JK Rowling Appeals To Judge's Emotional Side, Rather Than A Real Legal Argument Over Potter Guidebook
from the apparently,-her-fiction-extends-to-the-courtroom dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about how J.K. Rowling's lawsuit against the publishers of a guidebook about Harry Potter's universe was extremely misguided. That lawsuit got a lot more attention Tuesday, as Rowling herself showed up in court to play an emotional, rather than legal, strategy. The NY Times even reports that she was "stoically holding back tears." Cry me a river. Rowling is basically trying to get copyright law to do a lot more than it is intended to do -- and all of her emotional bunk doesn't change that. Claiming that the "stress and heartache" of such a publication had hurt her creativity for the last month seems excessively questionable. Furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that a derivative work, such as this guidebook, doesn't violate copyright. There are lot of things that cause me stress and heartache and which might make me lose my concentration. It doesn't make them illegal.It appears that the publisher's lawyer had some fun, pointing out that Rowling didn't seem to have that same sort of stress and heartache when she gave an award to the website that "The Harry Potter Lexicon" came from. And, when presented with evidence of how the book took Harry Potter details and did more with them (making them more useful), Rowling tossed out the following: "This is theft. Wholesale theft." Well, no, it's not. If it were anything, it would be infringement (not theft), but more importantly, it wasn't about republishing the content, but making it more useful. It's the same argument we discussed recently with people overestimating the value of the content, and underestimating the value of the service of making it useful. The most damning point might be that Rowling herself in the past admitted to using the lexicon to check up on facts she didn't remember.
However, the real key point that Rowling went back to again and again in her complaint is that she just didn't think the quality of the Lexicon was very good. That seems like a bizarre complaint, as copyright has nothing to do with quality. In fact, as the publisher's lawyer asked, "You feel it's your responsibility to prevent people from paying their hard-earned cash for things you don't like?" At which point, she switched arguments again, reverting to the claim that it was "theft." Of course, if she really thinks that the book is awful, there's a really easy solution: to come out with her own version of a guidebook. Surely, people would be a lot more interested in buying the "official" version, written with Rowling's approval, than some fan-created one. In fact, Rowling admits that she's been thinking of doing exactly that (and throws in the totally separate from the legal issues, but good for an emotional tug, claim that she would donate all proceeds to charity). Of course, there's nothing actually stopping her from competing, other than what appears to be her own unwillingness to actually have to compete for readers.
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: copyright, guidebook, harry potter, harry potter lexicon, j.k. rowling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's time to implement a better review system I think so some of these cases don't even get to court. The legal system is being bogged down in multi-million dollar lawsuits and real crime is on the up. All these spoiled little rich kids need to take a good look at themselves and ask why they need MORE money for something they've already profited handsomely from...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She came up with the characters and such in her books and wants to be the only one that can ever get credit for anything related to their existence. Someone making up a guidebook on "her" characters infringes on what she perceives as her own little space.
Kind of like if she worked hard to make a garden on her front lawn in a pretty shape using specific flowers. A neighbor than made shape in their own garden using the same flower selection and she feels all challenged.
Like someone stealing her limelight.
She needs to grow-up.
And a review system should be put up and penalties for wasting the court system's time with stupid lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether or not JKR is a greedy hack or despises freedom of speech, which does have a different point of view in the UK, it is also possible that she is being absolutely honest (since, I assume, she was under oath at the time of the comments): that she feels that anyone who plunders her intellectual (I use that word with some trepidation) property rights is wrong. I believe a case could be made similar to the one that was used when Ted Turner wanted to 'colorize' classic black and white films like Citizen Kane.
Garibaldi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harry Potter Wannabe's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harry Potter Wannabe's
The point is, permission is not required. There are plenty of unauthorized sourcebooks, guidebooks, and encyclopedias for Star Wars, Star Trek, and various other properties with a rich background. In fact, previous to the release of several of the Harry Potter books there were unofficial speculation books released. There's nothing illegal with them; most of them plaster the words 'unofficial' or 'unauthorized' across the cover to avoid customer confusion.
