Warner Brothers Warns Guy Who Named Harry Potter A Decade Before JK Rowling
from the so-how-does-that-work-exactly? dept
In something of a followup to the story of JK Rowling's testimony over a guide book to the Harry Potter universe, Petréa Mitchell writes in to point us to the news that moviemaker Helmer John Buechler is planning to make a remake of his 1986 movie Troll. What's that got to do with Harry Potter? Well, it just so happens that the lead character of the movie happens to be named Harry Potter. Rowling's first Harry Potter book came out over a decade after the movie. While I'd be willing to bet the whole thing is a coincidence (or, at the very least a totally unintentional/subconscious reuse of the name), that isn't preventing Warner Brothers (who owns the rights to Rowling's Harry Potter) from making some vaguely worded, but ominous sounding warnings to Buechler, telling him "If these producers intend to remake Troll they'd better tread carefully not to infringe on our rights." Funny how they say that about a character that was invented over a decade before WB's own Harry Potter, isn't it?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: harry potter, helmer john buechler, movie, troll
Companies: warner brothers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Go for it!
Everyone out there would love to see JK cry for real!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
owns the writes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: owns the writes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: comment 3
She's not the one that's warning the group intending to make the movie. (She could probably give a damn less.) It's WB that's playing the part of moronic corporate giant here.
It's possible that she doesn't even know that WB is doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putting her name in bold is silly, when skimming through it catches the eye before the names of people actually involved in the story!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petrea Mitchell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Petrea Mitchell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Petrea Mitchell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm saying this because I remember reading somewhere that a cheap, temporary (?) way to copyright an idea you have is to date stamp the letter with your idea in it, and mail it to yourself in a sealed envelope for use as proof in court.
If it's legally feasible, this guy should totally sue WB for the fun (and $$) of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You completely MISUNDERSTAND what you are talking about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poor man's copyright
Often known as a poor man's copyright. Sending a manuscript to yourself registered mail provides a signature and paper trail to prove that you wrote something at a certain time. afaik it has held up in court when copyright is argued.
IANAL, but as I understand, any person who creates something automatically holds the copyright to their creation unless it is created under certain circumstances (such as while on the job for a company they've agreed to create stuff for).
The trick is proving you've created something first, hence the registered mail trick.
Whoever owns the rights to this movie wouldn't be breaking Rowling's (or Time-Warner's) copyright by using the name as it is a prior intellectual property, unless they intentionally confuse the public as to what property they are representing (trademark law if Harry Potter is trademarked) or draw from the new Harry Potter stories and re-use ideas.
I think. This is all just as I understand copyright law, which is honestly not much. Someone better qualified will probably come alone and clarify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: poor man's copyright
Nope, see my comment above describing exactly why it would NOT hold up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: poor man's copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: poor man's copyright
(IANAL, but i heard the very same words many times...)
If argued well, Buechler could make a fortune with his lawyer.
Any IP lawyers reading this news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: poor man's copyright
Could someone definitively comment on whether the registered letter trick for copyright really works, in the sense that 1) you have done it, and 2) you were challenged and had to go to court, and 3) you won because you presented the unopened registered letter to the court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of WB's corporate leaders are Jews...surprise, surprise...no wonder they are so greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #16 - Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same name so???
It's already been widely established that more then one character can have the same name, just like real people, open a phone book. Hell, I've seen two movies come out the same year with the same name and similar plots.
So nobody should owe anybody any money... unless the new Troll movie has best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger or drastically changes from the original movie to be like the "Harry Potter" movies
Warner Bros. typically is just being a big bully like most modern companies. Showing no class and making statements that have little to do with the legal reality.
Why TechDirt didn't point this out, how once again copyright seems to be being pushed in bad ways, maybe by both sides here.
Warner's has no right to keep someone ells from using a pretty simple name. Though it seems they would try if it hadn't clearly been used before their property had been thought up.
Nor does Helmer John Buechler or the owners of Troll.
