Rowling wins copyright infringement case

[elena]

Originally Posted by slayda

She sure didn't seem too interested in one until Ark started his.

False.
It's since long time known, among the fans, of a project of her for a reference book, and Ark was well informed of that.
This project didn't turn out to ban every reference book on the Potterverse, there are dozens out there, and this was only sued after long refuse by RDR to co-operate and modify a bit the book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by elena

False.
It's since long time known, among the fans, of a project of her for a reference book, and Ark was well informed of that.
This project didn't turn out to ban every reference book on the Potterverse, there are dozens out there, and this was only sued after long refuse by RDR to co-operate and modify a bit the book.

I'd recommend that people read the judgement (I posted a link to it on the previous page of this thread) rather than relying on ill-informed gossip. There are references to all these matters in there. Elena is absolutely right in saying that Ms. Rowling had clearly stated her intention of writing reference book on several occasions.

[axel77]

There are interesting things in that story that IMHO we should here (on mobilread) focus on.

There is obviously still a hierachy on the medium. That is Rowling and her publisher endorsed the online website (also because IMHO they expected it, to help to improve sales on the books, and yet another wonderful signpost to expand the Potter-Publicity). However once the same content is turned to paper, the whole world changes... So paper still matters more? What would have been, if that website would provide a free download pdf of their content, so you can print out your Potter Lexicon yourself? Or even watch it on your eInk display? What about reading the website on the eInk display?

Also as sidemark, just as I mentioned before for the story as law case it should not matter how sympathic/unsympathic/coward/non-coward Rowling is, as the law is blind. It should absolutely not matter what you expect to do with the money. Personally congrats to her to give it to charity, but this should IMHO not have any mention in the suit, and if she wanted to use it to build [stupid megalomaniac project]... in our lawbased-society it should make no difference.

[HarryT]

The issue at the centre of the case is that Ms. Rowling, as an author, has an exclusive right to commercially exploit her work. She was willing to turn a blind eye to the freely-accessible web site (as she was perfectly entitled to do) but not to see a book commercially published which violated her copyright and which would have inevitably damaged sales of a book she was intending to write herself.

Please do read the judgement, Axel, if you haven't already done so.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The issue at the centre of the case is that Ms. Rowling, as an author, has an exclusive right to commercially exploit her work. She was willing to turn a blind eye to the freely-accessible web site (as she was perfectly entitled to do) but not to see a book commercially published which violated her copyright and which would have inevitably damaged sales of a book she was intending to write herself.

Please do read the judgement, Axel, if you haven't already done so.

I know all that Harry, still it makes an interesting view IMHO when you consider medias. Like online website -> good. Paper -> bad. And as said, IMHO intention what to do with money or no money should be excluded from the judging. Like what if he would offer to lexicon to self cost prices, like the website. Would have it changed something? What if he offfered to donate the gains of his version of the lexicon to the same charity organisation as her... would it changed something for the view of law? IMHO, not.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by elena

By the way, Ark was not a party to the suit, he was a deponent.

I haven't been following it too closely, but the way I understand it is that it wasn't Ark's idea to publish the Lexicon. He was happy with it just being an online fan website. A publishing company approached him and requested the rights to publish the material. Obviously, Ark had to agree in order for them to proceed, but I don't think it was his idea. I also remember reading things suggesting that when the publisher approached him, Ark brought up the notion that copyright would be an issue. I don't think he necessarily thought it would be a legal lexicon either. I believe that, as part of the deal to aquire the rights, there were clauses that the publishing company would be responsible for any copyright infringement claims and that Ark himself would not be held liable.

[elena]

Originally Posted by axel77

I know all that Harry, still it makes an interesting view IMHO when you consider medias. Like online website -> good. Paper -> bad. And as said, IMHO intention what to do with money or no money should be excluded from the judging. Like what if he would offer to lexicon to self cost prices, like the website. Would have it changed something? What if he offfered to donate the gains of his version of the lexicon to the same charity organisation as her... would it changed something for the view of law? IMHO, not.

apropos, I'd like to make it clear that the Lexicon site is much more thant the Lexicon book would have been.
There is, off course, all the stuff quoted from the 7 books and the companion books, while Ark on his site accepted to paraphrase and to limit the direct quoting amount when asked to (contrary to what RDR did); but the site profited by the participation and the efforts of many people, plus the fans community, which added a lot of, say, creativity to the contents of the site in the shape of essays, researches, fan arts, pictures, theories, ecc.
All this stuff was not in the book: most of the authors who were asked for an opinion didn't like the idea of their work being commercially exploited.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How else would you interpret the comment:



That, to me, is a clear accusation that judges are being "bought"; I really don't see how else one could interpret it.

I think he was talking about the lawyers in that context, not the judges. This, in light of the fact that he refers to "clients" .... and judges do not have clients.

Also, he makes a reference to "grow up" ... which to me means that judges (who will have been former lawyers) and practicing lawyers of the Second Circuit are immersed in a society that tends to favor the publishers ... much like those in the Ninth Circuit tend to favor the companies of the movie industry.

