rowling. Maybe it's because Gaiman himself copied writers before him (just like Stouffer) and he understands that art by nature always takes influence from others. And Gaiman is a respected, succesful writer in his own right, unlike Stouffer.

Greediness and jealousy ain't pretty. And Stouffer will never get a dime from Rowling, but she does get to sell more of her books. That's probably what she intended in the first place.

chrisboo

01-17-2002, 10:33 AM

Tuukka,

I would be inclined to agree with you if the number of things were less. But when you add up all of these similarities and couple it with the fact the main character is even described physically the same with a strikingly similar name, I think one's eyebrow's should begin to rise.

*Just* the main character issue is enough to draw an inquiry. The other stuff, I'll agree is ancillary but no less noteworthy when taken in context.

Someone else made a comment about Duke Skywalker and Han Alone (or whatever...) and I have to agree entirely. That is what plagiarism is all about, and it is subtle, and people do find little known works that give them ideas all the time. The original author deserves credit. Someone else mentioned sampling "happens all the time". Sure does. And these days if you don't pay for your samples when you're selling them for money then you had better get a good lawyer.

And maybe Rowlings has a good lawyer, and the issue will be moot. In the meantime, it's too big a story not to follow up.

Another .02 from the gallery.

The UserName

01-17-2002, 03:35 PM

I don't know what to think but i do know one thing. If she really did takes Stoufers idea she is going to be screwed and lose a lot of fans. On the other hand why would she copy a name from a book? She could have name him Joe Smith if she wanted to. I don't think she deliberately took the name because its not essential. And i heard the word muggles used before harry potter. The one bad thing is how the descriptions are alike.

Horror whore

01-17-2002, 03:58 PM

I soooooooo agree with Tuukka!!!

And by the way, isn't that story from last March or something ::cougholdnewscough::?? And isn't this a MOVIE board!?!??!!??!?

[This message has been edited by Horror whore (edited 01-17-2002).]

Jasonite

01-17-2002, 05:20 PM

*L* Well I frickin' hate Harry Potter, so I'm hoping that she gets sued for all the money she has. It's always amazed me how people will defend a person, no matter how horrible, because they had one good experience in relation to them.

J

The Heart Collector

01-17-2002, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka:
[BThe point is that Stouffer is a person who tries to take advantage of Rowling's success. She claims that she has a *monopoly* to common names in fantasy and literature in general and if someone else uses those names then thas someone is a plagiarist. [/B]

I guess it's OK if someone does a book called "The Lord Of The Rods" with the characters Fredo, Zam, and Randalf.

I mean, who are you trying to fool, man? LARRY POTTER - BOY WIZARD. That's SO IBVIOUS that it's not even funny how someone can rip it off.

01-17-2002, 07:32 PM

Tuukka - Who were you quoting?

Tuukka

01-17-2002, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by ak:
Tuukka - Who were you quoting?

The first post was linked to an article, so I quoted that one.

Tuukka

01-17-2002, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector:
I guess it's OK if someone does a book called "The Lord Of The Rods" with the characters Fredo, Zam, and Randalf.

I mean, who are you trying to fool, man? LARRY POTTER - BOY WIZARD. That's SO IBVIOUS that it's not even funny how someone can rip it off.

I think the Harry-Larry similarity is the ONLY accusation that holds any water. I don't think it will help Stouffer much in court, thought. This DOES equal a situation where someone would write a fantasy tale and name the old wizard in it Randalf. But if the story and the characters would be different, an accusation of plagiarism wouldn't hold. It could be considered as a homage to LOTR, but the author could hardly be considered as "a fraud and a thief".

I'm inclined to think that Rawling might have took the name "Harry Potter" from Stouffer either conciously or sub-consciously. Rawling wrote a story about a boy wizard, so Stouffer might have influenced her. But it doesn't mean shit and doesn't make the plagiarism accusations reasonable. Stouffer can blame Rawling of a homage at best.

What everyone seems to forget ís that 99.99999 percent of Rawling's book is totally different than Stouffer's book. The 00.00001 percent that is similar doesn't make plagiarism accusations reasonable and it doesn't make Rawling a fraud and a thief.

I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that Rawling has read Stouffer's book around 1984, or has read about Stouffer's book back then. She might not remember it anymore, but the book has influenced her.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-17-2002).]

Common Sense Man

01-17-2002, 10:41 PM

Again tukka you make my argument for me.

The similarities are too close and to frequent. I will give you the muggles thing but the others are too overwhelming.

And in your world changing the characters role slightly would be enough for a story to be original?

