Harry Potter vs. Hari Puttar: Battle of Intellectual Property

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Case: Harry Potter vs. Hari Puttar
Intellectual Property
Case Analysis
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Intellectual property rights are generally regarded as the indicator of the democratic society and protected creation, for writers, inventors, playwrights, and other creators felt protected from stealing their ideas, plots, characters, etc. On the other hand, intellectual property law is the double end stick, which stronger companies and intellectual property owners may use against beginners if there is any tiny suspicion for stealing an idea. It should be emphasized that the necessity to protect the intellectual property fully depends on the aims and requirements of the intellectual property owner, and the entire policy of the company on the matters of IP protection. The paper aims to analyze the case of Harry Potter vs. Hari Puttar from the perspective of IP protection. Thus, IP cases and legal reviews will be regarded for defining the righteousness of the legal suit of the WB company against the creators of Hari Puttar. Considering the main values of IP protection, the key concepts of the case should be regarded and analyzed. Because the sues against other authors by Warner Bros. and J.K. Rowling against other writers, accused in the similarity of the names and trademarks are the common thing for the recent several years, these cases will be regarded as examples of Intellectual Property protection and defense. The fact is that the necessity to protect the copyrights originates from the necessity to protect the ideas and creations from plagiarizing, nevertheless, the contemporary cases of IP protection are closely associated with the economic defense of the lot incomes or used as the reasons for scandals, to attract additional attention for the case. Thus, the paper will be also focused on the main issues and aims of the suing: whether it was an attempt to protect the copyrights and the ownership of the name of Harry Potter, or an attempt to share the incomes of the Mirchi Movies studio.

Case: Harry Potter vs. Hari Puttar

First, there is a strong necessity to analyze the concept and the plot of both movies, and emphasize the personalities of both characters. Originally, the only similarity between the two characters is the age and similarity of names. Nevertheless, the plots of the stories are different, as Hari Puttar is closer to Home Alone by the plot. The fact is that Hari is the spread Hindi name in Bollywood movies, and Puttar is translated like “son”, consequently, this name has the full right for existence. In the light of the fact, that intellectual property commission and court defined that Mirchi Movies – the company, which issued the movie, has the copyright for Hari similarly like Warner Bros. has the rights for Harry. It was stated that the proper spelling of the name is essentially different from the name of Harry Potter, moreover, the Warner Bros. company had been waiting for three years after the issuing of the movie for suing. Consequently, the court decision was definite, and the claim by Warner Bros was rejected. As it is started in Associated Press (2008): “There is absolutely nothing to link ‘Hari Puttar’ with ‘Harry Potter,’” said Munish Puri, chief executive officer of Mumbai-based producer Mirchi Movies. Hari is a common name in India and “Puttar” is Punjabi for son, he stated.”

Originally, it should be emphasized that Mirchi Movies studio argued, that the name of the movie was taken precisely from the theme, which is the basis of the plot. Thus, the storyline, the plot, and the character itself (like the actor, who acted Hari) have nothing in common with a little wizard Harry Potter. As it is emphasized by Halbert (361):

The defendants also alleged the suppression by the plaintiffs or correspondence with the Motion Picture Associated of America Inc. and claimed that the plaintiffs’ contention that there were no posters of Hari Puttar in any theater and the lack of promotion of the film was false and a cover-up for the plaintiffs’ in action during the period 2006 to 2008. Having come to know of the project in 2006, the plaintiffs took no action till September 2008 when the movie was ready for its release.

It has been already emphasized that the origin of the plot is not similar to the story of a wizard boy, as Hari Puttar’s movie tells the story f an Indian boy, who was eventually left at home in Britain, while his family has moved. From the perspective of the copyright and the Intellectual property protection laws, the idea of Hari Puttar movie is not a violation of the intellectual property, which belongs to J.K. Rowling and Warner bros. Studio.

The producers of the Hari Puttar movie has also emphasized that they were not aiming to make a movie of a wizard boy – a student of a school of magicians, as this plot is not common for Indian culture, and it would not be accepted by the Indian audience., Consequently, the movie is not even an adoption for the western audience, and was released mainly for the Bollywood audience, with slight orientation for abroad watchers.

