J.K Rowling gets told by Card

[Mr. SmartyPants]

http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html

Can you believe that J.K. Rowling is suing a small publisher because she claims their 10,000-copy edition of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a book about Rowling's hugely successful novel series, is just a "rearrangement" of her own material.

Rowling "feels like her words were stolen," said lawyer Dan Shallman.

Well, heck, I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling.

I feel inclined to side with Card here. Rowling used the Lexicon a number of times for her own advantage, and now wants to sue the publishing company? I guess she doesn't have much to do these days.

Though I can see the other side of the issue. It was her characters, so I imagine that she does have the rights to publish them.

[ShiroiHikari]

Wow, yeah...sheesh. What's her problem? XD

I don't see the other side of the issue. Works of commentary are perfectly legal. I don't think her case has a leg to stand on.

[mechana2015]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

She mentions going online... dos she mention the specific site of the person she's suing or just the internet at large?

[GeneD]

She's really stuck now it's all is over, huh.

But now the Harry Potter series is over, and Rowling claims that her "creative work" is being "decimated."

Pfffft. She should read the Harry Potter fanfic in the CAA Radio thread.

[minakichan]

...

Orson Scott Card, I didn't like your book, but you are my HERO. I got a wonderful chuckle out of this because I totally agree. What a stupid thing to sue over! It's equivalent to suing fanfic writers, webmasters, and fanartists.

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 got that feeling too. Don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike the Harry Potter series (until the 5th book at least), and I even like some aspects of fandom, but yeah. She's so pretentioussss...

[Kkun]

This is just another reason why Orson Scott Card is my favorite Mormon.

[Nate]

What a stupid thing to sue over!

Yeah, somebody else using your characters for their own profit thus undermining copyright laws! What a ridiculously stupid thing to sue over!

It's equivalent to suing fanfic writers, webmasters, and fanartists.

Perhaps you didn't notice the part where it said the Lexicon was being sold for profit. Fanfic writers, webmasters, and fanartists don't publish their work and sell it for a profit. This company IS. That's the difference.

Copyright creators own rights to ALL derivative works. If the publishing company had said "Hey, we've been working with you on this Lexicon, so we'd like to publish it, is that okay?" she probably would have said yes given that she'd helped them. That's not what happened though.

"Scholarly" work DOES NOT APPLY. Doctoral students probably aren't making a profit on their work. Besides that, the Harry Potter world is a fictional world. There is precedence for this case concerning a Seinfeld episode guide. The court rejected the argument that the guide was just "factual information" about the series--plot points are not facts.

[Kkun]

Yeah, somebody else using your characters for their own profit thus undermining copyright laws! What a ridiculously stupid thing to sue over!

Perhaps you didn't notice the part where it said the Lexicon was being sold for profit. Fanfic writers, webmasters, and fanartists don't publish their work and sell it for a profit. This company IS. That's the difference.

Copyright creators own rights to ALL derivative works. If the publishing company had said "Hey, we've been working with you on this Lexicon, so we'd like to publish it, is that okay?" she probably would have said yes given that she'd helped them. That's not what happened though.

"Scholarly" work DOES NOT APPLY. Doctoral students probably aren't making a profit on their work. Besides that, the Harry Potter world is a fictional world. There is precedence for this case concerning a Seinfeld episode guide. The court rejected the argument that the guide was just "factual information" about the series--plot points are not facts.

TL;DR. It's all irrelevant because Orson Scott Card is a funny Mormon.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Lawl

Ender's Game is awesome, BTW.

[minakichan]

Yeah, somebody else using your characters for their own profit thus undermining copyright laws! What a ridiculously stupid thing to sue over!

As I understand it, the Lexicon is reference material, not plagiaristic fiction. How is this any different from the METRIC TONS of books on literary criticism that are sold publicly, most of which are completely unaffiliated with the art's creator and bear little more than a reference citation at the very back? If Rowling can win this lawsuit, then whole sections of libraries deserve to be taken out too. Which might be OK; I'd rather not have to look up reference material for my essays, but I will be **** if I can't get my SparkNotes.

Perhaps you didn't notice the part where it said the Lexicon was being sold for profit. Fanfic writers, webmasters, and fanartists don't publish their work and sell it for a profit. This company IS. That's the difference.

Actually, I'll agree with you one point-- suing the Lexicon isn't like suing fanartists at all. At least the Lexicon isn't trying to create some new work with the existing characters. Maybe the fanartists deserve to be sued, but to a greater extent than the Lexicon. (And for the record, at least fanartists might sell work at conventions-- I know I do-- and webmasters can get ad revenue.) Anyway, personal profit isn't the issue when companies decide to sue for copyright infringement or intellectual property theft-- as the fansub and filesharing wars clearly demonstrate.