So if I wrote a story about a really strong guy named Supermann and he had a sister named Louise Lain, and a brother that worked for a newspaper named The Daily Orbit that would be cool.

Basically that is what you are saying.

Come on man are you telling me two different people on opposite sides of the globe had a creative vision of the same boy wizard!

Not possible.

Out..........

Tuukka

01-17-2002, 11:10 PM

I wouldn't mind that. It would be a clear homage to Superman. This is a same thing if someone would make a spy book about a character called James Bind who has a cat called Blofind. An obvious similarity to James Bond characters. But if the rest of the characters, the story, and the imaginary world that the events happen in would all be different, then accusations of plagiarism wouldn't hold much water.

You can accuse that Rawling has stolen 10 letters from Stouffer: "arry Potter". Stouffer didn't invent boy wizards, but she did invent a boy wizard with those 10 letters. I give you that. But this kind of thievery is normal and in my opinion acceptable in literary world.

Whenever someone makes an original film about James Bind with it's own characters, story and imaginary world, I have no problem with it.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-17-2002).]

Jasonite

01-18-2002, 01:56 AM

It's called plagiarism...wake up.

J

Claymore

01-18-2002, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Jasonite:
It's called plagiarism...wake up.

J

Yes, so? Is plagiarism a legal term? Can you be sued for plagiarism, or will you get sued for copyright infringement?

Tuukka

01-18-2002, 03:43 AM

double post

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-18-2002).]

Tuukka

01-18-2002, 04:23 AM

A Question: Where does it say that Larry Potter is a boy wizard? He is a boy for sure but according to the info I can gather from internet he DOES NOT have magical powers of any kind.

Oh, and about the Muggles: The Oxford English Dictionary traces muggles back to the 13th century, when it meant "tails". By the 20th century, it meant marijuana. In the 1930s Louis Armstrong had a song called Muggles. And in 1960 an award-winning children's book, The Gammage Cup, featured a character named Muggles. But Stouffer claims she invented the word...

Some additional info: Stouffer's Larry Potter books are 24-page activity books: homespun amalgams of stories, pencil games and pictures to color. Larry is NOT a wizard as far as I know.

Some interesting info about Stouffer:

"The folks at Scholastic (HP bublishing company) can't believe the whole mess, either -- they're amazed anyone is taking Stouffer seriously. To imply that Rowling "may have stolen some things from Stouffer is offensive," sighs Scholastic's exasperated-sounding general counsel, Charles Deull. During the mid-1980s, Stouffer created several series of activity books to be sold monthly to teachers and to the rest of the reading public in drugstores and grocery stores. Some 130 books, around $4 each, were planned, Stouffer says. Some were printed, some weren't. Scholastic executives have doubts about the extent to which Legend of Rah was ever available. "Check Books in Print," Deull says. "We've tried every rare-book store and web site," and couldn't find a used copy for sale. In the late 1980s, Stouffer says, the books were selling so well and licensing agreements were flooding in at such a rate that she projected annual earnings of an astonishing $1 billion. During one 2 1/2-week period, her company received orders for $6.5 million, which could have made publishing history, she says. But even with these orders in hand, her company fell apart, she says. She has no records of these gigantic sales because her home studio collapsed during a 1996 snowstorm, explains her attorney, Kevin Casey. In the 1980s, Stouffer says, she attended book and trade shows nationwide, sometimes setting up shop right next to Scholastic "with my 6-foot-tall cutouts of Muggles.". "That wouldn't make a bit of difference," Deull says of the trade shows, "because Jo Rowling had no contact with us. Scholastic and Time Warner did not create Harry Potter.". Rowling's first book came to Scholastic as "a fully formed masterpiece that we outbid other people for.". Scholastic editor Arthur Levine brought Rowling's books to the United States. Stouffer maintains that at one point she met Levine and Levine's wife, who expressed interest in Stouffer's Muggles. Levine has never been married, Deull says, and "no one at this company ever remembers" Stouffer."

Kind of funny, isn't it? Stouffer is basicly accusing that Scholastic stole her mega succesful Muggles empire and makes money out of it. Somehow all the files about her super succesful literary career and huge income from the 80's were mysteriously destroyed. No other proof is available. 6.5 million in two and a half weeks? One billion potential a year? Huh? And still her company crashed... Not to mention that she met the wife of Levine, who has never been married...

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-18-2002).]

JCR

01-18-2002, 10:30 AM

JK Rowling knew a family called the Potters when she was a child and has said thats where the name came from. They don't mind, they've done a load of press interviews and are minor celebrities here in the UK

inglourious basterd

01-18-2002, 10:37 AM

Tuukka...where did you get that information from?

