I've read more recent article on the Rowling/Unauthorized Lexicon brouhaha. I recall last year the author of the Lexicon maintained they're trying to get a print version published out of tremendous fan support. A few online editorials I read at the time cast Rowling in a greedy light for objecting.
Reading the quotes in the above article, she seems more hurt and worried than avaricious.
Goodness knows Potter fandom has more than its share of people who think -really- liking a character is the same thing as owning said character.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
You'd think the publisher would slap that down right away when they saw it knowing exactly the kinds of legal issues it'd bring up, plus give the writer a stern letter about it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Rowling is overstepping her rights as an author, I'd think. This is not a new fictional novel about her characters. This is a literary guide to the novels already written. I don't see how that would violate her rights as an author any more than if I wrote an essay giving my thoughts on the Harry Potter series. (Didn't OSC contribute to a published book doing exactly that?)
Rowling does still retain certain rights over her stories and characters, but now that she has released them into the world she cannot expect to control them absolutely. Other people are going to, at a minimum, analyze and discuss them - and they should have the right to do so, even in published works. If they want to compile a list of every spell written in her books, they have the right to do so.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Rowling is overstepping her rights as an author, I'd think. This is not a new fictional novel about her characters. This is a literary guide to the novels already written. I don't see how that would violate her rights as an author any more than if I wrote an essay giving my thoughts on the Harry Potter series. (Didn't OSC contribute to a published book doing exactly that?)
Rowling does still retain certain rights over her stories and characters, but now that she has released them into the world she cannot expect to control them absolutely. Other people are going to, at a minimum, analyze and discuss them - and they should have the right to do so, even in published works. If they want to compile a list of every spell written in her books, they have the right to do so.
See, I think that since this Lexicon is going to be *sold* that Rowling should at least get something from it. The bigger problem is this, what happens if she someday decides she wants to write an encyclopedia Pottania? If the fan Lexicon is out there, it becomes a competing product, thus robbing her of money that, to be honest, should really be hers to begin with, after all, all of this stuff came out of her mind in the first place, and she's the one who worked, sacrificed, and suffered to bring it all to fruition. Does she not have a right to control her own intellectual property?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
How do you feel, Boris, about the numerous books and movies based on the idea of "Unlocking the Da Vinci Code?"
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I am reminded of Don Quixote. There's a solution for her!
--ApostleRadio
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
If it was just a book of essays on the Potterverse, I would think that would qualify as literary criticism. It's the encyclopedia part I'm not sure how I feel about.
On the one hand, how can you possibly stop people from compiling a list of the stuff that showed up in a book series? The books are there, anyone can do it. If others want to pay one person to do that research for them, it's like picking up some Cliff Notes. Plus, one would reasonably expect a Rowling Potterverse encyclopedia to include material only hinted at or never mentioned in the books allowing it to supplant a compilation of what she's already written.
On the other, someone else is profiting from her characters. As an author, I'm not ok with that. She made them up, she put all the effort in of developing them, and she went through the trouble of sharing them with others. Yes, she's been well compensated for her work, but is it really fair for the next guy to come along, condense her work, and sell it for money?
I probably wouldn't mind if this were a free web site under discussion. Someone as a labor of love wants to provide a quick reference guide to the stories? Awesome. It's the profiting off it that I don't care for.
Whatever happens, I hope the judge finds a fair solution for everyone.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Rowling is overstepping her rights as an author, I'd think. This is not a new fictional novel about her characters. This is a literary guide to the novels already written. I don't see how that would violate her rights as an author any more than if I wrote an essay giving my thoughts on the Harry Potter series. (Didn't OSC contribute to a published book doing exactly that?)
As I understand it, Rowling has never objected to the books of theories and essays on what might happen in the series, but she was planning to compile a reference work herself and donate the profits to charity.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
This is one more reason I highly dislike this woman. She is a greedy witch, and I don't mean the good kind. These kinds of projects have been going on for years without any lawsuits in the past. Think of the Unofficial guide to [fill in the blank]. If she wins there is going to be ramifications way beyond her unbridled ego.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: These kinds of projects have been going on for years without any lawsuits in the past. Think of the Unofficial guide to [fill in the blank].