Rowling is under the impression that she alone should be able to control content related to Harry Potter. Notice that she attacked the quality of the lexicon, but fell back on the theft argument when questioned on her statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harry Potter Wannabe's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Harry Potter Wannabe's
Even if true, that wouldn't make it so. Feelings aren't law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harry Potter Wannabe's
And, as others have stated, you don't need permission. Copyright doesn't extend to guidebooks or compilations of information. The point isn't that we should feel for Rowling or decide whether it's right or wrong, it's decide what's legal and what's not. And it's not legal for her to stop him from publishing, or sue him in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harry Potter Wannabe's
One, I am happy to say I have never read her book, or seen a single movie. I wonder why I have not seen these types of cases before when people without permission create almanacs for Narnia and LOTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Matrix.
If she and her representatives had the slightest business acumen, they would have signed this guy to a contract and released his book as an official book for the series.
Since she is bored with the series she could also support fan fiction using secondary characters, like other popular mythos owners have done.
It appears to me, she had planned on writing a book like this herself, so it is a ploy to stifle trade so she can create one herself. I would not have been shocked if in her mind she had planned to use his site as a resource for that book, since she feels all his content was just hers anyways. That is just conjecture though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harry Potter Wannabe's
Just because something is in paper instead of the internet doesn't change its status as copyright infringement.
Either the website is also illegal or neither are.
Also, Chris (who I'm replying to) is ignoring Masnick's point that the Lexicon is providing a SERVICE. It's not STEALING content, just giving you a method of viewing the content.
If JKR herself actually used the Lexicon and it helped her in the creation of the later books, does that not mean SHE is infringing on the Lexicon creator's service by using it in her books? (assuming that the Lexicon itself did not infringe)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The case seems to be based on nothing more then the fact that Rowling doesn't want the book published, and the fact that she created Harry Potter should be gaurentee so.
The argument over the extent of which content creators should have control over their work is a messy one, but its surely not a debate thats going to be advanced very far by emotional appeals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guides
Just because the owners of the copyright of Star Wars, Star Trek and other stuff don't stand up does not make what Steve and his publishing company are doing legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guides
Of course, the reason the copyright holders of those other properties don't "stand up" just might be because it isn't illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guides
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cliff's Notes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's stealing, plain and simple
If Danielle Steele wrote a steamy novel about Ginny and Harry, that would be fine. Hell there are already a million of those out there. But to add no personal value and no creativity and to simply steal another's work is wrong.
I mean I must be missing something here? Is this site supporting sonmeone who uses another's work as their own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
However my research says Jo is in the right here. She owns her characters and no person can use that character for their own gains UNLESS they parody, satire etc.
This author is using her characters, without change to make his own profit.
Sorry, but that is wrong IMO and does not allow an author to protect their "work". After Jo dies, and 70 years passes then people can re-use her characters as they are now part of the public domain.
What would happen if you used Mickey Mouse in a book? Disney would own you. Same here, Harry is Jo's and no one elses to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
This author is using her characters, without change to make his own profit.
Actually, it's the principle of fair use that covers the use of copyrighted works for a variety of purposes, including satire and parody. It also makes allowances for research, scholarship, and commentary among others.
The question is whether the lexicon copies a significant enough portion of the work to constitute infringement. After taking a quick look at some of the entries off the website, it doesn't appear to be all that different from the multitude of other guidebooks I've seen. I certainly don't see anywhere near the vaunted '90%' copied material.
She owns her characters and no person can use that character for their own gains
Warner Bros. owns all IP related to Harry Potter with the exception of the books.
