Publisher Appeals Ruling Against Harry Potter Lexicon
from the good-for-RDR dept
We were somewhat dismayed by the ruling against the Harry Potter Lexicon, a guidebook of sorts for the universe created in the Harry Potter series of books. J.K. Rowling argued against the book on emotional, rather than legal, grounds, but the judge still found it to be a violation of copyright, and not covered by fair use. For a variety of reasons many copyright scholars felt this to be a bad decision. However, since the judge put in place a rather low fine, it wasn't clear if the publisher would bother appealing.A bunch of folks have been submitting the fact that RDR Books has, in fact, decided to appeal the ruling and to argue that publishing such a guidebook is, indeed, fair use. Hopefully the Appeals Court recognizes the problems of the lower court ruling and protects fair use for such guidebooks. Of course, some of us are still hopeful that even J.K. Rowling realizes that pursuing this case only serves to damage her reputation, and that she realizes (as she did when the Lexicon was just a website) that allowing fans to help explain and expand the universe she created only increases the value of her works.
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, harry potter, j.k. rowling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Because...
People need to be less concerned with making money, especially when you're as rich as Rowling is already, and maybe be concerned with the artistic value the series had before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misguided
This "lexicon" is not a lexicon. It's a remix of Rowling's own works. Mike WANTS this action to be covered under fair use, because Mike believes that remixing audio tracks should also be fair use.
But it's not.
J.K. is *not* doing this out of greed at all. She spent far more money in legal fees than she ever hoped to get back. She's doing this because its the right thing to do.
She's standing up for her rights. Good for her.
You should not be allowed to remix a book and profit from the real artists work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: misguided
Do we have citation for this? I'm assuming since Hoeppner said the basically the same thing that this must have a citation available.
Since I don't have a copy of the book to review, I poked around on the web site. I saw a few quotes from the book but not much and even a quote from JK herself saying
"This is such a great site...my natural home."
- J.K. Rowling
Since I see nothing about that in the lawsuit I'd assume she actually said it and has no problem with the site itself. The book has been described as a physical version of the site, so if that is true, than I don't see the problem.
If this is just a copy-pasta from her book than I agree with you and her, but she or her lawyers need to make that vary clear and not make it sound like she has a problem with lexicons in general.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: misguided
I guess that means as Rowling is a 'real' artist, everything in the Harry Potter books is a completely original creation, and broom sticks and wizards are her idea to own for the rest of eternity...
...or maybe that's a load of old rubbish.
Its rather odd that Rowling was perfectly happy to let the lexington plagurise her work back when he was running the site freely promoting her work, but it only became an issue of her 'rights' when he stood to make some money out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: misguided
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: misguided
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.geocities.com/sayswamp/worst.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thoughts on originality
There are numerous Harry Potter guides out there which describe the world of Harry Potter by combining elements of the books with deep original research and insight by their authors, and none of those has been challenged. The Lexicon is an alphabetical arrangement of various characters and objects from Harry Potter, the descriptions for which many times have been taken directly from the books where they were described. Hence, limited original content, hence the lawsuit. Ms. Rowling supported the website when it was simply a passionate hobbyist, but when it tried to become a money-making venture off of her content with nothing added except re-organization, that's where it crossed the line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: misguided
But this isn't about talent, its about fair use and value-added.
The value added in this instance has nothing to do with plagiarism, but by remixing the work of Rowling in a way that gives it a new use that the original work lacked.
People talk about the copy/pasting of words as if saying exactly the same thing with different words would be any lesser form of plagiarism. Its bizarre. How can it ever be anything else but plagiarism unless the guy adds his own ideas into the mix, and how then would it still count as a Harry Potter lexicon?
This whole issue is all about ownership and control belonging entirely to the artist and never to the public, even if their artistic work is based of the cultural heritage of the public.
And I still don't get how money being introduced suddenly turns this into a moral fight over the artists rights. Hell, when it was just website people were gaining info from it WITHOUT PAYING THE ARTIST. Surely by RIAA logic there must be something illegal with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: misguided
Ownership is precisely the point. Rowling doesn't own the cultural heritage - you're perfectly within your rights to wirte about Nicholas Flamel, or to compare broomsticks in Harry Potter to real world myths. You can even quote from the Harry Potter books and put it in your text.
But if the vast majority of your text is nothing BUT quotes - which is apparently the case - that's where the line crosses. If the remixing had involved significant creative effort, that probably would have counted. ie, writing a poem and rhyming "Dumbledore" and "Hellebore" isn't simply a remix, even if all words in your poem can be found in the books - otherwise every book would be derivative from websters. But simply arranging the terms in alphabetical order is not sufficient original content.