I can think of examples concerning popular corporate-owned TV shows and movies, but those were more "review/rate the episodes/fan theories on the show/backstage stories" type books.
I'm having trouble think of a for profit unauthorized encyclopedia-type reference of a creator-owned literary work that wasn't challenged in some way.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
It divides everything in the books, every person, place, spell, hogwarts instructor, etc, and lists every single thing in that category. The entries either summarize what is in the books or quote entire passages to relay the information on that subject.
This isn't a commentary on the series (of which there are several, that have no problem getting published). This is Rowling's work. Period. She and her publishers have a right to protect her work. Not to say that it isn't a great web source -- Rowling has said as much herself. But they cannot publish what is on their website and make money off of it.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: How do you feel, Boris, about the numerous books and movies based on the idea of "Unlocking the Da Vinci Code?"
The Da Vinci code itself doesn't belong to Dan Brown... It was a historical thing that he wrote a book about.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
wait...what?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This isn't a commentary on the series (of which there are several, that have no problem getting published). This is Rowling's work. Period. She and her publishers have a right to protect her work.
This is not at all settled law - it's far more complex than the news accounts I've read make it out to be.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Is it because she's approved of the website in the past?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
The intuitive "she created the characters and world and should have all the say in the world about what happens to them" reaction is understandable -- but without actual copyright law basis. And this is for good reason. Copyright law "philosophy" (I know there is a better word for that) is to ENCOURAGE innovation, and this is a Good Thing in Sharpie's opinion.
Also what Dagonee says: this is really very complex.
Disclaimers: I'm a fiction writer, have never done a lick of fan fiction, I am an admirer of Cory Doctorow, and I have a head full of layperson knowledge of all the copyright information available as it regards board games (particularly Scrabble and Scrabulous). I am not a lawyer, but I do love arguments. I find copyright law to be maybe THE most fascinating subject I have encountered in my adult life.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
But this project isn't innovating. It's just repackaging stuff she's already written and trying to make money off it. My opinion would be greedy, opportunistic thing.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
No, no, I'm saying the purpose of the copyright law as a body is generally to encourage innovation.
For this particular work, it must be considered to be transformative. A hasty look at the particulars tells me that it has a good chance at being considered transformative. You are right that MERELY repackaging stuff is not allowed. But using it in a work that has another purpose, that adds value, and so forth -- things which can be argued in a case like this -- have a good shot.
Er, I don't know how the differences in UK and U.S. copyright law will impact this, either. Also, here I'm only talking about copyright. When you talk about licensing rights, which apparently is being talked about here, you get into trademark and a whole lot of other crap.
Again, most of my interest is in the board game realm, but there is a lot of crossover.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it because she's approved of the website in the past?
I think that will end up being irrelevant, because, for many of the reasons Sharpie stated, I think this will turn on whether this is fair use.
The web site approval might sustain an estoppel defense, but I think that misses the bigger picture: do we want authors to be able to prevent criticism and literary analysis from being published in book form. I think the answer is no, and I think copyright law supports this. Therefore, the broader assertion being made - that no one can publish anything about her characters or plot points - is almost certainly wrong.
Whether the lexicon in question does more than that remains to be seen.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm curious, having not read through the lexicon myself...
If one were to take out the words JK Rowling had herself written, meaning all of the passages and excerpts, and any and all names/words that have been trademarked (not sure if this has even been done, but I'd imagine Scholastic/Rowling protected their assets that way) - would the work still be able to exist on its own merits?
I know, for instance, that I could not make "Hogwarts" t-shirts and sell them without getting into legal issues with Rowling and Warner Bros, who own the rights. I also couldn't get away with trying to publish "fan fiction" using Harry Potter/Hermione/Ron without gettig into an issue with Scholastic/Rowling.