What would happen if you used Mickey Mouse in a book? Disney would own you
A hypothetical situation does not contradict the numerous examples to the contrary. While I'm certain that Disney would file a lawsuit if an unauthorized encyclopedia of Disney characters were published, it is by no means certain that Disney "would own you." As noted, there are plenty of unauthorized reference books ranging from Dr. Who to Star Trek to Middle Earth, all of which cover copyrighted material. The assertion that an unauthorized guidebook cannot be published if it uses copyrighted characters is simply incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
JKR has been going around crying "theft" but did JKR file a criminal theft complaint with the police? No, she did not. Why not? Perhaps because she knows no theft occurred? So, if JKR is claiming something that even she knows to be untrue, what does that make her? Several words come to mind, none of them very flattering.
I mean I must be missing something here? Is this site supporting sonmeone who uses another's work as their own?
Has the author of the guidebook claimed Harry Potter to be his own work or are you being a little less than honest yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
It's that last part that's important. IN REFERENCE FORMAT.
In other words, the Lexicon is something different, made more useful for reference purposes. The value is not the *content* but the *format*.
I mean I must be missing something here? Is this site supporting sonmeone who uses another's work as their own?
No one said that he was implying HP content is his own. It's quite upfront what's being done.
What we're saying is there shouldn't be anything wrong with making someone else's content *more useful*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
But only if the creator / copyright holder grants you permission to make his or her content 'more useful.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
Except as allowed by fair use, which, as previously stated, makes allowances for the transformative use (such as a reference book) of copyrighted works without the need for the author's permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
Why should someone need permission to make something useful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
That's not the question. The question is, why should the copyright holder grant you any rights to reproduce the work in question? He or she decides how to make the work useful, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
Fair use makes allowances for derivative works of a transformative nature. Therefore, a reference book, such as the lexicon in question, is covered by fair use. Permission is not needed, and the copyright holder has no say in the matter.
The crux of the lawsuit seems to rely more on whether the lexicon contains an excessive amount of verbatim quotes from the novels than the legality of an unauthorized guidebook. If the lexicon contains whatever the court determines as "excessive" quotes from the novels, than it may be violating copyright. But it is hardly illegal to release a reference book based on copyrighted material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
Why should it be their right in the first place? You're not taking anything away from them in making their work useful.
If we always had to ask for permission before making anythign else useful, no work would ever get done. The economy would grind to a standstill.
Google certainly wouldn't work, because it would have to ask permission of every site it searched and indexed. Newspapers would need to ask permission from all participants before writing a news story. Travel guides would need to get permission from each business they review.
That's not exactly a reasonable world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
Wrong: you're taking away the author's right and ability to create derivative works. And why does that right exist? Because Congress says so.
You may say that Congress shouldn't say so, but Congress has an interest in encourging the creation of original works. However, it is much easier for an individual to create a work derivative from an existent work than it is to create an original work, as the amount of effort needed creating the derivative work is lessened by the already existent basis for the work. If a copyright holder did not have the right to control works derivative from his copyrighted work, then 1) more people would be inclined to create derivative works as opposed to original works, and 2) the original copyright owner would derive less value from his original work, thus discourging him to a degree from creating another original work. Congress likely did not view this consequence as beneficial, so it decided to secure the right to create derivative works to copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's stealing, plain and simple
Not at all. Nothing in that takes away the right or the ability of the author to create a derivative work. I'm confused as to why you would suggest otherwise.
Because Congress says so.
Congress has said lots of dumb things...
You may say that Congress shouldn't say so
Indeed...
but Congress has an interest in encourging the creation of original works.
Indeed. But stopping these types of works doesn't do that.
However, it is much easier for an individual to create a work derivative from an existent work than it is to create an original work, as the amount of effort needed creating the derivative work is lessened by the already existent basis for the work.
I think you're selling derivative works short here. Recognize that almost *every* bit of content these days is a derivative work in some form or another. Can you even find a work done by Disney that doesn't bite off of someone else's work?
Congress has an interest in having people create new content, but that INCLUDES works built on the work of others.
