Jump to content

Talk:Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Title: Bao Zoulong / Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon?

Why is the page still called Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon when it says right here on the page that the book is not – ”豹走龙 is a character's name and it would be more accurate to transliterate it as Bao Zoulong rather than translate the meaning”? I suggest the page be renamed Harry Potter and Bao Zoulong.

The ”Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon” construction must have founds its way into news reports to begin with either through idiots, who didn’t know Chinese but thought they’d translate the title anyway, or as a means to make the Chinese look like idiots ... either way, I see no reason for Wikipedia to perpetuate the error. (That it is an error is not even in dispute. The page itself says so!) Bossk-Office 12:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I say put it to whatever the book is most commonly known as in English non-Wikipedia sources. If the New York Times article on it, for instance, uses the phrase "Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon" then that's the phrase we should use, too. 138.69.160.1 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose you’re right. It's just so unfortunate – everyone who uses this phrase looks like a moron, in my opinion, and it irks me that should have to include us Wikipedians. Bossk-Office 13:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The name should stay, not because it is correct (which it isn't), but rather because this is what the book is most commonly known as in the West. - perfectblue 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit

This page doesn't seem to be consistent with the linked excerpt! The excerpt suggests that the author tacked on a chapter at the beginning and end, and filled the middle with a simple name replacement of The Hobbit. --Dwedit 00:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

well as nobody seems to have fixed it yet, i took the liberty.. --Sysys 22:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure the linked excerpt is accurate, and not a prank or hoax? None of the other accounts of this book seem to refer to it being a ripoff of The Hobbit, and you'd think that the Tolkien estate would pursue legal action along with Rowling if it were. *Dan* 15:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I own a copy myself. I am aboslutely sure it's a rip-off of the Hobbit. I'm not the author of this article though. 22:25, 4 February, 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Note: This merge has been completed.

I just suggested a three-way merge with Unauthorized Chinese Harry Potter books and Harry Potter and the Toenail of Icklibõgg. This merge would create a new article that covered all of these. The merge with the first article would be because that one does not contain much information that is not covered in this article. For my reasoning behind the second merge suggestion, as it may seem odd, I have reproduced my comment from that article's AfD discussion:

  • Merge into a new article. One possiblity would be "False names for Harry Potter books" or something similar. However, I think it would be better to merge it with Unauthorized_Chinese_Harry_Potter_books (again, probably under a new article name, such as "Harry Potter pre-release fervor"... Ok, I suck at creating names), comparing and contrasting how gullible anxious fans desperate for new installments were taken in by real but unofficial/fraudulent books in some cases and joke titles with no corrosponding books in other cases. It would start out as a stub, to be sure, but I think that the effects of the fervor leading up to new releases (and frustration when they aren't released as quickly as some fans would desire) is enough of an international cultural phenomenon to deserve an article, especially seeing as bits and pieces of that proposed article already exist under at least these two separate stubs.

--Icarus 22:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge none of the topics are significant enough to justify their own pages. Eventually more information may be found on the Chinese books, but I doubt the articles will ever become extensive. Perhaps "Rumored and Unauthorized Harry Potter Books" might be considered for a title.

--Kail Ceannai 04:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Right now, the AfD for Toenail is pointing toward that article being merged with the main Half-Blood Prince article. I still think that this article and the Unauthorized Chinese Harry Potter books article should be merged, but for now at least I think the big plan to create a brand-new article should be put on indefinate hold. --Icarus 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Consdering that the Toenail article is all of three sentences long, I see no reason why not to add the information to both articles (rumored books and Half-blood Prince). Also note some redundancy of information in the article Harry Potter in translation#Fake translations. --woggly 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing out the article on HP translations! That should definitely be involved in the merge in one way or another, even if it's just adding one of those Main article: (wikilink to main article on subject) things at the top of that section. --Icarus 06:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Material to be incorporated into the article

Fair use rationale for Image:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg

Image:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article has failed to meet outside Notability apart from its legal issues. I suggest we merge this into the Legal Disputes article. --Lord Opeth (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As it has been more than 3 days and there were no opinions against the proposal, the article has been merged into Legal disputes over Harry Potter. --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

, who sued Warner, Scholastic and J. K. Rowling for trademark infringemnt over the latter's use of the term Muggles in her Harry Potter books

Needs a description of the story. I'm sure most of us have heard of the book because of the court case against J. K. Rowling, but has anyone actually READ it?

