JK Rowling and Harry Potter Lexicon

Good for her!

Get your own ideas and quit trying to capitalize on someone else's!!

You go, Jo!

WOO HOO!

Glad it went in her favor.

At last our long international nightmare is over.

No, seriously, I hope people will take away from this that it is really important to learn how to write secondary sources properly. Cutting and pasting from the primary source is NOT the answer.

Au contraire

This is a simple case of justice going in favor of the rich and powerful - the author initially supported the website, after all it gave her more fans. Then, when she had all the fans (and money) she wanted, let's kick the once favorable supporter. For what motives? "I want to publish my own encyclopaedia" and then "Oh, now that I see the case is going in my favor, I just don't have the will or the heart to do it anymore."

ED

Edmontonian said:

This is a simple case of justice going in favor of the rich and powerful - the author initially supported the website, after all it gave her more fans. Then, when she had all the fans (and money) she wanted, let's kick the once favorable supporter. For what motives? "I want to publish my own encyclopaedia" and then "Oh, now that I see the case is going in my favor, I just don't have the will or the heart to do it anymore."

ED

Click to expand...

Au contraire encore. I think anyone who ventures into the arena of capitalizing on someone else's ideas ought to tread very carefully indeed. It's the creator's perogative to say yay or nay at any time and no one's allowed to cry foul, imo.

Edmontonian said:

This is a simple case of justice going in favor of the rich and powerful - the author initially supported the website, after all it gave her more fans. Then, when she had all the fans (and money) she wanted, let's kick the once favorable supporter

Click to expand...

No.

She supported the fan-based website, which was a Wiki-like project with many contributors.

She litigated against the website maintainer's wish to turn the fan-based website into a for-profit project for him alone, since the content was mostly direct cut-and-paste from her works, and the contributions from other fans were being used without compensation or permission.

You are arguing on a basis of limited information about this.

Yeah, I sympathize with the Lexicon guy, but it wasn't even JKR's texts he was using. It would be as if someone published the ENTIRE Wikipedia site in book form. Then you're not just a resource, but a FOR PROFIT resource, and with stuff that you didn't even write.

Kind of a wonky case, but I'm glad it's been decided. This sets precedent.

I recommend that anyone who thinks Rowling was just being 'greedy' and that SVA's lexicon was more than cut and paste of her copyrighted work go to this page and scroll down to the bottom. Take a gander at the Pie Chart of Oh Snap and see if it doesn't change your mind.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/83/

Edmontonian:
Then, when she had all the fans (and money) she wanted, let's kick the once favorable supporter.

Click to expand...

You mean the "favourable supporter" who asked Rowling if he could publish the Lexicon, was told she didn't want him to, went ahead and did it anyway and then wondered why his publisher was being sued? Is this the "favourable supporter" we're talking about?

The judge said it himself, there was little that was transformative in the Lexicon to bring it under a fair use exemption. The Lexicon essentially copied and pasted great chunks of Rowling's text without adding additional comment. It was a lazy and blatant attempt at profiteering on the back of the Potter juggernaught and I'm pleased to see that authorial rights have been judicially supported in this instance.

MM

We discussed this case and had lots of vital and important information regarding it in a previous thread. If you need more specifics, you can check them out.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99398&highlight=Rowling+copyright+infringement

With all due respect...

... to the supporters of the author and the judge's decision, we are talking about the same person who sued a religious festival authorities in a 394 page lawsuit because they made a replica of her imaginary castle. If this does not scream - you can't touch me, otherwise my legal Pitbulls will bite your but, then I don't know what does. These acts have nothing to do with writing or defending your work, if your work is so popular you can buy yourself a small country, then what's the point of being so coldhearted? Details of this story can be found here...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9arGtS_k-jLH7uhCX1K3V2GvMfw

And, finally, as a general principle, if you are so famous almost everyone in the kids world knows you, it is unnecessary to worry about negative effect of someone's attempts at copying your work. If you are not famous, then no one will try to copy your work anyway.

ED

do your homework.

the owner of the website was also taking original work donated by authors TO the website to make up the "Lexicon" with a vague promise to perhaps pay them later on with the proceeds of the book.

if you want to support a thief, do so - but in this case the judge ruled correctly.

sounds like you got a bad case of jealousy there...

LeslieB said:

I recommend that anyone who thinks Rowling was just being 'greedy' and that SVA's lexicon was more than cut and paste of her copyrighted work go to this page and scroll down to the bottom. Take a gander at the Pie Chart of Oh Snap and see if it doesn't change your mind.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/83/

Click to expand...

*clicks link*
*scrolls to bottom of document*

Edmontonian said:

And, finally, as a general principle, if you are so famous almost everyone in the kids world knows you, it is unnecessary to worry about negative effect of someone's attempts at copying your work. If you are not famous, then no one will try to copy your work anyway.

Click to expand...

On "general principle", I hope you see how you've negated your own argument.

So why are major movie studios hiring people at theatres to go through them with night vision gear to catch people making illegal copies of first-run movies to sell on DVD? So why are record companies going after people for downloading songs through Limewire and other P2P sources? It's called "protecting intellectual property", and I have a feeling you wouldn't really care if I stole one of your stories off SYW, put my name on it, changed one of the character's names, and sold it to a magazine.

