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

[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]

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.)

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

God I'm glad you poked your head in here. :)

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

You don't have to be dead for someone to write about your work. Or compile a guidebook to your work. Writing about something isn't a copyright infringement.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. It's even okay to make money off of writing about what other people say. But I wanted to be sure the law hadn't changed and tomorrow I'll wake up to a nasty letter demanding I retract that essay I wrote about HP because I might accidentally profit off it one day.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

How dare you!

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Essays are protected, I believe. Usually essays are your own thoughts in your own words about a certain subject or work. I'm trying to remember what the legal documents said about the percentage of directly lifted text to the addition of original analysis and thought. I think it was close to 80/20 concerning the lexicon book overall. That's way over the guidelines concerning fair use for scholarly work.

The guidelines for fair use can be googled. The legal documents concerning this lawsuit are published and viewed freely online as well.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I've read them before and didn't see anything about non-scholarly authors needing permission from authors to write a companion text or encyclopedia. Fair use is something different than writing about a text. There are no restrictions on that, and there should not be. I certainly haven't seen what this encyclopedia is doing (nor do I care, in point of fact), but if it's accurately called an encyclopedia then it is simply an informational source that will not contain extensive direct quotations from the Harry Potter books. The fact is that it may be a terrible book that adds little original thought, but in that case a lawsuit isn't necessary - the book will sink on its own merits.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Fair use is something different than writing about a text.

Fair use isn't a concrete law, unfortunately. It's just a convincing argument to get around the copyright laws. That's why it doesn't seem to have restrictions, only guidelines on how to make the argument convincing.

I certainly haven't seen what this encyclopedia is doing (nor do I care, in point of fact), but if it's accurately called an encyclopedia then it is simply an informational source that will not contain extensive direct quotations from the Harry Potter books.

The thing is that that's the main argument that JKR and the WB have made strong in their case as to what the lexicon book is. Despite RDR eventually conceding that point, they still argue that it's fair use anyway and out of JKR's control. RDR wouldn't back down, so JKR and the WB brought on the lawsuit.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

When it comes to writing about another person's books, it doesn't even apply. You can write whatever you want about someone else's work.

If the book is only direct quotation (but I doubt it's that simple) then once again, Rowling's lawsuit is silly. Who would buy such a thing? As I said before, let it sink on its own merits. Being litigious is not the answer.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, if Rowling were to ignore any book that comes along like that, then she loses her right to enforce her copyrights. Copyright would mean nothing if it couldn't be enforced. Being litigious is the only choice at this point to enforce her copyright since RDR couldn't be convinced to scrap publication of the book. Unfortunately, letting this book sink on its own merits is not the way the world works. The situation here hasn't played nice at all when the original author has rights to stop it.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

I know that, but I tend to thinking that writing about it and just rearranging already written text are two different things. When something is released to the public domain, aren't things are not as restricted as something still under copyright?

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

If it weren't copyrighted text, we could download the books from archive.org or the gutenberg project. There's no restriction on writing about something, copyright or no. People are conflating copyright and trademark here, methinks.

In my experiences with the lexicon, Steve did not just "rearrange text". He wrote articles on elements of the stories, quoting the books for support. I haven't seen the item up for publication, and I presume you haven't either, so perhaps we're not in the best position to judge, but if Steve was publishing the lexicon, I don't see why that's a problem, really. Fandom doesn't like people selling fanworks for its own reasons, but I don't quite get JKR's reasoning here, as stated in the article.

Even if he did go ahead and publish it, it wouldn't hamper anyone from picking up JKR's own encyclopedia. I'm looking forward to hearing more details about why she's doing this now. I remain unimpressed.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the item up for publication, and I presume you haven't either, so perhaps we're not in the best position to judge

Actually I have seen it. It's in the legal documents that both parties in the lawsuit turned in that was also publish online free to view by everyone. That's why I'm writing these comments firmly by authoritative voice because I've seen both parties arguments and the material that they used to support those arguments.

What I see is a strong case against RDR, and RDR contradicting and backpeddling in their statements.

JKR is emotional because she encouraged a fan that she thought she could trust to like her work. Steve asked to help her work on her own encyclopedia. JKR's reps said no, and then Steve went on to write his own encylopedia even though he previously told other people it was wrong to do so. What kind of fan does that?

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

The law doesn't care whether he's a good fan or a bad fan.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

But the law would care if he intentionally wrote the book against JKR's wishes, legally or not. That's what's being determined here. RDR is using the fact that she supported his site as a fact to support their point. JKR explains why she did so and how it's affected her. It's up to the Judge to decided what's relevant.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

Well no, it wouldn't. Rowling's "wishes" are not legally binding, whether she stated them aloud or not. IF the book copies her work directly to a greater extent then allowed by law she could legally consent to it being published anyway if she wanted to. You are the one arguing in part that what's his name is a "bad fan" who shouldn't have done this. Maybe he is a bad fan, but I don't consider myself a "fan" in that sense at all, and I don't care whether Rowling personally wishes I had written what I have written.

[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.