Want a good laugh this morning? Check out (http://hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2008-04-20.shtml) what Orson Scott Card, best known for his Hugo-award winning novel Ender's Game, has to say about J.K. Rowling and her latest copyright suit against the Harry Potter Lexicon (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/).

People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch. [...] Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.

Read his full commentary, you won't be disappointed. So, if author J.K. Rowling and publisher Warner Brothers were successful in suing a middle-school librarian, who provided a reference guide to one of the most successful children books, over copyright infringement, would this make all fan guides illegal? What do you think?

Related Link: Archive of the official complaint (http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/)

[via Pat's Fantasy Hotlist (http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2008/05/orson-scott-cards-take-on-j-k-rowlings.html)]

Personally I think that Ms. Rowling is 100% in the right, here. Using someone else's characters without their permission - what copyright law calls "creating a derived work" - is unquestionably a breach of copyright. I honestly don't see what Mr. Card is objecting to.

Have to agree with Cards comments that someone has been feeding her ego a bit too much.

And while I am not so confident of the result he has forcasted (Never am, with the way the legal system seems to work at times.), It does leave a bad tase in my mouth.

Personally, I could barely stand to read the books after the 4th one in the series, and in case of the last 2, just skim read them.

What seems to be the disturbing trend trend here is that due to the commercialisation of the industry, there is an eagerness to take legal action in the name of "protection of the I.P." for things that have been well established as fair use.

And while in this case it did go to court, It does make you wonder how may people whould have just considered giving in. Somthing to think about.

Personally I think that Ms. Rowling is 100% in the right, here. Using someone else's characters without their permission - what copyright law calls "creating a derived work" - is unquestionably a breach of copyright. I honestly don't see what Mr. Card is objecting to.

A fan guide is hardly a derivative work. A derivative work would be a fan fiction based on the Harry Potter world (which Ms. Rowling allowed recently).

A fan guide is hardly a derivative work. A derivative work would be a fan fiction based on the Harry Potter world (which Ms. Rowling allowed recently).

Of course it's a derivative work! Copyright law allows limited quoting from a work for purposes of literary criticism, etc, but this hardly constitutes that.

Besides which, this is not a "fan guide", distributed free on the internet. It's a commercial publication. This is just a guy who's cynically trying to make money from Ms. Rowling's work.

Of course it's a derivative work! Copyright law allows limited quoting from a work for purposes of literary criticism, etc, but this hardly constitutes that.

It's a lexicon, not a collection of quotes. Just because it includes the names of characters and places from Harry Potter doesn't mean that it's a derivative.

Besides which, this is not a "fan guide", distributed free on the internet. It's a commercial publication.

Implying what? That a fan guide cannot be used commercially?

Personally I think that Ms. Rowling is 100% in the right, here. Using someone else's characters without their permission - what copyright law calls "creating a derived work" - is unquestionably a breach of copyright. I honestly don't see what Mr. Card is objecting to.

But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.

That, in essence, is what he is objecting to, and quite rightly so. IANAL, but as far as I can see, her copyright infringement claims have absolutely no basis in anything approaching reality. Her trademark infringement claims are probably another matter.

The other matter (the whole hypocrisy bit) is that whether it's a commercial publication or a fan guide on the net is of absolutely no relevance when it comes to copyright. As such, she should have sent a C&D to the web site in 2004 or whenever it was she learned of its existence, and not now, especially after having awarded the site before and having gone on public record as finding it useful herself.

Implying what? That a fan guide cannot be used commercially?

What I mean is that while an author may be willing to "turn a blind eye" to a web site created by a fan for the benefit of other fans (as is often done in the case of "fan fiction", for example), if the same work is published by a commercial publisher for profit it becomes rather a different situation.

There are trademarks involved here as well as copyright. If the owner of a trademark fails to protect it, that can be used later as evidence of the fact that the owner isn't really bothered, and the trademark protection can be lost. That's exactly what happened to trademarks like "aspirin" in the USA - the trademark holder failed to take someone to court who marketed their own make of acetylsalicylic acid (that's what aspirin is) under the name "aspirin", and the trademark holder lost the rights to the name as a result.

ie, Ms. Rowling has to fight this.

I am not an expert on trademark laws. So, you may be right that she has to fight it. Whether she'll win is another story. I simply don't know.

From her recent testimony (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/nyregion/15rowling.html?pagewanted=all):

The lead defense lawyer, David Hammer, was not impressed with her literary critique of the work.

“Have you ever read a dictionary, Miss Rowling?” Mr. Hammer demanded. Alphabetical order, he continued, “is what the Encyclopedia Britannica uses, isn’t that true?”

To which Ms. Rowling retorted: “What are you accessing in these A-to-Z’s? Aren’t you being suckered out of your hard-earned cash?”

“You feel it’s your responsibility to prevent people from paying their hard-earned cash for things you don’t like?” Mr. Hammer asked.

“Absolutely not,” Ms. Rowling replied. “This is theft. This is wholesale theft.”

It was the ultimate irony, Mr. Rapoport’s lawyer said, that the same Web site that Ms. Rowling was now denigrating was one that she had admitted using herself a time or two to check facts.

hmmm, suddenly i feel al little less guilty for reading all Harry Potters on my Iliad.....

Of course it's a derivative work!
Sorry Harry, but in this discussion I have to stand on the side of Mr. Card.
Just have a look at this marvelous quote.

Well, heck, I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling.

A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world.

BRAVO Mr. Card. BRAVISSIMO.
Touche!!!

You know Harry, Mrs. Rowling was not *that* original in her work. I very much hope she is sued repeatedly for "plagiatorizm", "stealing of ideas", "copyright infringement", and "Intelectual Property Rights Violation" by anyone and everyone that described a wizard in a pointy hat, or a witch flying on the broom, or a magician wielding a magic wand in his/her books. And I very much hope that heirs of Mr. Rudyard Kipling for setting her story in a British public school.

You see, I am against authors being deprived of their hard earned income, and the Harry Potter Lexicon seems to be bordering that (or perhaps even crossing the border), yet I feel that Mrs. Rowling *is* being a hypocrite here.
It is very much like Disney taking public domain fairy tale - Cinderella and making a cartoon and then suing aggressively anyone that dares to mention the Cinderella character or use a generic drawing of the young lady in a long white dress.

Besides, If I could choose a between a new book from Mr. Card and a new book from Mrs. Rowling, Mr. Card would win hands down. ;-)

Yes, I have read the article.

To repeat, I believe that Ms. Rowling has to fight this case to protect her trademarks. She really has no choice but to do so, regardless of the "rights" or "wrongs" of the situation. That's just what you have to do in trademark violation cases. Even if she loses the case, she will still have acted to defend the trademarks, and that's the important thing.

In what way do Ms. Rowling's books "deprive anyone of their income"? Your logic escapes me there, I'm afraid.

In what way do Ms. Rowling's books "deprive anyone of their income"? Your logic escapes me there, I'm afraid.

I think kacir was referring to the complainant's argument that the lexicon could deprive of Rowling's income.

In what way do Ms. Rowling's books "deprive anyone of their income"? Your logic escapes me there, I'm afraid.
I was saying that the Lexicon deprives Mrs. Rowling of her income. Well, perhaps not direct income, but the lexicon does seem to be quoting too excessively.
In other words I was in agreement with you.
I still think that Mrs Rowling is hypocrite here.

Yet, I found the bit I was quoting extremely hilarious. And yes, I do realize that his answer is sarcastic or sardonic. Well, I *do hope* OSC was sarcastic and he is not going to sue JKR over those "similarities" ;-)

Thanks for clarifying that!

Poor J.K. Rowling. The law is making her sue. Obviously she is also just a victim of how the law works.

