Terrible Ruling: Judge Halts Publication Of Harry Potter Lexicon
from the bad-news dept
Despite the fact that J.K. Rowling relied on emotional, rather than legal reasons for not wanting the publication of a guidebook about the Harry Potter universe, called the Harry Potter Lexicon to go forward, it appears that a judge was convinced. The judge has halted the publication of the Lexicon, saying that it violates Rowling's copyrights and did not establish a fair use defense. Hopefully the book publisher will appeal, as there seems to be some questionable statements in the ruling:"because the Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible proliferation of works that do the same and thus deplete the incentive for original authors to create new works."It's quite difficult to see how the publication of the Lexicon, which would only encourage more fans to dig even deeper into the Harry Potter universe somehow "depletes" the incentive for the original author to create new works. The Lexicon does nothing more than add more value to the rest of the Harry Potter books, and to deny its publication seems like a travesty of a broken copyright system.
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, fair use, guidebook, harry potter, harry potter lexicon, j.k. rowling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Poltically Correct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Poltically Correct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ridiculous
Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pop culture tripe and a corrupt judiciary.
So some of my more ignorant friends occasionally ask me why I am so "hung up" on the Constitution. I tell that, without strong Constitutional control of the Government, it becomes a mob rule popularity contest (with popularity measured in $$$).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pop culture tripe and a corrupt judiciary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad Precedent
She got greedy, plain and simple. She wasn't trying to protect her interests, as this book wouldn't threaten them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It'll be interesting to hear what Orson Scott card has to say about this ruling...
Woadan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pop culture tripe and a corrupt judiciary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Pop culture tripe and a corrupt judiciary.
That aside, the case was tried in New York (http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/09/08/harry.potter.lawsuit.ap/index.html), so whether they have one in the UK or not is completely immaterial. (Perhaps you'll enrich yourself on the details of an issue before you fire off that comment in the future.)
To add insult to the injury, the judge also awarded Rowling and Warner Brothers $6750 in damages. $750 each for the 7 books in the Potter series plus a couple of other books about the series.
Woadan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad Precedent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It seems largely favorable
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'll say what we're all thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
they are brainless
They are brainless, granted I have read the first book, most of it is lame, there is nothing backing up anything in the book. There is really no history of why witches and wizards exist. And seriously Rowling is the saddest author of them all. complaining about this, the Harry potter universe. The only reason being that she didn't think of this first to get more money from her fans like you that will buy every think labeled harry potter. Do you need to see all the movies twice, buy all the movies, buy all the books, read them countless times, and buy the audio CDs as well. It's time for you to stop thinking your in a fantasy world and stop throwing money at this mundane author. Also the fact that she came out and said that dumblordor (no idea how to spell that) was gay? WTF srsly she just wanted more attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good for J.K. Rowling !! I agree.
She created Harry, she should have control over how Harry Potter and his world are presented (or summarizied).
Personally, I hate Harry Potter. Never liked the books, never liked any of the movies, but they're still HERS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Poltically Correct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We are encouraged by the fact the Court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop the publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works. As for the Lexicon, we are obviously disappointed with the result, and RDR is considering all of its options."
I sincerely hope they appeal. For those interested, the Wall Street Journal has a pdf of the actual decision here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good for J.K. Rowling !! I agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good for J.K. Rowling !! I agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, wasn't there a post earlier about how Harry Potter was used in a movie before the books? I seem to recall it was the name of a boy victimized by magic.
I may be mistaken. Nope.. Here it is..
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0087939/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Pop culture tripe and a corrupt judiciary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, it would certainly encourage fans to dig deeper into their pockets to enrich Vander Ark.
It's quite difficult to see why Mr. Vander Ark should profit by leaching off of the work of another writer. While there is a fair use argument for guides and reference material even based on bestselling fiction, the ruling apparently decided that he'd copied too much.
Yes, it may increase interest in the Potter books, but it's not very likely (the films will do much more in that regard). And Rowling has likely already made the bulk of the money she's going to off of the Potter material already in print (unless she decides to write more). But neither of those are the issue, really.
Mike says that this is evidence the "copyright system" is broken, but why should this person profit mainly on work that is not his own? Can't this also be seen as an attempt to cash in on the back of Rowling's work? As I recall, she had no complaint when Vander Ark had all this material published free on the web, but only took legal action when that material was about to be published and sold in book form.