If a copyright holder did not have the right to control works derivative from his copyrighted work, then 1) more people would be inclined to create derivative works as opposed to original works,
Which would only suggest that you're doing quite well. Those derivative works will only really occur if the original has something worthwhile. It helps to promote it.
See the fashion industry and the studies on why it's thriving *because* of knockoffs to see how this works in practice.
2) the original copyright owner would derive less value from his original work, thus discourging him to a degree from creating another original work.
Again, in practice this is not true at all. The fashion industry has shown exactly the opposite. The knockoff content helps INCREASE the amount of value that the original creator can derive from his or her work, and it INCREASES the incentive to create new original works to stay ahead of hte curve and to derive more value.
Congress likely did not view this consequence as beneficial, so it decided to secure the right to create derivative works to copyright holders.
Only because Congress apparently does not understand the economics of what happens in these types of markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You may not like that she cried, but authors have a responsibility to defend their own copyrights, it's not about the money, it's obviously about the principle, and Rowling is on the right side of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for asking permission, that was given when she endorsed the website that collected the facts and placed them online with an award of her own devising. Also as stated, she may have well damned herself in the eyes of the law by claiming that she has indeed used the work to gain facts that she previously forgot herself.
On the accusation of plagiarism, while I have not read the lexicon myself, I highly doubt that the tome consists of the majority of the text of 7, multi-hundred page books. Using those works, reorganizing the information from story form to (fictional) encyclopedia form most certainly falls under the Derivative Works Clause, at least as we in the US understand it. Differences in the laws will be sorted out by the courts.
The law/ international copyright treaties are all that matters here. Her anguish and heartache, the fact that shes worth over a billion dollars, or that she gives "vast sums" of money to charities is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.
While I can understand her wanting to control her works and creations, that desire does not give her license to ignore the law or to make up her own interpretation of the law. That is the courts job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bollocks, WTF do you get that idea? There is no "responsibility" for an author to defend their copyrights; never has been. Not in US law, anyway, and since our copyright laws were pretty much lifted wholesale from the English "Statute of Anne" rules, I seriously doubt there is any such OBLIGATION for authors under UK law, either.
This is the problem with the term "Intellectual Property", and why it should NEVER be used. You've obviously heard of the obligation of someone who has been granted a trademark to defend that trademark, or lose it, and then conflated that concept into some sort of notion that authors are perforce required to "defend their own copyrights".
Nonsense; JKR is free under nearly all of the world's copyright laws to allow some fan fiction (obviously derivative works) and not allow others, and also to allow or not allow works like this encyclopedia, if it, in fact is also a derivative work, as you say it is.
> 90% of the words in the Lexicon are lifted word for word [from] the books.
Heh. I haven't seen this so-called "Lexicon", but if what you say is true, this gives rise to an interesting question about what exactly JKR thinks of the quality of her own work, if she is protesting this work on the grounds that it is "low-quality", and 90% of the words are hers.
Sticky legal questions aside, I think this whole discussion misses the overarching point of most of the discussions on this site, which is, is it really in JKR's, or ANY author's, BEST INTERESTS to cherry-pick the "bad" derivative works for persecution, or, rather, should she / they simply allow the "industry" around derivative works flourish, in order to drum up more interest in, and sales of, their own work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not true. See my comment in 22. Does TV Guide provide a "substantial scholarly analysis" concerning the television programing information it provides? No. That is why no one is claiming that TV Guide violates the copyrights of the television broadcasters.
The Lexicon is not even a derivative work which has to be primarily a new work which incorporates some previously published material. There is no "new" work here. The Lexicon is merely a collection of "facts" from the Harry Potter series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ima Fish
And facts about fiction are not copyrightable. For example, under the entry Harry Potter, you could write: "A wizard who was orphaned at a young age and sent to live with his aunt and uncle by Dumbledore." Or something like that. And it's allowable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad...