That was added from the page. Ilyanep

Additional Web Resources

Everything above and on the article page is now incorporated with Nancy Stouffer. The lawsuit was about more than just this one book of Stouffer's, and there wasn't much left about the book itself, so I made it into a redirect. -- Toby Bartels 01:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Any idea which year Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly was written/published ? Jay 14:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, the Appeals Court found for Rowling again. - What does this mean ? Is the phrase "found for" a normal English phrase or is it legal jargon ? Jay 14:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's a fairly normal synonym for "ruled in favour of"; yes, it is legal jargon, but it's in the context of a legal judgement so it's an appropriate term. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 14:44, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's being incredibly generous to say she's most famous for writing The Legend Of Rah And The Muggles and Larry Potter And His Best Friend Lilly. According to the US District Court Descion neither were sold anywhere. She's most famous for the lawsuit involving JK Rowling if anything.

"Stouffer went so far as to point out that (as is true) J. K. Rowling is a pen name adopted for the series, which she points out more like her own N. K. Stouffer writing moniker, asserting that this is also intentional." Could someone please clarify this? (J.K. Rowling is not Joanne Rowling's "pen name", by the way, any more than "C.S. Lewis" is Clive Staples Lewis's "pen name".) Cactus Wren 21:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the article Rowling adopted the K which is not part of her actual name, hence J.K. Rowling counts as a pen-name. Also since there is no remaining citation, I've removed the part talking about Stouffer's apparent other claims (about "Great hall" etc) about copywright infringement.Tp4cccc 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Her earlier website..

On her version of her website of realmuggles.com she had a $100.00 reward for anyone that had a first edition of her "Legend of Rah....." .

While this Harry Potter/Larry Potter controversy was going on, I checked with a local book dealer that also works on getting out-of-print books, etc.

He told me this (and many rare book dealers agree), "When a big controversy like this on earlier printed books hits the news, these so-called earlier printed books will now suddenly become sought after collector items by book collectors...So far I could not find any evidence that such a 1984 edition ever was printed or even existed....He also had problems with her $100.00 REWARD for a first edition. Usually, when a author has a book printed the publisher will send the author a few hundred copies that she/him can give to relatives and friends. I am sure she could have gotten a copy of a first edition from a friend or relative without a $100.00 REWARD offer, that is if such a book had ever existed in the 1980s."

He concluded he could not find any such book by Nancy Stouffer had ever existed in the 1980s. He doubt that such a book was ever printed or done. _______________________________________________________________________

i merged merger. Smith Jones 15:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure she exists?

Seems like a no-brainer, but is there any proof that this is a living breathing human being and not an elaborate practical joke? Birthdate? Hometown? Anybody can come up with the term "muggles" but this "Larry Potter" stuff makes me think we're being taken for a ride. A beloved children's author who has been around for 30 years writes two children's books that nobody has heard of, suddenly springs up to sue a newer author. She doctors evidence and is a no-show at court dates. I smell a rat. 24.228.54.78 15:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nancystouffer.jpg

Image:Nancystouffer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rahmuggles.jpg

Image:Rahmuggles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this woman still deserve her own article? Most of the material here is unsourced, including the plot of the book, and can be dispensed with. Whatever's left can be merged with the above article. Serendipodous 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to her controversial lawsuit with Rowling, many publishers refused to re-print her book out of fear of reprisal from Warner Corporation.

Where's the cite for this?? Maybe it's just a poorly written novel and the publishers think it won't sell. (See the ipurl.com/wa32 Amazon.com page for some reviews.) We have no way to know. Lacking cites, I propose we simply state that the title is out of print.

--Gtcaz 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to provide current and historical publication status with citations.

--Gtcaz 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Should the category be changed to 1996, or 2001? Should any of the information from the district court ruling (changing the title and so on) be included? Does anyone care?

--Gtcaz 05:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I placed a merge tag to the Nancy Stouffer article. Though it looks like people have done good work here, there's nothing that can't just go on that article. She is notable for her publicity stunts; her book is not.--Cúchullain t/c 02:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I'll take a look at how best to do that in my copious free time. --Gtcaz 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rahmuggles.jpg

Image:Rahmuggles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I don't understand why this one particular fanfic gets a whole page, when all other Harry Potter fanfic is in a section of the article at Harry_Potter_fandom. Is it because of the "hoax"?

