Harry Potter discussion
JK Rowling
>
Rowling sues Hogwarts Castle replica in India .. read more
still...did jk rowling *have* to sue them? it's like we all know you're jk rowling and you're uber-rich! how about just telling them to take it down? idk-jmo
good point............ But she used to live in her car! It's so sad!
I get an uneasy feeling in my stomach everytime I hear about J.K. Rowling suing someone over copyright. I mean I adore the books and the world she created but really, it makes her seem selfish and a little bit "sorry to say" whiny when she goes after people like this. It reminds me of the aggression Walt Disney uses (ie Disney once sued a Child Care center for showing Disney movies the Center owned during nap time to the kids). Like she doesn't have enough money already and like no one is going to know or remember her name. come on...do a little positive PR like have them donate all of the money they make to an organization or have them just give you credit by incorporating her name somewhere in the design.
IKR?!?!?!?!?! i mean she's jk rowling she could have just said "hey im jk rowling and you'd better stop that!" she didnt have to actually sue. i mean, im not really gung ho about lawsuits in general, but it seems like they better serve people who need to have a voice; jk rowling is one of the most infulencial people in the world, and this does make her seem like a bully. granted, i think that she has every right to take a stance against this if she's upset with it (because she did create HP and its world) but the way in which she chose to handle this i think was a poor move on her part.
You forget something. It isn't just JKR who is suing over the copyright... it's Warner Brothers. They own the rights to the movies. The one time JKR sued someone, I understood. It was about the encyclopedia they wanted to publish as it would compete with her own that she is writing. That's different than books that discuss her work (aka Finding God in Harry Potter, etc.). Her publisher and Warner Brothers are more agressive about the copyrights I think, than she herself is. I've heard them going after unofficial translations too, which makes sense. This one here, I read about a couple years ago. It isn't a new story. (Even this original post is from 2007). Realize too, this isn't a bunch of school kids having fun building a castle. These people plan on charging admission. You can't make money off of her stuff, without having permission. Otherwise, you're violating copyrights.
This is from the Wiki article on legal disputes involving the series:"Kolkata lawsuit
In October 2007, Warner Bros. sued a group constructing a façade during a Hindu religious festival in the Indian city of Kolkata for Rs. 2 million (US$ 41,000), claiming that they had erected a giant replica of Harry Potter's school, Hogwarts, without their permission. Initial reports stated that, as the effort was not for profit, it did not violate Rowling's copyright.[37:] The Associated Press claimed that the High Court of Delhi, where the petition was filed, allowed the organisers to carry on with the temporary construction with an order that the structure had to be dismantled after the festival was over[37:] and that the court refused to impose any compensation on the basis that the organisers were involved in a "non-profit making enterprise".[38:] However, these statements were later retracted: the court had in fact ruled in favour of Warner Bros., but no fine had been ordered, and Warner Bros. claimed that they had only requested a fine because such action was necessary under Indian law.[39:]
In November 2007, Rowling discussed the case on her website, listing the rumours that she had targeted a non-profit organisation as "Toxic" and saying, "The defendants were not religious charities, and theirs was not a religious celebration. On the contrary, it was a large-scale, commercial, sponsored event involving corporations that included a major Indian high street bank. The event was, however, set up while a Hindu festival was going on ... The court ruled that Warner Bros. rights had indeed been infringed, and that events such as the one in question would need Warner Bros.' permission in the future. The court also restrained all the defendants from any future events infringing Warner Bros. rights."[40:]"
On her personal website she also notices that it was Warner Bros who filed the suit, but her name has to be attached to it for legal reasons.
(Also, the comparison to building the Titanic is kind of silly since it's an actual historical ship, as opposed to a made up place. On the other hand, they could've easily made a more generic castle and avoided the whole issue altogether.)
ahhh well that makes sense. it's one thing if a studio files a lawsuit rather than an individual plaintiff.
Yeah, I completely agree. Everyone has a right to use that idea, they weren't trying to sell it or pass it off as their own idea..i've heard a lot of cases like this, and I think it's stupid.
I think that they shouldn't get sued. they were just doing a fun project. they put a lot of work into it, and were probably just having fun.
They build it for a public event and were going to make money off of it. They needed permission.
HEY!!! don't be mean! The Durga puja is REALLY REALLY important to Hindi people.
Who's being mean? We all are just expressing an opinion, for or against wether WB/JKR should have sued or not.
you know I agree. I don't think she should be sueing unless she asked if they could tear it down, if they said no than yeah she has a reason to sue them but if she is just sueing them for no reason than that is just stupid and shows how selfish she is.
Apparantely JKR posted on her website that it was Warner Brothers that initiated the lawsuit and for legal reasons, they had to attach her name to it. If that's the case, then it wasn't up to her.
Briansgirl wrote: "Who's being mean? We all are just expressing an opinion, for or against wether WB/JKR should have sued or not. "YEAH! NO one is being mean!
ok so it wasn't up to her. but I still think that it is unfair in a sense
Let's stop quibbling like children and simply look at the legality of the issue. I'm sure Warner Brothers is all miffed because they feel they've constructed an image of Hogwarts for which they are responsible. Unless the image is identical to one from the film, the lawsuit will most likely fail. Additionally, Warner Brothers needs to keep in mind that their images of Hogwarts were shot on location throughout the UK. Though they constructed the overall idea, they do not own copyrights to the individual buildings used (nor do they intend to pay any royalties to these sites if they win a lawsuit).
Warner Brothers bought the rights to the books, and own the image and copyrights to "Hogwarts". If you use that name at all, you violate either Warner Brothers or Rowlings copyrights. It's as simple as that. If they'd made a castle and put witches and wizards in it and called it something else, there would never have been a lawsuit.
couldn't they just have been like, hey super cool castle! glad your a fan! and been done with it?
