Rowling wins copyright infringement case

[carld]

Originally Posted by JeffElkins

This Ars Technica article is good:



I side with Orson Scott Card. Like him, I've found Rowling to be a disappointment in her post-Harry career; first the Dumbledore debacle, now this.

There was no debacle. Rowling has every right to say whatever she likes about her own characters. Some people just didn't want to hear it.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by carld

There was no debacle. Rowling has every right to say whatever she likes about her own characters. Some people just didn't want to hear it.

Um, the relevant bit about that in Card's article was this bit, and I think Jeff might be referring to it as well:

It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct -- but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.

What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don't wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it.

I think it is actually a very good article - I have never paid much attention to the HP books but the Ender/Potter parallel is an interesting one. I have my own issues with the Ender series although they were very well written, but nevertheless, good article.

[carld]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Um, the relevant bit about that in Card's article was this bit, and I think Jeff might be referring to it as well:



I think it is actually a very good article - I have never paid much attention to the HP books but the Ender/Potter parallel is an interesting one. I have my own issues with the Ender series although they were very well written, but nevertheless, good article.

Given that Card is a well known and vocal opponent of gays I don't really see that he has any standing whatsoever to comment on the way another author handles, or doesn't handle, their character's sexuality. Especially when dealing with it outside the story.

And how in the world does HE know what Rowling wants or doesn't want. The simple answer is that he has no idea and is pulling an opinion out of thin air, or someplace darker.

I thought Card's attack on Rowling was crude and offensive, and I'm glad I gave up reading his stuff a while ago.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by carld

Given that Card is a well known and vocal opponent of gays I don't really see that he has any standing whatsoever to comment on the way another author handles, or doesn't handle, their character's sexuality. Especially when dealing with it outside the story.

And how in the world does HE know what Rowling wants or doesn't want. The simple answer is that he has no idea and is pulling an opinion out of thin air, or someplace darker.

I thought Card's attack on Rowling was crude and offensive, and I'm glad I gave up reading his stuff a while ago.

Last I checked people don't need "standing" to have an opinion. I don't agree at all with OSC's views on homosexual marriage (it has been legal in my country for years with my full support) but I don't see how that equates to being "a vocal opponent of gays".

And the whole point of it is that the "gay" thing in HP was tacked on at a later date, not in the books themselves but at some press conference somewhere - again, I don't read the HP stuff as it bores me to tears but as far as I know and from the general reaction given by fans I gather Dumbledore being a homosexual came somewhat out of the blue. And how do you deal with a fictional character "outside of the story"? Every little thing about a fictional character is story.

But since I haven't actually read it I guess I have no "standing". But I thought this was an interesting parallel:

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.

But whatever. All I was doing was pointing out what I think was being referred to when you knee-jerked into your "there was no debacle" post and disjointed "Some people just didn't want to hear it" add-on which made no sense in relation to Jeff's comment. Okay?

[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.

[Robotech_Master]

Odd that people linked to a comment on the TeleRead post I made examining the issue, but nobody seems to have mentioned the post itself, in which I dispelled the mistaken belief some people have raised here—that the decision endangers the publication of other reference books.

In fact, the decision is very favorable toward reference books in general—it's just that the Lexicon quoted substantially more of Rowling's own prose (sometimes without citing or quotating it) than was necessary to write such a book.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

And the whole point of it is that the "gay" thing in HP was tacked on at a later date, not in the books themselves but at some press conference somewhere

Exactly. Whether or not Card is personally an opponent of gays has nothing to do with it. He's not making a judgement about Dumbledore being gay, he's saying that Rowling should pick a posiition and stick with it.

If Rowling wanted Dumbledore to be gay, she should have just said so in the books. To have no mention of it whatsoever in the books, and then come out later, after the books have sold, and claim that he was doesn't sit right. Either she was too afraid of the controversy and a potential sales backlash, or else she's just making it up now to get attention. Either way, Card has a good point, and it has nothing to do with his personal feelings towards sexuality.

[Dave Berk]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I think this description can match many fantasy books, some of which were written long before Ender's Game.

Regarding Dumbledore homosexuality, I don't know, but the way she revealed it... It practically opened the whole series for reinterpretation. Dumbledore and Grindelwald interaction... Rita Skeeter insinuations... But this is way OT.

[delphidb96]

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.

I think I heard her once say something about how the entire database is "hers" and she had plans to release it herself. Talk about injustice!

Derek

[axel77]

Lets be said, I don't like Rowling. Nor do I like their modern rewriting of the passion story of jesus now as Harry Potter 7. (yes, HP 7 is pretty much the passion story) She infringed the copyright of the apostels!

Anyhow law should be blind, and it doesn't matter if she is symphatic or not. Or if she is either to much a money-greedy coward to really hint Dumbledore is gay in the books, or an attention whore to invent it out of thin-air ex post. The whole dumbledore story does not matter at all if this ruling is "right" or "wrong", or what this ruling will mean for future books or non-books.

[RickyMaveety]

My spin on this .... I read the court's decision and it is certainly correct with regard to limitations on the amount or the original work which may be used in the derivative work. If the Lexicon was mostly quotes of the original material with little or no new contribution in the sense of scholarly analysis, then it doesn't fall into the fair use exception. This is true regardless of what you may think about Rowling.

The court clearly didn't think the suit was "frivolous" (as I believe Mr. Card termed it), or it would have been dismissed on those grounds.

As for good old Dumbledore, I honestly don't care what JK Rowling thinks about him. Since she didn't write him as a clearly gay character, then I am not forced to perceive him as one simply because she said so at a press conference.

That's the wonderful thing about reading, you are allowed to use your own imagination to fill in back story. That's one of the reasons I don't pay much attention to "fan fiction" or to web sites devoted to a particular series of books. Those are all someone else's input ... and I prefer to stretch my own imagination, not to have someone else do it for me entirely. Not even the author. Once she completed the books, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's all up to me to fill in any holes. That's the beauty of fiction.

The author owns the literary rights to the characters as long as the copyright exists. But no one owns my imagination but me. In my imagination, Dumbledore is completely asexual .... since that's how I prefer my old and wise wizards.

And, I still am not seeing any reference to the Federal courts as "corrupt." I've really got to stop reading and re-reading that article looking for something that I'm just not seeing.

[JeffElkins]

Originally Posted by carld

There was no debacle. Rowling has every right to say whatever she likes about her own characters. Some people just didn't want to hear it.

Bushwaw. As Card said, Rowling didn't have the guts to speak when it might hurt sales. She's a coward and I say that having bought three copies of each Harry Potter hardback (two for grandchildren, one for myself).

And she's obviously anti-ebook. My fourth copies of the HP canon are darknet editions, since she wouldn't allow me to purchase valid editions for my Sony. That should mark her as a Voldemort for any Mobileread regular.

[JeffElkins]

Originally Posted by carld

Given that Card is a well known and vocal opponent of gays

That's a slander. Card is an opponent of the homosexual lifestyle, just like he is an opponent of internet porn. Love the sinner, hate the sin. He treats gays with kindness and love in his fiction.

[carld]

I wrote out a post citing Card's own words, but honestly, it's not worth it. I stand by what I said, and anyone who has any interest can look up "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" and make up their own mind.

[Nate the great]

I found it. He presents an interesting argument. I don't necessarily agree with him, but it is thought provoking.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

You have to take his words out of context to claim he hates gays.