I'm guessing it will become all the more painfull for her, because she will probably win this one as well. And rightly so. She was thinking of making a lexicon herself, which will obviously sell less if there is another lexicon available. And thus they should pay poor Rowling a lot of money as compensation for stealing from her. I think they could calculate the millions of lexicons Rowling would not sell because of this lexicon and multiply that by 20 dollar to come to a fair compensation for the "lost sales" that they were trying to steal from her.

Want a good laugh this morning? Check out (http://hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2008-04-20.shtml) what Orson Scott Card, best known for his Hugo-award winning novel Ender's Game, has to say about J.K. Rowling and her latest copyright suit against the Harry Potter Lexicon (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/).



Read his full commentary, you won't be disappointed. So, if author J.K. Rowling and publisher Warner Brothers were successful in suing a middle-school librarian, who provided a reference guide to one of the most successful children books, over copyright infringement, would this make all fan guides illegal? What do you think?

Related Link: Archive of the official complaint (http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/)

[via Pat's Fantasy Hotlist (http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2008/05/orson-scott-cards-take-on-j-k-rowlings.html)]


"revisit Oz?

As in:

http://lustrousrealm.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/op480-3.jpg

Boy,he must realy hate her.

and yeah,she's kinda full of herself.

I can't say what exactly the legal situation is here, but I think it is ridiculous to sue somebody for creating a Lexicon...come on...in my opinion this is not stealing adn won't hurt the HP bnooks at all, if anything it will increase sales because there will be one more book on the market that carries Harry Potter in it's name, thus increasing the chance of somebody actually going out and buying the original 7 books.
If somebody had written a story that get's pretty close to her own, uses some of the names from her books or has other suspicious similarities I would support her POV, but a lexicon is completely different, at least imho...

If I understood this correctly, this is not about somebody stealing ideas or copying a tale but of creating an "Index" of the Harry Potter books for people to look up facts...
There is only one reason why I could imagine anyone going against that, and that is because that person wanted to write such an index themselves and sell it and now sees danger for the profits of that endeavour...so let's just say it out loud.-..the motif is...GREED!!!

JK Rowling started from nothing and wrote some good books (the last two were rather weak in my opinion, but that is a different matter entirely). She earned a fortune (good for her) and then somehow can't cope with all the fame, starting to lash out at people because of "copyright infringements" where there probably are none and also the whole ebook thing...not the last bit of strangeness surrounding Mrs. Rowling...I think it is about time she pulled out of the whole writing business, took her millions and ived happily ever after as a wife and mother somewhere...would be better for all involved, because the way I see it, this is all going to end in tears.
I've read a lot of fantasy, and I could probably find a few dozen "Copyright and Trademark infringements" commited by Mrs. Rowling...it's all a matter of looking at it the right way...and that's just in the books I've read so far, everybody knows how many Fantasy Novels are available out there...

I think kacir was referring to the complainant's argument that the lexicon could deprive of Rowling's income.

My understand is that Rowling wants to write and sell a lexicon of her own. The income is future income.

Dale

<snip>Besides which, this is not a "fan guide", distributed free on the internet. It's a commercial publication. This is just a guy who's cynically trying to make money from Ms. Rowling's work.

I have to beg to differ here. I wouldn't call this a cynical effort to make money from Ms. Rowling's work. It's a relatively scholarly effort that points out where she derived some of "her work." I think it would be great for her pre-teen audience to learn that she didn't invent the Philosopher's (Sorcerer's) Stone, a three-headed guard dog, a serpent with a poisonous glare, etc. It may very well be that Mr. Vander Ark is relying too heavily on her specific descriptions, but not having seen the book, I can only assume that this is for the purpose of comparing and contrasting her descriptions with those of Classical mythology (her basilisk does deviate from the "classical" model). In addition, a "Latinate translation" of the names of her spells would be a very handy tool for a young scholar.

I think it would be great for her pre-teen audience to learn that she didn't invent the Philosopher's (Sorcerer's) Stone, a three-headed guard dog, a serpent with a poisonous glare, etc.

I completely agree with that. The issue appears to be that he may have used Ms. Rowling's trademarks without permission in doing so, and you can't do that regardless of how useful the work might be!

Everyone's entitled to the protection of the law, regardless of how "rich and famous" they might be. The fact that a wealthy person is taking an "ordinary" person to court doesn't automatically mean that the wealthy person is in the wrong.

Let's wait and see what the court decides.

hmm-I don't think alot of people got my remark.

She's not doing it for "deprived income," she's doing it because 80 - 90 per cent of the book is direct quotes or passages from the series. She's not getting any money for her new book anyway, it's already been slated to go to charity, just like her other harry potter side books. it sucks that this had to go to court, but she's not money-grubbing.

im talking about the series of handwriten "fairy tales" she's selling for those outrageous prices.

im talking about the series of handwriten "fairy tales" she's selling for those outrageous prices.

She's not "selling" them. She wrote 7 copies, gave 6 away to people who had been closely working with her over the series' life (presumably people like her agent) and auctioned one copy off (the one which Amazon bought) with all the proceeds of the auction going to a very worthwhile childrens' charity.

I know that-the auction itself,how much did it even "earn" ?

hmm-I don't think alot of people got my remark.Some folks may be Ignoring you, lobolover. :shrug:

im talking about the series of handwriten "fairy tales" she's selling for those outrageous prices.She wrote seven copies, gave most of them away and only sold one, then she gave proceeds from that sale to charity.

Regardless of what other things she may or may not have done out of greed, it seems brutally clear to me that this action is not greed motivated. :unafraid:

I will admit that I'm a bit annoyed that I can't read those stories, but I don't imagine that I have some sort of right to do so, either. :shrug:

£1.95m - a little under US$4m.

natch-I meant that they wouldn't understand what I meant.

and what I MEANT was that why not give some of her own money then earn more to give away?

natch-I meant that they wouldn't understand what I meant.I realized that.


and what I MEANT was that why not give some of her own money then earn more to give away?I believe I'll decline to find fault with the way other people give money to charity: I've been trying for over twenty years to fight my own tendency toward rampant arrogance, and that just seems like a step in the wrong direction to me. :shrug:

it's just-she has more money then the queen,but she doesn't touch a penny from it to give to charity,making MORE money so that she will not have to spend.Compared to her fortune,that donation is also not wery big.I think all the popularity wasn't a good idea.

Ms. Rowling has given a number of items to charity auctions in the past, and they've previously sold for a maximum of a few £10,000. This book was expected to go for £40,000 max - I suspect that nobody was more surprised than she when it attracted fierce bidding between six very determined bidders and finished up going for that price.

I strongly suspect, too, that writing a book by hand involved considerably more work on her part than telling her accountant to give £x to charity. She is to be applauded for her charity work, IMHO.

it's just-she has more money then the queen,but she doesn't touch a penny from it to give to charity,making MORE money so that she will not have to spend.Compared to her fortune,that donation is also not wery big.I think all the popularity wasn't a good idea.I don't have visibility of her total charitable donations, and meaning no disrespect, I rather doubt you do either.

For all any of us knows, she could be giving half of her annual income to charities and simply not bragging about it.

I'm not saying I really believe that she is doing that, I'm trying to point out that we don't know and I think it's rather poor form to berate her for what we assume that she is or isn't doing.

Ive seen people "playing" quiditch in real life.Honestly,there's wery litle that can surprise me,in coneciton with HP fandom.

Personally I think that Ms. Rowling is 100% in the right, here.

Yeah, there's a big surprise! :rolleyes:

Quote from J.K.R on her website:

"From what I understand, the proposed book is not criticism or review of Harry Potter's world, which would be entirely legitimate -- neither I nor anybody connected with Harry Potter has ever tried to prevent such works being published. It is, we believe, a print version of the website, except now the information that was freely available to everybody is to become a commercial enterprise."