All though if Hagrid where a troll had kidnapped Harry and turned him into a wizard then there'd be a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same name so???
Which ball did we drop?
It's already been widely established that more then one character can have the same name, just like real people, open a phone book.
Yup. Did we imply otherwise? If you didn't catch it, we were making fun of WB for its stance.
So nobody should owe anybody any money...
Did I say otherwise?
Warner Bros. typically is just being a big bully like most modern companies.
Yup. That was the point of the post.
Why TechDirt didn't point this out,
That was the entire point of the post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remake Troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remake Troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing here
Clearly the producers of Troll can make a movie based on Troll and the characters from that movie.
What they cannot do, and what the WB lawyers are pointing out, is that they cannot confuse the public into thinking that Troll's Harry Potter is the same is Rowling's Harry Potter. This is a preemptive letter to put them on notice to avoid creating the confusion that the two properties are related. WB is doing nothing wrong here at all. They are approaching copyright in the correct way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chime In
Did he even forget that he had that character name in there?
Either this guy is dense or he planned it this way...
Either way, he is running up against a brick wall and will either be mired in red tape or will accept a payoff from Time Warner to not make the movie. Aside from her own integrity on the character name, Rowling has nothing to do with the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When did Techdirt start allowing anti-semetic comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:When did Techdirt start allowing anti-semetic comments? by Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:When did Techdirt start allowing anti-semetic comments? by Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Man's copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poor Man's copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoo Rah for Rowling
So far as the legal issues go "Whats In a Name" has come closest to getting it right. There is nothing to stop Buechler from remaking his movie but Warner Brothers is perfectly justified in being concerned that Buechler might engage in passing off and encroaching on their good will. What if Buechler names his new version "Harry Potter and the Secret of the Troll" or some such name and/or advertises it as the "next installment in the saga of Harry Potter".
Would there be any discussion of this film being made if the lead character was not named "Harry Potter"? Warner Brothers is justified in being proactive and warning Buechler to tread carefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hoo Rah for Rowling
JKR has gotten much richer with much less work than most people. It would be so bad if she was at least a real nice person but her latest money-grubbing legal maneuvering has shown her not to be.
My eleven year old son is currently devouring the books.
Then as a parent you should be feeding him proper meals instead of running around trying to suck up to JKR. You're probably not her type anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hoo Rah for Rowling
That has nothing to do with WB throwing vague threats at other authors for having characters with the same name. I can understand what WB is probably thinking -- Rowling's Harry Potter is VERY popular, they don't like the idea of this guy riding their coat-tails, and there probably is a danger of infringment if he does much more than a simple remake (maybe give his character a scar on his forehead or something) -- but it seems to me fueled more by corporate greed and paranoia than actual fact. IF he touts his movie as somehow being the same Harry Potter kids already know and love, then he's a liar and a cheat, but if that's not what he's doing then he just has a character with the same name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jk rowling owns trademarks on the harry potter character, her harry potter character.
personally, i think if warner brothers is trying to force the troll producer to change the character name, then WB is in the wrong. however, it is stupid, why remake the film unless you want to try to spin money off of the name harry potter. jk rowling made harry potter a famous name, it was fairly unknown, owing to the fact that troll tanked and only had a very small, very minor gathering. if i remeber correctly, it did absymally for the studio that optioned it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, Warner Brothers owns the trademark. If you have a copy of Goblet of Fire or a later book handy, check the copyright statement and you will see that WB owns everything but the text of the books. I kid you not.
"if i remeber correctly, it did absymally for the studio that optioned it in the first place."
Although not too abysmally for there to be sequels, apparently... But abysmally enough that it's a pretty good bet that Rowling really came up with the name "Harry Potter" independently.
So far I've only found one person I know who actually saw that movie, and it's only because he's seen practically every sf/fantasy movie made since 1980.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be worse, he could be remaking Troll 2!
At least he's getting enough fiber. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In reverse order...
Like post #22 said, it's way too easy to mail yourself an empty, unsealed envelope, then put something in it (like a Word document with an old date), and then seal the envelope. Instant "poor man's copyright".