Tuukka

01-18-2002, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by psudoazn:
Tuukka...where did you get that information from?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0104/24/features/features9.html

It was originally reported in the Washington Post, so I guess it's a reliable source.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-18-2002).]

The UserName

01-18-2002, 03:36 PM

She probably did steal Stouffers idea or shes the most unlucky lady in the world. But think about it, was she that desperate that she had to copy the name Larry Potter and just change the L to an H? Come on people.

Common Sense Man

01-20-2002, 12:36 PM

Wasn't she living in a car or something I would call that desperate.

And the facts are plain, she did it no matter what her motivation.

Out.........

Tuukka

01-20-2002, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Common Sense Man:
Wasn't she living in a car or something I would call that desperate.

And the facts are plain, she did it no matter what her motivation.

Out.........

What facts? According to the information I managed to gather from internet, Larry Potter is not a boy wizard. I other words, Stouffer has a boy character with ALMOST the same name as Rawling's creation, but they are entirely different characters with different skills, different "occupation", different name, etc. Not to mention that they have totally different adventures in totally different kind of places. So if I create a boy character with a name "Jack Miller" and some else creates a different boy character called "Jake Miller", he is a plagiarist, right?

Oh, and about the "Nimbus"-"Nimbus 2000" connection. Nimbus means "cloud", so it's *hardly* a big miracle that both authors used the word to describe a flying thing. There is also a satellite and an aeroplane type called Nimbus. I guess they plagiated Stouffer as well?

The similarities between the works of Rawling and Stouffer seem *very* forced. There is no change that Stouffer could win if she sues Rawling.

Common Sense Man

01-20-2002, 03:45 PM

Tukka

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I think your liking for the books and movies are blinding you to the facts.

If you read the article you will see the descriptions for both characters are identical, and remember Rowlings came out second, not first as your post seems to imply.

But why go back and forth over the same arguments when neither of us is going to budge on this one.

That is the beauty of discourse such as this, people with different opinions can exist, without things exploding.

Out.......

Tuukka

01-20-2002, 03:59 PM

"Tukka I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I think your liking for the books and movies are blinding you to the facts."

RE: I have not read the books and I have not seen the movie.

"If you read the article you will see the descriptions for both characters are identical, and remember Rowlings came out second, not first as your post seems to imply."

RE: I haven't implied such thing. I'm fully aware that Stouffer was first. The description similarities between the characters are that they are young boys, who have dark hair and glasses. How many kids there are in the world with dark hair and glasses? I knew quite a few when I was young. The point is that the differences between the two are greater than the similarities.

"But why go back and forth over the same arguments when neither of us is going to budge on this one."

RE: Actually the arguments are changing, for example it was stated earlier in this thread that Larry Potter is a wizard, which he is apparently not. I think it's good to correct mis-information.

"That is the beauty of discourse such as this, people with different opinions can exist, without things exploding. Out......."

RE: Yes, I don't think that this discussion is particularly heated.

I don't know if Rawling has stolen ideas from Stouffer, but the "obvious" similarities are not particularly striking if you really think about them. They might seem strikingly similar if you have no bakcground information about them, or if you don't know how much Stouffer is talking shit (like her claims that she "invented" muggles). Stouffer is basicly claiming monopoly to common names that were not her inventions. I can't call Rawling a thief even if she did took influence from Stouffer's works when writing HP.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-21-2002).]

Tuukka

01-20-2002, 04:00 PM

...

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-21-2002).]

Horror whore

01-20-2002, 04:20 PM

Oh my God! J.K. Rowling is a theif!!! After re-reading Harry Potter I nticed she used the words it, and, the, than, that, him, and she! And we all know whoever wrote Larry Potter created those words!!!!

Horror whore

01-20-2002, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Common Sense Man:
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I think your liking for the books and movies are blinding you to the facts.


And your hate for the books is blinding you when you haven't even read them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

idealdiscountdude

01-20-2002, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Horror whore:
Oh my God! J.K. Rowling is a theif!!! After re-reading Harry Potter I noticed she used the words it, and, the, than, that, him, and she! And we all know whoever wrote Larry Potter created those words!!!!

Hahaha..... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

Very witty Horror Whore!

And I agree, the Harry Potter and Larry Potter books are so totally different. I find it sad that people here are arguing that J.K Rowling is a fraud when they haven't even read the HARRY POTTER books!