What a Luddite the woman is, does she not realise that the Lexicon website does generate money so it is a commercial enterprise?

As far as I am aware, there is no difference in copyright law between publishing online or in print. She accepted the online content and even gave the site a fan award. Therefore, why does she object to the same content being available in print?

I don't think she's a luddite. I think when it got into print it entered the realm that she has to protect against to preserve her intellectual property rights. As a website she can still largely ignore it with no repercussions at this stage of the game. Bear in mind, this likely had nothing to do with Ms. Rowling getting a bee in her bonnet. She has expert legal counsel that manages this stuff for her.

BRAVO Mr. Card. BRAVISSIMO.
Touche!!!

Erm, no. What Mr. Card expressed is an idea for a story. That in and of itself cannot be copyrighted. What can be copyrighted is the form in which an idea is realized. That's why Card isn't able to sue Rowling for copyright infringement even though their stories are reasonably "similar" in concept.

I believe under law, a lexicon for a specific futuristic universe would be a derivative of the originator's work, especially if it were using the character's names and extensive uncited quotes from the source material.

For a quick primer on copyright, check out a fair(y) use tale. (http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2062843ef543e21d7ec8) Funny and informative!

First off, I'm guilty of not reading his post. So perhaps he knows things that I don't, but I rather doubt that. I've been tracking the specifics of the trial through news outlets, such as those from the Harry Potter fandom, the Leaky Cauldron.

The matter at hand is not that you can't create derivative works, because there are *many* books of scholarly analysis of the Harry Potter books. Please go to your local Borders and ask one of the booksellers there to help you. If they can't / don't / won't I'm sorry.

The matter at hand is that 91% (a figure from sworn testimony provided in the trial) of the book was lifted directly from the text in the books, without proper citations. If you recall in school, teachers would allow you to quote from other sources, but only if you managed to cite? This book did not provide the citations.

Offers have been made to allow the book to be published, if the author would simply rewrite the text in his own words (or provide sufficient citations) however such requests have been refused. The book was rushed to try and capitalize on the publication of the seventh Harry Potter book.

Please note that the author is not the target of the lawsuit, as his contract shields him from liability. The publisher, RDR is the defendant. J.K. Rowling has always been very supportive of the online fan community, but the fan award should not be considered authorization for plagiarism.

I read Neil Gaiman's comments on this, and it seems to be a potential grey area in copyright law. Does the work in question have enough unique effort in it to qualify as a new work? Certainly, the work to put together the lexicon is not trivial. The question is, is it enough?

I don't begrudge Rowling at all for this, because it is well within her rights. It is her franchise and in her best interests to protect it.

Jason

Perhaps she feels she's been "pipped at the post" because she wanted to produce her own A to Z (oops, sorry Map company didn't mean to infringe your trademark) even though I thought she told the whole world she wasn't going to write anything more to do with Harry Potter.

This litigation will certainly delay Mr. VanderArk's book to give her time to produce her own.

And it always irritates me that these millionaires... oops... billionaires try to earn themselves popularity by making it known that they "Donate" to charity. Considering she (allegedly) earns over £1 million every day she can well afford it. It is said she gave £22 million to Comic Relief which is admirable and must have taken her all of 3 weeks to earn it.

This business leaves a nasty taste in my mouth and, will we soon have to start writing "allegedly" in our comments for fear of being sued for expressing free speech?

Am I cynical? Well, yes I am, I have lived too long and seen too many actions that exploit people to be entirely trusting of human motives.

I am not a big fan of OS Cards at all. I think Rowling has every right to "fight" for what she believes is a legitimate claim. And Card's "ego" is every bit as big as Rowlings. As for originality how many works are the results of the same set of character circumstance's ?
Most of the major fantasy writers of the last 40 or 50 years can set claim to the same set up as both Card and Rowlings characters. Of course this is all IMHO...

@evil_bunny

good point about the missing citations...if this is true (and I must assume that it is) then I can understand what this is about...

About the Charity stuff...I must admit that I could't care less about how much (if any) some millionaire gives to charity. I can also state that, were I a billionare, I would not give a single cent to charity. The whole concept is deeply flawed in my opinion...and most of the money (and this is unfortunately a fact for most of the big charities) goes into the hands of the people managing the money anyway...the rest probably keeping the richt in the rich countries rich...

Never mind...I won't go down that road now. So, whatever Mrs- Rowling does with her money is none of my business. All I'm interested in is what truely went on here and whether it is "legal" to allow a website but forbid a printed version of that website...

I think if she allowed it apearing to a wide variety (much wider then a book can ever be) of people-is she upset she won't get money of the book,cause that's the only thing I can think of.

Does anyone really think that this fannish Lexicon will have any serious effect on the sales of a Rowling-authored HP encyclopedia?

Does anyone really think that this fannish Lexicon will have any serious effect on the sales of a Rowling-authored HP encyclopedia?

No, but that's not the point. No author can let something which so blatantly violates their copyrights and trademarks be published unchallenged. If, as has been claimed, over 90% of the text in the book constitutes material copied from the HP books, then there's no way that it counts as "fair use" under the "limited quoting for the purpose of review or criticism" condition.

I prefer to avoid speaking on how I feel about the case and that of copyright.

But, Harry, you keep talking about trademark: I may have missed something but I think you're mistaken here.

As far as I understand, trademark is mostly used to identify the origin of a product. Since the author of the book makes no claim that Rowling is the author, there's no such violation here. Copyright, maybe, but certainly not trademark.

Adaline Glasheen wrote A Census of Finnegans Wake between 1950s and 1970s, a handbook listing every single character in Joyce's monster of a masterpiece. I was so thankful to her effort when I studied Joyce in early 1990s. I couldn't have understood the book without Glasheen's work. As far as I am aware, Joyce was not in public domain till 1997. Did Joyce's estate sue her for writing this book? It only made Joyce more accessible and, indirectly, more popular. Most copy-rights fanatics are terribly short-sighted. One good turn deserves another, guess what, A Census of Finnegans Wake is available on the web. The book has had three editions and must have sold some copies, still the late author's son chose to set it free. Go on, there is no excuse for not buying and reading Finnegans Wake now:

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/JoyceColl/JoyceColl-idx?id=JoyceColl.GlasheenFinnegans

Adaline Glasheen wrote A Census of Finnegans Wake between 1950s and 1970s, a handbook listing every single character in Joyce's monster of a masterpiece. I was so thankful to her effort when I studied Joyce in early 1990s. I couldn't have understood the book without Glasheen's work. As far as I am aware, Joyce was not in public domain till 1997. Did Joyce's estate sue her for writing this book? It only made Joyce more accessible and, indirectly, more popular. Most copy-rights fanatics are terribly short-sighted. One good turn deserves another, guess what, A Census of Finnegans Wake is available on the web. The book has had three editions and must have sold some copies, still the late author's son chose to set it free. Go on, there is no excuse for not buying and reading Finnegans Wake now:

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/JoyceColl/JoyceColl-idx?id=JoyceColl.GlasheenFinnegans

I have a copy of "A Skeleton Key to Finnegans Wake" by Joseph Campbell and Henry Morton Robinson, copyright 1944. The opening of the Acknowledgements reads "We wish to thank the Viking Press for permission to paraphrase and quote from Finnegans Wake." Both Joyce's works and the Campbell book are published by Viking Press. I would certainly think you'll find something similar in Glasheen's work.

What I am thinking is that the website is free for us to use, but once it's in print, in order to get it in print, we have to pay for it. So it's now charging people for the content that only Rowling is allowed to charge for.

I would certainly think you'll find something similar in Glasheen's work.

Here's the reverse of the title page of Glasheen's third edition.

