 Rowling’s blonde Make-over Seems to be More Interesting than Her Psycho Reaction to Fansite |
JK Rowling Sues Fan site. — To find any real analysis of this you need to read the blogs. This reminds me of Mattel suing the various Barbie fansites.
The publisher of an encyclopaedic website cataloguing the complex world of Harry Potter has been sued by the books’ author JK Rowling, even though she has actually used the site in her own research.
The suit is prompted by the imminent publication of a book based on the website, The Harry Potter Lexicon. Rowling and the producers of the Harry Potter films Warner Bros are seeking an injunction to stop the publication of the book, claiming copyright infringement.
The case, which will be heard in New York on 14th April, centres on what exactly constitutes copyright infringement and whether or not the Potter copyright owners’ seeming acceptance of the Lexicon as a website affects their ability to stop it becoming a book.
Potter fan Steve Vander Ark began putting the online Lexicon together in 1999, cataloguing the peculiarities of the world Rowling had created for her bespectacled hero-conjurer. Fans have contributed to the site over the years and it is now widely accepted as the definitive authority on Potter’s world.
Small Michigan publisher RDR Books has been working with Vander Ark on a book version of the Lexicon but Rowling and Warner claim that this infringes their copyright.
“The people, places, terms and images in the Harry Potter books … are Ms Rowling’s original creative work,” says the lawsuit.
“I am deeply troubled by the portrayal of my efforts to protect and preserve the copyrights I have been granted in the Harry Potter books,” said Rowling in court papers. “If RDR’s position is accepted, it will undoubtedly have a significant, negative impact on the freedoms enjoyed by genuine fans on the internet.”
Facts about the Harry Potter Lexicon website – Telegraph — Read this for some interesting background.
In 2004, Rowling gave HPL one of her “fan site awards”. On her own website, she said: “This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter which is embarrassing.”
• The site is said to have earned only £3,000 in advertising revenue.
I guess now that these peasants actually want to make more than chickenfeed, Rowlings decides to sue over what she herself once enjoyed. Wow. What’s more interesting to me is how the media has been so gentle to Rowling and her howling over this.
“Witch” or just not very bright?
Most authors would PRAISE THEIR LUCKY STARS if they had fans like this. They certainly wouldn’t discourage them in any way.
What do you expect… the movie industry is involved…
What a B&$ch!!! Ungrateful, disloyal, scheming, quick buck cheap kids book author B&$ch.
Feed her maggots and then burn her at the stake B&$ch.
Reminds me of the Medici popes.
This is the same as trying to sell copies of a mix cd you made at home. Why should they be able re-sell her ideas. So she’s made a lot of money. What, she made too much, now she owes everyone? Oh I get it the little guy can steal from the big guy cause he has so much…. How nice does she need to be to these coat tail riders? She’s already acknowledged their site was cool, now let them go do something made of their own creativity.
I had the same idea, but instead of Harry Potter, I wanted to copy Dvoraks’ site and print it out and have it published. But then I realized that there is no money in it. ;>)
Doing derivative products like this is very common and anything but stealing. Would it cost her sales? Methinks NO!
By your logic Cliff Notes should be shut down too.
BUt OK..CRUSH HIM. How nice to be that way.
The in the press coverage around this you can read that she still loves his website and uses it and have no opinions about it , but she does not like the BOOK version of the website since it seek to profit from her creative work, word by word .
I don’t get how media companies are suing fansites. These sites fills the void of their inadequate flash-based “official” sites. Fan sites are where all the viral marketing takes place and help promote their content. As for the greedy despicable witch, it seems like a billion dollars is not enough.
I wonder if this would even be an issue if steve decided to keep the user notes in the book. There’s a line in the filing that basically stipulates to me that really the reason she’s so against this is because he basically took all the creativity out of it and only left her world. I agree with you, I’m just stating where I think she really stands. Not really a strong argument but there you go. Plus, I don’t really get how this would lose her sales on the encyclopedia she wants to do. Your buying the book for the EXCLUSIVE content, not some rehash of freely available information.