It's because this particular fanfic is notable all by itself, or seems to be, anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This fanfic gets a whole page because it stands heads and shoulders above other fanfics. I have been following it since November '07. The Author admits he is not a professional writer, but I suggest you read it before making a judgement. There are currently 8 voluntary translations in the works. Two of which are near completion and will be realeased soon. This fact alone makes James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing unique in the realm of fan fiction. ADD: http://www.gatekeeperscurse.com/ GrottoBobGrottoBob (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

British english or American english?

I have never seen a Harry Potter article not use British english and have always been sure to change all grammar and spelling if I find it's not British english but for this article I'm unsure about. So before I attempt anything I want to create a consensus on this certain article to go by. Because it is based on the Harry Potter universe, it does seem more in favour that the article should use British english, but American english does also have a right to be used in this article as the author of these fan-based books is American. Any other opinions? Jammy (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

James Potter II Series

I think that the article should be changed to an article for the entire series. The series in its entirety is notable; the series now includes two books and there is the notion of a third floating around out there. I think that the article should encompass each book equally: it currently focuses more on the first rather than the second. I will PWN (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree

I agree and have changed it to a page like that.

Crazyla112 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it. The only part of this illegal series with any notability is the first book. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fanfiction is legal and this piece is notable. 121.91.7.186 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The legality of fanfiction is in dispute, as our own article clarifies. Since this "novel" was specifically objected to by Rowling, I don't think it falls into the gray area; but in the interests of civil discourse, I've stricken the word. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought it all depended on the author becuase JK has every right to say it's not aloud be she allows fan fiction on the condition that it is appropriate for children.

Crazyla112 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

She didn't specifically object to this fanfiction. She objected to actual publication of the book - as in, producing and binding and selling the book. However, she has "welcomed" fanfiction, as mentioned above. I will PWN (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


The girl on the Dock

This book can be obtained from the site www.lulu.com. I don't know how to put it on this page because I don't know how to edit the reflist. If someone else can do that for me, I would be much obliged. Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The only notability this one HP fanfic has above all others is that Rowling thought about taking the author to court. As such, it really has no bearing outside the legal disputes page. Serendipodous 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

See: Talk:Legal disputes over Harry Potter for discussion. Serendipodous 18:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lambert - which book?

Under "legal injunctions," the article says "In 2003, after the theft by Aaron Lambert (see below) of a number of pages from an advance copy of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix from a secure depot..." but below that, in the section about his case, it says that he actually stole pages from HBP in 2005, not OotP in 2003. Which one is it? (Also, the Winterbothams link in the references isn't working for me...) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have made a mistake there... The sentence is removed. As regards the link, it doesn't appear to be dead; I think the server may be down. I'll try it again in 24 hours. Serendipodous 07:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Porri Gatter

Most of the interest in Rowling challenging Russian parodies has focused on Tanya Grotter, but apparently another Russian parody, Porri Gatter, has also been challenged, though I can only find one source, this one, which explicitly claims that Porri Gatter has faced any sort of legal sanction. Does anyone else have anything more comprehensive? Maybe someone who speaks Russian? Serendipodous 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wyrd Sisters

A Canadian musical group named the Wyrd Sisters tried to prevent the release of Goblet of Fire because of a (claimed) copyright infringement by the book and its use of the name "The Weird Sisters" The case was dismissed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyrd_Sisters_%28band%29

Fake foreign versions

This is an interesting link to a blog post about fake foreign versions of the books, with nice scans of pictures of covers. Probably not needed for this article, but you never know. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

I made two minor edits.

The first was to this sentence:

  • "By setting the RRP at this level can only be seen (sic) as blatant profiteering on their part...

I changed "(sic)" to the standard [sic].

The other change was to this sentence:

  • "We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for its press release (sic)...

Even with the (incorrectly written) "sic" this sentence is confusing. Therefore I inserted, within brackets, the word [our] which makes the sentence comprehensible. This is standard style manual practice in English.

Corrected sentence reads:

"We apologise unreservedly to Bloomsbury for [our] press release..."

Obviously, these are minor corrections.