Adaline Glasheen wrote A Census of Finnegans Wake As far as I am aware, Joyce was not in public domain till 1997. Did Joyce's estate sue her for writing this book? It only made Joyce more accessible and, indirectly, more popular. Most copy-rights fanatics are terribly short-sighted.

Actually the Joyce estate, specifically his grandson Stephen, has been notorious in preventing scholars from quoting or reproducing Joyce's text. Apparently Stephen is also well known for showing at up Joyce conferences and berating scholars i.e. telling them that their work is useless, not what granddad had in mind etc. (See the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/06/19/060619fa_fact)).

I only wish Stephen had succeeded in keeping Joyce off the syllabus when I was in college. :thumbsup:

Apparently Stephen is also well known for showing at up Joyce conferences and berating scholars i.e. telling them that their work is useless, not what granddad had in mind etc.If "Grandad" had actually had something specific in mind (aside from Laudanum, or whatever his preference was) he might have tried writing Finnegans Wake in plain English rather than whatever it was written in ... Middle Gibberish, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Wow if this thread gets much longer JK will be suing MobileRead. I bet 90% of the words appear somewhere in the Harry Potter books.:D

I can understand her desire to protect her copyright and she’s within her right to do so but I agree with OSC that this is extreme.

She did managed to scare me off of publishing my erotic novel about Harry, Ron and Hermione’s college trip to visit Fleur Delacour in France. My favourite part was where the flying car broke down in Paris and they spent the night with the sorority girls of Zeta Pii Capa. After that Harry could no longer sleep in a room with a ceiling fan... just like the famous scene from “Apocalypse Now”. I stole that too.

Oh well truth be told the Annie Leibovitz cover photo of Hermione was out of my budget range.

Got to run. There’s a hockey game on don’t ya know.

I prefer to avoid speaking on how I feel about the case and that of copyright.

But, Harry, you keep talking about trademark: I may have missed something but I think you're mistaken here.

As far as I understand, trademark is mostly used to identify the origin of a product. Since the author of the book makes no claim that Rowling is the author, there's no such violation here. Copyright, maybe, but certainly not trademark.

Apparently the names of the HP "characters" as well as words like "Hogwarts", "Quidich", etc, have been registered as trademarks. It's all to do with the merchandising rights, and so on.

To repeat, I believe that Ms. Rowling has to fight this case to protect her trademarks. She really has no choice but to do so, regardless of the "rights" or "wrongs" of the situation. That's just what you have to do in trademark violation cases. Even if she loses the case, she will still have acted to defend the trademarks, and that's the important thing.

Well, yes, she has to defend any trademarks that are hers. But what trademarks are those? A quick check in the books indicates that all and any trademarks involved are the property of Warner Bros., not of J. K. Rowling.

The case includes a claim of federal trademark infringement (including colorable imitations!) -- though without identifying just what trademarks are involved -- but any damage mentioned in this context is to Warner Bros.

So Rowling has other fish to fry than trademarks.

If "Grandad" had actually had something specific in mind (aside from Laudanum, or whatever his preference was) he might have tried writing Finnegans Wake in plain English rather than whatever it was written in ... Middle Gibberish, isn't it? :rolleyes:

bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronnt uonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoo-hoodenenthurnuk!

- a single "word" from the third paragraph of Finnegan's Wake. I like it!

bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronnt uonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoo-hoodenenthurnuk!

- a single "word" from the third paragraph of Finnegan's Wake. I like it!

Are you sure it is not misspelled? How did that e get in there. :)

dale

Inspired by this thread I looked up Finnegans Wake, and I found out that it is available on the internet for (legal) download. So I have opened it, started reading ... and ... ran away screaming ;-)

I have even tried to listen to a little free example of the audiobook. <shudder>

What language is that book written in?
Is it old english, a fictional language resembling something like old english, or is it rendering of someone speaking english in a really, really thick accent?
Did anybody ever find out?

Inspired by this thread I looked up Finnegans Wake, and I found out that it is available on the internet for (legal) download. So I have opened it, started reading ... and ... ran away screaming ;-)

I have even tried to listen to a little free example of the audiobook. <shudder>

What language is that book written in?
Is it old english, a fictional language resembling something like old english, or is it rendering of someone speaking english in a really, really thick accent?
Did anybody ever find out?

It really is quite different and I haven't developed a taste for it either, yet. But it has received a lot of attention over the years and I have read that it is an important and very interesting work. I'll be reading something else for awhile, I assure you.

Hm. I'm quite familiar with the web version of the Lexicon. (In fact, an essay of mine appears in one of the other sections, not the A-Z index.) I don't think the claim that 91% of the content is quoted from the books will stand in court, sworn testimony or not. Many of the entries are for real-world place names, previously existing mythological beasts or artifacts, etc. Mentions of portions of the books are referenced by volume, and not by specific page, which is perhaps where the claim about incorrect citation comes from.

Nor do I think sales of the Lexicon would in any way impact sales of any future encyclopedia efforts Ms. Rowling would like to produce, as (by reputation) such a work would contain substantial material not revealed in the previously published books.

I like the Harry Potter series. But I think Ms. Rowling is a little bit controlling about it. I don't mean from a legal standpoint, but from an emotional one-- for example, she got very worked up when the final chapter of her book was posted online before the print date, and I don't think money was a big part of it. She seemed to need to control the book's release so that fans would have to wait for her (and her publisher's) timeline. I see this as the same sort of thing. She was fine with the Lexicon when it appeared online. There is no particular indication that the online version is going away or wouldn't continue to be freely accessible. As far as I can see, though, the work of creating the Lexicon was substantial and I have no problem with the author looking for a way to be compensated for that work.

And HarryT, she's apparently suing on the basis of copyright, not trademark, so I'm not sure your logic would hold here (though I know what you mean about the obligation to protect trademark).

(See the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/06/19/060619fa_fact)).

simonp thanks very much for posting that URL. It's a fascinating article.

I think that in the entire debacle, Rowlings is the player least motivated by financial gain.

Warner Brothers & RDR Books are clearly in it for the money - and I reckon the same goes for Vander Ark. If Vander Ark's motive truly were just adoration of HP & co, he would have sought permission from Rowling before embarking on the project of creating a commercially available lexicon - and the whole scenario would never have arisen. He might be a naive fool, but he is, without doubt, also in it for the money.

On the otherhand, Rowlings investment in the whole thing appears to be predominantly a personal (not financial) desire to maintain control of her creation.

Rowlings has more money (I persume) than anyone posting to this list, and she is certainly backward in her attitudes to e-publishing - but I don't believe she deserves to have invective hurled at her, just because she wants to have some control over a fictional world that she's worked hard to create.

I think Rowling is in the right, and I don't doubt that she will prevail. But the world will be a worse place for it anyway.

Yes, I have read the article.

To repeat, I believe that Ms. Rowling has to fight this case to protect her trademarks. She really has no choice but to do so, regardless of the "rights" or "wrongs" of the situation. That's just what you have to do in trademark violation cases. Even if she loses the case, she will still have acted to defend the trademarks, and that's the important thing.

In what way do Ms. Rowling's books "deprive anyone of their income"? Your logic escapes me there, I'm afraid.

I am sorry but nobody has to do anything and she has already made enough money on this series than most people could ever even dream of making in a lifetime. This lawsuit is frivolous and nothing short of ridiculous given the fact surrounding the case. The fact that she didn't claim such ridiculous copyright violations back when she herself was using the website makes this case an absolute joke and a waste of everyone's time.

She doesn't have a chance in hell at winning this and I only wish that people could bet on the outcome of trials as I would sink my entire retirement fund on this one. Copyright infringements, LOL. Next she is going to try and sue the reviewers of the books for using words like Hogwarts in the review.

