|
FEBRUARY 5, 2005 at 7:21 PM
Posted by GERI
Source: Sunday Herald
Representatives of JK Rowling and Warner Bros. are investigating possible copyright infringement centering around images HPANA posted last week from an issue of the U.S. Army's official Preventive Maintenance Monthly. The cartoon magazine, distributed to 80,000 army personnel, featured a multi-page parody of "Harry Potter" in the publication's May 2004 issue.
A spokesman for Rowling has confirmed
that they were looking into the matter and that the U.S. Army never approached them or Warner Bros. prior to its release.
According to Ken Crunk, based at Redstone arsenal in Alabama:
"The drawings were done by a contracted artist for us. They do not look like any of the characters from Harry Potter. We are very careful when we do these things not to copy images because that would be illegal. We use them to encourage soldiers to read the mag."
A U.S. Army spokesman added:
"Each issue of the magazine is reviewed by the aviation and missile command legal office. After reviewing this particular issue the legal office concluded that there was nothing done that was impermissible and that the illustrations were clearly in the scope of parody and that, therefore, there was no need to seek permission from JK Rowling."
Reader Comments (292)
Your Thoughts
click to write...
Copyright © 2002-2009 HPANA. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. 
HPANA is an unofficial fan site, in no way affiliated with J.K. Rowling,
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury Publishing or Warner Bros. Entertainment. All
trademarks and copyrighted material are the property of their respective owners.
About HPANA | Movie 6 | Send a news tip | Contact us | Privacy policy
226-250 251-275 276-292
Auror
Points: 4040
Dan's no.1 fan 4ever says:
Like they didn't copy off Harry Potter! Idiots. I can't believe there are people that sad in this world.
Posted Feb 11, 2005 at 4:36 PM EST
Student
Points: 218
Dementor fan club says:
Alright, here is the bottom line for me. People have way too much involvement in this. I unlike most in this thread ( and i mean this with no disrespect to any) served in the Millitary, and have a valid point to defend. This doenst mean that i am defending the army becasue of that.... I was in the Marine Corps. and there is no love lost between the Marines and the Army. CNN had this story on a few nights ago and interviewed an comic illustrator who told them " If she is to succeed at this, no one will ever be permitted to ink anything that relates to someone else if they dont approve. that in its own is blocking an individuals rights.". Aside from this I find it funny that there are Jr. High, and pre teens posting on this subject in blind support of JKR. My view is obviously clear from my many post on this subject, and I respect the opinions of each on this site. But when there is a legitimate discussion/argument to be held and there are those who post with utter stupidity, it just makes me luagh cause you can tell the age group the wrote the post.
As for the Millitary issuing an appology, in time if they feel one is due, they will give it. Part of what is delaying them from giving one, if in fact they intend to. Is the rescent developement that she may be a fraud. granted it could only be the first book, but it is still an issue. I dont know about the rest of you, but if I were to appologize to someone for there work, then find out they had stolen it from another. I wouldnt be to happy about appologizing to that individual.
Posted Feb 11, 2005 at 6:52 PM EST
Dan Radcliffe's Muse
Points: 4400
Ramsay's Kitchen Maid says:
I'm bummed I missed the CNN interview. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out...
And I am definitely NOT the kind of Kitty that would disrespect someone for the content of their opinions. (I do, however, reserve and often exercise my option to disagree!)
Cheers!
Posted Feb 11, 2005 at 8:18 PM EST
Mad Cow Breeder
Points: 8481
Lord Of The Cows says:
Not too good. I dont want her to get involved. I want teh book to be as good as it can be. Only about 153 days. Cant wait.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 7:53 AM EST
Parselmouth
Points: 29083
Thestral Eyes says:
Rowling has every right to be upset with the us army, if they had approached her for permission beforehand then fine, but to do so without is wrong, when its clearly a hp spoof, deffinately looks like a carrot top ron weasley to me. The artist must be deluded if he says they look nohting like the characters. Hope they get what they deserve.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 8:49 AM EST
Order of Merlin, 4th Class
Points: 1343
Devoted2Draco says:
Copyrighting is bad, everyone. if they did, shame on them, thats awful.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 11:40 AM EST
Auror
Points: 2026
Mari Potter Baudelaire says:
Oh my god! Hope everything is fine now! God I know I mentioned this in almost every post but stil: I MISSES HERE! It's so good to be back!
