I don't know enough about the issue to make a meaningful comment on the judge's decision.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Meh, I have to admit I've only skimmed over the news from a couple sources. My first impressions are: WHOOHOOOOO!!!!! Yay for Rowling.
One of my friends however made a comment that he didn't think the Judge's decision was firm enough or set any precedent for future situations with other authors.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I saw that. Good for her. I can see why she was upset about the impending publishing and I don't think she was being a witch.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Did anyone really expect a different outcome?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Did anyone really expect a different outcome?
Honestly, I'm surprised it took this long.
--j_k
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Did anyone really expect a different outcome?
Yes. And I'm disappointed, but having read through the entire decision, I find I'm mostly disappointed with the defendant for having been sloppy. If he'd done a better job with citations and word choice, this would have gone the other way.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Did anyone really expect a different outcome?
Yes. And I'm disappointed, but having read through the entire decision, I find I'm mostly disappointed with the defendant for having been sloppy.
Huh. I disagree, on both points. (That is, he may have been sloppy, but I don't think that's the reason for the decision, which I think was correct.)
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
I haven't followed this closely, only peripherally, so please accept my disclaimer that I may not be fully informed.
My concern with this is that it creates a public misperception of the concept of fair use. Rowling was happy with the lexicon, even supported it, when it was available freely. But when the person who built it decided to profit from it at a time when she was considering creating a similar product she decided to sue.
That's a separate issue to the success of her case.
It's important to note that the judge did say that it was unimportant that Rowling intended to produce her own reference work - that in fact commercial reference works in and of themselves are allowable irrespective of Rowling's desire to produce her own.
The problem mainly lay with the overquoting of passages from the books, an argument which has legitimate merit even for those of us who are passionate about fair use. It was also felt that the amount of overquoting was so extreme as to render other commercial reference works useless.
So I agree with the 'sloppy' argument above. Commercial reference works can and are allowed, you just can't reproduce the bulk of a book verbatim and claim it's fair use.
However people in general will just see that Rowling won her case and believe in the all-pervasive style of copyright that media barons would like to see made a reality.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Did anyone really expect a different outcome?
Yes, I did. And I hope he appeals and wins.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm curious about the judge's reasoning.
How can JKR write a lexicon of her own without infringing on the already published (web) material Vander Ark produced?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Also, I note that the Lexicon website appears to be not in existence any longer.
I think there's a substantive difference between posting encyclopedic reference work on the public internet and publishing a for-profit work.
My fear is that judge ruled in Rowling's favor in order to protect works she hasn't written yet-- and I think that would be a very, very bad decision.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Did anyone really expect a different outcome?
Yes, I expected a different outcome and still do. I really do expect a win on appeal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I expected a different outcome to be honest. But I need to read deeper into the decision as it seems the judge is making a ruling on this specific case without doing much to touch on precedent.
I'm not sure what he meant by saying the author needed to make it more scholarly in which case he'd have won.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: The problem mainly lay with the overquoting of passages from the books, an argument which has legitimate merit even for those of us who are passionate about fair use.
Precisely.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think there's a substantive difference between posting encyclopedic reference work on the public internet and publishing a for-profit work.
While I agree, I'm not sure the law does.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My fear is that judge ruled in Rowling's favor in order to protect works she hasn't written yet-- and I think that would be a very, very bad decision.
I read the decision (well, read the beginning half and skimmed the last half, it's pretty long), and I didn't get that feeling at all from the judge's decision. He ruled that while an encyclopedic reference work was sufficiently transformative, and not derivative, the lack of quotations and citations in a large number of areas was troubling.
Also, his use of the material in Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages was troubling as well, since they can already be used as reference works. The Lexicon author sought to remedy this by excluding certain facts from his Lexicon so that people would go out and buy the original companion books. However, in a number of entries, the Lexicon lists certain fictional facts point for point. Plus, the author of the Lexicon failed to use his own language in some areas.
This is the point I made in that thread all those months ago. If the Lexicon excluded the material from the companion books, they might have won. But, I suppose they would not have been a comprehensive guide to Harry Potter.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I read the transcripts for the court case and the judge ruled the way I hoped. RDR was trying to make a quick buck and I'm pleased JK stood up for her work. In the case they practically went entry by entry and matched it up verbatim from the books. There was little to no commentary on any of the topics and the instances used by the defense to prove otherwise were shallow and unsubstantial. It would be of the same sort if I copied the first chapter of Ender's Game, tagged on EG ch1, printed it and sold it. All without OSC receiving any royalties, nor having his permission to do so. The issue is someone copied work, called it his own under the guise of a lexicon, then had the nerve to try to make a profit on it. Website, fine, great idea, a goal for any true fan. Trying to make a dime on it, not so great. RDR could not have thought this was going to fly and now that the courts squashed it, hopefully they are shamed faced enough not to try again. If an appeal does happen and the ruling is overturned, that means that the justice system and commom sense has failed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My fear is that judge ruled in Rowling's favor in order to protect works she hasn't written yet-- and I think that would be a very, very bad decision.