Second, does Warner Bros now own every single literary instance of "Harry Potter"??
Even if this guy did name his movie "Harry Potter and the Troll" I would think he'd be within his rights since he created a character named Harry Potter long before JK Rowling. (Though I'll admit that I'm not a lawyer.)
In fact, this guy should go after Warner Bros for stealing HIS character's name! I was looking forward to a remake of "Troll" and now it's ruined because they have to change the name of the lead character just because some boy wizard happens to be more well-known. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In reverse order...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting Harry Potter
It's sad, but Buechler should have sued Rowling when her books first came out. (Of course, then he would have been ridiculed mercilessly by Techdirt for filing such a suit, but it would have put him in a better position against WB right now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protecting Harry Potter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always wondered if Rowling stole the name and character idea from Troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common name
Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mixing up copyright and trademarks
I could write my own book about young wizards going to school, I could even have a wise headmaster, two sidekicks and an evil wizard. If I wrote it myself and the names were different they'd be nothing anyone could about it.
Likewise I could write a book about... the crew of a navy ship in the second world war and have characters called Hagrid and Hermione etc. and no-one could do anything about that.
The problem in this case is that the name Harry Potter is a trademark. Now you can't have a character called Harry Potter in another work as long as it remains a valid trademark, unless you get authorization with the trademark holder. Because creating a character called Harry Potter who is a murderer or a rapist or somesuch can damage the trademark and they can take you to court for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rowling stole it all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1224264.stm
She's just a hack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rowling stole it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harry Potter, Jr.
Anyway, if I were the director of Troll, I'd just change the name. Harry Potter has become way to specific to one character. Let's face it, it's not a great name to begin with and there are tons of other names that wouldn't send the fat cats at WB into an unholy tizzy. Save everybody the bloody headache.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess TechDirt does support anti-semetic comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess TechDirt does support anti-semetic comments
We don't delete comments unless they are spam. The anti-semitic comment is ridiculous and ignorant, but I think that folks responding to him for being an idiot are doing a decent job exposing his ignorance.
You don't cure ignorance by preventing the ignorant from speaking. That just makes them feel oppressed. Let them state their ignorance and then prove them wrong.
But don't expect us to censor speech just because it's dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For a minute I thought I was watching "E!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harry Potter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They owe me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
part 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: part 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: part 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IIRC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a coincidence..
Maybe, but this isn't .. www.RealMuggles.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a coincidence..
She may have used the term muggle before Rowling, but it does, in fact, seem entirely coincidental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Film
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll (2009)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think...
It says that a family to which she was close in her childhood had the surname Potter, and she may have subconsciously used their name. They did interview the family, who were pleased she used their name.
The showed a copy of the "Larry Potter & the Muggles" book, and said that despite apparent first-glance similarities they were different.
She wrote the HP books as a divorced single Mum; most of the first one was written at a cafe table as she didn't have a home warm enough to write at.
She has worked hard to complete the books, touring to sign them, getting them out on time, having to keep up the standard - children are notoriously fussy - if they'd started to decline in standard, they wouldn't have sold.
OK, she made a lot of money, especially from the film rights, but she did A LOT of work.
By the way, she's never been "Knighted" - women can't be!(the equivalent female title is "DAME", and she isn't that, either!).
I wonder why people (especially Anonymous Coward) hate success?
Finally, I think Warner is right to be cautious about possible fallout for its property, but at the same time, not over react, and not be so greedy that they sue the guy for remaking a film which is his property.
PHEW!! I'll shut up, now!
Arianne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
harry potter jr and harry potter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
elaine from seinfeld
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gender Genie, etc.
I fed Gender Genie and Gender Guesser several samples of my own writing: a blog post, an excerpt from my fiction, and a letter to the editor. All of them came up as solidly male. This might not be so unusual except that I'm most definitely female. That makes me highly suspicious of the accuracy of those algorithms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark not Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]