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 12:37 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2773
Alessandra says:
Celedora --
Perhaps you should go reveiw your own civics lessons before trying to imply that perhaps my high school wasn't up to par. They did a pretty good job twenty years ago, although in that part of the midwest the class gets called 'government'. And yes, war is ugly, but sometimes it is necessary. We'll not debate that here, as we're each entitled to our own opinions.
If you had bothered to read what I wrote instead of getting all worked up, you'd have realized that nowhere did I tell you that you couldn't say what you said, so your assertion of "Freedom of Speech" is moot. Aside from the fact that 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech' doesn't apply on private websites such as this, it doesn't protect you from the consequences of your own speech, nor from the opinions (as in, free speech) of others. It doesn't protect you from other people making judgments about you based on your speech. All it does is keep the government from censoring you.
Aside from that, I'll take you at your word that you intended a much more narrow definition of 'the military' than is commonly used. Perhaps you might want to choose your words more carefully, so that you can convey your meaning more easily.
But I still think it was a wretched thing to say, particularly since I doubt that any of the folks involved with the production and distribution of that magazine are at the level where decisions to go to war are made. I'd bet at least a couple of the folks involved will 'get what's coming to them' when they aren't promoted next time up, whether they were correct (Which they are. Parody does not infringe on copyright.) or not.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 3:22 PM EST
Student
Points: 235
Celedora says:
Dementor_fan_club: Where did you hear that JKR is a fraud? I've heard that as well, but haven't been able to find out who's accusing her etc. Omni has a post about it earlier. Is there a website or something? Just curious.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 3:38 PM EST
Dan Radcliffe's Muse
Points: 4400
Ramsay's Kitchen Maid says:
Alessandra-
The allegedly infringing work must be a legitimate parody for the fair use defense to copyright infringement to apply.
It is not clear that the Army mag would qualify as a legitimate parody, since the Copyright Act specifically protects parody when used to criticize or comment on the original copyrighted work.
The Army's use looks more like it is gratuitously borrowing elements from Harry Potter to make something else humorous.
P.S. My views on copyright infringement have nothing to do with and are not impacted by the fact that the US Army is involved.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 5:03 PM EST
Witch
Points: 562
nearly-headless-spring says:
Well, the army personel need something to laugh at, I don't see the problem if they really didn't copy the images. Still, this is a bit amusing, hehe. I hope things work out.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 5:21 PM EST
Witch
Points: 562
nearly-headless-spring says:
dementor_fan_club
Thanks for serving in the army, I appreciate all you've done, but you might need to get off of your high horse. Just a suggestion.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 5:26 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2773
Alessandra says:
ChaosKitty - Fair 'nuff. Now that I've dug more into copyright and trademark, I see that it might not completely be parody. I think it does fall under fair use, though, mostly because three of the four factors that courts use seem to weigh in the Army's favor:
1. The purpose and character of the use (the more transformative defendant's use, the more likely to be fair use, whereas if defendant merely reproduces plaintiff's work without putting it to a transformative use, the less likely this use will be held to be fair; further, the more commercial defendant's use, the less likely such use will be fair)
I think we can agree that they didn't simply lift Harry and Hogwarts, but did transform portions of it. The maintenance items, which make up a large part of the work, are not JKR's work at all.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work (first, the more creative and less purely factual the copyrighted work, the stronger its protection; second, if a copyrighted work is unpublished, it will be harder to establish that defendant's use of it was fair),
This is the item that leans more towards WB & JKR
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion defendant used (did defendant copy nearly all of, or the heart of, the copyrighted work? If so, such use is less likely to be fair),
Not really. The heart of the work is not the physical character, nor the setting. The heart of the work is in the conflict between Harry and Voldemort, and in Harry's personal conflict as he comes to terms with himself. None of that is in the Army publication.