Maybe Gaiman should come after her for nicking the whole idea from Books of Magic…
I believe that her encyclopedia’s profit were going to charity. Don’t think that would make her greedy.
Stinkin Thinkin going on here unless you think a book is the same as a website.
Until this distinction is kept clearly in mind, the more subtle aspects of the interplay between fair comment and copyright law is pretty much lost.
she made enough money already, if she wants her books to be a real legacy that people look fondly on 20 years from now then she will need people like this dedicated fan to keep it alive. But whatever, go ahead and crush him because he wants to cash in on his research.
Typically I agree with John but this time I think I agree with Rowlings. If a book is published called “Harry Potter: Lexicon” then there is a severe potential for confusion in the market place. Its fair to say that a reasonable person may see the book and think that it is published by Rowlings. The standard which these things are usually measured is “would it cause confusion in the market place.” It may be argued that Harry Potter has become like a celebrity in his own right and is now part of the public domain. My first inclination is that Rowlings has the right to protect against confusion in the market place that this book is in some way a new Harry Potter book authored by her. John, what do you think?
#15–Shizzaq==this is not about public confusion. This is about stealing Rowlings property. Doesn’t matter who the thief is.
I wonder how this compares to all the Start Trek, Star Wars, LotR, encyclopedias out there and how the licensing for them was handled.. It seems to me that this sort of compilation of data is pretty common in popular universes..
But after her “hand printed” book fiasco I’ve lost all respect for her anyway..
This is just not about JK Rowling and greed and the attack on fan sites that many media companies are engaged in. This suite is about whether an American publishing company is violating American copyright laws by publishing a book about HP. She is not suing Muggles.net or one of the other thousand HP fan sites. She did not sue the site years ago, only now; she even gave it an award. She is not attacking all HP fan sites just the one she’s engaged in a lawsuit over regarding a book. American Copyright laws practically require people to sue clear violations of their copyrighted material or risk losing their rights to it.
There is a world of difference between a published book and a fansite.
She is not, like the MPAA, RIAA, Fox, NBC and others, trolling the internet for all HP content and sending nasty notes from lawyers to all kids who’ve posted pictures and people who’ve written awful fan fiction.
This is about a lawsuit with a book publishing company, not fansites.
[Duplicate comment. – Deleted. – ed.]
#15 – ‘Public confusion’ the way you describe it is an issue of trademark law, and while she may have some claim there, she is suing for copyright infringement.
#17 – ‘This is about stealing Rowlings property. Doesn’t matter who the thief is.’
This is as bad as the idiots claiming “Selfish bitch already made enough money.”
First, this is an issue of copyright infringement, not theft, which is legally distinct. Second, publishing a derivative work is legal under US copyright law. A detailed analysis and guide to another work would tend to fall under this, such as an analysis of LOTR or Dvorak’s collected writings. The dislike of the Dvorak or Tolkien’s heirs for the work is legally irrelevant.
There may or may not be legitimacy to Rowling’s claims, depending on exactly what the author and publisher are doing. Obviously they and their counsel think they are in the right; most publishers do not go about flouting copyright law and their staff counsel would have a fit if they did.
This is a matter of law for the courts to decide, and a potentially intricate one which I wager will end up in a settlement agreement with the Lexicon being published with alterations. Simply saying “he’s a thief!” or “She made enough money!” is babbling nonosense.
#22–foo==right you are. Theft vs misappropriation vs infringement. I’m sure that would move the conversation along.
While the distinctions above are but a quibble, you seriously misuse the concept of a derivative piece. Such are legal only with the permission of the copyright holder. I’d hate to have my lawyer walk into court and open with such an explanation.
Foo, indeed.
#24 – “you seriously misuse the concept of a derivative piece. Such are legal only with the permission of the copyright holder.”