Intellectual Property

To begin with, the essence and the definition of Intellectual Property should be given. Thus, as it is emphasized by Myers (8):

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to several distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

In the light of this perspective, the main idea of the IP legislation is the protection of a specific expression of an idea. Thus, for instance, while the idea of Superman is protected, the idea of a flying superhero is not, and the IP law guarantees the right to talk about him, parody him and even create other super heroes. The only restriction here is the name, while the concept stays the same, and is open for use. Under Kranch (349), it should be emphasized that the representation of an idea, which is protected by copyright, is the main necessity, which is pursued by the lobbyists of the Intellectual property. Nevertheless, those, who wish to be protected, often mix up the concepts of the idea, and the idea representation. The fact is that the main concept of protection is linked with the precise name of the physical representations. Thus, while Superman is protected by copyright, his suit, the ability to fly, having X-ray vision, etc is not protected like the entire idea of a superhero. Thus, as Lerner (257) has emphasized:

In practice, the line between an idea and its expression can be a hard one to draw. Protecting intellectual property is always a kind of tightrope walk between competing interests. On one side is society’s need for the widest possible dissemination of ideas and facts — indeed, all forms of knowledge. The First Amendment seems to guarantee the right to talk about Superman, parody him, and even, perhaps, base a television series on the concept of a bumbling superhero

In the light of this consideration, it should be emphasized that even if Mirchi Movies had created the movie of a magician boy, it would not be a violation of the Intellectual Property rights, belonging to Warner Bros, and Joanne Rowling, is the idea itself is handing in the air, nevertheless, the name of the character, his background, the names of his friends and magic items, which he uses, are copyrighted, and protected with the IP laws. Moreover, the essence of copyright and IP protection may be often used against young authors and writers. Thus, any young author may send the script to a movie studio and finds that his or her idea is rejected. After some time has passed, the author finds that the idea is accepted, nevertheless, it has been worked through creatively, so, the initial variant is lightly recognizable. The sues are useless, as the main concept has not been stolen (the expression of an idea), while the ideas are not protected by copyright.

By the Intellectual property considerations, the authors, creators, scriptwriters have an opportunity to create something similar to the original idea, nevertheless, precise copying is forbidden. Considering the case of Superman, only his name is protected, while his features and even clothes are not. On the one hand, it gives freedom for the creators of other superheroes, nevertheless, any superhero, which will be in the red and blue suit will inevitably remind Superman. Consequently, the concept of idea protection should be rearranged, for excluding too close similarities. Following the philosophy of Intellectual property protection, emphasized by Fawcett and Torremans (190):

The contemporary, market-driven copyright system provides authors with independent financing (through royalties). Without a feasible way to recoup investments of creative time through copyright, there would be a little economic incentive to produce and works would need to be motivated by a desire for fame from already affluent authors or those able to obtain patronage. Proponents of a copyright dispute that copyright erodes precepts for creators to be able to build on published expression pointing to concepts such as Scènes à Faire and Idea-expression divide.

Nevertheless, the essence of the Consequentialist theory claims that the main aim of the Intellectual Property legislation is to improve the life of the society, by protecting the results of the intellectual work from staling, extensive borrowing, and unconcealed plagiarizing. On the other hand, some scholars (Fawcett and Torremans, 185) emphasize that the main aim of the IP legislation is to protect the incomes of any creator, as authors, musicians, sculptors, etc often get the income from selling the results of their creation, and when someone else borrows the idea or part of its expression, he or she steals some part of the income, thus, decreasing the total income, belonging to the author of the original idea.

As for the matters of Intellectual property in movies, it should be emphasized that the original value of the IP concept here is the protection of the audience from the repeating plot and the cloned characters. Surely, companies protect their incomes in the first turn, and then the interests of the audience. Consequently, if some suspicious similarity is found in a movie, the company would first think over the expenses for the suing, and then will consider the interests of the audience.

The fashion for copyright protection and intellectual property originated in 1967 when the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) was founded. The term itself points out the necessity of protecting the copyrights, patents, and trademarks similarly with the ownership rights of the physical objects. Nevertheless, the origin of a copyright is different from the origin of the physical object ownership law. Thus, if someone has a car, he or she will not allow anyone to drive it, or at least sit at the driving wheel. Nevertheless, the owner of copyright will gladly allow millions to read his or her book, or watch a movie. The same is with the violations. Followers of the intellectual property protection implementation claim that stealing of an idea or text is not acceptable like stealing a car, their opponents claim, that if there was a possibility to copy and paste a car, they would do it, so, the owner and the “thief” would stay with a car. Surely, this sounds strange, nevertheless, it is a common view on the matters of copyright, and Intellectual Property protection. The only solution to this paradox is the implementation of an originally different concept of IP ownership, as it can not be similar to the concept of physical ownership.