4. The effect of defendant's use on the potential market or the copyrighted work.
Which would be absolutely nil.
My guess is that the educational/instructional aspect would also figure heavily into a court decision, because there are allowances for such.
That pretty much gets them off the hook on copyright, but WB may be pursuing the trademark angle. However, they'll have to prove that the Army's work either confused people and made them think that the work originated with WB, or that it diluted the trademarks to the point that it caused damage to the WB Harry Potter trademarks. Neither seem likely. Additionally, the characters would have to look exactly like the trademarked WB characters--depending, of course, on which ones were trademarked.
Another aspect to consider--over time, if a trademark (which is what WB owns) is not defended against infringement, then it weakens the mark. WB may well be trying to preserve its trademark, however, the extensive permitted usage on the internet weakens its case.
(Sources, if you're interested: LII and Chilling Effects. The four copyright criteria were from Chilling Effects, but they're elsewhere, too.)
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 6:27 PM EST
Dan Radcliffe's Muse
Points: 4400
Ramsay's Kitchen Maid says:
Not bad Alessandra--however, the four factors you mention are only guidelines that a court would consider in determining whether or not the Army infringed on the JRK & WB copyright. Because these factors are guidelines subject to interpretation, the distinction between "fair use" and infringement is unclear and often difficult to predict before going to court over the matter.
For instance, there is no way an accused infringer can predict ahead of time how much transformation a court will think is enough--this is especially true with very famous copyrights (take Mickey Mouse for example).
The same unpredictability also surrounds a court's opinion on what constitutes "the heart of a work."
It would not be unreasonable for a court to determine that the heart of Harry Potter is the boy-wizard character going to a wizarding school because copyright does not protect the ideas behind a creative work (such as a conflict between two characters or even the names of the character -which can be protected under trademark law). Instead, copyright protects the particular way an author/artist has expressed himself. (i.e. writing about a boy-wizard who attends a school for wizards).
When viewed in this light, the Army copied/borrowed the heart of JKR's work without giving her credit or asking permission.
What makes this area of law so problematic is the inherent difficulty in trying to separate an idea from the creative expression of the idea. And of course there is always the personal opinions of the judge/jury that can creep into and skew the final outcome.
Unfortunately, there is no recipe for determining how much (or how little) of a copyrighted work can be lawfully used/borrowed/appropriated without permission from the copyright holder.
I don't know if you are familiar with the Jibjab website, but last summer a copyright infringement claim for Jibjab's use of "This Land is Your Land" was settled out of court with Jibjab giving 20% of the proceeds to the estate of Woody Guthrie despite evidence that the song might have been in the public domain...
Getting permission is always safer and waaaaaaaaay less expensive than litigation.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 at 10:52 PM EST
Witch
Points: 534
luv2bhermione says:
hahaha!!! This is hilarious. Harry Potter is this popular that even the army is copying it. Hahah very very funny!!
Posted Feb 13, 2005 at 1:07 AM EST
Head Girl
Points: 414
R. Skeeter says:
The truth of the matter is that JK Rowling did not invent flying brooms, wizards, wizard schools, wands, spells, potions or wizard (witches) schools. All these had been used in many story books before she wrote HP. Her idea is not original, the concept is borowed, she just wrote a very entertaining series that appeals to so many.
Posted Feb 13, 2005 at 9:11 AM EST
Head Girl
Points: 445
Cherrybabi56 says:
I think that the comic is just to keep the military entertained and it shouldn't be such a big deal... they don't make any money off of it and it's a parody it's not exact quotes or lines from the book or anything.
