Orson Scott Card Rips Apart JK Rowling For The Lexicon Lawsuit

from the read-the-whole-thing dept

We recently pointed to Neil Gaiman's comments on JK Rowling's lawsuit against the author of the Harry Potter Lexicon guidebook. Now, Slashdot points us to the even more brilliant dissection of the case by famed author Orson Scott Card. It's really worth reading the whole thing, as he makes a ton of fantastic points including: (a) every author borrows ideas from others -- including Rowling, (b) the Lexicon is clearly fair use, (c) the Lexicon's website helped promote the Harry Potter books for many years and made Rowling a ton of money, while the Lexicon's author made nothing, (d) if she's so upset by the quality, why doesn't she just write her own, and (e) the end result is of this attempt to gain "respect" is going to widely damage Rowling's reputation. Here are some snippets from the piece, but it's really worth reading in its entirety:

"This frivolous lawsuit puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction. Any student writing a paper about the Harry Potter books, any scholarly treatise about it, will certainly do everything she's complaining about. Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited.... She let herself be talked into being outraged over a perfectly normal publishing activity, one that she had actually made use of herself during its web incarnation. Now she is suing somebody who has devoted years to promoting her work and making no money from his efforts -- which actually helped her make some of her bazillions of dollars. Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress."

Filed Under: copyright, harry potter, jk rowling, orson scott card

Neil Gaiman On JK Rowling, Fair Use And The Flattery Of Derivative Works

from the flattery-will-get-you-everywhere dept

Copyfight points us to a fun blog post from Neil Gaiman where he discusses the lawsuit involving the "Harry Potter Lexicon" that JK Rowling is so upset about. He makes a bunch of good points about fair use and derivative works, saying that he'd be flattered if someone had done something similar with his works, and also notes that his own first books probably could be found as violating copyrights as well, and he's happy that no one acted like Rowling in trying to sue him for his work:

Lots of emails from people asking me to comment on the JK Rowling/ Steve Vander Ark copyright case. My main reaction is, having read as much as I can about it, given the copyright grey zone it seems to exist in, is a "Well, if it was me, I'd probably be flattered", but that obviously isn't how J.K. Rowling feels. I can't imagine myself trying to stop any of the unauthorised books that have come out about me or about things I've created over the years, and where possible I've tried to help, and even when I haven't liked them I've shrugged and let it go.

Given the messy area that "fair use" exists in in copyright law I can understand the judge not wanting to rule, and assume that whatever he says the case will head off to the court of appeal.

My heart is on the side of the people doing the unauthorised books, probably because the first two books I did were unauthorised, and one of them, Ghastly Beyond Belief, would have been incredibly vulnerable had anyone wanted to sue Kim Newman and me on the grounds that what we did, in a book of quotations that people might not have wanted to find themselves in, went beyond Fair Use.

He also goes on to note, if somewhat tangentially, that others have accused Rowling of copying his own works -- specifically The Books of Magic that involve a young magician "with potential" who (at one point) goes off to a magic school. Gaiman points out that he does not believe Rowling took the idea from him (or even that she read his works), but that people writing within a certain genre are always going to overlap with ideas -- some of which they glean from others and some of which they come up with themselves. And that's a good thing. It's only in this unfortunate era when people seem to think that all ideas must spring brand new from a virgin mind that the ideas of sharing, building on the works of others and creating new derivative works are seen as being bad.

Filed Under: copyright, derivative works, harry potter, jk rowling, neil gaiman

Warner Brothers Warns Guy Who Named Harry Potter A Decade Before JK Rowling

from the so-how-does-that-work-exactly? dept

In something of a followup to the story of JK Rowling's testimony over a guide book to the Harry Potter universe, Petréa Mitchell writes in to point us to the news that moviemaker Helmer John Buechler is planning to make a remake of his 1986 movie Troll. What's that got to do with Harry Potter? Well, it just so happens that the lead character of the movie happens to be named Harry Potter. Rowling's first Harry Potter book came out over a decade after the movie. While I'd be willing to bet the whole thing is a coincidence (or, at the very least a totally unintentional/subconscious reuse of the name), that isn't preventing Warner Brothers (who owns the rights to Rowling's Harry Potter) from making some vaguely worded, but ominous sounding warnings to Buechler, telling him "If these producers intend to remake Troll they'd better tread carefully not to infringe on our rights." Funny how they say that about a character that was invented over a decade before WB's own Harry Potter, isn't it?

Filed Under: harry potter, helmer john buechler, movie, troll
Companies: warner brothers

Giving Away Spoilers Isn't Copyright Infringement

from the oh-please dept

We pointed to some of JK Rowling's questionable testimony in the case against a publisher of a guide book to the Harry Potter universe -- where she made a bunch of emotional claims that had little to do with copyright. In wrapping up the case, she again made contradictory claims, backing away from earlier claims of the book being "wholesale theft" to saying that she wasn't so against the book if it only didn't quote so much of the book. But the much odder part of the case was the closing testimony from the lawyer representing Warner Brothers (who owns the Harry Potter IP rights), claiming that the real harm was that the Harry Potter Lexicon gives away spoilers and that people might say: "You know what? I guess I don't really need the rest of the Harry Potter books because I just read the big giveaways." First of all, that seems unlikely -- but more importantly, giving away spoilers is not copyright infringement. Once again, it seems like WB/Rowling keep appealing to emotional arguments rather than anything having to do with the actual law.

Filed Under: copyright, guidebook, harry potter, harry potter lexicon, j.k. rowling
Companies: warner brothers

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.

Filed Under: copyright, guidebook, harry potter, harry potter lexicon, j.k. rowling

Canadian Folk Band Wants Harry Potter DVDs, CDs, Games Destroyed Due To Similar Name

from the oh-come-on dept

With all the attention the Streisand Effect is getting these days, don't be surprised when we see more people trying to use it on purpose to their own advantage. Witness the story sent in by reader Jon R, where a Canadian folk singing group is suing Warner Bros. Studios, demanding that all Harry Potter DVDs, CDs and video games that mentioned "The Weird Sisters" be destroyed. Why? Because the folk group has a name similar, but not the same as "The Weird Sisters." It seems like such a blatant "lawsuit for the sake of publicity" that we won't even bother to name the actual folk group's name. The band isn't suggesting that the Harry Potter stories are riding on its fame (which would be the normal trademark claim), but is saying that because they're such an unknown act, people will think they ripped the name off from Harry Potter: "Consumers will assume that the smaller and less famous Canadian band is trying to take advantage of the Harry Potter fame." Actually, my guess is that they'll think that a lot more for this bogus lawsuit than for having a different, but similar, name. Warner Bros., for its part, notes that the folk group filed a similar suit before, and was told to pay $140,000, which it has not.

Filed Under: harry potter, streisand effect, the weird sisters, trademark
Companies: warner brothers studios

Why J.K. Rowling Shouldn't Get To Prevent Harry Potter Guidebook Publication

from the copyright-doesn't-let-you-control-everything dept

We've covered in the past J.K. Rowling's attempts to claim that copyright gives her more rights than it actually does, especially with regards to fan fiction. However, Rowling's latest attempt is to try to prevent the publication of "The Harry Potter Lexicon," a fan-created reference book to all things having to do with the world found in the Harry Potter books. Law professor Tim Wu does a nice job explaining why Rowling's claim goes beyond the limitations of copyright law, which does not prevent someone else from creating a guidebook of information about characters you created. As long as the guidebook creators are not copying Rowling's words verbatim, but are merely creating a guide or a critique of Rowling's work, it's not a copyright issue. Rowling's real problem with the guidebook appears to be a different issue. She had no problem when the Lexicon was just a fan website. However, when they wanted to sell a book, she became upset. So the real problem appears to be that she doesn't want anyone else to make any money -- but that's not what copyright law is designed to do. Newspapers make money off of books all the time by publishing reviews, and we all know that's legal. There is no difference in creating a reference book.

Rowling complains that this work will make it difficult for her to publish her own guidebook: "I cannot approve of 'companion books' or 'encyclopedias' that seek to preempt my definitive Potter reference book...." However, as Wu notes, that's silly and has nothing to do with copyright law: "two products in the same market isn't called pre-emption—the word is competition." And, generally, competition is something that we should encourage, as it drives all competitors to provide better products. If Rowling really believes she cannot compete with a fan reference guide, that's hardly the fault of the other reference guide. Given the interest in Harry Potter, it's hard to believe that an "official" reference guide given Rowling's endorsement wouldn't outsell any fan-created version.

Filed Under: copyright, fan fiction, harry potter, j.k. rowling

Harry Potter And The Doctrine Of Fair Use

from the why-do-fans-need-approval? dept

Harry Potter author JK Rowling has something of a reputation for being a bit overly aggressive when it comes to enforcing intellectual property rights around her characters -- though, years ago, we noted that she wasn't bothered by fan fiction... assuming it wasn't pornographic or for sale in China. Once again, Rowling is being quoted as saying that fan fiction is okay and can be posted on the web without fear of a visit from the mean old copyright lawyer, as long as the fan fiction makes it clear that it's not by Rowling and doesn't involve pornography or racism. However, it does seem a bit silly that people feel they need "permission" to write fan fiction. For years, fan fiction has always been a sign of just how popular a fictional world has become. It's the sort of thing that should automatically be encouraged, rather than having people waiting for the official "go ahead" that an author won't prosecute. In most cases, it seems likely that fan fiction is perfectly legal anyway -- but we now live in such an age that ridiculous copyright lawsuits are everywhere you look, and the simple act of celebrating fictional characters you like somehow requires "permission." For a law that's supposed to encourage creativity, it seems to have only encouraged legalistic thinking. What a shame.

Filed Under: fair use, harry potter, jk rowling

Potter Publisher Going After Fan Fiction In China

from the how-dare-fans-encourage-more-reading! dept

In the past we've covered various stories of how author J.K. Rowling and her publisher have been needlessly aggressive in trying to enforce copyright claims dealing with Harry Potter. Years ago, we noted that Rowling didn't seem to mind fan fiction, as long as it didn't involve "adult" themes. However, when the money starts rolling in, perhaps things change. The NY Times has an article that claims to be about copyright infringement and counterfeit Harry Potter books in China, but the details suggest it's really more about fan fiction. The article focuses almost entirely on non-authentic Harry Potter books, often written by fans, that are then sold to a Chinese market clamoring for more Harry Potter. In those cases, it's much less a copyright issue and much more of a trademark one. However, as Against Monopoly points out, this has apparently spurred greater interest in reading among kids, so of course Rowling's publishers are looking into stopping these books from being sold. You can certainly understand Rowling's worry about being wrongly associated with works that she had no part in writing... but you have to wonder if she's perhaps missing an opportunity by simply sending in the lawyers. Clearly, there's demand for these works, and it doesn't seem like the demand in any way harms the commercial possibilities for her own works. If anything, it may drive even more interest in the legitimate books. These aren't substitutes. The only reason people want these fake Harry Potter books is because they can't get enough of the real thing. So why not encourage that kind of activity to help grow even more interest in the real product?

Filed Under: copyright, fan fiction, harry potter

Potter Publisher Says Selling Legally Obtained Copy Is Illegal

from the it's-magic-lawyer-speak-for-bullying dept

The hysteria over tonight's launch of the latest Harry Potter book has been covered to death in many places, but it still amazes us how ridiculous JK Rowling and her entourage are about the way they view intellectual property surrounding the books. Rowling has said she's against putting out an eBook because it would be pirated, even though that makes almost no sense. The book gets scanned and put online anyway, meaning anyone who finds it more convenient to read an electronic copy has to get an unauthorized copy rather than paying for a legitimate copy. And, of course, even booksellers are pointing out that they're unlikely to lose a single sale over scanned versions that are found online.

However, the Potter crew is still going nuts over the secrecy of the book, claiming intellectual property rights that they don't actually have. It's no secret that there's an extensive process that the publisher makes booksellers go through to avoid an "early" leak of the books, but what happens if a legitimate copy of the book actually does get out? That's what happened when an engineer received a copy of the book earlier this week when an online bookstore accidentally shipped it out early. He quickly (and smartly) put it up on eBay where the price shot up to $250... and then, JK Rowling's lawyer demanded eBay take the auction down as infringing on its rights. What rights? That's not clear. The book is legitimate. The sale to the guy was legitimate. The bookseller may have violated an embargo from the publisher, but that's between the bookseller and the publisher -- not the guy who ended up with the book. Once the book has gone out to the guy he has every right to sell it, and JK Rowling's lawyer was wrong for demanding it be taken down and eBay was wrong in agreeing to take it down. This is simply a case where they seem to be claiming copyright privileges that simply don't exist.

Filed Under: copyright, harry potter
Companies: ebay