Copyrights, from the ethical point of view, are often regarded as the necessary opportunity of an individual to control their lives. Thus, one of the aims of Intellectual Property protection is to create and maintain the moral basis of living. Nevertheless, the main concept of Intellectual Property rights fails to do this. As it is emphasized by Dimock (105):

To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If you have acquired the information legitimately, then on what grounds can you be prevented from using it? The restrictions are originated from IP laws, which restrict the personal freedoms of people, who purchase a book. It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is universal, existing in other people’s minds and other people’s property, and over these, the originator has no legitimate sovereignty.

In the light of this perspective, any copying is forbidden. If people memorize any poem or novel, they store it in their brains, therefore, people have a granted law to memorize everything they wish. Though, if someone wishes to transcribe a poem on a paper sheet, owning a sheet and the sufficient amount of inks, it may be regarded as a violation of the copyright. Surely, if this sheet will be eliminated, no one will be able to sue for the violation of the copyright. On the other hand, if the sheet with a copyrighted poem will be sold, or even presented, this will be regarded as a violation of Intellectual Property rights.

Finally, it should be emphasized that the original term of Intellectual Property originates the simplistic thinking, associated with understanding the essence of the term. Under Dimock (87) the term makes people focus on the issues of meager commonality in the form of disparate laws. Thus, the IP laws create artificial privileges for restricted communities, as these laws impose specific restrictions on the general public, and the simplistic origin of understanding the term of intellectual property is closely associated with the matters of the economic approach to the entire principle of IP protection. Moreover, as was emphasized by Burshtein (204)

For many citizens, Intellectual Property is an obscure and distant domain – its laws shrouded in jargon and technical mystery, its applications relevant only to a specialist audience. And yet Intellectual Property is everywhere. Against the backdrop of the increasing importance of ideas, IP Rights, which protect their value, are more vital than ever.

Case Analysis

As it is emphasized in the case studies, J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. Studio are passionate users of the Intellectual Property laws, and the values of the intellectual property rights, which are represented in this case appear to be rather aggressive. Originally, Hari Puttar is one of the numerous targets, as J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros targeted numerous authors and creators. Thus, in 2008 Rowling sued Steve Vander Ark for issuing The Harry Potter Lexicon. It was a reference book, based on the materials of a fan site.

The story of Barry Trotter was a bestseller in 2003. Originally, the plot, the names, and characters of the proponents were similar to the original Rowling’s creation. The Belorussian author created the story of grenade-launcher – Porri Gatter. Russian audience had an opportunity to enjoy the adventures of Tanya Grotter – which was called the cultural competition with the originals. Moreover, non-for-profit fan fiction is not encouraged either. Surely, these are the matters, which may be decided only by the owners of the Harry Potter names and trademarks, nevertheless, as it has been stated, the idea itself can not be protected, as well as the features of the characters. Thus, neither Porri Gatter nor Tanya Grotter may be sued from legal or ethical points of view.

Considering these issues, and getting back to Hari Puttar, the very instance of suing against the creators of the different stories signifies the inadequate understanding of the Intellectual property concept. Surely, the necessity to protect the results of the creation is necessary, nevertheless, the idea of a wizard boy is obvious, and was present in literature before the creation of Harry Potter. As for the plot, the creators of Hari Puttar have used recognizable themes, as it is common for the products, created for a wide audience. Thus, the name of the main character is similar to Harry Potter, the plot reminds “Home Alone” movie, while the full name of the film (The Comedy of Terrors) is taken from Shakespeare’s The Comedy of Errors. Therefore, while Shakespeare’s names and titles are the public domains, the idea of the plot belongs to nobody, and the essence of the name has been already discovered. Consequently, it is not a copy of Rowling’s work, and the sue is not legal. Moreover, it is the undeserved criticism of the movie.

Analyzing the case, it should be emphasized that Hari Puttar was subjected to such criticism and sue due to the only fact: the creators of this movie had an excellent opportunity to collect the immense box-office, as it is the largest project, among all the regarded projects and creations, which were sued by Rowling or Warner Bros. Studio, while this movie has fewer similarities with Harry Potter than any other project.

The fact is that economic issues ruled the case of Hari Puttar vs. Harry Potter. Originally, the case included all the necessary assumptions on the matters of the amount and production issued under the brand of Harry Potter. Nevertheless, the court has stated that there was no similarity, and the audience could easily differentiate the names of these two characters.

The very problem of the case, and the issues of Intellectual property, associated with it, is the fact, that the laws are becoming invisible. As it was emphasized by Long (135):

The issues of law invisibility arise from the specifics of each law—precisely what the term “intellectual property” encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed; patent law has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.