I have not read the complete decision yet--Thanks DanC for the link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pop culture tripe and a corrupt judiciary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad Precedent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Copyright does is not about preventing others from profiting. It's merely a way of creating incentives for you to create.
I don't understand this bizarre fascination people have with using copyright to bring down the works of others.
There's NOTHING wrong with profiting on the work of others. You use the web? Do you pay Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee every time you do? No?!? But you're profiting off of their work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lost Sailor indeed
And there you go again, spouting off something you cannot even attempt to prove. Although, if you were to realize that many people read the books BEFORE movies, you might want to think... wait, I expect too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why shouldn't he be able to make money by providing more value to someone's content? How is this different than Apple making money with iPods and iTunes by providing various value to the content they sell?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Concordances (including "A Complete Concordance To Shakespeare") may have been a good argument to present in court. For those that don't know, Strongs, along with other concordances, rip said Book/s into one-word pieces and present them alphabetically like a lexicon.
I would think Lexicon/Concordances would actually drive book sales in the end. Heh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Has she ever heard of Metallica?
I think it is funny that the remedy for "irreparable harm" is less than $7000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder if...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
get a grip
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What world do you live in? We all profit from work of others.
As far as I'm concerned this guy could have written a book to extend the story line as well and that would be fair game in my mind although probably a no-no with the silly copyright laws we have. The only thing that isn't fair game is if you literally copy the book and sell it as your own. If you take bits and pieces of the book and 'mash it up' and create a new work, then good for you - go make some money. Nothing is stopping the author from doing the same.
For someone to extend and take advantage of a popular work is called capitalism and it is the best system in the world. We are extremely fortunate that we have a large group of people in our society that are always looking to take something, morph it and repackage it. It is the true nature of things and laws that restrict it are unnatural at best.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How does this affect other books
Or is this case really about the fact that the author isn't paying any kind of royalty to JK Rowling, where the "Essential Star Wars Vehicles" people may be paying licensing fees to Lucas?
But, back to my original question: how does this ruling affect any NON-licensed, NON official fan guides that are for sale?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good for J.K. Rowling !! I agree.
Just because the lexicon says "Harry Potter" doesn't mean that it's infringing on her rights any more than if I published a book talking about the greatest sports teams ever would require any licensing from each of the players or teams I deigned to mention. This is the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I still like the books
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That, and there is a qualitative difference, as this court recognized, between works of fiction and non-fiction. By extensive copying of Rowling's original work and words, Vander Ark was engaging less in creation than in profiteering. Now, to be fair to Vander Ark, the court opinion makes clear, at least to me, he seems to have also been a victim of a zealous publisher who saw dollar signs.
As the court made clear, Vander Ark is free to write and publish a book about the Harry Potter universe, but he needs to use his own words to do it. He didn't, and is now permanently barred from publishing.
This is not about using copyright to "bring down" the rights of others to create. Do you think that Rowling should have no rights to or control over the use of her creation and words at all?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
None of those are still under copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
first amendment?
meanwhile, first amendment needs to be preserved. This case could push constitutionality (aka represent that free speech needs to exist) and I hope it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But that's not what was happening here. Mike calls this a "Terrible" ruling, but now having read the ruling, I found it narrowly construed and that it considered carefully the fair use claims and found that, in the balance, the use was not fair.
Capitalism is also about protecting your property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lost Sailor indeed
Oh? And of course you can prove, in advance of publication, that publishing of the lexicon would increase sales of the Potter books? More than interested generated by the films? You may want to realize that new generations of readers will be far more likely to go to the books after they've seen the films.
As for adversely affecting sales, since it copied very large portions of two of Rowling's companion books the lexicon would definitely take away sales; it's in the court opinion if you'd care to read...wait, I expect too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How does this affect other books
This Potter lexicon could have been published if there weren't so much copied material in it (though I doubt it could have been licensed as Rowling was working on her own version).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good for J.K. Rowling !! I agree.
Also, Rowling was reading a lot of books in the same general vein to help her gather her ideas.
Woadan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bad Precedent
Woadan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: get a grip
Indeed. My complaint is that the ruling misinterprets the law on fair use.