I read the decision (well, read the beginning half and skimmed the last half, it's pretty long), and I didn't get that feeling at all from the judge's decision. He ruled that while an encyclopedic reference work was sufficiently transformative, the lack of quotations and citations in a large number of areas was troubling.
Also, his use of the material in Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages was troubling as well, since they can already be used as reference works. The Lexicon author sought to remedy this by excluding certain facts from his Lexicon so that people would go out and buy the original companion books. However, in a number of entries, the Lexicon lists certain fictional facts point for point. Plus, the author of the Lexicon failed to use his own language in some areas.
This is the point I made in that thread all those months ago. If the Lexicon excluded the material from the companion books, they might have won. But, I suppose they would not have been a comprehensive guide to Harry Potter.
That all sounds convincing to me. Cutting and pasting from existing reference works doesn't count as a new work, and not using your own language but instead extensively quoting someone else's language sound like copywrite infringement to me as well.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Troubadour: The problem mainly lay with the overquoting of passages from the books, an argument which has legitimate merit even for those of us who are passionate about fair use.
Precisely.
...Troubadour and I appear to be in complete agreement, but you agree with one of us and disagree with the other. I'm not quite sure how we managed that...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agreed with one of his points, not all of them. And I'm not convinced he agrees with you on the merits of the case.
(Alternate answer: Two of the people in this conversation are Jewish. What did you expect?)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (Alternate answer: Two of the people in this conversation are Jewish. What did you expect?)
A fair point!
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Also, I note that the Lexicon website appears to be not in existence any longer.
I think there's a substantive difference between posting encyclopedic reference work on the public internet and publishing a for-profit work.
My fear is that judge ruled in Rowling's favor in order to protect works she hasn't written yet-- and I think that would be a very, very bad decision.
From the decision, page 59: "This testimony does not bear on the determination of the fourth factor, however, because a reference guide to the Harry Potter works is not a derivative work; competing with Rowling's planned encyclopedia is therefore permissible. Notwithstanding Rowling's public statements of her intention to publish her own encyclopedia, the market for reference guides to Harry Potter works is not exclusively hers to exploit or license, no matter the commercial success attributable to the popularity of the original works. See Twin Peaks, 996 F.2d at 1377 ("The author of 'Twin Peaks' cannot preserve for itself the entire field of publishable works that wish to cash in on the 'Twin Peaks' phenomenon"). The market for reference guides does not become derivative simply because the copyright holder seeks to produce or license one."
Transcribed by me; any typos are my fault.
Still reading through it all.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
It looks to me (started reading the decision, only 1/3 way through) that Van der Ark really, *really* needed an editor on this. His citations for the original material were lacking, his paraphrased passages are nearly direct quotes, and he doesn't cite third-party sources at all. If it were a research paper it would get him failed from the class for plagarism (possibly be at risk for probation if he went to my school).
Plus it looks like the president of the publishing company really pushed him into this, and pretty much acted like a jerk about the whole thing. I hope that guy goes completely under.
[ September 09, 2008, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I agree, it seems the main perpetrator wasn't Van der Ark. It was most likely RDR that pushed for the whole thing in the first place.
Chart compiled, but deemed inadmissable during the case. Usage Pie Chart Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Good grief.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
You know, I was thinking "good grief", but I'm pretty sure I'm not meaning it the same way you are. Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
If anyone wants to read the decision for themselves:
I should also note that it doesn't look like the judge is banning any future efforts for people other than Rowling to produce reference works to the HP series. Only when it actually breaks copyright law. Rowling and WB might have had less-than-stellar reasons for doing the cease-and-desist and suit in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that the work (in its current form) shouldn't have been published with the intent to sell.
It almost makes me want to write a guide myself, that actually cites sources and has original commentary, just to prove that it's possible to win a case like that. Almost.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do it!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
A link to the lexicon. It is still up and running.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: It almost makes me want to write a guide myself, that actually cites sources and has original commentary, just to prove that it's possible to win a case like that. Almost.
I had exactly the same impulse. If only I had the time and energy...
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
As soon as Porter dared me, I got an idea for a guide to the HP characters, and how Harry follows Joseph Campbell's hero cycle by starting in the domestic sphere but then...
No.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Back in late 2002, a co-panelist at an academic conference presented a paper on how Harry Potter tapped into the hero archetype, fitting all the traditional requirements except for dying and being reborn. She suggested he might get to that in a later book, if I recall correctly.
(I believe it was published in The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter, which I have not actually read.)
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I'd believe it, it seems like any episodic fantasy gets a chorus of "Hero Cycle!" at every possible moment.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
A fair point!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)