Willy Strikes Again

On the heels of my previous post, concerning a 2000 copyright infringement suit brought against author J. K. Rowling, comes news of new allegations that the Harry Potter scribe may have lifted material from a fellow writer.  The author in question, the late Adrian Jacobs, penned a little-known 40-page children’s book back in 1987 — a decade before the first Potter release — called The Adventure of Willy the Wizard, No. 1 Livid Land.  According to the Jacobs estate, which is initiating the suit, it was he and not Rowling who first conjured up “the idea of wizard prisons, hospitals and schools.”  Rowling has responded by saying that the charges are “not only unfounded but absurd.”  The Jacobs estate estimates that the suit could be worth a billion dollars.

I don’t have much information about the case beyond the press reports to which I’ve linked above, so I want to be cautious about offering too much commentary here.  I will say, however, that I find it difficult to accept the plaintiff’s claim that Rowling’s borrowings are “substantial,” given the brevity of the Willy book. This sounds to me like an attempt to claim ownership of a general concept, which would contravene the longstanding idea-expression divide within U. S. copyright law.  In a nutshell, the law says you can only copyright the specific iteration of an idea, and not the idea itself.  Everything in this case consequently hinges on the question of the specificity of Rowling’s alleged borrowing.

The Willy case reminds of another recent one.  In 2006, Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown was sued by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, who alleged that Brown had absconded with 15 central themes from their book, as well as its basic plot architecture.  But the judge in the case, Justice Peter Smith, disagreed.  In his ruling he noted: “It is true that aspects of the Central Themes can be traced through the textual parts identified by the Claimants.  That is because the Central Themes are too general and nothing significant is to be concluded from that identification.” (Hats off, by the way, to Justice Smith.  Apropos of the bestselling book in question, he laced the ruling with a secret code of his own.)

Even if the allegations made by the Jacobs estate ultimately don’t hold up in court, they nevertheless underscore a tension that lies at the heart of all of the Harry Potter litigation — including that brought by Rowling herself.  We’re dealing with a book series that, however original in its own right, nonetheless makes copious use of themes, character types, and narratives that are ubiquitous in Western culture.  The fact that there’s  significant overlap with the work of other writers shouldn’t surprise anyone, least of all J. K. Rowling.



  1. Frank Persol says:

    Thank you for such a fair article about the Jacobs -Rowling case-which I have followed like you since 2009.
    I think what the claim means is that a substantial part of the small book was taken into Rowling’s larger book-in that case it is not surprising- you don’t need to be a Wizard to observe it’s easier to take a substantial part of a small book than a large one ?The writ is up online at various places like the Hollywood Reporter.

  2. Frank Persol says:

    Read the Whole Jacobs Claim at
    and thank you for free speech!
    Let them have their day in court-this is about upholding the rights of small authors not to have their original new to the genre ideas themes plotlines characters and concepts and plots stolen by big entertainment juggernauts! FP

  3. William Hardy says:

    To Frank Persol

    The reason there might be so many similarities is because their so many common ideas in fiction writing. Wizards is a common idea in fiction like in Sword in the Stone, Lord of the Rings and many more examples on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magicians_in_fantasy#Television_and_film and http://www.allbookstores.com/Juvenile-Fiction-Books/General/Wizards-Fiction. Having a fictional series going long enough, then series is very likely to have a competition, just like Star Wars, the Dragon Ball series, Gundam series and many more examples on http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TournamentArc. Another evidence against Rowling is that both works have a protagonist receiving help from helpers. That evidence can be debunk very easily because a protagonist receiving help happens most of the time, so more than 90% fiction writers and other fictionist are guilty of ‘copying’ that idea. It happened in Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, the Three Musketeers and many more examples at http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.