Secondly, if you don't like the copyright system or the way a particular is being applied, try this: quit bitching and whining, get off your backsides, and lobby your congressperson or MP for changes to the statutes.
I always find this amusing. Do you not think that talking about it here where tens of thousands of people will read about it doesn't help create the push needed for change.
What sort of statement is it to say "don't speak up here, only talk quietly to your Congressperson."
Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That assumes, falsely, that there wasn't value in the organization that Vander Ark added. If it were just the words that had value, then the Lexicon itself would be worthless, since all the words are elsewhere.
But Vander Ark was *adding value* through the organization and categorization of the book.
Why SHOULDN'T he be allowed to profit from that value that HE added?
Sure it is. It prevented Vander Ark from organizing that content creatively.
Do you think that Rowling should have no rights to or control over the use of her creation and words at all?
Who said that? No, we're saying that adding value to the books should be allowed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. But ideas aren't property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
She can "protect" it all she wants but she can't have it both ways. She's created a series of books that detail a world people want to read more about and are willing to buy a separate book to do this. She's not created such a work herself, so the market's open to others.
This book doesn't negatively affect her sales. In fact, most of the people this book would be aimed at are existing fans who already own the other 7 books. She's exercising control, and in doing so losing fans. As for the work done, the author has done some work. Maybe not in creating the entire text from whole cloth, but by organising, editing and streamlining the selection of quotes and extracts from the novels - not an easy task I'd bet. Is this person not entitled to compensation of their own? Remember, we're not talking about someone trying to pass off a book as a new Rowling work, but someone producing a clearly labelled unofficial work.
I've mentioned it before here, but let's contrast her behaviour with another famous author, Stephen King. There are not one but two now-officially approved books that chronicle the world of his Dark Tower series of novels. These books were not specifically commissioned, and King himself admits to having used them while writing the final chapters of his series. He doesn't mind his work being used as he recognises that only fans of the series would be interested, and has now endorsed them both, flattered that people would be willing to spend so much time compiling such a guide.
Another example: I remember as a child discovering Tolkien's lesser-known works through a cheap, unofficial guide to Middle Earth that even made me want to buy the notoriously dry Silmarillion - no easy read as a 100 year old. Had Tolkien's estate had the same attitude as Rowling, I may never have bought any book of his other than The Hobbit and LOTR, yet now I own them all.
Rowling wants to exercise control over her works, but fails to realise how much that makes her lose rather than gain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"no easy read as a 100 year old."
that should have said "10 year old", of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So obvious. It's just greed.
Organization is that value.
This is just an issue of JK being a greedy hypocrite. It's indefensible.
The only greater hypocrisy would be profiting on a book about someone who constantly skirts the rules for everyone's good (like a Harry Potter) and then utilizing similar rules to punish anyone who wants to improve their own world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: get a grip
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/potterdecision.pdf
"My complaint is that the ruling misinterprets the law on fair use."
Any parts of the decision in particular?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Poltically Correct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perhaps the source should be considered...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: get a grip
Wrong (at least in the U.S.). As my my attorney explained it to me in a case I've been involved with, there are two kinds of law to be considered: statutory law and case law. Care to guess who makes case law? Judges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
helps me for Xmas time...
Hear that J.K, NOW you're losing sales. I didn't like ya in the first place and still tolerated your crap but that just changed. Enjoy your money cause there'll be no more from my household.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one said he wasn't adding value. But he was also using word other than his own beyond fair use. The ruling didn't prevent him from profiting from his work though it did prelude him from profiting from her work.
The publisher was clearly aiming to get the book out as soon as possible after the publication of the last Potter book and before Rowling could complete her own. Clearly aiming at profiteering off of her success. If you read the decision, this was really more the publishers fault than Vander Ark's.
Vander Ark is free to add value to his work and, within certain fairly reasonable restrictions, even to the Potter universe. "Unauthorized" fan books of this sort appear all the time. But he needs to use mostly his own words when describing all the thing Potter that he's organized.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, annonymous, show me where Berners-Lee's work is under copyright and how I'm violating it and I'll email him to see what he want's for a royalty. I'm sure you're willing to share the bill, since I doubt you've paid him anything.