From what you wrote I think you know this area better than I. What about “The Completely Useless Unauthorized Star Trek Encyclopedia”? Or, works such as that.
#5 Jim S – “Oh I get it the little guy can steal from the big guy cause he has so much….”
It’s the liberal way. Blame it all on big business (or anyone with more money than you) so everyone will side with you in taking away their earnings.
Did you expect anything else from this blog?
#22 – wrote
‘Theft vs misappropriation vs infringement. I’m sure that would move the conversation along. While the distinctions above are but a quibble…’
I’m quite certain that any practicing attorney would regard these as much more than a ‘quibble’. They are very distinct legal concepts, and if he had treated them as a ‘quibble’ he would not have passed law school, much less the bar exam.
‘you seriously misuse the concept of a derivative piece. Such are legal only with the permission of the copyright holder.’
No, this is not the case. It is possible to make various unauthorized derivative works, as others have noted. There are fair use provisions to do so within copyright law, backed up by case law. In this case, it is an open and legitimate question as to whether the defendant has exceeded the bounds of fair use or not, and if so, to what extent. Obviously the publisher’s attorneys think not, and they are not paid to commit malpractice.
As I said before, this is a complicated legal matter where both sides legitimately think they are in the right, and are taking it to court where the legal issues can be aired, analyzed and tried before an impartial judge. The specific facts of the matter combined with legal precedent will determine if the defendant is acting within the bounds of fair use or not.
‘I’d hate to have my lawyer walk into court and open with such an explanation.’
Would this be the same lawyer who thinks the distinctions between ‘theft vs misappropriation vs infringement’ are ‘quibbles’? I would hate to have that lawyer walk into court on my side too.
#25–pat==not really==just fairly recently got interested in it as some guy was found “guilty” of producing a derivative work. I think foo just momentarily got his concepts mix-uped.
Anyway, as far a crimes or actionable events==I’ll bet you come across them everyday and decide its not worth the effort to sue? Same with publishers. I think quite often there is actually a business decision==does this work actually help promote our book, or does it cut into sales, or future sales?
Anyway, nothing in the law is self-enforcing. Bush has relied on that fact for 7 years now, as do most members of Congress. You and I usually get caught and punished.
27–foo==that would be the same lawyer Mensa type guy that foolishly parades his credentials on a blog.
Do you post contribute to the conversation, or to boost your own ego?
I, of course, always try to do both. Only a slight difference in emphasis, but telling.
#28 – I think one thing that really messes with these laws (and case law) is the time extensions that have been given to copyrighted works. When the time is extended without loosening anything on the other side it starts going out of kilter…
#30–Pat==time extensions are one of the less troubling aspects of the whole area of intellectual property law. I think the worst problem that is constantly being legislated to get only worse is the idea of “what is patentable?”
DNA patents maybe the worst most recent case as are most medically related procedures, but you see it all over the place in software development as well==and then that thread last week about Boeing “owning” the patent for slingshot projectories to reposition satelites in orbit.
The justification of intellectual property laws is to encourage innovation. When they do the opposite, the law needs to be changed.
For those wondering – a “derivative work” is any work based on the original. So, a news story about Harry Potter is a “derivative work” (which is more than likely legal, though not necessarily – reprinting an entire book in a newspaper, for example, would not be legal), as would an encyclopedia such as this as would a sequel (which would not be legal at all.)
This encyclopedia falls somewhere in between. If the authors merely explain (in their own words) Rowling’s concepts, then it’s more than likely that it’s legal, even without her permission. If the authors are just reprinting things out of her books, however, that’s less-than-legal, and likely even illegal.
There are many factors that a court considers when analyzing whether a derivative work is legal or not.
#32–Alex==quite right. And that is why links to articles are used on many blogs rather than permitting wholesale cutting and pasting. The law–its everywhere.
#31 – “I think the worst problem that is constantly being legislated to get only worse is the idea of “what is patentable?””
Don’t EVEN get me started on that! 🙂