The Times (London) reported last Sunday — thanks to Phil Carter for the pointer — that
LAWYERS acting for J K Rowling are heading for a legal battle with the US army over a training manual that features characters similar to those in the Harry Potter books and films. . . .
The magazine, The Preventive Maintenance Monthly, includes a cartoon character called Topper, a boy wizard, who attends Mogmarts school of magic. Harry Potter, Rowling’s boy wizard creation, attends the Hogwarts school of magic.
In the magazine, army officials are given a lesson from Professor Rumbledoore and his staff, a name strikingly similar to Rowling’s Professor Dumbledore. Other characters in the magazine include professors McDonagal and Snappy, and a Miss Ranger. The Harry Potter books feature professors McGonagall and Snape and Hermione Granger.
I’m not sure that the similarity of names alone would constitute infringement, but it would be close, and if they also borrow the characters’ character traits, then it probably would be infringement. The military has a decent fair use claim, but far from an open-and-shut one — they seem to be using Rowling’s characters to make their own point, rather than commenting on them, and this cuts substantially against their fair use argument.
Nonetheless, what struck me most about the article is this:
A spokesman for the American defence force said: “Each copy of our magazine is reviewed by our legal office.
“After reviewing this copy they judged that we were doing nothing wrong and that these characters were in parity use.”
Pretty clearly it must have been “a parody use,” not the nonsensical “in parity use.” Maybe the spokesman jumbled this himself, but more likely the reporter mistranscribed it. Just further evidence that you can’t always trust even supposedly direct quotes, especially when they talk about Judge Ito with the wet nose.
Comments are closed.