How much of this Lexicon is "commentary" and how much of it is not?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, I gotta say I agree that I don't want us treading into the domain that authors can prevent literary guides or criticism of their work being published.
It sounds to me like she is not after protecting her work, but rather protecting money she intended to make (even if it was to be donated to charity). There are lots of guides out there to the Lord of the Rings trilogy - were all of them approved by Tolkien's estate? I know some certainly were...but were all of them? Would we have a problem with someone not connected to the Tolkien family publishing a guide to LOTR? It's a very complicated series, after all and a literary guide would be helpful.
There is a way to solve this, you know - she publishes her own, and then we see which one sells the most copies. I suspect if she were to publish an "official" literary guide it wold far outsell any "unofficial" ones on the market and she'd get her money for charity.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
But you can protect money you intend to make. For instance, you can't write a sequel to a Star Wars movie without George Lucas' permission.
You also can't make another Matrix movie or a film like the Animatrix without permission.
It comes down to how much of this is a "Cliff's Notes" and how much of it is "Copy/Paste" to me. If this is truly a literary guide, such as the "Decoding the Da Vinci Code" books, then the majority of it will be commentary/opinion from a 3rd party. If this is an "encyclopedia" that merely restates words Rowling wrote herself in a more searchable format, then to me it smacks more of "making a buck off the work of someone else".
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Good point, FlyingCow. Even an encyclopedia where they discussed the influences behind the various characters would add value, in my opinion. Like Dobie the House Elf being part of the Celtic brownie tradition or Hermione as the Artemis character archtype.
We'd probably need to actually see it to have an opinion, but on the surface I'm not liking it.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Well, sequels are -- usually -- considered derivative works, which is a protectable right of copyright holders.
Edited for crappy grammar. The grammar is still not great, but better than it was.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
This appears to be an example of the kind of entry we are talking about.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: How do you feel, Boris, about the numerous books and movies based on the idea of "Unlocking the Da Vinci Code?"
Considering that Dan Brown, who wrote the Da Vinci Code, ripped all of the ideas off from Baigent and Leigh's Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that's kind of funny.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
That's okay. Ideas can't be copyrighted. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Between legitimate fandom and copyright violation
...Lies Obsession?... Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
After taking a quick peak, the entries themselves aren't so bad, though I did not dust off my copies of the series to see if they are just paraphrasing actual work.
For instance, I can't really write a scholarly paper wherein every single line is just a paraphrased reference from some other source. I need to add value. The "House Elf" section appears to be just a series of paraphrases with Book/Chapter notation telling where the information was paraphrased from.
When I click on the Book/Chapter links, there is more "value" in that much of that content is new and not paraphrased. The only concern for me there is just how many actual quotations are being used. How much of an existing text can you copy/paste before you stop falling under the protection of "fair use"?
Why doesn't Rowling just buy the website? It would give her a good jump on her own Encyclopedia - she could add to it, then publish for charity.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: How do you feel, Boris, about the numerous books and movies based on the idea of "Unlocking the Da Vinci Code?"
How many of those books were written without the permission of Dan Brown? In this case, it is very obvious that JK has not given permission for the Lexicon to be printed and sold. She did give permission for the website, but not a print version of it. The fact that the website creators asked her permission to create the website, and then assumed that she would also be okay with them putting it in book is completely short sited of them. I mean come on, they asked her permission to make the dang website, why didn't they ask permission to publish it as a book?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: How do you feel, Boris, about the numerous books and movies based on the idea of "Unlocking the Da Vinci Code?"
How many of those books were written without the permission of Dan Brown? In this case, it is very obvious that JK has not given permission for the Lexicon to be printed and sold. She did give permission for the website, but not a print version of it. The fact that the website creators asked her permission to create the website, and then assumed that she would also be okay with them putting it in book is completely short sited of them. I mean come on, they asked her permission to make the dang website, why didn't they ask permission to publish it as a book?