PainMan 06:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I'm unsure as to whether or not to fail or hold this one, so I'm going to ask you if you think you can do everything that's needed in this article in a week. I know that I'd get it done, but it'd be tough.

Ok, what we need is a number of things: The lead is a great length, but needs to have a more consistent flow and to achieve this, you need a slight structural adjustment. There are several ways this could be done, but choose one and go with it. Another matter is that the lead is unreferenced. Much of the nature of this article pertains to touchy and highly contentious pieces of information. For this reason, the article needs to double its efforts to both represent a neutral point of view and also provide ample references (possibly twice as many as a regular article, and maybe as a guide, look at legal articles and articles about court cases to see a guide as to what the expectation is (any of these should give you an indication of what I mean). I believe the article has a bit of a pro-Harry Potter voice, and I would like to see the article take a more neutral stance than is present right now.

Do you guys think you can topple these issues within 7 days? If so, I'll place the GE on hold. If not, I can fail it and let you guys work on these before re-submitting. --lincalinca 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"You guys" is just me at the moment. I could edit the lead but I doubt I could redraft it to a more NPOV. Someone with little knowledge of Harry Potter would probably be better suited for that. Know anyone? Serendipodous 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have exceptionally little knowledge of Harry Potter (having trolled the FAC for Emma Watson, I learned a bit, but arguably not a great deal), but to avoid conflict on interest, I'm not going to nominate myself. Possibly search for someone with an understanding of legal matters and legal controversies (maybe again look at editors who've contributed a great deal to any of those American court cases I linked and ask them as a favour). That said, your edits seem rather strong to me, so I don't think it's beyond you. Just try to think instead of acting and writing like a lawyer trying to defend the apologia for either party, write this as a mediating and non-judgemental and impartial third party. I know that if you have any humanity in you, to be completely 50-50 is tough, so I don't expect that, but to swing it out from 25-75 (as it reads to me at the moment) to at least bring it into about a 10% margin (45-55) then I'd be happy. --lincalinca 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead, added a few more citations and made a stab at objectivity. Let me know what you think. Serendipodous 14:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

Just a few things before this can be passed. It was fun to read about all of these tiffs, by the way!

  • The lead is not a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD. For help on writing leads, see WP:BETTER#Lead section. This is particularly important for this article, since it is kind of a list and each section is dissociated from the next. The lead provides a unifying summary and explanation for the article.
  • There needs to be some sort of indication in the lead what the timeframe is for the article's subject matter - when was the series published, for example?
  • Rowling, her publishers and Time Warner, the owner of the rights to the Harry Potter films, have taken numerous legal actions to protect their copyright, occasionally drawing fire from civil liberties and free speech campaigners. - I feel like this sentence needs a "because" clause - readers will be left wondering "why" as they are reading otherwise.
  • Stouffer contended, and still does to this day, that it is "the cumulative effect of all of it combined" with the other comparisons she lists on her website. - This is vague - could you give a few examples?
Nope. Just "wooden doors." The list on her website is even weirder. Serendipodous 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In 2000, in the lead-up to the release of the first Harry Potter film - Include the name of the film and a link to it.
  • Sometimes "Warner Brothers" is spelled out and sometimes it is abbreviated - choose one style and stick to it.
OK. Done now. Serendipodous 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In their potentially sweeping powers over individual freedoms, these injunctions have drawn criticism from civil liberties campaigners. - awkward phrasing
  • This principle was later used to stop a demonstration and the growth of a gypsy site. - I don't understand - a demonstration of what? the growth of a gypsy website? do we even use the word "gypsy" anymore? perhaps "Roma"?
  • "Criminal prosecution" doesn't seem like a very good heading - too vague.

I did a bit of copy editing as I was reading - I hope it was helpful. If you have any questions about this review, just drop a line on my talk page. Likewise when you want me to re-review it. Awadewit | talk 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've edited everything except the lead, which is going to take some time. I'll get back to it later. Serendipodous 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've edited the lead. Let me know what you think. Serendipodous 20:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Rahmuggles.jpg

Image:Rahmuggles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is, so I don't know what you're worrying your mindless bot head about. Still, The Legend of Rah and the Muggles should not have been de-merged, so I put it back. Serendipodous 12:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg

Image:Harry-potter chinese 070502.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendipodous 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series/Archive_1&oldid=1068424712"