I'm using technology that is based on his pioneering work, but I've paid for the right (usually a license) to do do. It helps if you understand what copyright is (and is not) before you start calling people hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. But plots, actual wording, and in some cases characters are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I've indicated before, Vander Ark was quite free to create a Lexicon, publish it, and sell as many copies as people might be willing to buy. But he can't, as the court concluded, use Rowling's words beyond fair use to do so. He copied extensively from Rowlings particular phrasing from the novels and even more from two ancilliary books.
This book doesn't negatively affect her sales.
Regarding the two ancilliary books, the court concluded otherwise.
She's exercising control, and in doing so losing fans.
Well, that remains to be seen.
Remember, we're not talking about someone trying to pass off a book as a new Rowling work, but someone producing a clearly labelled unofficial work.
Actually, the publisher was originally marketing and advertising the book, down to a quote from Rowling on the back cover, to strongly suggest it was authorized; that was a large part of the problem. He offered to back down, but only after the suit was underway.
I've mentioned it before here, but let's contrast her behaviour with another famous author, Stephen King.
That's King's choice. Rowling used Vander Ark's guide, as did Warner Bros. They even invited him to the set of one of the films. There was no problem when the Lexicon was online and free. When it was only when it was slated to be published that there was a problem. The court decision indicates that Rowling and Warner tried to settle the matter amicably but were aggressively rebuffed by the publisher.
Rowling wants to exercise control over her works, but fails to realise how much that makes her lose rather than gain.
Again, whether this has "hurt" her or whether she's lost anything remains to be seen. This Lexicon could have been published without problem if a little more care were taken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: get a grip
I'd also be interested to learn what exactly you think was misinterpreted. There is a lengthy discussion of fair use in the decision and how the judge decided the issue in this case. How was "fair use" mininterpreted here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, but then again I've never claimed that using someone else's work was wrong either. That's why you're the hypocrite. And to use your term, a "leach".
I do. And you need to understand that one who promotes one principle but then practices another is a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Somehow I doubt that. It's fun watching you try to spin this though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Lost Sailor indeed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Has she ever heard of Metallica?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Anonymous," you really don't understand copyright, do you? It's really not all that complicated or devious. I can also tell that you haven't bothered to read the decision linked above as it does go into some detail about what the infringement was.
But, to answer your question, yes, if he'd used less of Rowling's text, especially the ancilliary books, quoted and attributed better (among a few other minor steps), he probably would have been okay.
Glad I can entertain you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not "using" Berners-Less work in any real sense, as I said, I'm using technology that others developed based on his work. If you can't understand the difference, further conversation is useless.
And I didn't think you'd be willing to share the bill, you're fine with leaching. Since the "principle" I'm talking about here is copyright, and I've violated none, you might actually want to look up "hypocrite."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: get a grip
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. They're not. They're nonrivalrous and nonexcludable by their fundamental nature. Hence, they are not property, no matter how much people want to pretend they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: get a grip
Law prof Tim Wu has a good discussion of the case that highlights most of the issues:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/pagenum/all/#page_start
But, most specifically, the misinterpretation is in both the application of the four factors test and in weighting the different factors, most specifically the 4th factor. The judge twists things around to make a fairly unconvincing case that this somehow harms the market for Rowling's legitimate works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was commenting on your interpretation of the decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, surprisingly, I do think that this should not be the case (that copyright is inheritible, not that it shouldn't be a property right). While I do support copyright as a priniciple and a property right, I think we've gotten far away from reasonable protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not confused at all, thank you. You might want to do a little reading in copyright case law.
You do know that copyright doesn't just cover what you happen to think it does or might want it to, don't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: get a grip
The court found that too much of Rowling's work was copied verbatim, and did an analysis of fair use.
The judge, I think, makes a reasonable judgement on fair use, and while you're free to disagree with his rationale of the fourth factor, I'd be interested to know how he twists it, in your view. He was fairly specific that the market harm to the novels was minimal (and if that's all there was, Vander Ark may well have prevailed), but the amount of copying from the two ancilliary books and thus the market harm was substantial.
How do you think he twisted his reasoning?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because Rowling is so original anyway...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because Rowling is so original anyway...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's one of the sticking points for me. Apart from the fact money's being made, what's the difference? If Rowling didn't think she was losing either money or control when it was a free website, why should the publication of a physical copy change that?
"The court decision indicates that Rowling and Warner tried to settle the matter amicably but were aggressively rebuffed by the publisher."