Mr. Card has nailed this one perfectly and the hypocrisy surrounding this entire case given the massive amount of claims laid against Rowling and her work is astonishing. My only regret is that I actually purchased two of her books as gifts.

Well the good news is that this case will have nothing but a positive outcome. She will lose this case, end up having to pay money to the author and on top of that this whole thing just exposes what a b*tch this woman has become. Again Mr. Card has nailed this perfectly and she has just become a bitter person due to the massive lack of respect her series has received in literary circles.

Cant wait to see what her comments are when she loses.

Wow, all she did was write a massively successful series of books that gave many people much pleasure and made a lot of people money all the way down to people selling books and people stacking shelves. Each book sold represents a decision someone made of their own free will.

I tried the books and never finished one, not my taste but the woman deserves at least some respect for her achievements. I don't see anything she has done to deserve such abuse as she is getting here. Its not like she has invaded a country or locked members of her family in a cellar or anything.

Justified or not, I don't know, but she has the legal right to do as she has in this case. Sure the debate is interesting but hurling abuse at her is not and adds very little to the arguments and counter arguments.

She doesn't have a chance in hell at winning this and I only wish that people could bet on the outcome of trials as I would sink my entire retirement fund on this one. Copyright infringements, LOL. Next she is going to try and sue the reviewers of the books for using words like Hogwarts in the review.


I predict that you are going to lose your retirement fund. Let's wait and see.

Could someone please tell me what trademarks we are talking about? Trademarks are commercial symbols whose existence depends ultimately and everywhere on use in commerce. I thought we were discussing copyright here, and that's a very different matter.

The trademarks in question (at least in the US) are owned by Warner Brothers, and were registered about the time she sold the movie rights. Ms. Rowling doesn't own any of the trademarks in the US that I could find.

These are then the labels that will be placed on all the items derived from HP and then sold to the public (dolls, games, videos, food, etc...) They have nothing to do, so far as I can tell, with this discussion.

What language is [Finnegans Wake] written in?It's not Middle Gibberish? Old Twaddle then, perhaps?

Apparently (I learned this while earning my Marital B.S. in Victorian Literature, i.e., listening to my wife talk about earing her Ph.D. in the same -- she actually managed to read the deuced thing, and claimed to understand it, yet), it's supposed to make sense if you pay attention to the sounds of the ... letters (not to say words) and let them suggest actual words to you.

It should be noted, that the first part of the book reportedly takes place after the last part, as in, they tie right together chronologically.

Truly he must have been mixing his laudanum. :unafraid:

The trademarks in question (at least in the US) are owned by Warner Brothers, and were registered about the time she sold the movie rights. Ms. Rowling doesn't own any of the trademarks in the US that I could find.

If you look at the legal documents (there's a link in the first post in the thread) you'll see that it's Warner Bros. who filed the case. It does, however, appear to be solely a copyright case, not a trademark one, from what I've read of the document thus far.

These are then the labels that will be placed on all the items derived from HP and then sold to the public (dolls, games, videos, food, etc...) They have nothing to do, so far as I can tell, with this discussion.

They could as names can also be trademarked such as Harry Potter, not just labels. And even characters can be trademarked. Thus names that appear in a dictionary can be in conflict.

Dale

They could as names can also be trademarked such as Harry Potter, not just labels. And even characters can be trademarked. Thus names that appear in a dictionary can be in conflict.

Dale

Even faces can be trademarked. The appearance of all the original "Star Trek" characters are Paramount trademarks.

That is true, character names and book titles can be trademarked (though not copyrighted) but it would be unusual and it would look very strange too (since,in the U.S. at least, the little "r" in a circle would have to appear after each name). It's as commercial labels that these single names and logos and drawings and even sounds and colors are used. In any case, that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing originality which is the test of copyright: if it's original it's copyrightable and protectable. (Use in commerce is the test for trademarks).

I really am astounded how emotional many people are getting over this and how freely some are attributing feelings and motives to a perfect stranger. Warner Brothers sues a publisher and it's turned into J.K. Rowling being a vindictive, bitter bully victimizing a poor, hapless librarian.

The coverage of the trial in the New York press was similarly slanted. There is a whole side to this matter which I think we should bear in mind (without getting into a long discussion), and this is the question of how much copyright control should be retained and for how long? The U.S. Congress recently again voted to extend the term of copyright, thus giving existing copyright holders, even more control: this means that Disney or Fox or, yes, Warner's now can hold onto copyrights for even more time. The Rowling trial (really, the Warner's trial) should be considered in this light. The U.S. Constitution set a time limit on copyrights (and patents) and it seems to many of us here in the U.S. that that term should not be continually extended. Of course, Rowling is still alive, so this issue is not of immediate bearing, but it gives this trial a context which may make the emotional tone more understandable.

There was an extreme amount of misinformation about copyrights and trademarks in this thread. A trademark does not give you absolute control over the trademarked word or phrase as was asserted by a number of posters.

As for this book, Rowling is going to lose. Unauthorized guides to fictional universes are a dime a dozen, though typically they are TV related -- such as all those unauthorized guides to Lost or BTVS which have no connection with the copyright/trademark owner and are published for the same reason any good book is, namely to make a profit.

Tim Wu did a nice job of summarizing the case against Rowling at Slate, esp. in light of Ty's failed lawsuit over a Beanie Baby collector's guide a few years ago: http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/

Rowling will lose, and that's a good thing.

"I really am astounded how emotional many people are getting over this and how freely some are attributing feelings and motives to a perfect stranger. Warner Brothers sues a publisher and it's turned into J.K. Rowling being a vindictive, bitter bully victimizing a poor, hapless librarian."

Well, she/Warners are essentially arguing that no one can discuss/analyze/review Harry Potter without her/Warners permission, which is a very vindictive, bullying thing to do.

Well, she/Warners are essentially arguing that no one can discuss/analyze/review Harry Potter without her/Warners permission, which is a very vindictive, bullying thing to do.

I think that's a vast overstatement.

Alisa, I don't think you are looking at what's going on here. Ask yourself, what harm can this dictionary do to HP? If it's a poor work, it will disappear, while if it's good it can only enhance. Rowling cannot control whether you and I write about HP, and use names and places that are in the books. This is what a reviewer and critic does, and it is what our unfortunate lexicographer was ready to do. Biran is quite right that an attempt to exert control over that is "bullying" and he is also right that, unless there is clear copying of content, this suit is unlikely to succeed.

Yet she hasn't gone after reviewers or even fanfic writers.

Talk about hypocrisy:

... However, I don't give permission for people to just copy my work for their own use. Not only is that illegal, since everything in the Lexicon is copyrighted, it's also just plain wrong. Hey, I did all the work, I put in all the time, it's my skill and talent in this area which allowed the Lexicon to come into being. No one else has the right to use my work. ...
from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/help/hp-faq.html
(search for "illegal" to find the question containing this quote)

The U.S. Congress recently again voted to extend the term of copyright, thus giving existing copyright holders, even more control: this means that Disney or Fox or, yes, Warner's now can hold onto copyrights for even more time. The Rowling trial (really, the Warner's trial) should be considered in this light.


:offtopic:Could you provide more information on the copyright expansion? The last I heard of was life + 95. is it now further?:thanks:

:offtopic:Could you provide more information on the copyright expansion? The last I heard of was life + 95. is it now further?:thanks:

From gov site:

How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html) of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html), Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html), Copyright Basics.

See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ for all the info you need.

BOb

From gov site:

How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html) of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html), Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html), Copyright Basics.

See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ for all the info you need.

BOb

When I run this through my interpreter I get 5 compiler errors and 3 warnings of possible circular references. I must be missing some link libraries.:smack:

Talk about hypocrisy:


from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/help/hp-faq.html
(search for "illegal" to find the question containing this quote)

I see nothing hypocritical in that - just an author quite rightly stating that she has the right to control who can and cannot use the characters that she's created.

