Author JK.Rowling’s Plagiarism Case Dismissed in the UK

JK Rowling's Plagiarism Case Dropped In UK (©CARL COURT/AFP/Getty Images)

It has been announced that the lawsuit filed against author JK Rowing for copying the work of another writer has been dismissed in the UK after the claimant failed to come up with 1.5 million ordered by the judge for security costs.

The estate of the late author Adrian Jacobs insisted that the idea for the fourth book in the Potter series ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’ which has sold over 400 million copies, took the plot from his book named ‘The Adventures of Willy the Wizard’.

But while celebrations are now taking place, the future of the plagiarism claim might not be laid to rest…

“The case is dead for now,” said Max Markson, spokesman for the Jacobs estate. “Can it be revived? Yes, it could be taken up in another country, another jurisdiction,” he added.

Markson told a newspaper in early 2010 that the lawsuit could potentially be worth hundreds of millions of pounds, due to the massive commercial success of the Harry Potter series and spin offs, this including the movie franchise which is worth is excess of 7 Billion.

The plagiarism claim was automatically dismissed in the US, but a London high court judge stated the case of the claimant were ‘improbable’.

The judge rejected an application by JK Rowling’s lawyers and her Bloomsbury publisher to decline the case outright.

Adrian Jacobs estate have failed to meet last Friday’s deadline to pay the first installment of the money requested.

Rowling and her publisher have constantly denied that the main plot of her book The Goblet of Fire coincided with ‘The Adventures of Willy the Wizard. She said she has never heard of such a book before the copyright claim was first made 7 years ago, which was four years after the book was written.

The record breaking authors defence said an enormous amount of time had been wasted in this false claim.

Schillings said “As the Judge noted, those behind the claim set about publicising the case with a view to exerting pressure and promoting their ‘book’,” the law firm said in a statement.

“Quite how they ever thought that we would succumb to pressure indicates a complete lack of understanding on their part. We are glad that the substantive action is now at an end.”