I would assume that none of the projects had Dan Brown's permission, with the exception of the movie based on the book. Why would they need his permission?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For instance, I can't really write a scholarly paper wherein every single line is just a paraphrased reference from some other source. I need to add value. The "House Elf" section appears to be just a series of paraphrases with Book/Chapter notation telling where the information was paraphrased from.
The linked entry is definitely transformative and almost certainly fair use. However, fair use might not even come into it: this might not be either copying or a derivative work, meaning it's not an infringement at all.
Selection and arrangement are both recognized as creative, transformative elements. While such a work would not necessarily be considered "scholarly" in academia, it certainly is a type of scholarly work contemplated by copyright law.
Moreover, this link is more than simple paraphrasing. For example, it draws conclusions, such as "Note that as long as Dobby was the slave of the Malfoys, his attempts to help Harry failed." This is more than simple paraphrasing. It recognizes a pattern and poses a possible explanation.
Even the selection of what's important enough about house elves to include in that entry is a creative (for the purposes of copyright law) endeavor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then, when David Hammer — lead attorney for defendant publisher RDR who handled every witness examination — crossed Johnson, her testimony simply unraveled.
Hammer pressed Johnson on her previous statements that the H.P. Lexicon is “weak waggishness,” that its jokes are “facetious,” “condescending in the extreme” and amount to “tedious jocularity.” Hammer got Johnson to agree that what’s obvious or facile to an academic dean at Oxford might not be so to children — presumably the Lexicon’s main audience. He asked: Could a work be useful to a 10 year-old even if it’s not something she would classify as a work of academic scholarship? “Yes,” she said. “No more questions,” he said.
Sounds like a beautiful cross.
I've only read second-hand accounts. It sounds like Rowling has an uphill battle here.
Aaagh... Reading the comments in that last link made me want to waste my whole week replying to them. You know, because people are so often swayed by my arguments :-).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Believe me, I know.
I think this case is close. But the reasoning given by some Potter fans on the site would cripple fair use.
Does anyone really believe that Rowling's encyclopedia will sell fewer copies if this lexicon is published?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Assuming the judge finds for the defendant, if Rowling sells her own Lexicon later, will she be vulnerable to lawsuits?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't think of any cause of action the publisher or author of the lexicon would have.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Does anyone really believe that Rowling's encyclopedia will sell fewer copies if this lexicon is published?
If her encyclopedia is significantly lower in quality than his, sure.
And it would be really sad if she can't make an encyclopedia that's better than his.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To elaborate a little: if this lexicon is published, the author will have copyright in the selection and arrangement of the material, as well as in any original material contained within.
If Rowling were to come up with an identical arrangement and selection and could prove she never read the lexicon, she would not be found liable for copyright infringement - unlike in patents, if two people independently produce identical works, both hold copyright in their own work.
Of course, we know she's read it. The standard there would be substantially similarity in arrangement and selection. She would be able to present evidence that she came up with the arrangement independently (her testimony, notes, etc.). Moreover, if the selection and arrangement is of the type any lexicon author would make - say, alphabetical by word - then holding a copyright in that arrangement would not prevent someone else from using it.
So I can't think of a successful cause of action against Rowling if she comes up with her own lexicon - even if she uses the new one as a reference.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You know, they've been making encyclopedias of this type for years. I've an an "Encyclopedia of Middle-Earth" on my shelf. I wonder if it was made with approval from the Tolkien estate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And it would be really sad if she can't make an encyclopedia that's better than his.
That factored into my disbelief.
quote:You know, they've been making encyclopedias of this type for years. I've an an "Encyclopedia of Middle-Earth" on my shelf. I wonder if it was made with approval from the Tolkien estate.
I can't find a definitive source. I know that companion encyclopedia are very common. I also know that publishers have emphasized the "authorized" status of some such books which compete with others, leading me to believe those others are not authorized.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The Da Vinci code itself doesn't belong to Dan Brown... It was a historical thing that he wrote a book about."