I see nothing hypocritical in that - just an author quite rightly stating that she has the right to control who can and cannot use the characters that she's created.

Ahh, which might be the case (or not, as the argument goes), except the quote is from the author of the "unauthorised" lexicon's online version. I believe that is who is thus being accused of being hypocritical.

Cheers,
Marc

Ah - my mistake :). Thank you!

Harry, Brian is right that there is a lot of misinformation being given here, albeit with the best intentions. Your comments above are at best misleading. You don't protect characters, or ideas or plots, you protect the form/manner in which you have given them to the public. We are getting here into interpretations of the law, and that is best left to lawyers: I don't think this is the right forum.

Alisa: of course Rowling has not gone after reviewers because she and Warner's know that reviewers and critics are allowed fair use to quote from books under review, but I have no doubt that she would like to. Protecting your work is one thing, but attacking those with much less standing - on quite weak legal grounds - is bullying.

Alisa: of course Rowling has not gone after reviewers because she and Warner's know that reviewers and critics are allowed fair use to quote from books under review, but I have no doubt that she would like to. Protecting your work is one thing, but attacking those with much less standing - on quite weak legal grounds - is bullying.

What on earth makes you think that she would like to go after critics for quoting her works? Do you know her personally? Has she said as much anywhere? I think it's rather a stretch to start assuming you know the feelings of strangers. As for the lexicon, I thought her main criticism had been that a very large portion of the text on that site is actually direct quotes from her books, a higher portion than allowed by fair use.

No, but that's not the point. No author can let something which so blatantly violates their copyrights and trademarks be published unchallenged. If, as has been claimed, over 90% of the text in the book constitutes material copied from the HP books, then there's no way that it counts as "fair use" under the "limited quoting for the purpose of review or criticism" condition.

Harry, that might not be your point, but it is one (of many) her lawyers made.

Alisa, you are the only one talking about emotions. Rowling's emotions are of no concern to me, her aims are. We are talking on this thread about positions being taken by Warner's, their lawyers and her, and using that as evidence in trying to determine their aims. If you disagree, fine, but I think it is of interest to speculate on what Warner's hopes to achieve with this suit. Remember that there are those who bring lawsuits, whatever the cost, simply to frighten their opponents, and that is a matter of business calculations, not emotions.

Remember that there are those who bring lawsuits, whatever the cost, simply to frighten their opponents, and that is a matter of business calculations, not emotions.

And there are also those who bring lawsuits because they have a justifyable complaint. Have you read the complaint that's been filed? IF it's true (and that's for the court to decide, of course), then it appears to be a pretty blatant case of copyright infringement.

Alisa, you are the only one talking about emotions. Rowling's emotions are of no concern to me, her aims are. We are talking on this thread about positions being taken by Warner's, their lawyers and her, and using that as evidence in trying to determine their aims. If you disagree, fine, but I think it is of interest to speculate on what Warner's hopes to achieve with this suit. Remember that there are those who bring lawsuits, whatever the cost, simply to frighten their opponents, and that is a matter of business calculations, not emotions.

You were speculating as to what she would like to do. I'm asking you the basis of that speculation.

Harry, it is for the court to decide, so we'll all have to wait. There are those on this thread and elsewhere who think her case is weak. I am not an authority on copyright, so I'll be waiting too. I hope, however, that our would-be lexicographer has learned a lesson: it's tricky to undertake studies of living writers and their work.

Alisa, the evidence is the suit itself and because it is not clear to me what benefit she and Warner's hope to gain, I speculate. That's all, and I don't need to know her to do that.

Neil Gaiman has an interesting followup in his blog, from a copyright lawyer: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/04/copyright-one-after-last-one.html

Having some familiarity with the Lexicon itself, I think Warner Bros. and Ms. Rowling are going to have a difficult time making their case. I know they've claimed a very high percentage of unattributed quotes, but I'm not seeing it in my own review of the material.

Personally I think that Ms. Rowling is 100% in the right, here. Using someone else's characters without their permission - what copyright law calls "creating a derived work" - is unquestionably a breach of copyright.

A lot of people are using the persona 'Jesus' without asking the church (or who's responsible for that mess ;o).

But I agree - she gets a little bit too greedy (and she hates ebooks - so another reason NOT to buy her books).

Its getting ridiculous, maybe we will get sued for just mentioning her name or book on this thread

Well my personal sense of justice, I'd fisrt say out of the stomach generally she has enough money already.... but justicia is blind and should come to the same ruling as if she was close to starving out of huger. I'm not informed enough on the detailed issues on the case. Secondly IMHO its obvious its not "her" interests that are to be covered, but the publishers, where she is a puppet on strings on this issues.

What I've read its aprox. 10% of her income she dedicates to 3rd world & co. But still better than for example Bill Gates, since she doesn't offer "Potter Books for hungry children" as compared to Gates Foundation.. free windows machines for the future market...:chinscratch:

...

What I've read its aprox. 10% of her income she dedicates to 3rd world & co. But still better than for example Bill Gates, since she doesn't offer "Potter Books for hungry children" as compared to Gates Foundation.. free windows machines for the future market...:chinscratch:

I suggest you read up on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Warren Buffet's "Gift" to the foundation, lists of total endowments of charities, and audits of this transparent Foundation's accounts, Annual Reports, Annual Tax Returns, Grants and committments (specifically look for things like "Global Health" contributions).

This may help alleviate at least some of your misplaced cynicism.

Cheers,
Marc

The Gates foundation spends more money inoculating children in Africa than all the African countries spend combined.

J.K. Rowling isn't suing Steve Vander Ark, she's suing his publisher. Do you know why? Because his publishing contract indemnifies him against such lawsuits. It should be pointed out that just about every other publishing contract indemnifies the publisher. One might therefore wonder if Mr. Vander Ark guessed he was on shaky legal ground and yet agreed to publish the book anyway. Apparently there are some personal reasons for it as well (he wants to live in the UK and needs income/employment).

It should further be pointed out that the lawsuit was brought only after the publisher refused, several times, to provide the plaintiffs with a copy of the manuscript before publication. This included the publisher saying that he couldn't send it because a family member had passed away and he wasn't doing business; but it was later shown that during the claimed mourning period, he sold foreign rights to the book in several countries.

I've been following this case from before the lawsuit was filed. The publisher (and the author) have acted from the beginning in an unprofessional and disingenuous manner that make me doubt the veracity of anything they say. In my view, they are no victims.

The publisher indemnified Vander Ark (something which is indeed unusual) because, we must conclude, it was certain it would prevail in any infringement litigation such as this one. Moreover, the publisher was under no obligation to provide Rowling and Warner's with an advance copy - such a demand seems to me a warning that they would sue if the book were published. This is the now familiar fight over publications on books created by living authors but not "authorized" by them! I am not sure who looks better in the matter. It will be interesting to see where the court comes out.

Is that really this guy's real name - "Vander Ark"?

A very good and amusing question.

I was just thinking that surely defendents in a lawsuit have to use their real names, don't they?

Well, at least the name they go by.

I think that in the entire debacle, Rowlings is the player least motivated by financial gain.

Warner Brothers & RDR Books are clearly in it for the money - and I reckon the same goes for Vander Ark. If Vander Ark's motive truly were just adoration of HP & co, he would have sought permission from Rowling before embarking on the project of creating a commercially available lexicon - and the whole scenario would never have arisen. He might be a naive fool, but he is, without doubt, also in it for the money.

On the otherhand, Rowlings investment in the whole thing appears to be predominantly a personal (not financial) desire to maintain control of her creation.

Rowlings has more money (I persume) than anyone posting to this list, and she is certainly backward in her attitudes to e-publishing - but I don't believe she deserves to have invective hurled at her, just because she wants to have some control over a fictional world that she's worked hard to create.

