Rowling wins copyright infringement case

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Patricia

And in the UK judges are former lawyers.

Similar in the US. I believe most judges here (and most politicians) are former lawyers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

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.

Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps I did misinterpret the remark.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully yourself:

Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully yourself:

(emphasis mine)

I did indeed read that, but it's not relevent here. Where Mr. Ark's book fell down is the issue of "fair use". A "reference guide" written by a third party has to contain a significant level of original "creativity"; Mr. Ark's was (apparently) virtually nothing more than material copied verbatem from Ms. Rowling's work, and therefore not "fair use".

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I did indeed read that, but it's not relevent here. Where Mr. Ark's book fell down is the issue of "fair use". A "reference guide" written by a third party has to contain a significant level of original "creativity"; Mr. Ark's was (apparently) virtually nothing more than material copied verbatem from Ms. Rowling's work, and therefore not "fair use".

It is relevant for you strong claim that "The issue at the centre of the case is that Ms. Rowling, as an author, has an exclusive right to commercially exploit her work. " and that is not true which was shown in the quote.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is relevant for you strong claim that "The issue at the centre of the case is that Ms. Rowling, as an author, has an exclusive right to commercially exploit her work. " and that is not true which was shown in the quote.

No, it is absolutely true. If someone else writes a reference guide which is their own material then it's THEIR work. The issue in this case is that Mr Ark had assembled a work from quotes from Ms. Rowling's books; there was next to no material of his in the book; that's where it fell foul of the law.

I note that Mr. Ark is currently writing a book on places in the UK which have featured in the HP books and movies. I wish him every success with it - although it's obviously playing off the back of the success of Ms. Rowling's work, that will undoubtedly be all Mr. Ark's own work, and is, therefore, perfectly OK.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is relevant for you strong claim that "The issue at the centre of the case is that Ms. Rowling, as an author, has an exclusive right to commercially exploit her work. " and that is not true which was shown in the quote.

While already the use of the word "to exploit" comes already with a strong bias... could just as well as "to enrich"... on the other strong bias, or "to mention"... "to base upon"... etc.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it is absolutely true. If someone else writes a reference guide which is their own material then it's THEIR work.

To me this is exploiting the work of Rowling.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I did indeed read that, but it's not relevent here. Where Mr. Ark's book fell down is the issue of "fair use". A "reference guide" written by a third party has to contain a significant level of original "creativity"; Mr. Ark's was (apparently) virtually nothing more than material copied verbatem from Ms. Rowling's work, and therefore not "fair use".

Actually, the website, which is what Mr Ark has control over, contains a lot more original content than the book was going to. It was the publishers decision to strip out virtually all of the original content in order to make the book shorter. I think that's where they really ran into trouble.

[Robotech_Master]

Incidentally, Groklaw has an excellent lengthy analysis of the decision.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Incidentally, Groklaw has an excellent lengthy analysis of the decision.

Very nice analysis. I thought this statement by the judge was particularly interesting:

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.

It came down to an assessment of how much was quoted verbatim, especially from the two companion books.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Very nice analysis. I thought this statement by the judge was particularly interesting:

It came down to an assessment of how much was quoted verbatim, especially from the two companion books.

And we do not know what the verdict had been if the Rowling companion book had not been quoted.

[RickyMaveety]

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.

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".

No ... the US has an entirely different system. In this country judges are either (1) elected or (2) appointed. It is not an absolute requirement, but most judges are also lawyers before they became judges. It helps to have some experience before the bench before you actually sit on it, and most attorneys appreciate a judge who was a lawyer in that specialty before they came to the bench (for example, I much prefer a judge with prior probate experience to hear a probate case ...).

There is no such thing as a "closed track" in our system. Someone who is a law sciences major can decide to go to law school and can end up on the bench, either elected or by appointment.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps I did misinterpret the remark.

Well, let's see .... I've probably misinterpreted a few dozen remarks just on this forum alone ... so I think you are due for at least one .... right??

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by slayda

What I find interesting is that Rowling will most probably "steal" the intellectual (although not copy righted) idea for a lexicon and profit from the idea someone else had. She sure didn't seem too interested in one until Ark started his.

On the contrary, she had been talking about it for a while. Fans were asking for it. Also, she has indicated that like several other of her books (the two "textbooks" and the upcoming Beedle the Bard book), the profits from the "Scottish book" as she jokingly called it during the lawsuit will most likely be donated to charity.

No one should accuse J.K. Rowling of greed. She didn't make anyone buy her books, and she has done a great deal of charity work. I don't agree with her stance on e-books and I do think she takes herself a bit too seriously at times but I have to stand up for a fellow Janeite.

Another thing that I found interesting about the opinion--and it was certainly in the reports of the trial and I didn't quite put it together--was that Steve Vander Ark always thought that hard-copy publication of the Lexicon would be an infringement of Rowling's copyright and the publisher convinced him it would not be. And it should be pointed out that only the publisher was being sued.

It should be added that the whole thing could have been settled before the lawsuit was even filed, and perhaps even allowed for the publication of some version of the Lexicon, but the publisher refused to cooperate with the plaintiffs' requests for copies of the ms., etc. JKR and WB filed suit because they couldn't get the publisher's attention without forcing them into it. She has certainly permitted other, similar books that had more original content or did a better job of paraphrasing.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

She has certainly permitted other, similar books that had more original content or did a better job of paraphrasing.

Actually if you read the judge words, these werent't hers to "permit" to start with. If other similar books contain more original content and a better job of paraphrasing, they would be legal, if JKR likes it or not. This book just happens to be judged to have stepped a leap to far over they gray area that is the legal line.

Also note about the charity things. She acts in my very humble oppinion much as a slave to the publishers desire (see for example e-books). That her earnings of this books are going to charity is a good thing, but it by far does not mean that he winning charge (how ever you call that term professionally) of the publisher goes into the same channels, her publisher AFAIK happily takes the money as gains of her charity books, which is likely to be at least the same amount she would get.

And as said, behind this story still flies the impression of online or electronic media to be of far less value, so nobody cared as long it wasn't paper, which is IMHO a loss for us. Yeah yeah, before you post, I know the online website had in difference to that lexicion more original content, and was organised more altruisticly, but still that emotion of worthlessness of electronic media IMHO still is carried with this around.