Muha

01-20-2002, 05:33 PM

im sorry, but i just cant get into a little british kid using magic and swinging wands and shit.

i tired reading the books cause i wanted to see what all the fuss was about and i couldnt read much of it... i didnt like it all. felt so childish to me.

i would much rather see a large quest with evil creatures, an evil ring, and elves, men, dwarves, hobbits.

plus, i think harry potter is just a fad anyway... just like pokemon. in 50 years, no one will remember harry potter... theyll remember great fantasies like The Lord of the Rings and video game fantasies like the Final Fantasy series.

Cyclonus

01-20-2002, 06:14 PM

Well I really don't want to argue about it, what's done is done. They should just settle it out of court and call it a day.

Silverload

01-20-2002, 07:04 PM

I can’t believe this, the facts are clear as daylight and yet people still think it is all just coincidence. I mean come on Larry Potter Harry Potter, both boy wizards that look identical. What am I thinking, there are a ton of boy wizards out there that look just like that, and all of there names are almost identical also like Larry Potter, Harry Potter, Carry Potter, Garry Potter, Barry Potter, etc.

Just because someone takes one small, dumb ass, few page book and turns it into a great epic story involving many books does not make it legal. And if you think it is ok then go write a book called Garry Potter, about a boy wizard with dark curly hair and glasses. Write that story but improve it from Harry Potter, make it more exciting, make it have more violence, more gore, more cussing, give a different reason for Garry Potter becoming a wizard. Also make the characters in Garry Potter almost exactly the same as in Harry Potter. You write a book like that and try and sell it, and see how fast JK Rowling sues you.

That is what J.K. Rolwing did, she took the dumb as hell book about Larry Potter and made it more exciting, more of a plot, and did a real good job with it. But that is illegal.

Also look at the video game Mario Brothers, and compare it with the movie. They are completely different. But if the movie was made and called Hario Brothers, and had all the same characters names, and it was made without permission from the makers of Mario Brothers, they would have been sued. And rightfully so.

Tuukka

01-21-2002, 12:30 PM

Now can someone please tell me if I'm wrong, but according to the info I have managed to gather from the internet, Larry Potter IS NOT A WIZARD. In the sites I found it was stated that he doesn't have any magical powers. So what we have here are two young boys with *almost* the same name, but they are *totally* different characters.

Tuukka

01-21-2002, 12:34 PM

...

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-21-2002).]

Tuukka

01-21-2002, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Silverload:
I can’t believe this, the facts are clear as daylight and yet people still think it is all just coincidence. I mean come on Larry Potter Harry Potter, both boy wizards that look identical. What am I thinking, there are a ton of boy wizards out there that look just like that, and all of there names are almost identical also like Larry Potter, Harry Potter, Carry Potter, Garry Potter, Barry Potter, etc.

Just because someone takes one small, dumb ass, few page book and turns it into a great epic story involving many books does not make it legal. And if you think it is ok then go write a book called Garry Potter, about a boy wizard with dark curly hair and glasses. Write that story but improve it from Harry Potter, make it more exciting, make it have more violence, more gore, more cussing, give a different reason for Garry Potter becoming a wizard. Also make the characters in Garry Potter almost exactly the same as in Harry Potter. You write a book like that and try and sell it, and see how fast JK Rowling sues you.

That is what J.K. Rolwing did, she took the dumb as hell book about Larry Potter and made it more exciting, more of a plot, and did a real good job with it. But that is illegal.

Also look at the video game Mario Brothers, and compare it with the movie. They are completely different. But if the movie was made and called Hario Brothers, and had all the same characters names, and it was made without permission from the makers of Mario Brothers, they would have been sued. And rightfully so.

Silverload, have you read any of my previous posts?

The Heart Collector

01-21-2002, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka:
Now can someone please tell me if I'm wrong, but according to the info I have managed to gather from the internet, Larry Potter IS NOT A WIZARD. In the sites I found it was stated that he doesn't have any magical powers. So what we have here are two young boys with *almost* the same name, but they are *totally* different characters.

Physical appereance?

Dude, I'm not saying she purposedly copied that thing, but it's HIGHLY likely that she saw the book somewhere, JUST THE COVER, and said "I'm gonna write something like that", and didn't even bother to change names. Maybe she was using those names as temporary.

Tuukka

01-21-2002, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector:

Physical appereance?

Dude, I'm not saying she purposedly copied that thing, but it's HIGHLY likely that she saw the book somewhere, JUST THE COVER, and said "I'm gonna write something like that", and didn't even bother to change names. Maybe she was using those names as temporary.