Nevertheless, while music sharing is a matter of friendly relations and communication, stealing an idea for commercial use is a quite different thing. Again, the IP legislation slides to a different case, while the main problem stays unresolved. Surely, the lack or absence of intellectual property protection, the very essence of the free creation will be weakened, and the matters of the incomes, originated by selling the initial idea will be violated. Nevertheless, ideas are regarded as the most important input for research and creative activity, thus, if the opportunities for using ideas will be restricted, it would slow down any type of development and research.

In the light of the fact, that the use of the ideas is not originally restricted, nevertheless, the Intellectual property owners often sue against other writers, developers, creators, etc for using their ideas, it should be emphasized that the owners themselves violate the laws, which were claimed to defend their rights. Thus, while Warner Bros. and Joanne Rowling sue against the creators of Hari Puttar, the necessity to protect the ideas, originated by the Mirchi Movies is not considered. The fact is that some of the ideas were original, nevertheless, some of them were further used by Warner Bros in their movies. That will not be taken for granted by the company, therefore, the IP belonging to Mirchi Movies appears to be unprotected. In the light of this fact, it should be emphasized that the necessity to protect the intellectual property of the weaker participants of the IP market should be granted by the WIPO, while the courts regard the cases of the giants like Warner Bros. studio against private writers and smaller studios. (Posey, Dutfield, 89)

Considering the necessity to analyze the aims and values, which were pursued by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. studio, it should be emphasized that the original values of the suing are closely associated with the reputation of these two Intellectual Property owners. On the one hand, they aim to protect the results of their work and prevent their works from plagiarizing, on the other hand, the case with Hari Puttar reminds an attempt to originate a scandal, as the other attempts appeared to be useless (Barry Trotter, Porri Gatter and Tanya Grotter). Considering the scales of the Hari Puttar project, the suing by Warner Bros against Mirchi Movies reminds the attempt of preventing losses from renting the movie globally, while the movie is mainly oriented for the Indian audience, and the story of a wizard boy is odd for the Indian culture. (Myers, 67)

The Intellectual Property protection perspective originates the necessity to rearrange the entire principle and structure of the protected premises. Originally, the protection of the Intellectual Property concept is very close to the concept of protecting the ownership of physical property, and the case of Hari Puttar vs. Harry Potter signifies this issue. The fact, that the court has decided in favor of Mirchi Movies studio, signifies that the necessary steps for understanding the concept have been already performed, and the future of Intellectual Property protection is open for further development.

Conclusion

Finally, there is a strong necessity to emphasize that the concept of IP protection and defense is close to the matters of defending the results of creation from plagiarism and extensive borrowing. While borrowing itself is inevitable, as numerous ideas are just hanging in the air, the copyrights aim to protect the names, the patents, and the trademarks. Thus, considering the case of Hari Puttar vs. Harry Potter, it should be stated that the case reminds an attempt to discourage any fan fiction, even even though Hari and Harry have nothing in common.

The aim of the analysis was also to consider, whether the sue was legislated, and whether Warner Bros and Joanne Rowling were protecting their copyrights. Surely, they were unpleasantly surprised by the similarity of the names of the main characters, nevertheless, the origins of these names are different, while the backgrounds and plots are different as chalk from cheese. Thus, the attempt to sue signifies either the improper study of the media market, along with poor knowledge of the Indian culture, or it was the direct attempt to originate a scandal and prevent the possible losses from selling the Hari Puttar movie. Nevertheless, the decision of the court was definite, and taken in favor of the Mirchi Movies studio, as the audience can easily differentiate the names of the little wizard and an Indian boy, who was left alone.

Works Cited

Burshtein, Sheldon. Corporate Counsel Guide to Intellectual Property Law (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, (2000).

Dimock, Ronald E., ed. Intellectual Property Disputes: Resolutions & Remedies, looseleaf Toronto: Thomson Carswell, (2002).

Fawcett, James J., and Paul Torremans. Intellectual Property and Private International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Fink, Carsten, and Keith E. Maskus, eds. Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Recent Economic Research. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005.

Halbert, Debora J. Intellectual Property in the Information Age: The Politics of Expanding Ownership Rights. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2005.

Kranch, Douglas A. “Who Owns Online Course Intellectual Property?.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 9.4 (2008): 349

Lerner, Jack. “Intellectual Property and Development at Who and Wipo.” American Journal of Law and Medicine 34.2/3 (2008): 257

Long, Clarisa, ed. Intellectual Property Rights in Emerging Markets. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2000

Myers, Phillip E. “Developing an Intellectual Property Policy at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution.” Journal of Research Administration 34.1 (2003): 8

Posey, Darrell A., and Graham Dutfield. Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2006.

Th Associated Press (2008) Bollywood News : ‘Hari Puttar’ wins ‘Harry Potter’ suit: Web.

Click Here To Order Now!