Oi!

[ivyblossom]

Well, this just makes me sad:

Rowling acknowledged she once bestowed an award on Vander Ark's Web site because, she said, she wanted to encourage a very enthusiastic fan.

But she said she "almost choked on my coffee" one morning when she realized Vander Ark had warned others not to copy portions of his Web site. She said she now has second thoughts about all the encouragement she has given to online discussions and Web sites devoted to her books.

"I never censored it or wanted to censor it," she said, adding that if she loses the lawsuit, she will conclude she essentially gave away her copyrights by encouraging the Web sites.

"Other authors will say, `I need to exercise more control. She was an idiot. She let it all go,'" Rowling said.

Comments

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

It makes me sad too. I also hope that the judge will rule in her favor.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I don't. I hope he rules in Steve's. I don't want to see her turn into Anne Rice.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I'm annoyed with her for threatening fandom. "If I lose, all fandoms will suffer!" WTF. He's not hurting her in any way. This is ridiculous.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Technically, if he doesn't rule in JKR's favor, he will rule in RDR's favor, not Steve's. I think that's a pretty sweet deal to protect one's self from litigation.

I very much doubt she'll turn into Anne Rice because I think she's had plenty enough opportunity to do so before this lawsuit.

[airemay.livejournal.com]

I cannot believe she choked on her coffee.

Does she not realize the amount of work that Steve and his team put into the website?? To just copy portions of it... without asking especially?? That is rude! Steve has every right to warn people not to copy things from his site.

I'm not sure which way I want it to go. However, I think that some of JKR's comments are ridiculous.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I'd love to find out why she's actually doing this. The given excuse just doesn't make any sense. Did she think she owns Steve's work?

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

I'm annoyed with her for threatening fandom. "If I lose, all fandoms will suffer!"

I honestly don't see that as a statement of threat towards her fans. If anything, it's a warning of possible court precident that will negatively affect the relationship of the author and fan. So if the author encourages a fan to be fan, will that give the fan a right to make money off their work without permission? What good is copyright if you can't enforce it?

WTF. He's not hurting her in any way. This is ridiculous.

I've got a question. Is it just as ridiculous for a someone to plagiarize someone's fanfic no matter how it's done? The world and characters didn't belong to the first writer, so how does it hurt them to be copied without permission?

The point I'm making is how fair use is being used and pushed so far. I'm planning on publishing my own original stories. Just how far should I encourage the people who might like my stories in the future before it's considered that my copyright was given up before it's time?

(I honestly really mean for this to be calm discussion. Just say the word and I'll shut up if you want me to.)

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

Me too.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

The description in that article, with her nearly crying talking about how much Harry Potter means to her...I mean, I buy it, yes, the books saved her...but are tears required in this case? It smacks of a performance to me.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

Is this the first you've run into this story, Ivy? I know you've been very distracted dealing with heavy RL stuff. It's really kind of sucky. And the latest I heard was that Steve knew it would be copyright infringement to publish the book, but someone at RDR convinced him it wasn't, and now they're stuck in this going all the way.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

It's not plagiarism! It's closer to an academic work...he didn't write fiction, he didn't copy her work without attribution. It's just not plagiarism, it's not a copyright issue at all. And she didn't claim that the problem was that he was trying to make money. She said, as quoted above, the problem was that he was asking people not to steal his work. Is that ridiculous? Yes. I think it is. If you're really curious about your own copyright, here's the trick: go after people who share copies of your work. You can't give a reference site an award and then try to ding them for stealing your copyright.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, first I've heard about it! I've been pretty much offline for...well quite a while. I don't see how it's copyright infringement. Sounds to me like she's trying to gain some kind of trademark protection.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

Is okay, I know you have! I just didn't want to repeat territory you'd already been over. Short version, it's been going on for quite a few months now. The argument on one side is that compiling lists of facts about someone else's work does not constitute a new work, and also that JKR wants to reserve the right to do an encyclopaedia of her own for charity, like she did the beasts and quidditch books. The other side says that it's the same as the essay books that have been published about Harry up till now.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

What happened is that the majority of the content of the book is word for word copied from the HP books with no new information or analysis added to it. They claim it's a scholarly work because experts from a big named college say so.

As for the website, the design and graphics really do belong to Steve. As for the content, it belongs to everyone and no one with the encourage of JKR. I thought that was the spirit of fandom. That's why JKR choked on her coffee, because of an old and edited claim of ownership of everything on that site.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

As for the content, it belongs to everyone and no one with the encourage of JKR. I thought that was the spirit of fandom.

I think you and I are in different fandoms, because nothing produced in the fandom I participated in "belongs to everyone".

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

The original manuscript that was set to go to the printers, before JKR and the WB found out about it and delayed it, did not have a disclaimer nor did it list all resources and it used the exact same font as the Harry Potter cover. Also, on the cover it had the statement of JKR's fansite recongnition. If I saw that in the bookstores without JKR's protest, I would have though that she arranged the whole thing with a huge endorsement.

RDR claims that they made changes only after JKR and WB protested, but a working relationship was already damaged by that time. Once the manuscript was handed over for review, they found that the amount of quotes without properly formated as quotes took up more of the content that was legally thought of as fair use. There's not enough critical analysis or new ideas to pass even a college class as a scholarly paper.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

And that deserves tears and a court case? I don't buy it. I have a feeling there's more to this story than this. If the lexicon is such a piece of crap, why did she give it an award?

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Personally I wish they weren't trying to publish it, I hardly see the point and I wouldn't do it if I were him, but the quotes from that article...are surreal. Feels like there's more going on here. Thanks for the update. :)

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

I think you and I are in different fandoms, because nothing produced in the fandom I participated in "belongs to everyone".

So those essays, reviews, criticism, analysis, and research to hidden meanings of the Harry Potter books on the lexicon website don't belong to the people who wrote them? Steve's lexicon book doesn't have any of that in there. It's just mostly compiled facts taken straight from the HP books with hardly anything else to add to it.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

There's definitely more going on! I think the Leaky Cauldron has a whole archive on it. <3

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Concerning the Harry Potter Lexicon, the website is far, far different than the book Steve put together. The book is not a complete compilation of the site at all. RDR claimed that it was until JKR and the WB got their hands on the manuscript that was set to be printed and sold. It came to light, then, that the book and the whole website were two different things.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't understand the pot calling the kettle black logic of that argument. He designed a website and he asked people not to plagiarize it just as she wrote a book and, well, doesn't really have to ask people not to plagiarize it because it's so freaking well-known that everyone knows who wrote it.

I also don't see how compiling an encyclopedia infringes on her copyright. Anyway it shouldn't. I don't think academic work has to come out of universities - it sounds just like someone compiling a reader's guide to Ulysses or whatever.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. I read that article too. The thing is that the author of Ulysses has been dead for more than 70 years, and that's what's required of copyright to be released to public domain.

Also, academic work has to be actually academic. The HP lexicon book doesn't have all of the requirements of a scholarly work. The website, on the other, does meet all of the requirements for a work to be scholarly.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Yep, pretty much. It's a non-fiction lexicon based on the books. If she didn't like it, she could have shut it down 9 years ago. But anyway. I just dislike her bursting into tears trick in court. Feels disingenuous to me.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

There are reader's guides to books by living authors as well, such as Pynchon. Maybe they have to get copyright permission, but I don't think they should have to.

What exactly are the requirements of scholarly work?