It's possible. But to bring back my earlier James Bind reference... If someone creates a handsome man around 35-40 years old called James Bind, who works as a bus driver, is it a strict plagiate of Ian Fleming's James Bond? *Almost* the same name, the same physical appearance in the sense that they both have dark hair, they are well built and around the same age. A different profession, different name, different character, different skills, a different physical character despite some similarities that are common among people... It has to be a plagiate, right?

Tuukka

01-21-2002, 04:42 PM

BTW, Harry Potter looks EXACTLY like Tim Hunter, the creation of Neil Gaiman. Tim is around 11-12 years old, has dark hair, too big glasses, he is thin. More than that Tim doesn't know that he is a wizard, but learns that in the story. Books Of Magic was made years before Harry Potter.

Like I said earlier, Neil Gaiman is perfectly cool about it and is not blaming Rawling of thievery. But Neil Gaiman is not cheap, which Stouffer seems to be, according to her interviews.

http://www.scottandrew.com/img/gaiman.jpg

A quote from www.scottandrew.com: (http://www.scottandrew.com:)

"I've always kind of wondered about these parallel characters (although Books Of Magic had been out for a few years before Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book), but Gaiman puts to rest any notions about Rowling "lifting" the concept of the boy-wizard from his own work: "For the record, [Gaiman] made it quite clear that he does not believe Rowling was even aware of Tim Hunter, and that, as [Good Omens co-author] Terry Pratchett had always told him, everyone always has all the same ideas anyway.".

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-21-2002).]

Horror whore

01-21-2002, 04:51 PM

He looks more like Anne Robinson of "The Weakest Link".....

Common Sense Man

01-26-2002, 03:22 PM

Here is another case that validates my point that if you have money and do not wish your property to be stolen you can get things done but if you are a regular person who has been wronged you get the shaft.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,9430,00.html?tnews

This was simply a play on words so according to Tuuka it should be fine, but obviously they did not feel that way.

The HP thing is much worse but of course the original author does not have a studio to back her up so she will probably get squat.

Out..............

Horror whore

01-26-2002, 04:22 PM

That story has nothing to do with this topic!!!!

And IT'S GOLDMEMBER, NOT GOLDFINGER!!! Stupid James Bond people tryig to sue.... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif

JCR

01-26-2002, 04:50 PM

Tuukka

You are right about "Books of Magic", but I can hardly see DC comics sueing over something their parent company, AOL/ Time Warner has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in, can you? A similar thing happened a couple of years ago with writer Grant Morrison alledgedly unhappy over similaritys between his comic "The Invisibles" and The Matrix, but DC did nothing.

ColinM

01-26-2002, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Horror whore:
That story has nothing to do with this topic!!!!

It most certainly does. Both stories are similar, because both involve the "ripping off" (in two different ways) of some original work, but the company with the big bucks (MGM with Goldfinger) is going to get compensated (sp?), but the small-time author without the big bucks isn't going to get squat. Common Sense Man is just pointing this out to prove a point he made earlier.

He's right, too. Rock on, Common Sense Man.

Horror whore

01-27-2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by ColinM:
It most certainly does. Both stories are similar, because both involve the "ripping off" (in two different ways) of some original work, but the company with the big bucks (MGM with Goldfinger) is going to get compensated (sp?), but the small-time author without the big bucks isn't going to get squat. Common Sense Man is just pointing this out to prove a point he made earlier.

He's right, too. Rock on, Common Sense Man.

So Austin Powers is to make a cameo appearence in the next Harry Potter and James Bond films!??!?! I didn't think so...This is about Harry and Larry Potter and the fight for many millions of dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jo-Jo

01-27-2002, 02:35 AM

Horror Whore - ColinM is right and you are sadly missing the point and of this discussion. I think you're love of Harry Potter is overshaddowing a very good arguement about copyright infringement.

Common Sense Man

01-27-2002, 11:51 AM

Thanks Colin and Jo Jo for seeing the obvious.

This is on a smaller scale exactly what is happening with the HP thing.

I think AP has a better case than J.K. for keeping the title as AP has always been about satire and when doing satire you can get away with much more.

But that just illustrates my point even further.

When you have money, something that most think is nothing can become something very fast.

I mean who doesn't know that AP is based on James Bond already, so the whole this is riduculous.

But in the HP case the blatant plagarism is plain as day.

If J.K. would have only stolen one character name or similar theme I wouldn't have a problem but to basically usurp the entire cast plus descriptions that is going too far.

Out.......

Horror whore

01-27-2002, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Jo-Jo:
Horror Whore - ColinM is right and you are sadly missing the point and of this discussion. I think you're love of Harry Potter is overshaddowing a very good arguement about copyright infringement.