Copyrights are only worth the money, in this case millions of dollars, if they are protected. I still remember 30 years ago, Disney sued a school because they painted Disney characters on the wall of the hallway. They were protecting their copyrights and sued them. I don't know if they asked them to remove them (or sent a legal letter of the same) and the school ignored it before taking the action to sue them. I don't like it, but I understand it from a business point of view.
I thought it was a bit much suing a school, but certain companies are serious about protecting their copyrights.
yeah but come on, Disney! Really?!?!?
well if they let it pass then other people would do it, and then be like but you let the school go! then DISNEY could get sued
The bigger the company, the more likely they are to sue to protect their copyright. They have the most to lose.
that's bull. stupid warner bros
Watch your language please. You may not like what WB did, but it was well within their legal rights to protect their copyright.
Yes, because than you know, if they let THAT slide then other ppl would like do that except like make it bloody and ruin the characters or something like tht
Briansgirl "Master Book Sale Huntress" wrote: "Watch your language please. You may not like what WB did, but it was well within their legal rights to protect their copyright."sorry, my bad
i still think it's really dumb, though. it's like the harry potter musical...it's just something for people's enjoyment (and the castle is for a religious festival?? c'mon!) and they aren't claiming it's their idea. and how does WB find out about this stuff, all the way in india?
WB released a version of the movie in India, I'm sure. They probably have an international or indian division of their company. I think it had more to do with the fact that it was made to be publicly displayed and they were, possibly, going to charge admission. That's different than folks having fun on their own. I know with regards to stuff online like fanfic and such, it's okay as long as it isn't sold. You can't profit off their copyrights without their permission and them getting a cut of it.Last year WB also sued an Indian film or filmmaker over their movie "Hari Puttar — A Comedy Of Terrors." WB lost. http://www.groundreport.com/Media_and...
Deliabookworm wrote: "Briansgirl "Master Book Sale Huntress" wrote: "Watch your language please. You may not like what WB did, but it was well within their legal rights to protect their copyright."sorry, my bad
i sti..."
Who knows
yeah watch your language. any ways who cares. If she sues them, than thats her dicession. that we don't like.
Oh my gosh. I can't belive that India got away with making a recopy of Harry potter in Indian. that is what you call unfair.
Well, if you read the article, you see that the reason the court rejected WBs suit in the Hari Puttar case is because 1) the story is more like 'Home Alone' than anything to do with Harry Potter and 2) Hari is a common Indian name, and Puttar means son. Since there was no real direct parallel between the two, except for the similarities of names, WB never really had a case.
The castle, on the other hand, was made to look exactly like how it's described in the book, which is a more clear violation.
Ok, so i am from this indian city, where this structure was created, and i have to say, i am amused. i visited the 'hogwarts' and let me tell you, it is as good a copy of hogwarts as... your first sand castle is of buckingham palace! besides it is part of popular culture to erect such temporary structures, for this particluar festival. and contrary to what you may think, all of these structures are non-profit. people visit to see it, and there's no entry fee or anything! so where does the question of 'making money off someone else's idea' arise? it's just for fun and it is demolished after 4 days of the festival. there have been so many Titanics and Eiffel towers and Taj Mahals and Big Bens and Colosseums- no one even keeps count! so i think it's really naive to seek out wherever someone is copying an idea off your book when you are one of the richest people of the world. and i think JKR should expect it, because she hasn't created a book or a franchise. she has created a phenomenon. and as for WB... what the hell! if someone can say it's right infringement, then it's JKR herself, because this is not a movie or a video clip. its a replica of hogwarts, which is more part of JKR's creation than of the movies.
Why do people care if they make a castle?
Because it is like copying Hogwarts. Remember when we were little and used to hate Kookeys for copying Webkinz, and we didn't even OWN Webkinz?
Shae (Ron Fanatic!!!!!) wrote: "Because it is like copying Hogwarts. Remember when we were little and used to hate Kookeys for copying Webkinz, and we didn't even OWN Webkinz?"
*Snorts* Why'd you have to bring that up? LOL. ~:)
*Snorts* Why'd you have to bring that up? LOL. ~:)
KOLKATA, India (AFP) - Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling is suing organisers of a religious event for constructing a replica of her imaginary Hogwarts Castle in an eastern India city, officials said Thursday.
Rowling and her publishers Bloomsbury are seeking two million rupees (50,000 dollars) from the organisers constructing an elaborate castle from canvas and papier mache in Kolkata for the upcoming Durga Puja festival, court officials said.
The Delhi High Court has summoned the builders on Friday to present their case, they said.
The suit, which runs into 394 pages, argues the organisers of the Hindu festival can stage the upcoming event in the gigantic marquee only after paying two million rupees to the British author.
Rowling's fictitious world depicts the castle as an ancient school of witchcraft where her eponymous hero Harry Potter learns wizardry.
The marquee in Kolkata's Salt Lake district replicates the imaginary castle's outer contours and includes an imitation marble staircase and flagged stone floor in the entrance hall, lit with flaming torches, witnesses said.
The festival organising secretary, Santunu Biswas, said his team would go ahead with the preparations for the four-day festivities, eastern India's most celebrated annual religious carnival.
"What we are building is not a violation of copyright act anywhere in the world because it's a religious festival and has nothing to do with money-making," Biswas told AFP.
Another organiser, Robin Mukherjee, said he was stunned.
"The summons came at a time when the marquee is almost ready and we don't know what to do now as we cannot afford to pay the fine," the visibly angry official added.
"It's just a theme ...We have also modelled the Titanic and no-one sued us," he said.
===>for the picture of the said castle check this out! http://akoba2.multiply.com/photos/alb...