[Nate]

As I understand it, the Lexicon is reference material, not plagiaristic fiction. How is this any different from the METRIC TONS of books on literary criticism that are sold publicly, most of which are completely unaffiliated with the art's creator and bear little more than a reference citation at the very back?

The Lexicon isn't literary criticism though. There is no original material whatsoever in the book from what I see. They basically just ripped sections of her works out and placed them in their book. This is different from, say, a thorough discussion of 1984 or the like.

And as I said before, it can't be considered reference material if the work is fictional, which is why that Seinfeld guide lost its court case. The case is Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court's summary judgment that the defendant had committed copyright infringement. The decision is noteworthy for classifying Seinfeld trivia not as unprotected facts, but as protectible expression.

And the same would be true of this Harry Potter Lexicon, it's not unprotected facts. The Seinfeld case sets precedence]If Rowling can win this lawsuit, then whole sections of libraries deserve to be taken out too.[/QUOTE]
Not really, because again, literary criticism is perfectly legal, as is small uses of the source material for review purposes. This Lexicon seems to be neither, and it certainly isn't parody, which would also be legally protected.

(And for the record, at least fanartists might sell work at conventions-- I know I do-- and webmasters can get ad revenue.)

Fan artists selling work at conventions is a pretty disturbing trend, to me, more so than fan art that's simply posted online for viewing pleasure. I think the only reason that it hasn't been pursued legally is that most fanartists aren't producing thousands or millions of copies for sale, it's usually only a picture, and bringing out high-priced lawyers to sue someone who made 20 bucks off a picture just isn't worth it. The costs would outweigh the potential rewards for the companies. That's my theory anyway.

[ShiroiHikari]

I think you missed this part:

Here's the irony: Vander Ark had the material for this book on his website for years, and Rowling is quoted as saying that when she needed to look up some 'fact" from her earlier books, she would sometimes "sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter."

In other words, she already had made personal use of Vander Ark's work and found it valuable. Even if it has shortcomings, she found it useful.

That means that Vander Ark created something original and useful -- he added value to the product. If Rowling wants to claim that it interferes with her creativity now, she should have made that complaint back when she was using it -- and giving Vander Ark an award for his website back in 2004.

[Debitt]

In regards to fanart/artists alley: I feel that in the legal workings, they operate in a similar manner to the doujinshi markets of Japan - they provide advertising and the audience they normally court is made up of people who are already paying for the works they're dervied from. Unless it's a company like Disney, who has the clout and the money to crush anyone they see fit, it's probably not worth going out and shutting people down, as Nate said.

Either way, Nate beat me to most of what I was going to say in regards to literary criticism vs. the Lexicon. I personally find Vander Ark massively in the wrong in this situation -- I feel it's a bit of a betrayl of Rowling's trust to turn around and try to make money off of something that was originally free and "for the fans". Incidentally, from what I understand, at this point in time the content on the Lexicon website will be different from the content in the published version -- information on books 6-7 won't be posted to the website, thus necessitating the purchase of the published Lexicon should you, for some reason unknown to me, want to see it in its entirity.

[minakichan]

The Lexicon isn't literary criticism though. There is no original material whatsoever in the book from what I see. They basically just ripped sections of her works out and placed them in their book. This is different from, say, a thorough discussion of 1984 or the like.

I guess I'd have to actually look into what this book is trying to accomplish to form a full response, but book notes at least still have hardly any original material. Does adding a reading comprehension quiz at the end of each summary suddenly make it A-OK?

(For the record, I totally wasn't on the insane-oh-noes side of the orphaned works debate :/)

I mean, look at all the Star Wars compendiums, all the Star Trek books. How many of them were published without the consent of the companies that own those properties?

I wouldn't know, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are these books published with or without the companies' consent? o_O
I'm inclined to believe those "Unofficial Guides" for Pokemon and DBZ that floated around in my youth weren't approved of, but I wouldn't know.

Fan artists selling work at conventions is a pretty disturbing trend, to me

I'll actually admit that what I do with fanart is completely illegal; however, I don't believe can sue = should sue, even if it was logistically possible. While it's legally black, I don't consider it unethical and I have no moral qualms about it =/. On the other hand, I also scanlate; that's a field that I know is legally AND morally unethical.

[Debitt]

...book notes at least still have hardly any original material. Does adding a reading comprehension quiz at the end of each summary suddenly make it A-OK?

In the case of things like Shakespeare or Victorian literature, I believe that works published prior to a certain date (1923, according to Wikipedia, though I'll take that one with a grain of salt) fall into the public domain -- no one owns it, thus publishing derivative works is not violation of copyright. For things like Hemmingway and Fitzgerald, I would personally hope that there's at least a loose agreement between the publisher of the derivative works and the estates that own those works.