I think ePossum has perfectly summed up the situation: Warner Bros own the trademark to the characters and names in the books, so they sue the HP lexicon's publisher for all the money they can get (and also to make discourage other people to publish derivative work without permission). If Vander Ark had tried to get permission beforehand, maybe he would have got it, maybe not, but at least he would have avoided this suit. WB are in it for the money, period. Fans who want to publish commercially a lexicon of their favorite books are not in the wrong per se, but they have to go through the legal loops: seek permission, deal with the rights owners for a percentage of the royalties, etc. If all this goes well, then they can publish their "approved by the author" lexicon and make money for everybody involved.

Another thing: right now, J. K. Rowlings must be in a very, very uncomfortable situation. A lot of fans are unhappy with her being on the side of WB in the suit, but really, she has no choice. Since she sold the rights to her creations to WB as part of the movie adaptation deals, she doesn't control her work anymore!

So, this is the problem I see myself with her claims about "controlling" her work and not wanting to be robbed now by the lexicon publishers. Vander Ark is not the only naive fool, here.

The publisher indemnified Vander Ark (something which is indeed unusual) because, we must conclude, it was certain it would prevail in any infringement litigation such as this one. Moreover, the publisher was under no obligation to provide Rowling and Warner's with an advance copy - such a demand seems to me a warning that they would sue if the book were published. This is the now familiar fight over publications on books created by living authors but not "authorized" by them! I am not sure who looks better in the matter. It will be interesting to see where the court comes out.

If they were so certain that there was no infringement, why did they stall in providing the copy? Not to mention flat-out lying about why they were not providing the copy; if they were on such firm ground, not just say, "No, we don't have to provide a copy, so there" instead of whining about the dead brother-in-law? And certainly a copyright holder has the right to examine a possibly infringing work. My understanding is that in past cases of similar Potter companions, where an infringement occurred, the publisher and author were given the opportunity to make corrections and rewrites prior to publication.

My point is that the whole thing could very likely have been worked out without a trial--and the book been published in some form--had the publisher cooperated.

And as a friend continually points out to me: the sole reason for businesses to exist is to make money. Of course RDR and WB are out to make money. They are businesses.

I don't know if they have the right but it certainly makes more sense for both parties to be cooperative and negotiate with each other before the book goes to print. It was really in the publisher's best interest to give them a copy to look over. Maybe he could've edited it in a way to forestall a lawsuit or come to some sort of agreement. It's more expensive for everyone involved this way.

I don't know if they have the right but it certainly makes more sense for both parties to be cooperative and negotiate with each other before the book goes to print. It was really in the publisher's best interest to give them a copy to look over. Maybe he could've edited it in a way to forestall a lawsuit or come to some sort of agreement. It's more expensive for everyone involved this way.

I do not know in detail how the law works in the US but can you not stop the publication by getting an injunction to stop it until you have resolved if it is copyright infringement or some other problem? So it seems kind of a lottery to show the book beforehand because even if you are sure that it is not infringement you cannot know for sure what a judge would do.

I do not know in detail how the law works in the US but can you not stop the publication by getting an injunction to stop it until you have resolved if it is copyright infringement or some other problem?

That's exactly what they have done. Click the link posted in the first thread in the post and you'll get a "diary" of exactly what's happened so far.

Is that really this guy's real name - "Vander Ark"?
That's his surname. His first name is "Steve" (or more probably, "Stephen"). (We aren't descending to making fun of the names of the people involved in the case, are we?)

I suppose I could wade through the trial transcripts, but I'm still not seeing where this "90%" duplicate text figure is coming from, based on my perusal of the online version of the Lexicon.

I think what kicked off the business was the publisher's plan to use Rowling's comments about the website version of this content (which she praised highly) as a jacket endorsement for the book. That was apparently settled out of court. And I can see where Rowling can justifiably complain that her comments about a free fan site should not be construed as being endorsements of a commercial printing of the same content. There were some other issues also settled out of court, leaving this claim about content, which is apparently not being regarded as open-and-shut for either side.

Those who want an example of entries might look here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/dumbledore.html (Dumbledore's entry) or here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/bestiary/thestrals.html (Thestrals). Yes, I see some quotes-- and by APA standards, they aren't attributed correctly, as they have no page number, only the book number, but I don't know how they would have appeared in the print version. Most of the content in the entries seems to be original in the sense of being a summary, covered under critical review use. I would think if there were serious merit to a claim of copyright infringement, the site would have been issued a DMCA notice, but maybe that happened and I missed it.

And I can see where Rowling can justifiably complain that her comments about a free fan site should not be construed as being endorsements of a commercial printing of the same content.

As "blind" justice, it is either copyright infringement or it isn't. If the medium is web or paper shouldn't make any difference, nor if profit is involved or isn't. Not?

That's his surname. His first name is "Steve" (or more probably, "Stephen"). (We aren't descending to making fun of the names of the people involved in the case, are we?)


No, certainly not. It just sounded like a "made up" name and I was wondering if it was some sort of "online" name.

Trail Transcript Day 1 (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday1.txt)
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday2.txt
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday3.txt

Not to personally attack Mr. Vander Ark, but he apparently has made public statements that he doesn't agree that J.K. Rowling has the final say in what happens with her characters.

On the second transciprt, I believe this is page 332, he said of RDR in an email:
I am more than ready to disassociate myself with RDR. They have lied to me, misled me, taken advantage of me and, in the end, ruined my good standing with fans and with Rowling.

He is unemployed but considers himself a writer. He is writing more books for a different publisher, because they would pay him an advance (333, line 14).

(356, line 2) he admits that he didn't believe the book would be permissible by copyright law. And then he admits not to being a lawyer, not consulting a lawyer about it being permissible. RDR told him (359, line 4) that it was.

(372, line 4) he states that the scope of the book is not an exhaustive scholarly reference.

AND NOW HERE'S THE GOOD PART transcript 3, page 600, line 9:
Q. You wrote, In fact, a line-by-line review of the Lexicon reveals that out of the 2,437 entries, 2,034 entries simply lift information straight out of the Harry Potter books. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. What was the basis of your statement?
A. I counted.


And I've pretty much given up on reading testimony. But honestly now ... it looks like Steve himself didn't think it was a good idea. So how did we get into this position?

He is unemployed but considers himself a writer.

This held true for Rowling also pre-potter 1, she had to life (and write) on welfare.

So how did we get into this position?

I guess this is a game between the big publishers, and Vander Ark and Rowling mere pawns in this.

I think ePossum has perfectly summed up the situation: Warner Bros own the trademark to the characters and names in the books, so they sue the HP lexicon's publisher for all the money they can get (and also to make discourage other people to publish derivative work without permission). If Vander Ark had tried to get permission beforehand, maybe he would have got it, maybe not, but at least he would have avoided this suit. WB are in it for the money, period. Fans who want to publish commercially a lexicon of their favorite books are not in the wrong per se, but they have to go through the legal loops: seek permission, deal with the rights owners for a percentage of the royalties, etc. If all this goes well, then they can publish their "approved by the author" lexicon and make money for everybody involved.

Another thing: right now, J. K. Rowlings must be in a very, very uncomfortable situation. A lot of fans are unhappy with her being on the side of WB in the suit, but really, she has no choice. Since she sold the rights to her creations to WB as part of the movie adaptation deals, she doesn't control her work anymore!

So, this is the problem I see myself with her claims about "controlling" her work and not wanting to be robbed now by the lexicon publishers. Vander Ark is not the only naive fool, here.

Isn't the whole point of the case about whether or not such a thing was/is necessary? If it was, then the book infringes copyright as defined in the US, if not it doesn't.

