PublishAmerica author sues Stephen King for plagiarism

[thothguard51]

Was there ever any doubt that King would win?

502 responses. I think we can now put this one to bed...

[BenPanced]

Originally Posted by aliceshortcake

BenPanced, how did King have access to Marquand's novel?

Originally Posted by Chris P

If I recall correctly, Marquardt had sent it to King. I'm not sure if it was one of PA's "Buy 20 of your own book and we'll send it to Stephen King" or not, or if he did it on his own.

Thanks for sharing the documents, those of you who have access to them. This has been quite informative.

Originally Posted by Terie

As has been mentioned a couple times in this thread, the publication of King's book predates the offer of sending books to King. King's book was published in 2008; the first offers by PA to send books to famous authors were in January of 2010.

Originally Posted by allenparker

I think the operator here is that King had access, just as I have access if I go to Amazon, find the book, order the book and read it, but that is a far cry from actually seeing the book. Even if he mailed King a copy, King may not have seen the book. Many are given to libraries and charities such as Goodwill Industries.

PA's access claim is similar, your books are available on line and the stores have access to them to order.

In the summary document, it states that Marquardt sent a copy to Simon & Schuster, King's publisher, but they returned it.

Shortly after publication (in 2002), Plaintiff sent a copy of Keller’s Den to King’s publisher and co-defendant, Simon & Schuster, Inc., purportedly in the hopes that King would read the novel and write a blurb for the cover. Simon & Schuster, however, returned the book and informed Plaintiff that King did not accept other authors’ books for review.

[victoriastrauss]

I just checked PACER. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the court granted it on August 9.

The judge went into considerable detail in justifying her findings (it's clear she read both books, and took some English courses in college), but the gist is this:

For the reasons set out below, the Court has concluded that the similarities alleged between the two books clearly fail the Eleventh Circuit’s test for “substantial similarity,” which requires the alleged similarities of copyright-protected material to be such that “an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.” Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 829 (11th Cir. 1982)(quoting Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1092-93 (2d Cir. 1977)). Thus, because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court grants King’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s copyright action.

- Victoria