That's just my loose understanding of things based on what I know from doing literary research though, and it's probably slightly more complicated than that...

[Nate]

I think you missed this part:

I didn't miss it, it's just not relevant. Having the information on a website does not constitute copyright violation because they didn't publish it and weren't making a profit on it. However, when they decided to make a book and sell it, that's when the situation changed.

In other words, she already had made personal use of Vander Ark's work and found it valuable.

It wasn't his work, it was HER work. He just summarized it. Also whether or not she found it valuable has NO BEARING ON WHETHER IT IS COPYRIGHT VIOLATION OR NOT. Something can be useful and valuable and STILL be copyright infringement! Imagine that.

That means that Vander Ark created something original and useful -- he added value to the product.

Wrong, summaries are useful but they are not original, nor do summaries add value to a product.

If Rowling wants to claim that it interferes with her creativity now, she should have made that complaint back when she was using it

If I'm not wrong her claim is that they're profiting off of her work, not that it interferes with her creativity. She didn't have to make that complaint when she was using it because they weren't profiting on it.

(For the record, I totally wasn't on the insane-oh-noes side of the orphaned works debate :/)

I know. :p I wasn't talking to you specifically, it was a general question for anybody to answer.

Are these books published with or without the companies' consent? o_O

With. You think George Lucas is going to let someone make money off the Star Wars name without his consent? We're talking about the guy who released like five different versions of the original trilogy on VHS.

I'm inclined to believe those "Unofficial Guides" for Pokemon and DBZ that floated around in my youth weren't approved of, but I wouldn't know.

If I'm not mistaken the "Unofficial Guides" are actually legal, it having to do with video games being a different medium from books. Actually part of the Fair Use Doctrine mentions that the type of media in question is taken into consideration of whether or not something qualifies as fair use.

[Kaligraphic]

Making material available over the internet actually is a type of publishing, as far as copyright law is concerned. Print is only one medium in which a work may be published.

[Doubleshadow]

Making material available over the internet actually is a type of publishing, as far as copyright law is concerned. Print is only one medium in which a work may be published.

That still only holds true for original materials. That is why fanfiction is accompanied by disclaimers saying they don't own the characters, trademarks, etc., although the may also at least claim their 'own characters' and such and demand other fanfic. authors not use them.

The Lexicon doesn't seem to have enough original material. It is largely either direct quotes of great length, or paraphrasing which still constitutes plagiarism because you have still made use of someone else's idea. It's, for the most part, simply JK Rowlings work directly lifted and reorganized and reprinted without her consent.

[Nate]

Right, what DS said. There are many other "Unofficial" Harry Potter guides out there. The reason why they're not being sued is because they're made up of some original material as well. The author inserts their own personal views on the book, or tries to explain what a particular sentence means, or gives examples of how a particular plot point is referenced to in later installments.

This Lexicon has pretty much none of that, and thus, cannot be classified as being different enough from the source material to avoid a plagiarism lawsuit.

[Cognitive Gear]

While Orson Scott Card is correct on many points he makes in his column, I think this is pretty clear cut.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —](1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;[/b]

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Bold added for emphasis. It should be noted that this was the only provision I could find for scholarly works. It is possible that there are other provisions made.

[~darkelfgirl~]

Yeah, somebody else using your characters for their own profit thus undermining copyright laws! What a ridiculously stupid thing to sue over!

Perhaps you didn't notice the part where it said the Lexicon was being sold for profit. Fanfic writers, webmasters, and fanartists don't publish their work and sell it for a profit. This company IS. That's the difference.

Copyright creators own rights to ALL derivative works. If the publishing company had said "Hey, we've been working with you on this Lexicon, so we'd like to publish it, is that okay?" she probably would have said yes given that she'd helped them. That's not what happened though.

"Scholarly" work DOES NOT APPLY. Doctoral students probably aren't making a profit on their work. Besides that, the Harry Potter world is a fictional world. There is precedence for this case concerning a Seinfeld episode guide. The court rejected the argument that the guide was just "factual information" about the series--plot points are not facts.

I totally agree.

Why shouldn't she sue? Being a writer (though amateur), if I was in her position, I would.

You wrote a guide to my book, fine and dandy and cool. You sell copies of that--NOT. It's my hard work, not yours lol. Sounds selfish, but that's the way it is. I spent hours pining over ideas and potential plots. I had to go through the process of publishing, not to mention getting up and dusting myself off after a lot of rejection.You're just riding the wave and my tailcoat, buddy. Plus--you never asked for my permission. How rude! Maybe if you did, I would've let you. . .