Posted Feb 13, 2005 at 1:35 PM EST
Head Girl
Points: 414
R. Skeeter says:
I am posting a portion of an article by Ben Stein, I think it speaks volumes.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we mean someone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
Posted Feb 14, 2005 at 11:22 AM EST
Witch
Points: 684
Malakite says:
R. Skeeter: Thank you for posting that excerpt.
Personally, if I were to publish an incredible series of work that I spent years creating, I wouldn't want anyone to just do anyting they want with it. I'd appreciate somebody asking my permission to use it as a teaching tool, even if the drawings don't look exactly like my own ilustrator's drawings. In this instance, I can't blame Jo or the WB for looking into it.
That being said, I am glad the twisted world of "legality" is handling this case. They are the ones who cause the loop holes, twisted logic, and issues that arise afterwards, so THEY should deal with it. I'll just keep on reading her books, legally purchased, because I think her intellectual property deserves to be supported. I.e. - I WANT MORE!
Posted Feb 14, 2005 at 2:31 PM EST
Dan Radcliffe's Muse
Points: 4400
Ramsay's Kitchen Maid says:
R. Skeeter--
I am also glad that you posted Ben Stein's piece. We (in the "global" sense of the word) should always remember (and be thankful for) the many men and women in uniform (military, police, EMT's, firefighters, nurses, doctors, etc.) who risk their lives everyday to keep others safe and to help those in need.
However, it is also important to remember that no one is above the law nor should Authority or extenuating circumstances be a catch-all defense for (allegedly) the careless and unwarranted injury of the lawful rights of another.
Justice is blind for a reason...and she should remain that way.
I said this before, but I feel the need to repeat, that neither the Army nor the situation in Iraq affect or factor into my thoughts on copyright law or my opinion on the "legality" of the comic book.
Nor does my position (or my posts) intend or imply any disrespect for men and women in uniform (military uniforms or otherwise).
Peace,
ChaosKitty
Posted Feb 14, 2005 at 10:22 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2185
Potterfan5 says:
I wonder if anything will actually come of this, or maybe Rowling will just let it slide. I think maybe she just wanted to prove a point. I also think that it was all in good fun, I really don't think the Army had copyright infringement on their minds while doing this. But then again if they would have, none of this would have happened....
Posted Feb 15, 2005 at 12:08 AM EST
Muggle
Points: 27
akhunt says:
I think this is ridiculous. It was a parady. The army wasn't making any money off of it, or trying to pass the ideas off as their own. It doesn't infringe on any copyrites. What is the difference between this and any fanfiction? Those writers didn't come up with the characters eithers. The army used it for entertainment as well as teaching purposes. I would be flattered it I were Rowling. This is only becoming a big deal because it concerns the US Army, which is currently a controversial subject in itself.
I saw a parrody of Alias recently that JJ Abrams (the creator/writer) liked so much that he wanted to include it in the Season 1 DVD set. He was flattered. I think more people should be as laid back as that. No one was stealing anything.
Posted Feb 16, 2005 at 12:44 AM EST
Student
Points: 286
MeetYourMatch says:
Let's hope they don't get in trouble...
Posted Feb 17, 2005 at 9:25 PM EST
Witch
Points: 911
Rasial says:
I don't think it is fair to sue people for publishing original drawings based on a literary character.
Posted Feb 18, 2005 at 3:13 AM EST
Wizard
Points: 660
Charles Brandon says:
I think it is a sad commentary on the state of literacy in the US Military that manuals must be done in comic book form.
Thats not to say, of course, that none can read! The training manuals have to be pitched to the lowest common denominator. I hope that the troops who need it receive literacy classes along with all the other training they receive so that they will be better prepared when they leave the military to face the job market. It's the least that could be done for people risking their lives.
Posted Feb 22, 2005 at 10:25 AM EST
Muggle
Points: 57
Vikki0lvsrg says:
This makes no sense..... How on earth can they get in trouble for putting pictures in a magazine. Its whoever the pictures came froms fault they didnt protect them.
Posted Mar 1, 2005 at 8:19 PM EST
226-250 251-275 276-292
Back to top of page