Deplorable! Despicable! UK's version of trailer-trash!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issues
She IS planning on writing an encyclopedia on the whole Harry Potter universe. ALL of the money from that book, when it comes out, is going to go to charity. EVERY LAST CENT. She has said that publicly so many times that if she doesn't follow through with it, she will be called out on it.
What Steve and the Lexicon have done is, in my opinion, plagiarism. They have taken her work and simply put it in a timeline and organized it. It's not a collection of essays or dissertations on Harry Potter. It's Jo's work, reworked.
Before you flame me, put yourself in her shoes. If YOU had something you had created, how happy would you be if someone essentially took out all of the pages and just re-organized them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issues
The courts have spent a lot of time evaluating the purposes and effects of providing someone legal protection from copying, and they've established standards that one needs to meet in order to establish "copying" and for one to be reimbursed for it. The problem is, whether JK is right/wrong/good/bad/whatever, her crying in court is so inappropriate as to be sad - and it's a testament to the weakness of her case that she had to go that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issues
As a writer, how would I feel if someone took my content and made an encyclopedia of it? ...Jeez, I'd probably be honored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trademark worth a try?
I understand that it's difficult to attack a written work with a trademark slant - but if enough of the key names, places, etc are registered and or contribute to the value of the mark/brand of Harry Potter, couldn't a case be made?
Not looking for flames here, because I know this is a stretch - but just trying to think creatively and see how others might approach it . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trademark worth a try?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trademark worth a try?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: trademark worth a try?
Rowling had informed the fandom in the past that she intends to create an encyclopedia reference to aspects of the world she has created within the Harry Potter novels, and that it would be sold to support Comic Relief.
The Lexicon's content is really interesting to consider, as how much of it was derived from the novels versus other' analysis - and whether the analysis has been credited correctly. I have not gone through every single page of the lexicon, as it is a lot of material. However, I have experienced in the past having my analysis lifted and essays plagiarized by others within the fandom - and not realizing until fans of the plagiarists accused me of plagiarizing, despite my postings having a much earlier timestamp.
As for franchise -- I'd honestly like to see WB work out something for really dedicated fans to be able to write supportive works, that add to the universe - i.e. texts, historical accounts - that are approved and checked for continuity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is a joke
And JKRs tears returning to the crocadile she borrowed them from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is a joke
Don't spread false informatiom. You know nothing a bout copyright law.
Yes it is illegal to use characters of a copyrighted book without permission. An author has all rights to derivative works. Title 17 Section 106 para 2.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
Sherlock Homes is in the Public Domain. The Saint TV show was authorized by the coyright holder for a fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to derivatives that add value
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The road construction industry compliments the automobile industry. Without roads, there would be far fewer automobiles. And, vice versa, without automobiles, there would be far fewer roads built. Thus, those two services compliment and benefit each other.
An example of a parasitic service is one that derives its customer base off of the work or content of another. An example of this could be P2P. The Pirate Bay, for example, obtains advertising dollars when people visit to obtain content owned by someone else. And generally, users searching for content at Pirate Bay does not benefit the content industries. In fact, they leach off those industries.
In this case it is clear that any publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon would compliment J.K. Rowling's books. People would have to read J.K. Rowling's books to be entertained by the stories but would read the Lexicon to have a resource of facts from the stories. To put it simply, anyone who would buy the Lexicon and not J.K. Rowling's books probably would not have bought J.K. Rowling's books in the first place.
It would be as if the television networks sued TV Guide for copyright infringement. It's possible to use TV Guide as a replacement for actually watching television programs, but I would guess it rarely happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JKR killed fred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, shes not a business person then huh...
Nope there in court trying to strangle off something they should be embracing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if i ever had any interest in this person's work, i've lost it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when did a woman ever need a reason to cry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's deviant to make derivative works...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ABKCO vs. Richard Ashcroft, anyone?
The new song wasn't sufficiently original, and even though the copyright owners had previously given permission, they still won?