Speaking as a fan of Rowling and the Harry Potter universe, I think she has every right to fight this, especially since she has made known for at least two years that she was planning on writing her own encyclopedia. In her shoes I would the exact same thing. Here's a guy that writes a book based completely on someone else's writing, without adding any of his own creative content, and then expects to be able to publish it without so much as asking for the author's approval. It doesn't matter that Rowling used the site on occasion; the site was well done and had her stamp of approval.

All I see here is the Lexicon author's greed. He obviously has no creative talent on his own so he strives to earn a buck of Rowling's.

These are her invented characters, names, and places. Had he actually gotten permission to write the book, and gone through the proper channels he may have gotten an endorsement.

Maybe if Mr. Cards books were as popular as hers he would be in the same position to have to defend his work!

Reason magazine has an article about the case:
Hogwarts Law School (http://www.reason.com/news/show/126395.html)

Speaking as a fan of Rowling and the Harry Potter universe, I think she has every right to fight this, especially since she has made known for at least two years that she was planning on writing her own encyclopedia. In her shoes I would the exact same thing. Here's a guy that writes a book based completely on someone else's writing, without adding any of his own creative content, and then expects to be able to publish it without so much as asking for the author's approval. It doesn't matter that Rowling used the site on occasion; the site was well done and had her stamp of approval.

All I see here is the Lexicon author's greed. He obviously has no creative talent on his own so he strives to earn a buck of Rowling's.

These are her invented characters, names, and places. Had he actually gotten permission to write the book, and gone through the proper channels he may have gotten an endorsement.

Maybe if Mr. Cards books were as popular as hers he would be in the same position to have to defend his work!

It appears to me you aren't especially a fan of Orson Scott Card. Does that mean that if somebody were to make a similar lexicon about his books you'd support its author against Mr Card?

In such a case, whether or not one appreciates the work of the initial author should be irrelevant, the same way whether said author has become a millionaire because of her work or is penniless. That's not what this is about. What it's about is the extent of control that current laws give to copyrights' owners.

Sorry to interject, but I must say I was a bigger fan of Mr. Card until I read that rant of his. He went down a few pegs in my estimation. I don't need him to agree with me but he could have made his point, better in my opinion, had he not been so hateful.

It appears to me you aren't especially a fan of Orson Scott Card. Does that mean that if somebody were to make a similar lexicon about his books you'd support its author against Mr Card?

In such a case, whether or not one appreciates the work of the initial author should be irrelevant, the same way whether said author has become a millionaire because of her work or is penniless. That's not what this is about. What it's about is the extent of control that current laws give to copyrights' owners.

I would support Mr. Card. My opinion has nothing to with my view of the author. I think he's suffering from a bit of jealousy, that's all. He shouldn't, though. It's not like he's unsuccessful.

I think Rowling or Card should be in control of any work that is derived in such as direct fashion from their own.

If Mr. Card supports the copy material off the Internet uncredited and submit it off as your work then I don't support Mr. Card.

Sorry to interject, but I must say I was a bigger fan of Mr. Card until I read that rant of his. He went down a few pegs in my estimation. I don't need him to agree with me but he could have made his point, better in my opinion, had he not been so hateful.

ya know...you make an excellent point. He could have used a lot less venom in his opinion. I think that is true whether one agrees or disagrees with OSC.

I have enjoyed both authors and also have found some of their work abysmal. I have also found both to have good insightful ideas and opinions as well as, ummmm, seeming to lack the common sense gawd gave cow dung. Could be a case of the latter here.

OSC wrote what he wrote and JKR has said what she said...it's done, not our problem. If either writes another book I might enjoy, great...if not...fine too.

AND NOW HERE'S THE GOOD PART transcript 3, page 600, line 9:


And I've pretty much given up on reading testimony. But honestly now ... it looks like Steve himself didn't think it was a good idea. So how did we get into this position?

Ah. This would be the source of the 90% figure, I suppose. But that would indicate that a quote from the books appears somewhere within 90% of the entries, not that each of the entries consists of 90% material quoted from the works (which, based on my own admittedly rather cursory review, it doesn't).

I've been in court (I was sued once). Lawyers for both sides tend to try to get people to say the most amazing things. The legal system is not a good way to solve disagreements, but I guess attempts at settlement failed on this particular point. (Remember, there were also other points of the suit that were settled.)

Of course it's a derivative work! Copyright law allows limited quoting from a work for purposes of literary criticism, etc, but this hardly constitutes that.

Besides which, this is not a "fan guide", distributed free on the internet. It's a commercial publication. This is just a guy who's cynically trying to make money from Ms. Rowling's work.


Harry, if memory serves, this "Fan guide" was exactly that - a "lexicon" that was originally distributed freely on the internet. It wasn't until the content was gathered into a book form and scheduled for publication that Rowling objected and sued. Seems to me that Rowling's motive was clear - as long as no one was making money on it it was okay for everyone - the moment there was money to be made on it she "intejected."

... which seems eminently reasonable to me.

Well... it seems reasonable, but it would still be copyright infringement either way, right? There are many who've argued in these forums that it doesn't matter if copies of ebooks (not in public domain) are being distributed freely or sold, it's still copyright infringement.

On the other hand, one can imagine an author specifically saying "your non-commercial use is fine by me, just don't try to sell it." Perhaps that's the argument here.

On the other hand, one can imagine an author specifically saying "your non-commercial use is fine by me, just don't try to sell it." Perhaps that's the argument here.

That was my point, Neko. Many authors are happy to turn a blind eye to fan-fiction, for example, which, generally speaking, is technically in breach of the author's copyright in that it's a "derivative work" (I know that there are a few authors who specifically sanction it). If that same fan-fiction were to be commercially published and sold, however, then those same authors would, I suspect, really have no choice but to take legal action to prevent that publication.

Is that really this guy's real name - "Vander Ark"?

Just finished reading this entire thread. Really interesting points on both sides.

But, Harry .... yes, absolutely, yes. Vander Ark and Van Ark are rather common Dutch last names.

Not getting into the discussion otherwise ... I know just enough about copyright law to see how it will be argued on each side, and I wouldn't want to even try to predict the outcome.

Hah. Rowling obviously is a little behind the 8 ball when it comes to this.l It could be very easily claimed that ROwling ripped off author Jill Murphy's phenomenally successful Worst Witch series, first published in 1974.

The story goes as such: dark haired young person of impressive magical heritage raised by non magical people goes to magic school (a stone castle atop a mountain surrounded by a forest) turns out to be very talented, however has a tendency to get into trouble, has a disregard for school rules and causes things to happen unintentionally. This person has two friends, one of whom is very smart, the other is a prankster who often gets them into trouble with their temper. They are antagonised by the rich, snobbish, stuck up vindictive blonde classmate and their bumbling sidekick. They are supported by the potions teacher, who also gives them grief. The trios misbehaviour is looked upon with fond tolerance and amusement by the head of the school who indulges them. This head of school has a sybling/twin who is opposite of them. The trio have many adventures and face off against the evil arch enemy, who plots to take over the school and achieve power with a coven of chosen other magical people...

hmmmmm the similarities are such that if we are going to nitpick like rowling then she could very well be sued as well!

Hah. Rowling obviously is a little behind the 8 ball when it comes to this.l It could be very easily claimed that ROwling ripped off author Jill Murphy's phenomenally successful Worst Witch series, first published in 1974.

The story goes as such: dark haired young person of impressive magical heritage raised by non magical people goes to magic school (a stone castle atop a mountain surrounded by a forest) turns out to be very

The good vs evil, young unskilled hero, older grandfather like mentor, quest of some kind is a common theme in many stories:

The Bible, Lord of the Rings, The Bellgariad, Star Wars, etc. Does this mean they all stole from each other? Remember, copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed

BOb