In this article published in Oxford Journal’s Forum for Modern Language Studies, Tania Su Li Cheng argues that copyright’s ultimate purpose is for “the encouragement of learning…[through the] creation of new works for the overall benefit of society.” Cheng then argues that J.K. Rowling has misused copyright protection laws by using them to protect the Harry Potter brand from sequels and parodies. Rowling and her lawyers used copyright laws to stop authors in different countries from trying to publish Harry Potter and Leopard Walk Up to the Dragon (China), Harry Potter in Calcutta (India), and Tanja Grotter and the Magical Double Bass (Russia). Although these versions added something different to the story, I currently side with Rowling that she should be allowed to protect her stories.
I too agree that Rowling should be allowed to protect her stories. It simply is unfair for somebody to make a profit off of another person’s work without permission. This class discussion also makes me wonder what other countries have done knockoffs of Harry Potter. It is likely that there are many ridiculous examples we haven’t seen yet.