"Amicable" to a major corporation is rarely a good deal for the recipient. I don't know the terms of the deal, but the publisher must have thought they had both a good chance of winning in court and make significantly more money by publishing the book.
"Again, whether this has "hurt" her or whether she's lost anything remains to be seen. This Lexicon could have been published without problem if a little more care were taken."
We'll never know for sure because any losses due to her actions will probably get written off as being due to "piracy" or the shelf life of the books (sales are sure to drop significantly after the movies are finished).
My point was simple - you seemed to be implying that not blocking this point was somehow anti-capitalism. I was saying that not only is capitalism well and truly alive in the creation of these books, but that Rowling actually stands to make more money by leaving it alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
that doesn't make sense
You may not like the books, and that's fine, that's your opinion, but you can't say ALL her fans are brainless. It's one of the most popular books in this past decade or two. I will be the first to admit that just because it's a large group of people doesn't make them right (look at the UAW, those people are nuts), but this many people loving those books has to carry some merit. You just have to at least acknowledge that.
@Joel
I'm glad you aren't an author, I wouldn't buy your books. I also hope you don't work in patent or copyright industry. Or maybe you do and you are what's wrong with it. Read a book or two about copyright and creative works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually it's a good ruling
The judge and Rowling seemed to have fairly common sense approaches. She didn't stomp on the website because they weren't trying to profit from it. Her gripe was that now he was trying to make money off it.
If the lexicon author had a brain in his head he would have gone back to the drawing board and added enough of his own content to make the lawsuit go away - or at least make it questionable. When Rowling can read a passage from the lexicon and then her original description from the book and it's nearly word-for-word identical there's not a lot of defense possible.
And to the off-topic douchebags whining about the books being crappy (as if that has any bearing on the legal issues) here's the reality: even a poor single mom could get her book published and you can't. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why apart from money being made? That's not an unimportant consideration. One of the parts of analysis of fair use is whether the use is non-commercial or commercial in nature.
"Amicable" to a major corporation is rarely a good deal for the recipient.
I have only the facts as stated in the court opinion to go on, but that says they never got to the point of discussing a settlement. Clearly the publisher thought they could win. However, if I were the publishers, I would have at least listened to what Rowling/Warner wanted. There may still have been a suit, but there may not have been.
My point was simple - you seemed to be implying that not blocking this point was somehow anti-capitalism.
I don't think I was implying that, nor was that my intention. Yes, attempting to publish the Lexicon is capitalism; my point was that protecting one's property and rights is also capitalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good for J.K. Rowling !! I agree.
No, because Tolkien didn't create the concept of wizards to begin with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
most people here see this (emphasis mine). there were restrictions built into copyright that are being eroded away and we are losing sight of the reason copyright and patents exist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, half the argument being put forward is that the publication of these books would lose Rowling something, either financially or creatively. If the only substantial difference between the books and the site is the fact that one is charged for and the other isn't, I cannot see why one would be damaging and the other wouldn't be (and therefore OK as implied by Rowling's former acceptance).
As for the fair use doctrine, that's more complicated. Most copyright law was created back in a time when the only way to sell a copy of something was to make a physical item. This incurred a substantial cost, so people who profited from copyright infringement would most likely be professional thieves rather than ordinary people and personal copying was such small scale that it didn't matter.
Vander Ark fits between these two stools because he put in most of his work into compiling the website, then started charging for a version of that work in a different format. He didn't start charging until he started incurring costs (at least directly, though apparently ad revenue from the site wasn't very high), yet the content was OK in one form and not in another? Maybe that's legally right, but that's where the law may require reform before more artists try damaging themselves like this.
"Yes, attempting to publish the Lexicon is capitalism; my point was that protecting one's property and rights is also capitalism."
Yeah, I don't think that anyone here would deny that. But, there comes a time where you need to compromise. The idea of the original article here and my own posts is to point out that absolute protection of one's own property in order to exclude everyone else is not always a good thing. Money and reputation have been lost and there's a chilling effect on future such books both inside and outside the Potter universe. There is such a thing as too much protection, and I think this is a good example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually it's a good ruling
Again, that's not the problem, it's the fact that she was apparently OK with it in one form (the website, which she had commended and even still recommends on jkrowling.com, a website registered to her agents). Yet, transfer that content to a printed for and it's suddenly evil and cannot be sold? Makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rowlings Contends Large Parts Are Direct Copies
I heard Rowlings this morning. Here's my interpretation of what she said. that the book under question consisted almost entirely of excerpts from her writings. She supported other Harry Potter companion pieces where the authors had added value and individual creative additions.
