Potter author Rowling wins court case
p2pnet news | Movies:- If Harry Potter author HJK Rowling loses her copyright case against Steven Jan Vander Ark, whom she and Warner Bros are suing, “the floodgates will open,” and, “writers everywhere will lose control of their material,” the New York Times had her saying as her case wound to its end.
The result may be in doubt in this instance, but it isn’t in another lawsuit she’s waging, this time against photo agency Big Pictures which’d, “breached Rowling’s son’s right to privacy and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights, when it took long lens photographs of her son being pushed in a buggy in Edinburgh in November 2004 when he was 18 months old,” says the Guardian.
Rowling brought the case under her married name, Joanne Murray, together with her husband, Neil, on behalf of their son, David, now five, says the story, going on:
“The appeal judges ordered that there should be a trial to decide the matter unless a settlement with Big Pictures could be reached.
“In August last year, when Rowling lost her original privacy claim at the high court, the judge argued that the law did not allow people ‘to carve out a press-free zone for their children’.”
Harry Potter Lexicon
In the US, US district judge Robert Patterson jr held out similar hopes for a settlement and for a while, it looked as though a little magic might have been worked between Harry Potter author JK Rowling and
“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,” p2pnet said, going on:
“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, “stoically” holding back tears as she, “talked about the Potter books as if they were her children”.
Not at all incidentally, Patterson wondered if it might not be best agreed out of court, saying he loves literature and his father had been a fan of Shakespearean tragedy, “but he reminded the parties that in Bleak House, the character Miss Flite faithfully attends every day of the trial and finally dies in her little attic,” according to the NYT
His point?
“Litigation isn’t always the best way to solve things.”
However, the story goes on, the judge’s efforts to bring about a happy ending weren’t supported by Rowling’s lawyer, Dale M Cendali, who, “concentrated on marketing, saying the guide could hurt Rowling’s ability to sell books and Warner Brothers’ interest in marketing movies and merchandise related to Harry Potter.”
If the guide were published, adds the story, Cendali envisioned readers saying, “You know what? I guess I don’t really need the rest of the Harry Potter books because I just read the big giveaways.”
Stay tuned.
(Thanks, Liam)
.
.Stumble It!
New York Times – Trial Over Potter Lexicon Ends With an Olive Branch, April 17, 2008
Guardian – Rowling wins the right to privacy trial, May 7, 2008
p2pnet – Tears in JK Rowling Lexicon case, 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.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
You know what? I guess I don’t really need the rest of the Harry Potter books because I just read the big giveaways.”
This is BS.
You don’t just read a book to know what will hapen next but for the story itself.
If it was not true nobody would ever read a book twice.
What is in the story apply only when the book is new but very quikly everyone know about what’s hapen in the books. All the harry potter books are out now so the mystery is gone.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“You know what? I guess I don’t really need the rest of the Harry Potter books because I just read the big giveaways.”
He’s got a point. I mean you certainly can’t read the big giveaways now anywhere. The movies aren’t based on books or anything like that.
One of the stupider quotes I’ve read.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Looks like it’s time to ban Wikipedia. Oh wait, I still wouldn’t have read the seventh book.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I am glad she won this case. I think she has justification for authoring and profiting from a Harry Potter encyclopedia.
I am not a big Harry Potter book fan, in fact, I haven’t ever read a single one of the books. I may someday.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“I think she has justification for authoring and profiting from a Harry Potter encyclopedia.”
That’s not the question. She’s perfectly able to do so, and is going to, it appears. The question is whether or not this guy can author and profit from something of the same sort.
Now, to be fair, I’ve heard some speculation that this guy’s book is basically just a lot of strung-together quotes from the books that make up his entries. Anybody know if that’s the case?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
So funny, first words out of my mouth were BS.
How could they make this claim. People and their greed.
This book is the same as the guides that have been printed for years and years. No one was suing then. Greed! Thats all it is. The industry and it’s cronies want to control everything.
This guys a teacher who has a love for the Potter books and they sue him?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“The question is whether or not this guy can author and profit from something of the same sort.”
It’s her work, she should profit from it, not others.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Well there goes my whole theory of how people would be grateful for what they had if it were taken away.
She knows what its like to be poor, and now she does this… what a whore!
I stopped reading them after the 4th… super-gay books anyways, but that’s besides the point.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
[quote]I am glad she won this case. I think she has justification for authoring and profiting from a Harry Potter encyclopedia.[/quote]
Try Reading the article, it does not state she won the case you refer to.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
It wasn’t that long ago that witchcraft was illegal and before that they were condemned to death, or at least those suspected. Now it’s not only legal apparently, but can be freely promoted everywhere, especially to young children who are the future.
The dark forces she so deceptively promotes obviously tutored her and helped the popularity of these books, so why should all the credit go to her anyway?
It can only be a good thing to keep her from writing for as long as possible. The harm incurred by her through evil propaganda is immeasurable.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
So it’s legal for anyone to photograph our children without permission then?
May 8th, 2008 at 1:55 am
This is pathetic. I gave up on Rowling when I saw that this series was being far-too commercialized. I’ll admit, the Philosopher’s Stone was good when I was younger, but now, it’s just another piece of candy for the masses that gives me a case of metaphorical diarrhea.
I hope she loses the case with the Lexicon, because she’s made enough —-ing money off of this series, and, in all honesty, she would be getting a share of the money, no? I do believe Stephen King put out a similar item for his Dark Tower series, and I believe it sold -very- well.
On another note, if anyone recalls the situation about someone getting an early copy of one of her books that caused this whole fiasco where he ended up being unable to read it!!! Computers, literature, and music are slowly heading towards 1984, folks! Prepare yourself for a metaphorical figure-head such as Big Brother!
January 1st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
The dark forces she so deceptively promotes obviously tutored her and helped the popularity of these books, so why should all the credit go to her anyway?