Nope. Both the "problem" and the "solution" were made up only a few short years ago. And DanBrown used the results of the original authors' "historical research" in writing his novel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note that there are a thousand or two published literary critical reviews of the Potterverse; including several bestsellers (or near) devoted to "solving the mystery" by examining the clues/plotlines while Rowling was still in the process writing her books. And only the Lexicon has been hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
There's one significant way in which Rowling could make a better encyclopedia that would sell more copies. She's free to add background information that wasn't in the books. Her encyclopedia could add significant information about the Potterverse, and I suspect that would be a huge advantage.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: She's free to add background information that wasn't in the books.
Most of us are counting on that, neh?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup.
And if she doesn't bother to do that, and she only does what this other guy has done, then I'm not sure she deserves the sales any more than he does.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The linked entry is definitely transformative and almost certainly fair use. However, fair use might not even come into it: this might not be either copying or a derivative work, meaning it's not an infringement at all.
Selection and arrangement are both recognized as creative, transformative elements. While such a work would not necessarily be considered "scholarly" in academia, it certainly is a type of scholarly work contemplated by copyright law.
Moreover, this link is more than simple paraphrasing. For example, it draws conclusions, such as "Note that as long as Dobby was the slave of the Malfoys, his attempts to help Harry failed." This is more than simple paraphrasing. It recognizes a pattern and poses a possible explanation.
Even the selection of what's important enough about house elves to include in that entry is a creative (for the purposes of copyright law) endeavor.
You know, I love reading legal analysis in general. (Given Sharpie's comments, I am itching to check out a meaty text on copyright law.)
But I love, love, love reading Dagonee on legal analysis. Love it. Can't get enough of it. Tight, elegant, and sweet -- makes my day. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT, you just made my week - and maybe my month, depending on how outstanding job prospects go. Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Maybe someday Dag will be on the Supreme Court and he will write thrilling opinions from the bench.
And we will all say we knew him when.
msquared
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Boris said (italics mine):
quote: The fact that the website creators asked her permission to create the website, and then assumed that she would also be okay with them putting it in book is completely short sited of them.
There's a punny response to this, I know it. There has to be. Sighted/cited/sited. Can't think of it. Grr...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Waiting for Dagonee to start wearing his "Tight, elegant, and sweet" T-shirt...
quote:Like a true fan, Mr. Vander Ark treated even Ms. Rowling’s assertions that he had made mistakes as wonderful revelations rather than embarrassments.
When Mr. Hammer told him that Ms. Rowling had testified on Monday about the etymology of “Alohomora,” an unlocking spell, Mr. Vander Ark — who had been sequestered during her testimony — blurted, “Oh, really?”
In her testimony, Ms. Rowling said Mr. Vander Ark’s link between the spell and the Hawaiian “aloha” was “errant nonsense,” explaining that it actually had come from West African dialect.
“That’s exciting stuff for someone like me,” Mr. Vander Ark said from the witness stand. “Did she happen to mention which dialect?” Mr. Hammer promised to “conference” on it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think he's sweet and adorable and a true fan but that doesn't make the information his.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Unfortunately for Ms. Rowling, information is not covered by copyright. Even information about things she made up.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering -- there are people in the comments of the linked article saying that the content is 90% from the books. But does that mean word-for-word or does it mean that it's information taken from the books?
It's like the difference between plagiarizing a term paper and writing one -- when you're in an introductory course, you're not likely to do original research or have new insights. A term paper may well just be a bunch of information distilled from journal articles and books, put into a form that the professor requests. But it's not plagiarism if you cite and quote properly.
So if there's nothing particularly original, but nothing copied either, is that violating copyright?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here is the KEY, the website is 90% ABOUT the books, but by no means is it 90% FROM the books.
Anyone who has been to the Lexicon and has looked around can see this. We are allowed to talk ABOUT and compile information ON these books and others, and that typically does not constitute Copyright violation.
I think they need to come up with a benevolent settlement on this. To do otherwise is going to cost millions in repeated appeals, and is going to cause a fracture and a lot of heartache for all concerned.
Settle...it's the only reasonable solution.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)