I don't really know if this is true having not read any Harry Potter books or the others in question. If what she says is true, does this change your opinion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
---
It's wrong because on the internet, they made no money on it. Once it's published, they'll make money. Simple. About 90% (At least that's the statistic I saw) of the stuff in the Lexicon was copied verbatim from Rowling's work. It's her legal right to not want someone to make money off the work that she did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, there is a financial component, and there's also the component that she has the right to control her copyright. You may disagree, and you might act completely differently if you were in a similar situation, but she's within her rights. As I mentioned before, if the author had approached the work differently, and used his own words to describe the "facts" listed in the lexicon, Rowling would have lost her case. Now, he's permanently enjoined from publishing.
As for the fair use doctrine, that's more complicated. Most copyright law was created back in a time when the only way to sell a copy of something was to make a physical item. This incurred a substantial cost, so people who profited from copyright infringement would most likely be professional thieves rather than ordinary people and personal copying was such small scale that it didn't matter.
Actually, the fair use doctrine had little to do with professional thieves, when it first came up in the U.S. in the early 19th century. It developed further in response to the steady expansion of copyright protection throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries to allow re-use of printed material, scholarly criticism, reviews, etc. Most "ordinary" people did not have the means to copy until the late 20th century. Most of the doctrine was developed in response to rival publishers taking advantage in advances in technology and "holes" in the copyright law. Sound familiar?
Vander Ark fits between these two stools because he put in most of his work into compiling the website, then started charging for a version of that work in a different format. He didn't start charging until he started incurring costs ... yet the content was OK in one form and not in another? Maybe that's legally right, but that's where the law may require reform before more artists try damaging themselves like this.
That's not quite the case. Vander Ark put up his lexicon on a web site free of charge over many years and eventually had a number of editors working on it. He sold some advertising but pretty much covered his costs. Rowling had no problem with that. Soon before the publication of the last Potter book, Vander Ark was approached by a publisher about rushing out a print edition to hit stores about 4 months after the Potter book. The publisher started aggressively marketing and pitching the book not only to sales outlets but also to foreign publishers, including the U.K. Included in that marketing and pitch material, as well as the proposed cover for the book (which are produced well in advance as sales material), was a quote from Rowling that she used the Lexicon herself, implying her endorsement of the printed book (she made the statement about the web site).
When contacted by Rowling's agent and later agent and Warner Bros., the publisher simply ignored them. When he did speak to them, he really wouldn't discuss the matter. Lawsuit was filed. The court found that Vander Ark copied pretty much verbatim much of Rowling's original words beyond fair use.
I feel sorry for Vander Ark, as I think he was led astray by his publisher; that he was rushed in preparing the manuscript probably led to too much copying. That the publisher was so eager to cash in, there didn't seem to be much of an editorial process that might have caught the copying.
The idea of the original article here and my own posts is to point out that absolute protection of one's own property in order to exclude everyone else is not always a good thing.
This is where we seem to be disconnecting: this really isn't a case of absolute protection. Rowling was okay with the free web site. She apparently wasn't okay with an aggressive publisher seeking to exploit the fans' work.
I agree that "absolute" protection is not a good thing. I'd probably agree that some current protections should be relaxed. But even if this were only a matter of an author's injured ego (that the publisher wouldn't even discuss the matter), she's still within her rights. Hell, duels have been fought over bruised egos!
As with most of these cases, such as the Fox/Warners Watchmen suit, when you dig beneath the surface, the issues are rarely as simple as a brief news article or blog post makes out (though not as complex as lawyers will like to make them).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Think of the fans...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rowlings Contends Large Parts Are Direct Copies
We discussed this above. No, it does not change my opinion.
Vander Ark's added value wasn't in the *content* but in the *organization* of the content. So the fact that it's direct copies isn't at issue.
The question is why he can't add value by organizing the content in valuable ways?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Rowlings Contends Large Parts Are Direct Copies
If you quote your source and give credit, its not plagiarism. By its nature, a lexicon quotes its source on every page, but adds value through organization.
