≡ Menu

Harry Potter and the Stolen Font Lawsuit

More copyright wackiness, as reported on FindLaw. The “creator of the typeface Cezanne Regular, has filed a lawsuit against NBC Universal, arguing that the company infringed upon its copyright by using the font on Potter merchandise connected to a new ride at Orlando’s Universal Studios.” According to this article, fonts or typefaces are not subject to copyright, but the software that generates computer-generated fonts are. So apparently if “NBC Universal used the Cezanne Regular font software when designing merchandise” then they may be liable; but “if the designers traced the font, or reproduced it in some other manner,” they didn’t use the software so are not liable.

Read more>>

Update here.

{ 2 comments… add one }
  • Greg Simcock December 18, 2011, 12:07 pm

    19-12-11 http://c4sif.org/2011/11/harry-potter-and-the-stolen-font-lawsuit/
    Harry Potter and the Stolen Font Lawsuit
    GSF: 19-12-11 Copyrights Harry Potter Font Infringement
    My Response
    Patents and Copyright laws are designed to protect an inventors rights to his/her creations intrinsic values, such as the right to sell those rights for a reward. The font that was used in the creation of the graphic title in the original graphic design of the film ‘The Philosopher’s Stone’ was designed in pencil, then redrawn into the creating authors computer. The Harry Potter story was well developed with drawings that were set out as story-boards, and written information was added to them for use by producers. The creator, Gregory Ronald Simcock, placed a stylised initial G linking letters Ha of Harry and S linking letters Po in Potter. The letters GS are the authors first and last initial letters and they were placed in the graphic title design of the title of the Harry Potter stories so as to act as an identifier of the creators work.

    The stories material and designs got stolen and the book that was subsequently released by an unknown author, named Joanne Rowling, who claimed the story of Harry fell into her head, fully formed, in four hours, while she was on a delayed train! The books popularity grew as titles were released, while the true creator of the stories was unaware of the theft of his work on the stories and that it was being written-up and published over several years until the release of the first film in the series. The damage was done to the creators rights to his authorship at that time, so he was not able to take-back his stories and place them back in his care. Nobody assisted the creator to retrieve his stolen works of art that formed the stories story-boards and so Jo Rowling became to be known as the author of such a wonderful story about an orphan boy who went to a wizard school, named Hogwarts, a school for wizards and witches.

    The laws designed to protect copyright and design right holders was not able to stop the copyrights infringement of the creating authors stories and inventions, but it still stands to protect the rights of the copyright holder if it is proven that a violation of rights exists against an authors copyrights. The words Copy-Rights are indicative of what the rights are meant to represent. It is, however, the onus on the creator or copyright holder to seek to protect his/her rights, and so it is ludicrous to suggest that copyrights and patent rights be abolished, even though they don’t do much to stop infringement of one’s rights.

    Jo Rowling has taken other subsequent authors to court over claims of plagiarism of what she claims to be her creative work but that must have been knowingly a fraudulent claim by the credited author of the stories of Harry Potter, as the stories of Harry Potter were not conceived by her in the first place! No, not at all. The stories of Harry Potter were the progressively built-upon work that got stolen from the creators home, in Australia, some time prior to when Jo Rowling had the inspirational train-ride after returning to England from a place that is believed to have been from Australia.

    Plagiarism must not be allowed to continue once it is known to be occurring against a creators interest in his/her work of art. It does no good for the creator or the plagiarist who infringes the creators work. Jo Rowling didn’t get rich from anything she created, other than a series of books that were products from an authors cunning attempts at becoming an author on the back of the genuine creator of the stories destined for production when they were completed. Jo Rowling admittedly said that she was “Wary” of having films produced from the stories, as a BAFTAS Awards night. The concerned Jo Rowling is guilty of plagiarism and that is the opinion of the true and genuine creator of the story she wrote-up and published! She even modified her initials to J. K. R. so as to make the male book buyers think she was a male author!

    Happy Day’s,
    Gregory Ronald Simcock

To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to C4SIF. This work is published from: United States. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.