Harry and Larry are two different names. Nibus is a cloud in Larry Potter, and a broomstick in Harry Potter, two very different things. Lilly and Lily don't mean jack shit. As Tuukka has already said Muggle has been used in many fantasy books...Not just Harry and Larry Potter..

We can all stop crying now because this story is old (from last March, I believe) and nothing is ever going to happen about it except your pointless whining!

And It's J.K. ROwling, not Rawlin. That annoys me everytime I look at the NON-MOVIE-ish post...

Tuukka

01-31-2002, 03:54 AM

Well, the whole Goldmember thing is ridicilous. I'm surprised that New Line got so scared. I don't think that any jury in the world would convict them.

As for Tim Hunter-Larry Potter connection, I think Neil Gaiman had the right to sue Rowling no matter what their companies are, he would have that right even if they were working for the exactly same publisher (he could sue the publisher as well). But he didn't do it and also pointed out why he didn't do it.

Anyway, I'm getting kind of tired of this topic, so I just write down my final thoughts:

Every artist steals from others all the time. Plagiating is the essence of art. Everyone does it, either conciously or sub-consciously. Every "new" idea is just a mixture of old ideas.

Of course there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, you can't take a work of someone else, modify it a bit, and then sell it as your own creation. But Rowling didn't do that, so she didn't cross the line.

There are similarities between Harry Potter and The Legend Of Ra. There are also obvious similarities between HP and Books Of Magic. Also, there are obvious similarities between HP and Wizard's Hall, which tells about a young boy, who does not know he is a wizard and goes to wizard school to learn his craft (there are other similarities to HP in this book as well).

Yet you don't see the authors of Books Of Magic and Wizard's hall accusing Rowling of stealing... Maybe it's because they understand how every artist copies others, and they realize that their works also copy relentlessly other writers... Maybe they are also not bitter and they are having succesful careers on their own.

Finally, I going to put on my precious bullshit detector and comment on Stouffer:

Stouffer claims that she invented the word "Muggles" (Bullshit! The word is 700 years old). She claims that her company was making millions every week in the 80's thanks to her books and she was going to make around 1 billion a year (Bullshit, there is no hard info to back this up, since all info was mysteriusly destoyed... Stouffer was never a big-selling writer). Stouffer thinks that words "Muggles", "Larry Potter" and a couple of other slightly similar names are the reason to the success of Harry Potter and that success belongs to her (Bullshit! Harry Potter is succesful because Rowling can write entertaining and interesting stories with fun characters). Stouffer claims that she met Scholastic's agent Arthur Levine and his wife and talked about selling his book to the company (Bullshit! Arthur Levine has never had a wife and nobody at Scholastic remembers having contacted Stouffer). She also claims that Scholastic stole the word "Muggles" from her when she was having a book shop next to Scholastic on some trade show with cardboard muggles characters. Then Scholastic made Rowling to use the word in her books (Bullshit! Rowling has written the books on her own, she is not a writer-for-hire for Scholastic). And finally, I have already shot down most of the name similarities, so I won't comment on them anymore on this post.

Who knows, maybe Rowling either conciously or sub-consiously copied names from Stouffer and then changed them to be different. But what everyone seems to forget is the fact that Rowling copied countless of other writers as well and her books are 99.9999% different when compared to the books of Stouffer. What makes Harry Potter popular is not the word "Muggles" and Rowling should NEVER pay a dime to Stouffer. Stouffer is a bitter old woman who never made it big (because of a lack of talent) as a writer and now wants part of the success of Rowling. Well, she is succesful in this sense because there are going to be new prints of her books and they are going to sell a bit because of the controversy.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 01-31-2002).]

ColinM

01-31-2002, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Horror whore:
Harry and Larry are two different names.

Yeah, but you do see a certain similarity (subtle as it may be) between the names Larry Potter and Harry Potter, right?

Originally posted by Horror whore:
Nibus is a cloud in Larry Potter, and a broomstick in Harry Potter, two very different things.

But used for the EXACT same thing. And it wasn't Harry Potter than originally created the flying broomstick, you know...

Originally posted by Horror whore:
Lilly and Lily don't mean jack shit.


But again, there is a similarity...

Originally posted by Horror whore:
As Tuukka has already said Muggle has been used in many fantasy books...Not just Harry and Larry Potter..

So you're saying he ripped it off of something else, then?