I have read the ruling and I hope very much it is challenged. A woman's tears or not, this is a direct hit on the constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Rowlings Contends Large Parts Are Direct Copies
Because it was already available in an organised form - in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through the Ages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WTF
As it stands, the HP fan wiki is a much cleaner, more comprehensive site that is much more navigable and is easier on the eyes.
Compare these two articles on the same magical concept, the Patronus:
http://www.hplex.info/magic/spells/spells_p.html#patronus
http://harrypotter.wikia.c om/wiki/Patronus
SVA's entry is a mere list of appearances of the concept in the book, on an unreadable background. The wiki entry offers more depth and analysis, explains contexts, and is far more readable. Pretty much all of SVA's entries are like the one linked above. Would you really shell out 30 bucks for that? Do you think he should be paid for that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It isn't this case...
I just took a look at the site (used the cached main page from Google, as the main page is down on the site) and I certainly did NOT see "simply a collection of quotes" there. Actually, I saw only a single quote in the 12 pages I looked at. This adds validity to the accusations of corruption I saw earlier.
As I have said before, it was not a jury who pronounced this verdict, but a single judge of questionable character. A court of appeals should overturn this easily, but we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, it is good to see that JK has lost in the court of public opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Rowlings Contends Large Parts Are Direct Copies
Um. No, not quite. While those are *different* forms of organization, that doesn't preclude Vander Ark from organizing the content in his own way. It's called competition. There's nothing wrong with that.
Obviously, if all Vander Ark did was copy those other works, there would be no market for his work, since it was already covered elsewhere. Except that wasn't true, because he organized it in a different way that clearly added value for many people (including, admittedly, JK Rowling herself).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why do these people bother?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: WTF
That's the free market, and there's no reason for a court to block it just because an author decided to switch formats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF
But lack of quality is still relevant, simply because they were trying to argue that the book would be a valuable reference. But without sufficient depth and analysis in their entries, that argument quickly burns out in the face of the real nub of this whole lawsuit: is it transformative enough to qualify as fair use?
JKR is not against guides and encyclopedias in principle, not even for-profit ones, but in this particular case, the writer of the guide was not playing by the same rules as everyone else and breached her copyright. The decision even basically says that if he rewrites it he could still publish it. AS LONG AS he plays ball like the rest of the fans and gets his book vetted by the copyright holders, something RDR refused to do this time around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rowlings Contends Large Parts Are Direct Copies
The court found that huge portions of the Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch books were lifted nearly verbatim. Even if Vander Ark rearranged the order in a different way than Rowling did, it's still copying. You say "there's nothing wrong with that" but it's against the law and has been for centuries. Minor variations in "organization" are not enough under the law.
Now, you may disagree with the law, regarding it in the same terms as belief in a flat earth, but it's still the law.
Do you think that anyone should be allowed to copy any work at any time, making minor changes to "add value" and then testing that added value in the market? Then why bother with copyright at all?
Do you think that other market restrictions such as all patents (not just patent abuse, but the concept of patents entirely), anti-trust, truth-in-advertising, and consumer protection laws should be eliminated and just let market competition decide what has value?
I'm genuinely curious as I've been reading your posts for some time now, long before I commented here, and still can't get a clear understanding on where you would draw the line at protecting an author's/artist's/producer's work, if there is any line to be drawn at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It isn't this case...
Actually, not so much. This case doesn't set any new precedent. The judge's decision fairly clearing acknowledges (and cites precedent) that unauthorized works relating to copyrighted material are protected as they have long been. There are many such "unauthorized" works out there that have easily survived legal scrutiny. This Lexicon would almost definitely have survived if the author had been a little more careful, copied less of the original text, and used more of his own words rather than using Rowling's.
As I have said before, it was not a jury who pronounced this verdict, but a single judge of questionable character.
I have no idea why this was a bench hearing, but usually it's the defendant who gets to opt for a jury instead of just a judge. Why is the judge "of questionable character"? That's quite an accusation to make. Do you have evidence of corruption or conflict of interest? Does he hate puppies?
A court of appeals should overturn this easily, but we'll have to wait and see.
I doubt there will be an appeal. And though I'm not a lawyer, having read the court's decision, there are scant issues of law that could be appealed.
In the meantime, it is good to see that JK has lost in the court of public opinion.