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

[B](1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes]

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Rowling's from the UK. I don't think she read every copyright law from every country, lol. Is there an international copyright law?


This is my take--First of all, judging by the info set before me, Lexicon never asked Rowling for permission, regardless of how 'greedy' and 'mean' Rowling is.

It's just good business! *shrugs*

[Cognitive Gear]

Rowling's from the UK. I don't think she read every copyright law from every country, lol. Is there an international copyright law?

There is, however I was unable to find an official site. I'm also under the impression that the trial is taking place in the US. (Lower Manhattan, to be specific)

[Kaligraphic]

The WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) website has texts of international copyright agreements such as the Berne Convention available on its website, wipo.int.

[Maledicte]

Making material available over the internet actually is a type of publishing, as far as copyright law is concerned. Print is only one medium in which a work may be published.

But the Lexicon wasn't making a profit off of it.

Pretentious as Rowling may or may not be, she's in the right on this one. What started out as a free resource, which was pretty much all of the HP novels summarized for easy reference, Vander Ark intends to sell for profit. I'm sure if Vander Ark had asked, Rowling would have been happy to oblige, and not simply because of the money.

This is not the same as Movies in 15 Minutes, Lileks.com, and webcomics selling hard copies of their work, because it is either parody or completely original. The Lexicon is neither original nor parody.

If someone made a lexicon of my stories online, I would say, "Gee, thanks for making it easy for other people to follow along with my work." But if someone published it without asking my permission, and without adding any original content or critical analysis, I would be very incensed. Sure, they took the time to read, summarize and compile my work--but it's still my work.

[minakichan]

But the Lexicon wasn't making a profit off of it.

I don't think profit is the issue. Fansubs make no profit, but they're straight-up copyright violation and fansubbers are wide open for lawsuits. Secondly, the Harry Potter Lexicon has paid ads on its site, so it's profiting from it already. Much of the scanlation and fansub communities, for example, considers placing paid advertisements on the site, even just to cover space and bandwidth, unethical for similar reasons.

This is not the same as Movies in 15 Minutes, Lileks.com, and webcomics selling hard copies of their work, because it is either parody or completely original.

(Wait a sec, tangent! Why is Movies in 15 Minutes OK while YuGiOh The Abridged Series is a violation of terms of services on YouTube?)

[Cognitive Gear]

I don't think profit is the issue. Fansubs make no profit, but they're straight-up copyright violation and fansubbers are wide open for lawsuits.

Actually, it is a profit issue. Fansubs bite into both the potential DVD purchases and the initial potential television viewership. There are several people that don't buy DVDs when they are released because they already have the fansub stored away on their hard drive. Even though this doesn't generate profit for the fansubbers, it does take money out of the licenser's pockets.

[Maledicte]

(Wait a sec, tangent! Why is Movies in 15 Minutes OK while YuGiOh The Abridged Series is a violation of terms of services on YouTube?)

Because there were people on Youtube who were jealous idiots. ThatGuyWiththeGlasses suffered the same abuse and had to start his own site as well.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I'm confused. How are the Harry Potter novels like Ender's Game? To me they are nothing alike (except having unusually clever and skilled children as the protagonists).

[Nate]

I'm confused. How are the Harry Potter novels like Ender's Game? To me they are nothing alike (except having unusually clever and skilled children as the protagonists).

According to Card:
[quote]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]

[Doubleshadow]

I don't think profit is the issue. Fansubs make no profit, but they're straight-up copyright violation and fansubbers are wide open for lawsuits. Secondly, the Harry Potter Lexicon has paid ads on its site, so it's profiting from it already. Much of the scanlation and fansub communities, for example, considers placing paid advertisements on the site, even just to cover space and bandwidth, unethical for similar reasons.

Profit is the issue.

The difference between the Lexicon and the fansub is the amount of material being redistributed. The Lexicon is not the Harry Potter books in their entirety, only choice sections and paraphrasing of the whole.
A fansub is the entire product being released by an unliscensed distributor. Although they weren't making any money by having people purchase the subs, people would take those copies and the originators of the material recieved no compensation. Essentially, it has been stolen with the aid of a middle man.
The Lexicon was acceptable because despite the fact it was all JK Rowlings work being reorganized, one still had to buy the Harry Potter books to actually read the story so no money was lost by the owners and publishers. If he had scanned in the book or otherwise put up the whole thing, then it would have been like a fansub. He wasn't redistributing the entire product so it was allowable until he tried to make a profit of what wasn't his material.
The money made through advertising is legitimate because the owner of the site is renting out his own space. Why people come there isn't related to whether or not it's his space to rent.