Harry Potter And The Doctrine Of Fair Use
from the why-do-fans-need-approval? dept
Harry Potter author JK Rowling has something of a reputation for being a bit overly aggressive when it comes to enforcing intellectual property rights around her characters -- though, years ago, we noted that she wasn't bothered by fan fiction... assuming it wasn't pornographic or for sale in China. Once again, Rowling is being quoted as saying that fan fiction is okay and can be posted on the web without fear of a visit from the mean old copyright lawyer, as long as the fan fiction makes it clear that it's not by Rowling and doesn't involve pornography or racism. However, it does seem a bit silly that people feel they need "permission" to write fan fiction. For years, fan fiction has always been a sign of just how popular a fictional world has become. It's the sort of thing that should automatically be encouraged, rather than having people waiting for the official "go ahead" that an author won't prosecute. In most cases, it seems likely that fan fiction is perfectly legal anyway -- but we now live in such an age that ridiculous copyright lawsuits are everywhere you look, and the simple act of celebrating fictional characters you like somehow requires "permission." For a law that's supposed to encourage creativity, it seems to have only encouraged legalistic thinking. What a shame.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fair use, harry potter, jk rowling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
damn
Poor Harry and co, they will never get laid or get to visit China.
Is it ok to sell this stuff in Taiwan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In so much as fan fiction does not claim to be original work nor written in conjuction with the author I can see how it would fall under fair use. After all, if the authors didn't want people to read thier works and incorporate them into thier own fantasies then they wouldn't write fiction. In that sense, fan fiction is indeed fair use. After all, fan fiction is in reality only somebody saying, "Wow, that was awesome! Hey!! What if this happened? That would have been cool, too!" I can't see that as being an infringement, can you?
That said, I can also see the other author's point. If they had wanted the characters, world, whatever to evolve like that then they would have written it that way. In that sense they could say that it is infringing on thier rights to have thier created work remain a certain way.
This one, I think, falls down to interpretation of the work and laws, both. In the end I would rule that fan fiction is fair use were it my decision. First, any work can be interpreted multiple ways. This means that author's realy have no control over what thier work means and never have. And second, people should have the right to imagine thier own twists and permutations to great stories. If the fan's attempt to make a monetary amount of the fan fiction, then it should be illegal if the author says they do not want it done, but simply telling people about thier fantasy and then showing them by means of a written piece? No, I don't think that should ever be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any similarities to persons or places living, dead, or imagined are purely coincidental.
It works for the original author, it should work for fanficcers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swear that was the most annoying thing of the book series, seeing her use something and it behave different (sometimes the opposite) than it traditionally does.
Its not like she borrowed anything from other works to write hers anyways . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair use
the lawsuit in question which seems unmentioned in this article is that a small american publisher tried to publish a verbatem copy of a website that organized facts from the books in lists. the issue is that this preempts her long stated encylopedia and after several request to see a copy of the manuscript, RDR Books refused and Warner Brothers was required to take legal action to halt the publication and force a court ordered seziure of the manuscript so it can be reviewed in the courts to see if it exceeds fair use laws or truly prempts jo's encylopedia.
she is within her rights to request a copy of the manuscript and the books currently published on harry potter often submit themselves to her camp so that they can work with the owners of the copyrights and trademarks *jk rowling/warner brothers/christopher little agencey* to ensure that the book is accurate and both has permission to use the material jo created. even books critical of the harry potter books have been given the seal of approvial by jk rowling because it is filled with critical anayalasis and are not regurgitations of her copyrighted works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fan fiction is just that, FICTION, based on OTHER FICTION, the whole system needs burning.
on that note, i'm off the the copyright offices... anyone got a light?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poison iPhones anyone?
This is identical the Greenpeace press releases about the "poisonous" iPhones that they later admitted were targeted against Apple because the iPhone was a hot topic. I imagine "PD James and the Doctrine of Fair Use" would garner fewer hits among the geek crowds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want a good link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JK is protecting her fans here
No offence, but I think your the one that comes across a bit 'silly' (that you've mis-catagorised this case with the worst of copyright censure); 'shameful' (that you didnt' even realise that vulnerable people are at risk); and open to 'ridicule' yourself (all the harsh words i've quoted are ones that you yourself have used in your ill-judged patronising-toned article).
It worries me that you seemed to have missed or prioritised downwards the point of the vulnerability of the demographic in your sweeping statements of 'ridiculus copyright lawsuits' and your self-appointed crusade against them in this case. (don't worry i'm not going to extrapolate this blind spot into the general habits of all journalists).
Put it this way, if you'd written a story popular with children in their formative years, would you want to see it being used to harm them? Don't you think its worth trying anything you can within the law to prevent that? Don't you think its important to restate the position so it is clear?
Does it not show enough public spirit to state clearly that you are in favour of public involvement with your work as long as people dont' get hurt?
If only there were more people as considerate of the effect of their works.
Sorry dude, i guess i totally disagree with where you're coming from. There are bad copyright censures, but this is clearly not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting her Fans?
I know that the last few Harry Potter book releases were met with unprecedented (hyperbole) media attention. Man, people, get a life. It was like they opened a Krispy Kreme two blocks from your house. Do you really think the Unofficial publishers are going to have that marketting machine behind them? What, some kid is going to stumble into a bookstore, look at the bookshelf, spot a Harry Potter-themed book, completely apart from all of the other Harry Potter books, and think "Hmm...a new Harry Potter! Why didn't they tell me about this?" Then said child will pick up the mysterious tome, open the cover and...run out of the bookstore screaming?
Please, it's not going to be the Necronomicon (although that would be a neat trick). As for accusations of porn and racism...well, the problem with the Harry Potter books is that they perpetuate the same imperialist attitudes as the author, in her Mother Country (sorry, going lefty-liberal on y'all). They just gloss over the sex and racism. Excuse me, but what the heck is going on in English Boarding Schools? If kids aren't learning about sex and race, just what are you teaching them? They obviously aren't learning math and science.
The porn-mongers and race-baiters are just taking the raw material of the novels and transforming them into "What could have beens". They are a fascinating look into many people's psyches, and are a good subject for sociological study, since they all have a single point of reference.
I gave up reading the Harry Potter novels at #3. Also, a buddy pointed out to me that these folks weren't real magicians. A Magic-User doesn't need a wand to do anything. The people portrayed in Harry Potter are nothing but a bunch of wand-users. And if that's not sexual, than I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry #10 totally missed the point of your argumen
Harsh Parent: "Don't go on the internet. It's full of creeps and weirdos, and you'll be infected by porn and racism". There, problem solved.
Gentle Parent: "You can go on the internet, but don't look at those fan fiction sites. They're full of the most degrading humiliations, and we don't want you to grow up like that."
Problem less absolutely solved, but likely, this is the best scenario you can come up with. To bad your 8 year old can surf the internet faster than you can, but them's the breaks.
You can also: ban them from libraries, bookstores, coffee shops (what's that kid doing drinking coffee?), record stores, yoga classes, tai-chi, schools without a strict internet use policy, or anywhere else you may find that it is inconvenient that you do not have total control of the sights and sounds that your progeny experiences.
What is Rowling's interest in "Protecting the Children"? Will she use her vast personal fortune to make sure that my (hypothetical) child gets into a decent school, has access to affordable medical care, and gets a good job? Will J.K Rowling make me a cup of tea in the evening? No?
Oh, and here I was thinking that she was interested in helping the kids out. Turns out she was only in it to help herself. How very human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i guess only rowling is allowed to make her characters racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]