[silk] NYTimes.com Article: Harry Potter and the Court Battle Over Creativity

[ektabahl@xxxxxxxxxxx]

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by ektabahl@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Fairy tale imagination!!!!!


- ekta

/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\


Let NYTimes.com Come to You

Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails 
and the news will come directly to you. 
YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis
and information about personal investing.  
CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on 
personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers 
you a jump on special travel deals and news.  

http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5

\----------------------------------------------------------/

Harry Potter and the Court Battle Over Creativity


By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Nancy Stouffer was a homemaker living a quiet life in Camp Hill, Pa.,
until two years ago, when she heard about J. K. Rowling's novel
"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."

 As soon as she read it, Mrs. Stouffer said last week, "I realized
there was big trouble here." Mrs. Stouffer herself had pursued a
quixotic career writing children's picture books ? one that
included a bespectacled boy named Larry Potter and another that,
like Ms. Rowling's book, was populated by characters called
"muggles." Mrs. Stouffer said she was sure that she recognized
several crucial elements from her own work.

 Although both Potters are skinny and bespectacled, their public
profiles could not be more different. Ms. Rowling's Potter is
familiar to more than 40 million people who have read her books in
the United States alone, while Mrs. Stouffer's books were so
obscure that until recently she could not locate any copies.

 But with a few phone calls, Mrs. Stouffer was on her way to
joining a growing parade of aggrieved writers and artists who have
helped to turn intellectual property litigation into a burgeoning
cottage industry, with its own small plaintiffs bar and even
insurance policies to protect successful writers and musicians from
the high cost of fending off claims. 

 Blockbuster books, movies, plays and songs have always provoked
anger and legal actions on the part of little-known artists who say
their work has been usurped. The vast majority of lawsuits are as
improbable as one New York designer's unsuccessful claim that the
best-selling "Goosebumps" series of children's books stole a
graphic he designed for the Lithuanian basketball team.

 But hope springs eternal because of the occasional legal upset,
like the Detroit teacher who last month won a $19 million verdict
that a film studio stole his screenplay to make an Arnold
Schwarzenegger film. 

 Legal challenges filed by the famous and the little-known alike
over the originality of creative works have proliferated steadily
over the last 20 years, partly because of the soaring value of
intellectual property in a media-saturated culture.

 "These cases are more intense and more frequently encountered
these days than in the past, driven by the increasing appetite on
the part of all kinds of people for intellectual property
protection," said David Lange, a professor at the Duke University
School of Law.

 Legal scholars say the boom in intellectual property lawsuits
began with the advent of television, which added new lives to
popular stories and characters. They might appear first in a book,
then in a film, and eventually in perpetuity on the networks, cable
and video tape. "As technology has expanded the ways you can
exploit intellectual property, it has added more and more value,"
said Joseph Beard, a professor at the St. John's University School
of Law.

 But the line between a new work and a knockoff can be hazy. At
heart, copyright law requires judges to balance the protection of
artists' intellectual property against society's interest in
freedom of expression. Courts must weigh nuanced considerations
like the degree of similarity between two stories or tunes. Some
cases turn on questions of a defendant's creative or commercial
intent, or the likelihood that one work might steal sales from
another. 

 The first point raised in Mrs. Stouffer's lawsuit is the purported
resemblance between Larry and Harry. 

 To prove copyright infringement, Mrs. Stouffer's lawyers need to
show that Ms. Rowling, who lives in Scotland, had a chance to read
Mrs. Stouffer's books, which were self- published in the United
States in the 1980's, received limited distribution and quickly
went out of print. Mrs. Stouffer bases her assertion on a
comparison between some pictures of Harry Potter and her own
drawing of Larry. Larry Potter lacks Harry Potter's most
distinctive features ? tape on his glasses, a lightning- shaped
scar on his forehead and a knack for magic.

 Deliberate appropriation can raise deeper issues. In May, for
example, Houghton Mifflin is planning to publish a novel called
"The Wind Done Gone," by Alice Randall, that revisits the
plantation setting of Margaret Mitchell's novel "Gone With the
Wind" from the perspective of a slave. The new novel's narrator,
Cynara, is the half-sister of Mitchell's heroine, Scarlett O'Hara,
and the daughter of her servant, Mammy. The novel borrows plot
lines, scenes, characters, and even images and phrases ? for the
purpose of criticizing the original, according to its publisher.