But even if he did rip off of Larry Potter, I don't mind it much. I loved the Harry Potter books and movies. They are quality products, enough so that even if they aren't completely original, I don't really care...

dellamorte dellamore

02-01-2002, 07:16 AM

I think everyone is missing the point.Harry Potter,the books and the film,and Rawlings are pretentious,insufferable,and overrated.Please,just go away,i'm sick of the whole thing,i really had more faith in the youth of the world,but now i see they can be easily manipulated by hype.The really sad thing is that the parents are encouraging them,they are more than willing to go along with the crowd,succumb to a mass mindset that makes guerilla marketing so effective,the external pressure is too great to resist.They'll feel left out if they don't go along.Rawling is nothing but savvy hack and i'm not so sure the whole story about living in a car was entirely true either.It makes for great print,the underdog makes good,they have to create a persona for the author.The movie was atrocious,the hype surrounding it and the book is gag-inducing,and the kids are being suckered.But it does give me hope,i can hack up a storm just as long as i have effective marketing behind me.Also kids(its not there fault)are easily duped,especially if there parents are numbskulls.Down with Harry Potter.

rupert_pupkin

02-01-2002, 10:11 AM

Dellamorte - These novels are popular by the only true way to achieve lasting success - WORD OF MOUTH.

This is a phemonena that has built up over several years, and while it has recently been hijacked by movie companies and merchandisers, the novels have lond been loved by children and adults alike becuse of their genuine quality.

One of the true delights of Harry Potter is that it has reintroduced an entire generation of British children to the joys of reading, and anything that can do that is worth something.

While my generation has Roald Dahl, this one has J.K.Rowling (A Scot!)

ColinM

02-01-2002, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore:
I think everyone is missing the point.Harry Potter,the books and the film,and Rawlings are pretentious,insufferable,and overrated.

Actually, that WASN'T the point of this thread. The point was that they were plagurized, not bad, even though many people here think it's both.

dellamorte dellamore

02-02-2002, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by ColinM:
Actually, that WASN'T the point of this thread. The point was that they were plagurized, not bad, even though many people here think it's both.

I did get ahead of myself a bit,it's an unfortunate but somewhat catharthic reaction to mass marketing and hype.Of course it's just my opinion,i don't want anyone to think i'm on some soapbox(even though i was)spouting out wisdom.I just think back to the films that excited me as a child and how looking back i see i was duped.And there is a series of fantasy books that is far superior and much more intelligent than HP,the Xanth series by Piers Anthony.I agree that geting kids to read is something positive,and i guess they could do worse than HP,they could be reading the Anarchists Cookbook or whatever the name of that terrorist manual is.

JCR

09-19-2002, 06:06 AM

JK Rowling has won the case. The southern district court for new york also fined Nancy Stouffer $30000 for lying to them during the trial. The title of this thread is therefore more than slightly libelous now!

Country1969

09-19-2002, 11:10 AM

Nancy Stouffer $30000 for lying to them during the trial.

What did she lie about?

[This message has been edited by Country1969 (edited 09-19-2002).]

BubbaStrangelove

09-19-2002, 11:45 AM

good thing that rowlings won.

or else George Lucas' could sue Mel Brooks over Spaceballs

and God could sue PT Anderson over Magnolia.

larry potter -- haha!

http://www.lardlad.com/images/school/school07.gif

[This message has been edited by BubbaStrangelove (edited 09-19-2002).]

xirtam

09-19-2002, 05:38 PM

Yeah, what did she lie about? I mean, I know pretty much the whole thing was a lie--can you sue someone over names? Does that mean the creators of Psycho can sue the creators of Halloween for using the name Sam Loomis?--but I'm interested to see what else the old woman lied about.

JCR

09-19-2002, 06:08 PM

I'm not sure what she lied about although the NY SD court has a website (I can't remember the address but check a search engine I'm sure you'll find it) and I assume full details will be posted there soon. I believe what it was is that while NS did write a larry potter book which featured the word muggles she lied about other parts of the book which she said were similar.

[This message has been edited by JCR (edited 09-19-2002).]

Nate6

09-19-2002, 07:35 PM

Here are some more details, from CBC ArtsNews (http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/potter190902):

New York - A judge ruled Wednesday that J.K Rowling, the author of the wildly successful Harry Potter novels, did not steal the idea for the books from an American children's author.

In dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Allen G. Schwartz wrote that Pennsylvania-based writer Nancy Stouffer "has perpetuated a fraud ... through her submission of fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony" to support her claim that Rowling stole ideas from her books

Schwartz fined Stouffer $50,000 US.

