- Journal Archives
- Volume 21
- Volume 20
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
- 2019-2020 Symposium
- 2018-2019 Symposium
- 2017-2018 Symposium
- 2016-2017 Symposium
- 2015-2016 Symposium
- 2014-2015 Symposium
- 2013-2014 Symposium
- 2012-2013 Symposium
- 2011-2012 Symposium
- 2010-2011 Symposium
- 2009-2010 Symposium
- 2008-2009 Symposium
- 2007-2008 Symposium
Currently viewing the tag: "Harry Potter"
In the news. . .
Warner Bros. pushes boundaries of trademark law by seeking to protect everything related to Harry Potter‘s “Quidditch,” including lingerie.
Television networks draw first blood against Filmon.com’s Internet streaming service for movies and television by getting temporary restraining order.
EMI seeks to bar non-profit legal rights group […]Continue Reading →
In the news. . .
Film companies threaten copyright infringement lawsuits against PETA over the animal rights group’s repeated unauthorized use of film clips in their advertising campaigns.
British judge refuses to dismiss plagiarism lawsuit against J.K. Rowling, stating plaintiff claiming Rowling stole ideas for “Harry Potter” from obscure fantasy book […]Continue Reading →
Forget Voldemort — Harry Potter has a new nemesis to contend with. Unfortunately for Harry, neither magic nor help from Hermione Granger will help him win this legal fight. As a sequel to the pending suits against the British publisher of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, the Estate of Adrian Jacobs […]Continue Reading →
Harry Potter’s battle against Voldemort lasted for seven years, and sometimes it seems as if the battle over his Lexicon will take just as long. After RDR Books, publishers of the Harry Potter Lexicon, lost a copyright infringement action brought by JK Rowling and Warner Brothers (the decision is detailed in our blog post […]Continue Reading →
On September 26, 2008 By admin July 24, 2010
Warner Brothers, which owns the rights to the Harry Potter franchise, claimed […]Continue Reading →
On Friday, I speculated here at JETLawBlog about whether RDR Books would appeal Judge Patterson’s decision against them, particularly if they consider editing The Lexicon first. After all, the detailed decision made it very clear what parts of the Lexicon are particularly problematic when it comes to unlawful use of J.K. Rowling’s work.
It […]Continue Reading →
On September 12, 2008 By JETLaw September 12, 2008
After nearly five months of speculation from fans, bloggers, and legal scholars alike, a New York judge handed down a verdict in favor of J.K. Rowling (and Warner Brothers, holders of the film rights in her books) in the controversial copyright case involving “The Harry Potter Lexicon,” a fan-website-turned-unauthorized-reference-book. As our blog mentioned a […]Continue Reading →
Yesterday afternoon Judge Patterson of the Southern District of New York ruled that Steven Vander Ark’s “Harry Potter Lexicon,” an encyclopedia intended to chronicle the famous Harry Potter series, infringed on J.K. Rowling’s copyright for the series. The Harry Potter Lexicon began as a fan website dedicated to serving as “the ultimate Harry Potter […]Continue Reading →
Recent Blog Posts
- Will the Angels Face Liability for the Death of Tyler Skaggs?
- A Different Kind of Piracy: North Carolina Claims Immunity from Copyright Infringement in Dispute over Queen Anne’s Revenge
- The Homegrown Player Rules in the MLS
- Why Data Portability Promotes Competition
- A Hot Rod or Just a Fraud?
- The Death of § 2(a) and the Ascent of Native American Trademarks
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution