Tears in JK Rowling Lexicon case
p2pnet news | Movies:- US district hudge Robert Patterson jr, hearing the JK Rowling vs Steven Vander Ark Harry Potter row, thinks the opposing sides should try to settle out of court.
Rowling, now almost unimaginably wealthy but who, not so long ago, depended on social security, and Vander Ark, an out-of-work school librarian, are battling it out in a court case over the latter’s Harry Potter Lexicon, created online and which was to have been published as a hardback.
But Rowling says it infringes her copyright and the resultant trial, “has really decimated the demands of my creative work for the last month,” she testified, said the New York Times yesterday, going on she “stoically” held back tears as she, “talked about the Potter books as if they were her children”.
However, Vander Ark wasn’t able to follow her example, says the Age.
This time, “it was the fan-turned-author accused of plagiarism who broke down in the witness box,” says the story, going on:
“Mr Vander Ark said his Potter involvement had been an important part of his life for the past nine years. He had only wanted to celebrate Ms Rowling’s achievement in creating a rich and magical world and had sought to create a reference guide for readers.”
Meanwhile, lawyers for both sides have, “settled some sections of the suit, but appear to be resolved to continue the litigation,” says the Canadian Press, continuing:
“Lawyers for the British writer and Warner Bros., which holds intellectual property rights to the Potter books and films, rested their case Wednesday morning, saying they believed they had proven that ‘The Harry Potter Lexicon’ took too much copyrighted material from Rowling’s work.
“The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Dale Margaret Cendali, said she still planned to call Rowling to the stand for a second time later in the trial to rebut testimony offered by the defendant, RDR Books.”
Vander Ark’s publisher, RDR Books, “solicited testimony from publishing consultant Bruce Harris, who said the book was likely to sell only a few thousand copies to dedicated Potter fans and presented no threat to Rowling’s sales,” adds the story.
infringes her copyright – JK Rowling ‘all but paralyzed’ by stress, April 15, 2008
New York Times – Rowling Testifies Against Lexicon Author, April 15, 2008
Age – Author concedes Potter fans put hex on Lexicon, April 17, 2008
Canadian Press – Judge urges settlement in lawsuit over ‘Harry Potter’ lexicon, April 16, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
This is why you should not buy JK Rowling’s books, but download them instead. If she were still on social security, this BS would not happen.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Greed knows no limits, it seems. I have ZERO sympathy for her…it is a derivative work and she completely endorsed it and used it herself while online. The medium SHOULD NOT MATTER and she had no problem with it being “published” online when it was free, but boy, when someone else is going to make money from it, how things change! I find her boorish and disengenuous to say the least.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
As childish as I feel this litigation is, I must concur with JK Rowling.
Whether she is rich not or not, that is not the point. What is the point, is that she created the characters in her stories, and thus she should have a say in what happens to derivative works.
While I must stress the fact that this litigation is a terrible publicity decision, it still is in her right to block a publication based on her work, that does not benefit her monetarily.
This probably would not have been a problem, if the book had come out in the middle of the series, but now that the Harry Potter series has finished, this type of book may have the possibility of killing the sales of a book she planned to release, at a later date.
Remember, if your main source of income is based on a single series (that has finished), you are are fight any potential threats (especially if you have experienced poverty).
Just my two cents
April 16th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I agree, this is J.k. Rowlings work; but on the other hand, this is an encyclopaedia made from *reading* her books.. so, on one hand, I agree that she has copy/wrong; on the other hand, I am inclined to think of this instance as derivative…
-> I have this thing that I wrote, online, that no-one has a problem with. I want to put it on paper, and now I am getting sued?!
April 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
JK said it herself that she used to read the lexicon when it was on the web. She is filthy stinking rich. So why exactly does she have a problem with it? If she hadn’t tried this stunt, loads of people would have bought the book she was “planning” to make even if the lexicon was sold. Now she’s just getting negative publicity. This woman just can’t get enough of her money.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Online for free is one thing.
Published for profit is another thing entirely.
She has every right to claim dibs on the publishing of a Potter Facts Encyclopedia. After spending so much time brainstorming the ideas that went into her books, I understand her connection to the fantasy world she created is an intimate part of her life.
It makes me laugh that people who work hard and are able to become rich by their talent are suddenly “filthy stinking rich scumbags”, and become objects of distain.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:09 am
She didn’t become a “filthy stinking rich scumbag” until she was exposed as a hypocritical billionaire whom only seems to care about the money she will be losing to a non-billionaire. If it was acceptable on a web page with a potentially massive audience, it should be acceptable, as a published book with a much smaller audience.
I’m not sure where the law will land on this but I know where common sense and morality stand.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:11 am
According to wikipedia: “Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.”
An encyclopedia by definition is supposed to be written by “content experts” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia)
Since this person is neither a recognized expert in the field of Harry Potter (by his own admission much of the work on his site that went into his book was user generated); nor is he using it for “scholarship or review.” I don’t see how this can be an infringement on fair use, or even be considered of high enough quality to be considered a reliable encyclopedia.
Following logic and common sense, if it’s not yours why can you make money off of it?
Liam
April 17th, 2008 at 9:01 am
” Since this person is neither a recognized expert in the field of Harry Potter ”
Expert enough to have Rowling herself use the site as a reference.
” by his own admission much of the work on his site that went into his book was user generated); ”
So, it’s not ‘hers’ per se either ,then .. is it ?
” nor is he using it for “scholarship or review.” ”
So, what else then is it used for ?
Rowling herself uses it for review.
Grasping at minutae, it appears.
” An encyclopedia by definition is supposed to be written by “content experts” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia) ”
It would appear that he is quite an expert, second to Rowling herself.
Who defines ‘expert’ ?
Who decides whats ‘legitimate’ ?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:28 am
“Expert enough to have Rowling herself use the site as a reference.”
How does user generated content posted on a website make him an expert?
“So, it’s not ‘hers’ per se either ,then .. is it ?”
Exactly, but are those users trying to make a profit by copyrighting? NO – YAY fair use.
If they wanted to make a profit off it by printing it out and selling it, she’d have every right to pursue them as well as him.
“Rowling herself uses it for review.”
Review, in the context of the Wikipedia definition provided, is supposed to mean “to have criticism or to summarize” the material. Your attempt to play on words isn’t going to make the statement wrong. An in depth analysis of the books isn’t a review or summary. See the difference?
As to her using it herself… while that adds some credibility to the areas shes used, that doesn’t give blanket credibility to everything on the site… Also obvious.
“It would appear that he is quite an expert, second to Rowling herself.”
Where is that coming from? Him indexing other peoples content makes him an expert? Is the creator of google now an expert in everything they’ve indexed? Didn’t think so.
“Who defines ‘expert’ ?”
The person who creates the material would be the expert… again, obvious.
“Who decides whats ‘legitimate’ ?”
The person who owns the copyright would decide who’s legitimate, who else?
Wow, good effort on trying to disprove the points, but logic and facts will win against people playing on words every time. If you are going to have a debate, please use facts and logic, not stupidity.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:05 am
” Wow, good effort on trying to disprove the points, but logic and facts will win against people playing on words every time. If you are going to have a debate, please use facts and logic, not stupidity. ”
I don’t see anyone on this page using ad-hominem attacks against you Liam.
Stooping to that really does nothing for anyones credibility.
Personally ..
I am not inclined to jump on the rowling ‘pity wagon’ .
I see the ramifications for her victory as pretty far reaching, in a negative sense much
the same way a REAL RIAA victory would destroy incentive for derivative and competitive
works.
” Who defines ‘expert’ ?”
The person who creates the material would be the expert… again, obvious. ”
I don’t see this as necessarily fact, or obvious.
Others may not either. Your opinion, duly noted.
” Who decides whats ‘legitimate’ ?”
The person who owns the copyright would decide who’s legitimate, who else? ”
Not necessarily obvious or fact, though many would share your opinion.
” Wow, good effort on trying to disprove the points, but logic and facts will win against people playing on words every time. ”
Also, not necessarily true.
If this were true, RIAA lawyers would be soon out of work.
Rowlings efforts, in my OPINION, appear to be made of the same stuff as the RIAA
suits.
A way to stifle innovation and competition, with greed as the primary motive.
I don’t see Rowling losing anything at all if she actually puts out a lexicon of her own.
Fans will, as usual, go out in droves to have an ‘Official’ lexicon. It will still make a bundle.
Since she herself says that all the proceeds are to go to a charity, she obviously is not
in danger of going broke.
True, just because she is wealthy doesn’t mean she has no more rights, but it also
doesn’t give her rights to uproot possible legal competition. It is certainly not ‘obvious’
to all that such a published lexicon is illegal, though OPINIONS will vary.
There are a LOT of unofficial, unauthorized lexicons on many subjects, subjects which
include materials that are copyrighted by others. A decision in her favor would outlaw
any such endeavor, which is not necessarily in the spirit of copyright law.
Avoid name calling, it almost makes you sound American.
Even us Americans are sick of it.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Just to make my opinion clear, while I don’t agree with the long term implications of her potential win, for now, to have an orderly society, you need to live by that society’s laws. If all these people spent their time attacking the inept laws that bring about these problems, rather than bitching at things as they happen, something might actually get done about it. It’s laziness in my opinion because it’s much easier to bitch than to do something about it. (I think we’ve all been guilty of this at some point, including myself).
As of recent (8 years or so) I’m not that proud to be an American either.
I do have to DISAGREE when you say that the actions taken by Rowling are meant to stifle innovation with greed as a primary motive (although I would agree that they ARE MEANT TO STIFLE COMPETITION) If she were making money then that would be an easy statement, but since the profits are going toward charity, you can’t really say greed is a motive. I hope we can agree on that.
I would hate to have any precedent set that would stifle anyone’s innovation. However taking her words and thoughts and adding no new information, and not taking information from anywhere else, then indexing it, isn’t innovation. It’s copying and organizing it in a different way. In other words, copyrighting. If he were to add his own thoughts and musings, or to make inferences into the plot, then it would be a derivative work. Without additional information being added, you are just copying.
If I have made a mistake in logic, please feel free to point it out. I’m not here to argue, I’m here to debate. As long as the person I’m debating with is willing to have a change of opinion, so will I.
Looking forward to your reply,
Liam
P.S. Oh yeah, my opinion is already biased seeing as how I work in the book publishing industry. I will try to keep my opinions subjective, but you should keep that in mind while chatting with me!
April 17th, 2008 at 10:55 am
If quitters never win, and winners never quit, than who is the fool who said, “Quit while you’re ahead”?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Her arguments sound a lot like the RIAA lost sale arguments.
They have the same merit as well.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Baltasar Gracian
” Quit while you’re ahead. All the best gamblers do. “
April 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
The above comment listed as “Liam” was not by me.
My response to Dreddsnik apparently was deleted and I’m not taking the 1/2 hour to rewrite it. Suffice to say:
- You can’t be greedy if your motive is to give money away to those in need.
- It’s not innovative what he’s doing. He’s taking information and rearranging/indexing it. Which is copyrighting. If he were to add his own insights and thoughts and inferences and include that in his encyclopedia, then it would be a derivative work and fall under fair use. It’s just copying and pasting information, that’s illegal. If you don’t like it change the laws, don’t bitch at those enforcing them.
- I agree she is stifling competition on some level, but because she never sued the other books about harry potter which are derivative and not just copies (and there are many of them) I don’t think we can say she’s trying to stifle all competition surrounding Harry Potter
- It’s publishing not the RIAA. It’s not like J.K. has been paying lobbyists to change copyright law to make her more money, nor is she an old dinosaur who hates her customers.
- Personally I don’t believe she’d lose money if it were published, but the debate/lawsuit isn’t about whether or not she’d lose money, it’s about fair use, so I’ll try to stick to that subject when addressing this issue.
Looking forward to everyone’s reply, I’ll keep an open mind as long as you do,
Liam Jewell
April 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
^^ Nothing has been deleted, Liam.
Cheers!
Jon
April 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Sry, what I meant is that it was marked as spam
April 17th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Tried twice,
Lengthy replies.
Got ‘pressed’
Gave up for now.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Is the work derivative or not. It certainly doesn’t sound derivative, unless you think the comment about Hagrid fitting in a McDonald’s booth helps, perhaps. But we all have the handicap thet we haven’t read the material. Some of te commentaries suggest te publisher has conceeded there is no new content, only a compendium.
Personally I hope Rowlings loses as I guess I’d like to see more rather than less competition. When her own books were published it was little bity Scholastic who published (here in the US, I believe it was another publisher overseas), but the big guns turned it down.
Who’s to say this little publisher won’t have a big hit on it’s hands with the “Unauthorized Lexicon” & I doubt she’ll lose any sales of hers just because this one is out there.
As far as giving profits to charity. Profits can be toyed with or the decision changed. That doesn’t go to the heart of the mater anyway.
my 2 cents mom of 5
April 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Dreddsnik, if you email Jon and let him know, he will try to go back and post the comment that was listed as spam. That’s what I did to get the latest 2 larger posts to show up.
Hope that helps!
Liam
November 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html
October 13th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
A fair trial would also ask respectfully if JK Rowling, under “jus divinum” could try something different, as all humans do, to find out new things about herself. It allows an individual to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and reach for a broader range of experience, self-awareness, and groundedness in daily life. Keep in mind her books are ‘fantasy’ books. We should all be allowed to perceive that honor, trust and fairness are not equivilant to compassion, tenderness, and love. So without cooperation and negotiation, a strong adherence to the rules, standards, and higher principles keeps her and those around her imprisoned. True understanding embraces the possibility of changing the world just by changing our attitude.