JK Rowling would have been within her legal rights to have the free website closed down. She chose not to, presumably wishing to support the fan-base. But when it comes to finances, she decided you have to enforce your rights somewhere, or you lose them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Further thought
Do you really think the record companies wouldn't sue me into oblivion? I think they would, and rightfully so. Simply going through the exercise of finding this content and putting it onto a single CD isn't enough creative input for me to "own" this content, and hence sell it, although by your argument, it would.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yes, or she could just rest on her laurels and get lawyers to "try" and make her money by suing her fans.
Guess we know which option she went for...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Further thought
First the Lexicon does more than reprint the words. infact about the only time it reprints passages is when it defines a term that is slang or british names for things followed by a few (short) excerpts of where it was used, with proper attribution.
as for things that rowling "created" (seeing as how she just built off of and profited off the work of others, just like nearly all writers) they repackaged all the information in their own words with lots, and lots of references and attribution. you can see for example, the Death eater entry look at Avery:
Attended Hogwarts with Snape and was one of his "gang of Slytherins," according to Sirius Black (GF27). The first Death Eater to crack and grovel at Voldemort's feet during the reunion at the Little Hangleton graveyard, having avoided Azkaban by claiming he'd acted under the Imperius Curse. Voldemort responded with the Cruciatus Curse, saying that he wanted 13 years repayment before forgiving the Death Eaters for their lack of belief in him (GF33). When Voldemort later learned from Rookwood that Avery's information about the Department of Mysteries had been wrong -- that only he himself or Harry Potter could safely take the prophecy sphere from its resting place -- Voldemort punished Avery again (OP26). Avery survived to fight in the Battle of the Department of Mysteries (OP35). Probably related (father/son?) to the Avery that attended Hogwarts with Tom Riddle (see above).
clearly in the author's own words, but with lots of accreditation and references. perfectly valid under fair use.
the rest of the content on the site is the same, summaries in the author's own word with lots of references. as to the top 100 songs example a better example would be to compare it to a countdown format where they add info and trivia about the song and group, current events when the song topped the charts, and lots of other content besides the 30 seconds of the song. and if someone did that, it is unlikely anyone would win any case trying to stop it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A link to one article by one person is hardly what I would call "many".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: misguided
Why?
If that remix is useful to many people, and increases the value of the original work, then what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's still WB
Yes, Rowling says she approved of the suit... but I expect the question was something like, "Do you want us to stand by and have 10 years of your work and reputation irreparably lost, or do you think we should take one unpleasant but necessary step to stop that?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: misguided
If the point comes down to creative effort, I'd argue the act of remixing the work is effort enough. Taking something and converting it into a more useful form for the public adds value from the public's perspective. 'Originality' isn't nessesary for creativity, and is in itself an entirely relative concept.
Rowling probably is within her rights at the end of the day, as the law more often falls on the side of copyright then it does fair use. But that isn't to say its a good idea to do this, or by not enforcing her rights she stands a chance of loosing them. Copyright can't be lost like trademarks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Further thought
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: misguided
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: misguided
If that remix is useful to many people, and increases the value of the original work, then what's the problem?
Whether it "increases the value of the original work" is irrelevant, and highly subjective. The fact that a "remix" of a book may be useful is also irrelevant. It is not the "remixer's" property or within their rights to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Further thought
Um. You cannot own facts, but thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: misguided
Actually, it's *extremely* relevant, and not at all subjective.
It's relevant, because the whole purpose of copyright law is to increase incentives for the creation of new works. Increasing the value of works does exactly that.
And the reason it's not subjective is because we have an extremely clear *objective* way to measure it: in sales. If people are buying the book, then it's clear they found value in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Further thought
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: misguided
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
The first factor would cover the usefulness of the remixed work, and the fourth factor takes the question of value into account. So your assertion that those points are irrelevant is demonstrably false.
As you can plainly see, all 4 factors are subjective, as determining fair use does not have a bright-line rule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Indeed, she says she is working on just such a thing.
You can leave out "if done well"-- if it's got her name on it, even with all the publicity given to the Lexicon by the trial, it'll still outsell the RDR book by orders of magnitude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Incorrect Statements - Corrected
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Lexicon by Steve Vander Ark
In a statement issued to Publishers Weekly, J.K. Rowling's lawyer Neil Blair said: "We are delighted that this matter is finally and favorably resolved."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6620114.html?desc=topstory
Many legal commentators have written that Judge Patterson's decision http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/92/, which should be read by anyone interested in this case, makes clear for the first time that reference books are transformative under the Fair Use Doctrine. The judge created a very clear roadmap for the author of the Lexicon and other authors of similar non-fiction companion works on fictional series.
In an article written for the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries attorney Jonathan Band explains "How Fair Use Prevailed in the Harry Potter Case." http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/harrypotterrev2.pdf. A great deal of additional up to date information is available at www.rdrbooks.com and also at the Stanford Law School Fair Use which represented RDR books, Visit http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/rowling-v-rdr-books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]