So .... no, I do not read that statement to say that the judges of the Second Circuit may be bought. I do think it is a rather poorly written statement, but I don't get an accusation of corruption out of it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

this guy just copied Rowling's work and was trying to make a fast buck from it!

That's not really true. If you read the judgement (which confirms things I've read about this case before), it was really the publisher who was responsible for this, not "this guy" (aka Ark). When the publisher first approached Ark, he refused to allow them to publish the Lexicon, saying that it would be a copyright violation and that Rowling, not him, deserved to make money from her encyclopedia. Ark was pretty much supporting Rowling.

The only reason the publisher got permission from Ark to publish the Lexicon is because they assured him that they had researched it and that the Lexicon was legal (which is now obviously a lie). Ark also made them write a clause into the contract that says the publisher is responsible for any copyright infringement and that they would indemnify Ark.

If you want to blame someone for wanting to make a "fask buck" off of Rowling's work, don't blame Ark. The publishing company is the only one here who was trying to make a fast buck.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The issue at the centre of the case is that Ms. Rowling, as an author, has an exclusive right to commercially exploit her work. She was willing to turn a blind eye to the freely-accessible web site (as she was perfectly entitled to do) but not to see a book commercially published which violated her copyright and which would have inevitably damaged sales of a book she was intending to write herself.

Please do read the judgement, Axel, if you haven't already done so.

Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully yourself:

Notwithstanding Rowling’s public statements of her intention to publish her own encyclopedia, the market for reference guides to the Harry Potter works is not exclusively hers to exploit or license, no matter the commercial success attributable to the popularity of the original works. [...] The market for reference guides does not become derivative simply because the copyright holder seeks to produce or license one.

(emphasis mine)

[axel77]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

which to me means that judges (who will have been former lawyers)

I don't know about the U.S. system but here in europe, when you finished your law studies, you have to decide in which track you are going. That is "judge", "lawyer" or "law sciences", and your decision quite effectively closes the other tracks for you. For lifetime.

Also yes I agree to other posters. Now I remember, I think we had covered this already some quite ago in another topic. This actually a battle of the giants, two publishing companies, and both Rowling and Arc are mere pawns in this game. So the correct title of this topic would be "Rowlings publisher wins over another publisher".

[Shaggy]

Yeah, exactly. Copyright is not an exclusive right, it only guarantees control under certain conditions. There are definitely exceptions that will allow others to commercially benefit based off of her work. This specific example just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

No, I understand that ... I justy wondered if Mormonism pervaded his fiction. I mean+to say, for example, that I like CS Lewis, but I know going in that I'm going to be slammed upside the head with Christian themes. Doesn't make it a bad read ... it's just that I prefer to be prepared before I pick up something that turns out to be religious propoganda in sci-fi/fantasy clothing.

I would say that Mormonism does not pervade all of Card's fiction. In particular, most of the "Ender" books, Songmaster, Treason, and many of his other works make few or no references to Mormonism (and while there are references to Christianity, I don't think they are of a proselytizing nature).

Originally Posted by elena

apropos, I'd like to make it clear that the Lexicon site is much more thant the Lexicon book would have been.
There is, off course, all the stuff quoted from the 7 books and the companion books, while Ark on his site accepted to paraphrase and to limit the direct quoting amount when asked to (contrary to what RDR did); but the site profited by the participation and the efforts of many people, plus the fans community, which added a lot of, say, creativity to the contents of the site in the shape of essays, researches, fan arts, pictures, theories, ecc.
All this stuff was not in the book: most of the authors who were asked for an opinion didn't like the idea of their work being commercially exploited.

That's quite interesting. I had contributed some content to the Lexicon site several years ago, and wondered if that sort of content was intended to be included in the printed Lexicon. If none of that extended commentary was going to be included, I have to agree that there wasn't much original (or worthwhile) in the proposed book.

I'm glad Steve Van der Ark wasn't the one being sued. I hope everyone involved can move on from this now.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by axel77

I don't know about the U.S. system but here in europe, when you finished your law studies, you have to decide in which track you are going. That is "judge", "lawyer" or "law sciences", and your decision quite effectively closes the other tracks for you. For lifetime.

That may be so in Continental Europe, which operates on a system derived from Roman Law. Britain and the US work differently, with a greater emphasis on common law principles.

And in the UK judges are former lawyers. In fact, successful lawyers generally take quite a drop in earnings if they become a judge.
Moreover, Cherie Booth, a human rights lawyer (and wife of a former British Prime Minister) is a part-time judge as well.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by axel77

I don't know about the U.S. system but here in europe, when you finished your law studies, you have to decide in which track you are going. That is "judge", "lawyer" or "law sciences", and your decision quite effectively closes the other tracks for you. For lifetime.

It doesn't work like that in the UK. Judges here are appointed from the ranks of experienced barristers (ie lawyers who plead cases in court).