I reckon JK is onto a winner here - crocodile tears or no. Running a fan website is one thing, publishing a book based entirely on the work of another author is way out of bounds.
BTW, can't stand the books, they're stupid. People should read Terry Pratchett instead, and maybe learn a little something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's WB, not Rowling
RDR is being sued by Warner Brothers, not J. K. Rowling. (If you check the copyright notice on your copy of Goblet of Fire or the later books, you'll see that WB claims ownership of all the intellectual property associated with Harry Potter save the text of the books themselves.) Whatever ridiculous IP-related statements she may make are based on what WB's lawyers tell her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's WB, not Rowling
Isn't it illegal for lawyers to tell witnesses to say things under oath that they don't believe to be true? So, you're saying that WB's lawyers and JKR have conspired to commit perjury? Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's WB, not Rowling
Nope, I'm saying WB's lawyers have given Rowling an interpretation of US copyright law, and she believes it, and says it in all honesty. Just as Vander Ark relied on RDR's legal advice when he signed the contract with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's WB, not Rowling
OK then, when JKR testifies that RDR "stole" her works she is only repeating what WB's attorneys have told her? In that case then WB's attorneys would have to be either dishonest or all totally unaware of the Supreme Court ruling that said copyright infringement is not theft. Which do you contend that it is?
And how do you claim to know what is going on between WB's attorneys and JKR? I'm beginning to suspect that you're just making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judge says it's iffy
As for whether this is fair use or not, the judge has already given a preliminary opinion that the case is in a grey area and could go either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sean(ireland)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do your homework
Also, Steve is 50 years old and has been working on this for over seven years.
JKR needs to grow up and stick to the facts of the case and stop threatening to not write anymore. Plain and simple all her creative 'juices' were used in the Potter books and she's looking for an excuse to not have to write anymore because she can't. Also, she knows that the Lexicon encyclopedia will be a lot more organized and accurate than her own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Not infringement
She poured her heart and soul into these books, and (like it or not) someone who throws it all together in a week from her creativity which was years in the making and makes a killing on it.
It would be like spending 10,000 and 5 years of your time inventing a widget, just to have someone a week later make a very similiar widget for $10 and promote it with your widgets name and make millions. How would you feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Not infringement
No one has a copyright on the name "Harry Potter". There is a trademark on it, but it's owned by WB.
"It would be like spending 10,000 and 5 years of your time inventing a widget, just to have someone a week later make a very similiar widget for $10 and promote it with your widgets name and make millions."
More like someone creating a manual for it. The amount of quotage in the print version of the Lexicon is vastly reduced from the amount on the Web site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Not infringement
No, she doesn't have any such right. She does seem to think though that she has a right to be paid for the work of the author of the guidebook. Hypocritical, no?
It would be like spending 10,000 and 5 years of your time inventing a widget, just to have someone a week later make a very similiar widget for $10 and promote it with your widgets name and make millions.
Or someone making and selling automobile accessories to enhance an automobile? Or someone making and selling computer programs to enhance a computer? I don't think those kind of things in any way infringe the rights of the original manufacturers. You may think so but the law disagrees.
And if you're trying to claim that the guidebook is so "very similar" to the original books that people would buy it instead of the original books then I'm saying that you're either being dishonest or you're out of your mind.
You seriously need to learn how free markets work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe Not infringement
You can't COPYRIGHT a name. You can try to get a TRADEMARK for a name.
Feelings have nothing to do with the law.
Patents protect widgest. And yes, it happens. It's call independant invention. And it is no defense for infringement. So if I invented it first I can patent it. Time for a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money hungry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is considered "copying" is an important legal distinction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rowling not opposed to making her work more useful
Stop the presses! The New York Times reports that on the last day of the trial, Rowling said, "I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide — never ever ... Do your book, but please, change it so it does not take as much of my work."
So she's apparently not opposed to the general idea, just under the impression that if one book gets out with too much quotage, suddenly she will lose control of everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]