Stouffer claimed that she had written children's books in the 1980s that featured a boy named Larry Potter and nuclear-holocaust survivors called "muggles." Rowling first used the term "muggles" to describe humans who do not have magical powers in her 1997 book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Stouffer said that she had received e-mails from readers noting similarities between her work and Rowling's, a charge Schwartz rejected. "Stouffer has not produced any evidence indicating that there has been actual confusion between the two uses [of the word "muggles"]," he wrote "There is nothing in the record, beyond Stouffer's conclusory allegations, which indicates Stouffer ever received such letters."

Schwartz also questioned whether Stouffer created the Larry Potter character before Rowling's series debuted. A title page and other materials supposedly dating back to the 1980s used technology not in existence at the time, he ruled.

In addition, Schwartz found that Stouffer had produced invoices for sales that never took place and submitted an advertisement from the 1980s that was later altered to include the word "muggles."

Stouffer's lawyer said he was thinking about challenging the ruling. "We were surprised and disappointed with the decision," Thomas McNamara said. "We were particularly troubled by the court's determination that [Stouffer] submitted falsified evidence. She adamantly denies that."

MoNsTeR

09-20-2002, 03:53 AM

maybe the stereotypical dorky kind of guy who MAY be a wizard has the same characteristics as all them guys with dark curly hair and really big glasses.

i mean... look at CLARK KENT from SUPERMAN, he's like an older HARRY POTTER with no vibrating Nimbus 2000.

if J.K. ROWLING did steal the whole idea, and knowing how smart she really is, wouldn't she like change the names at least? it's just a coincidence to me. but you know what? to think about it... she was on welfare when she wrote that book so... hmm... i guess people would go to the extreme to make a few dollars/pounds eh?

//out.

Terrell

09-20-2002, 08:20 AM

Harry Potter,the books and the film,and Rawlings are pretentious,insufferable,and overrated.

Hmm, sounds exactly like what I thought of FOTR. Tedious, long, boring, linear, and overrated, with forgettable characters. So what's your point? Different strokes for different folks. I tried reading LOTR and I couldn't get through it because of boredom and tedium. I can tell you this. I had a hell of a lot more fun reading Harry Potter, and will remember the books and the film. Still, I don't see what that has to do with anything. I say tom-ah-toh. You say tom-ay-toh.

[This message has been edited by Terrell (edited 09-20-2002).]

crazy_horse

09-26-2002, 09:09 PM

It's plagarism COMMON PEOPLE!!!!

I mean, I love HArry Potter as much as the next bloke (actually I hate it), BUt seriously, Larry_Harry Potter!!!?? Are you serious??

I dont care how much some of you people love The Potter seies, how can you deny the plagarism? Are you telling me that these are all COINCIDENCES???!! Please.

And to say that these arguments are force.. LOOK AT THE FACTS>> Almost exact same names, almost exact same circumstances, etc.

As others have said, If i went out made a trilogy of movies called STAR BATTLES, With characters like Dark SNader and Puke Diewater, you all would be screaming for my head on a platter.

fareastthunder

07-02-2003, 09:22 AM

Yeah this is pretty bad. I'm sure this Stouffer person has been getting panned by the diehard Potter fans.

Think about all the legal weight against Stouffer. Rowling's lawyers, publishers, fans, movie contacts. There is no way Stouffer would win this case, even if she is right. It's no small feat that this issue has received so little media attention. Because Stouffer can't present a good legal case doesn't mean she's wrong. You can be right and still lose in court. You can be wrong and still win in court. The legal process isn't about right or wrong, it's about winning or losing.

To be fair, Rowling didn't do a massive lift from this book. Apparently from what I've read in articles, there are some naming/character similarities but not plot/story similarities. People make a good argument - Why didn't Stouffer say something after the first HP book came out? That she didn't doesn't make her wrong, it just makes her case harder to prove.

Clearly Rowling took something from this Stouffer book and Stouffer is looking for some kind of payoff. The real problem here might not be if someone is willing to payoff but the amount offered. It's in Rowling's best interest to pay off Stouffer. Otherwise she risks getting hit by percentage for every Potter product ( i.e. the Furby lawsuit) It's probably in Stouffer's interest to take a payoff, it can't be cheap to run this kind of lawsuit. She doesn't have Rowling's, Warner Bros, Putnam's deep pockets.

If I was Rowling, I would have hired someone to clip Stouffer. When you are talking about the kind of potential money loss, something like that wouldn't surprise me. If I was Stouffer, I'd hire someone to clip Rowling. I'd see it more as a principle issue versus a money issue. Again, Rowling's deep pockets are only as salient as she breathes.

Potter is a billion dollar franchise. Do you really think Putnam or Warner Bros would let Stouffer live if she could win the case and potentially take a huge money hit? Stouffer should be glad she lost that case, it means she can walk away with her life.