 Last week, the owner of the copyright to "Gone With the Wind," a
trust set up for Mitchell's heirs, asked a federal judge in Atlanta
for an injunction to halt the book's publication, calling it "a
blatant and wholesale theft of `Gone With the Wind.' " The trust
has earned millions in licensing fees from a sequel to the book and
a film version of it, and the trust's lawyers argue an unauthorized
spinoff threatens its future fees. 

 Some intellectual property scholars say that "The Wind Done Gone"
has the makings of a legal landmark because it raises in unusually
stark terms the inherent conflict between intellectual property
rights and freedom of expression. Retelling parts of "Gone With the
Wind" from the vantage point of a slave is morally and politically
appealing, but it may also violate the Mitchell trust's rights. For
example, the trust may choose to license its own retelling of the
story from a slave's perspective. 

 In 1994, the Supreme Court considered for the first time the
question of whether copyright law permits "parody." The owners of
the copyright to Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman" filed suit
over a recording by the rap group 2 Live Crew that incorporated
elements of the song.

 Justice David Souter concluded that the group's bawdy rendition
"can be taken as a comment on the naïveté of the original of an
earlier day." But the court stopped short of determining how
"transformative" a parody must be to qualify as new.

 The legal limits of literary borrowing become even more
complicated when stories and characters leap off the printed page
and onto the silver screen or the toy store shelf. Mrs. Stouffer,
for example, also accuses Ms. Rowling of trademark infringement for
selling toys and tchotchkes under the name "muggles." 

 Mrs. Stouffer's lawyers do not contend that Ms. Rowling
plagiarized the term "muggles." The use of the term antedates both
authors ? it was slang for marijuana and appeared in a Louis
Armstrong song, among other places. And Mrs. Stouffer's "muggles"
were short, hairless, quasihuman mutants, but Ms. Rowling's are
just regular people who lack magical powers. 

 Instead, Mrs. Stouffer's lawyers argue the phenomenal popularity
of Ms. Rowling's books will interfere with her ability to sell her
own "muggles" merchandise. In court papers, Ms. Stouffer's lawyers
say she has tried for years to sell magnets, pajamas and other
paraphernalia based on her own "muggles" at trade shows and
elsewhere. But now the term "muggle" has become a hallmark of Ms.
Rowling's books. Mrs. Stouffer's lawyers claim Ms. Rowling has
effectively ruined Mrs. Stouffer's trademark.

 In response, lawyers for Ms. Rowling and Scholastic argue that few
people ever bought Ms. Stouffer's "muggles" products or books,
especially not after her books went out of print for the last time
in 1991. She registered her trademark for the first time last year.


 Lawsuits like Ms. Stouffer's have become so common that in 1999
the British insurance brokerage firm Robertson Taylor created a
policy specifically for famous musicians, to cover costs incurred
defending against copyright suits. Many insurers in the United
States offer similar policies, although not specifically tailored
to the needs of rock stars.

 Sometimes just filing a case can bring its own rewards. Last month
Mrs. Stouffer finally found a publisher for her books, Ottenheimer
Publishers, a small company based in Baltimore.

 Her new publisher is making as much as it can out of the
resemblance between Mrs. Stouffer's books and Ms. Rowling's. The
cover of Mrs. Stouffer's book "The Legend of Rah and the Muggles"
previously depicted her miniature mutants, with the word "muggles"
in small print. This time, the word "Muggles" appears in large type
against the backdrop of a castle reminiscent of the one on Mrs.
Rowling's books. Her character Larry Potter previously played a
supporting role in a series of magazine-size booklets starring his
cousin, Lilly. But now he is front and center on the cover of Mrs.
Stouffer's new hardcover book, "Larry Potter and His Best Friend
Lilly."

 And the author's name has been changed, too, from "Nancy Stouffer"
to "N. K. Stouffer."    Home | Back to Business | Search | HelpBack
to Top       
            
           
     
      
 
 
 
   
  
          Click here to order Reprints or Permissions of this
Article         

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/01/business/01BOOK.html?ex=987280728&ei=1&en=c74a782d9540c1e6

/-----------------------------------------------------------------\


Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
updated throughout the day.

Become a member today! It's free!

http://www.nytimes.com?eta


\-----------------------------------------------------------------/

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson 
Racer at alyson@xxxxxxxxxxx or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help@xxxxxxxxxxxx  

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company