Agreed. The individual who would have made the money from the Lexicon was the owner of the site, not the originator of the material on it. He would have directly used the words of other writers as his own for his own personal profit. There was an indication that the small press who gave him an advance was pushing the issue and assured the defendent that he would not, in fact, be plagiarizing.

It shouldn't matter how successful you are as an author. Your creative property is yours to do with what you will and not for everyone else in the world to take advantage of. Even a writer with Rowling's success has the right to complain when someone--even someone she supported in the past with tidbits for his site--tries to take her work and capitalize off it. The legal aspects of this case are fairly cut and dried if you care to read them instead of assuming that they fall into your own personal agenda.

LeslieB said:

I recommend that anyone who thinks Rowling was just being 'greedy' and that SVA's lexicon was more than cut and paste of her copyrighted work go to this page and scroll down to the bottom. Take a gander at the Pie Chart of Oh Snap and see if it doesn't change your mind.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/83/

Click to expand...

In all fairness to the infringer, this link is to the plaintiff's brief, so naturally it will be skewed in favor of Rowling. Still, even if the infringer hadn't taken quite as much stuff as the pie chart shows, it's still a significant amount.

It's Rowling's intellectual property, and she has the right to control how it's used however she wants. Thou shalt not steal and all that.

Before this gets out of hand...

Hi everyone,

I was just expressing my opinion, like other people and did not call anyone jelous or uninformed or other names. Like lawyers that had different opinion, I just had a different opinion too, so please don't be to hasten to throw the first rock at me, especially if you are guilty of the same sin (having a different opinion from someone else).

In terms of copyright law, this is not the place for a lecture on this topic, but allow me to quote from our Canadian law, that allows a great freedom related to copyright issues, when it comes to "research or private study." Therefore, in order for someone to be guilty of copyright infringement in Canada, the profit motive should be established. Therefore, at least in Canada, it always boils down to money, if you are violating someone else's copyright to make money, you are violating their copyright. If it is for "research of private study," you're fine. The case in question, of course, had to do with money.

ED

Anyone who is against J K Rowling in this situation should put yourself in her shoes. I'm going to assume we're all writers on here whether published or not. If you'd written something as successful as she did you'd want to protect your work too.

Edmontonian said:

Hi everyone,

I was just expressing my opinion, like other people and did not call anyone jelous or uninformed or other names. Like lawyers that had different opinion, I just had a different opinion too, so please don't be to hasten to throw the first rock at me, especially if you are guilty of the same sin (having a different opinion from someone else).

In terms of copyright law, this is not the place for a lecture on this topic, but allow me to quote from our Canadian law, that allows a great freedom related to copyright issues, when it comes to "research or private study." Therefore, in order for someone to be guilty of copyright infringement in Canada, the profit motive should be established. Therefore, at least in Canada, it always boils down to money, if you are violating someone else's copyright to make money, you are violating their copyright. If it is for "research of private study," you're fine. The case in question, of course, had to do with money.

ED

Click to expand...

can you give a ref for that?

otherwise I'm rather scared to have my works produced in my home country...

Sheryl Nantus said:

can you give a ref for that?

otherwise I'm rather scared to have my works produced in my home country...

Click to expand...

That's the Canadian "safe harbor" clause, and it isn't a right; like the U.S. "fair use" safe harbor, it has to be proven in court. It's intended to allow critical studies of literary works, reviews, etc. where the quoted material is not the core component, but is an ancilliary aid or text that is commented on as part of a larger work.

Edmontonian said:

Hi everyone,

I was just expressing my opinion, like other people and did not call anyone jelous or uninformed or other names.

Click to expand...

Telling you that you are arguing on a basis of limited information is not calling you names.

Your argument reflected a lack of knowledge about the issues in this particular case. Full stop.

And the Harry Potter Lexicon manuscript that RDR Publishing presented at this trial would not have met the "safe harbor" standard in Canada, because it consisted almost entirely of copied or reworded information from Rowling's books.

As Medievalist said, the "safe harbor" idea is meant to protect what is called "fair use" in US copyright law--quoted material that is not the core of a critical work.

Yeah, tell it to Stephanie Meyer, who just had a first draft of her next book stolen, copied, and passed around on the web.

She's canned the project completely for the moment. Who knows if that series will ever be finished, because someone took something that wasn't theirs.

I HATE the 'she's so rich, who cares' line. I care. I care because it's still HER work. I've got a friend who's written HP trivia books for a small publisher. They are fine, because she came up with the questions, found all the answers, and referenced each and every one. It's fair use, and not plagarism.

This? No way. Lifting most of her work and selling it in bits and pieces is wrong. And if I were one of the people who contributed to the Lexicon, I'd be really pissed at this guy.

I'd like to point out that there are tons of Harry Potter books out there that Rowling has no problem with. Just go to Amazon and see how many pop up. Why haven't they been sued? Because they have actual analysis and commentary, and don't just consist primarily of her own words reorganized. This book crossed over from literary discourse into theft.