Well, she's certainly lost in the Techdirt court of opinion. It remains to be seen whether the general public is even really aware of the case. Personally, I doubt she's lost anything by winning this case as far as the pubic and most Harry Potter readers and movie-goers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad Precedent
As it is, JKR actually wasn't the one to instigate proceedings. They were started by WB as license holders. All the book appeared to be was a direct cut-and-paste of descriptions Rowling wrote in her own companion guides with some inaccurate additions. It was more than derivative, it was in many instances direct plagiarism and the ruling was quite correct IMO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good for J.K. Rowling !! I agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I wonder if...
The Star wars books are all vetted and authorised by George Lucas who apparently invites the authors to pitch their ideas in personal at Skywalker Ranch if he's interested. He also closely controls what happens to any characters that have appeared in his work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So obvious. It's just greed.
I still can't understand why anyone would have bought the Lexicon book when all the content is available free online anyway *shrug*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bad Precedent
Great point!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, seriously, guys.
And it's not like the Lexicon isn't still online. I don't see how this deprives people of anything. It's the same thing, except...free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No, seriously, guys.
Yes, always start off with a personal attack. Because that makes the rest of us take you *so* seriously.
Have you actually, like, read the ruling?
Yes. Three times at this point.
Fair use does not include copying and pasting information that somebody else wrote, and adding very very little of your own content.
It most certainly can.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060519/035207.shtml
Darn. There goes your argument.
SVA infringed the hell out of JKR's copyright, and tried to sell it. Why in the world would he have won?
Because there is a sizable part of the world who does, in fact, believe this is fair use based on the four factor test. They believe it is highly unlikely that this in any way diminished the commercial value of JKR's work, and that there is significant likelihood that it increased it.
And it's not like the Lexicon isn't still online. I don't see how this deprives people of anything. It's the same thing, except...free.
In that case, then why would JKR even complain? Based on that statement, then the book would never sell, and no one would be losing any money, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No, seriously, guys.
Not so fast, Mike. The argument is quite valid, and the Bill Graham case in the link actually goes a long way to supporting it.
Copying and pasting another's content can be fair use, depending on the 4-part test. You may disagree with the test and the results in the Rowling case, but it is certainly well within the bounds of reasonability.
I agree that the Graham case was reasonably decided, because it took into account the nature and amount of the copying (IIRC, small or thumbnail size reproductions of concert posters) and the context (as part of a discussion of the history of concert posters and the Grateful Dead). The fact that it was a commercial publication is relevant, but much less of a factor because the first two weigh so heavily in favor of the defendant publisher.
In the Rowling case, the defendant was found to have copied too much while not adding enough original work (added "value") in a context that too closely mirrored the author's work (the two ancillary books). That, factored in with the commercial nature of the book was enough.
Finally, "a sizable portion of the world"? Really, "the world"? You got numbers? And anyway, what does that matter? An even more sizable number of people think O.J. was guilty, but that's not going to change the verdict.
It's Rowling's option to not only complain about the publication, but to sue as she did. I'm assuming you understand the difference between a free, web-based fan site and a commerically distributed published book.
As commenter Kate pointed out, the act of trying to cash in on the fan site could equally have the chilling effect of other authors aggressively quashing free, fan-based sites on their work for fear that everyone will try to cash in. From that perspective, Vander Ark was wrong because he potentially put all web-based fan writings using copyrighted property at risk.
This was not a terrible ruling; it was a close call that was appropriately decided.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: helps me for Xmas time...
Don't take it out on your son. Her asshattery? Quite frankly the one looking like an asshat here is you. Anyways JKR won't lose a penny thanks to your mean and selfish decision. The charities that receive the proceeds from Beedle the Bard will.
Again: Please, please, PLEASE don't take it out on your son. It might be okay if you chose to just not purchase the book, but to lie to other relatives and claim that you already bought the book is just wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: get a grip
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Poltically Correct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Plagiarism is Illegal
Everyone seems to view Rowling as a power-hungry, money-grubbing, one-trick pony. The fact is that the Harry Potter Lexicon is the only publication that has been fought, and it was rightfully targeted. Plenty of other Harry Potter reference guides have been published. None of the others have been fought, because they all contained original material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: hahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tech dirt and remidies
[ link to this | view in thread ]