05-02-2008, 11:55 AM | #31 |
Gorosei
Posts: 421
Karma: 334
Join Date: Feb 2008
Device: Microsoft Word
|
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.
|
05-02-2008, 11:56 AM | #32 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
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. |
Advert | |
|
05-02-2008, 12:00 PM | #33 | |
Gizmologist
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
|
Quote:
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. |
|
05-02-2008, 12:01 PM | #34 |
Gorosei
Posts: 421
Karma: 334
Join Date: Feb 2008
Device: Microsoft Word
|
Ive seen people "playing" quiditch in real life.Honestly,there's wery litle that can surprise me,in coneciton with HP fandom.
|
05-02-2008, 12:26 PM | #35 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
|
Advert | |
|
05-02-2008, 12:34 PM | #36 | |
Addict
Posts: 314
Karma: 1002965
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Device: ILiad. Gen 3, PocketBook 360, Kobo Aura HD, Kindle Oasis 2
|
Quote from J.K.R on her website:
Quote:
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? |
|
05-02-2008, 12:41 PM | #37 |
Gadget Geek
Posts: 2,324
Karma: 22221
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: Paperwhite, Kindle 3 (retired), Skindle 1.2 (retired)
|
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.
|
05-02-2008, 12:51 PM | #38 |
oink!
Posts: 44
Karma: 127
Join Date: Feb 2008
Device: Ebookwise 1150
|
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. Funny and informative! |
05-02-2008, 01:53 PM | #39 |
Enthusiast
Posts: 41
Karma: 10
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCal, US
Device: Kobo Aura, Sony T1, iPhone 5S, iPad 3rd Gen
|
Orson Scott Card believes many things I don't agree with
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. |
05-02-2008, 02:06 PM | #40 |
Groupie
Posts: 190
Karma: 7758
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Sony Reader
|
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 |
05-02-2008, 03:33 PM | #41 |
Addict
Posts: 314
Karma: 1002965
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Device: ILiad. Gen 3, PocketBook 360, Kobo Aura HD, Kindle Oasis 2
|
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. Last edited by Moonraker; 05-02-2008 at 03:39 PM. |
05-02-2008, 03:43 PM | #42 |
Connoisseur
Posts: 63
Karma: 20
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rock Hill,SC
Device: Sony PRS 505, Dell Axim X50V
|
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... |
05-02-2008, 07:20 PM | #43 |
eink fanatic
Posts: 2,022
Karma: 4924
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Device: STAReBOOK, iRex Iliad, Sony 505, Kindle 2
|
@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... |
05-02-2008, 07:22 PM | #44 |
Gorosei
Posts: 421
Karma: 334
Join Date: Feb 2008
Device: Microsoft Word
|
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.
|
05-03-2008, 11:25 AM | #45 |
Guru
Posts: 780
Karma: 1416
Join Date: Jan 2008
Device: Kobo Clara 2E/HD, Kindle PW
|
Does anyone really think that this fannish Lexicon will have any serious effect on the sales of a Rowling-authored HP encyclopedia?
|
Tags |
copyright infringment, fan fiction, harry potter, orson scott card, rowling, warner brothers |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heartfire - Orson Scott Card | leebase | Reading Recommendations | 0 | 06-24-2010 04:30 PM |
Alvin Journeyman - Orson Scott Card | leebase | Reading Recommendations | 0 | 06-24-2010 04:19 PM |
Prentice Alvin - Orson Scott Card | leebase | Reading Recommendations | 0 | 06-21-2010 12:42 PM |
Seventh Son - Orson Scott Card | leebase | Reading Recommendations | 3 | 06-18-2010 10:34 PM |
"Magic Street" by Orson Scott Card | Andybaby | Reading Recommendations | 15 | 01-20-2009 10:56 AM |