J. K. Rowling Wins $6,750 In Infringement Case 521
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down. After a trial in Manhattan in Warner Bros. v. RDR Books, she won, getting the judge to agree with her (and her friends at Warner Bros. Entertainment) that the 'Lexicon' did not qualify for fair use protection. In a 68-page decision (PDF) the judge concluded that the Lexicon did a little too much 'verbatim copying,' competed with Ms. Rowling's planned encyclopedia, and might compete with her exploitation of songs and poems from the Harry Potter books, although she never made any such claim in presenting her evidence. The judge awarded her $6,750 and granted her an injunction that would prevent the 'Lexicon' from seeing the light of day." Groklaw has an exhaustive discussion of the judgement.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's only irrelevant to the case. It's not irrelevant to what we think of her. The case is decided so there's no point in talking about that so she's the only thing left to talk about.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:3, Interesting)
And I'd be pretty pissed too if someone copied things from me and published them as their own work.
I would side more with Rowling if the lexicon weren't so clearly a work of love from the author, a work that could arguably be fair use (as mentioned in groklaw, there's a good possibility that if he'd just stuck to the main books, he would have won), and if she hadn't come out and said that she'd used the website as a reference guide.
I haven't read the lexicon so I don't know how much of it really is copying, but she's been a bitch about the situation while he's been nice and tried to do the right thing. He tried to work with her, she seemed hopeful for a while and then pulled all support. That was a pretty dick move on her part. I hope that he can edit the lexicon some more and try to publish it again, this time without including the reference works that Rowling's put out and with more of his own words than hers.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think NYCL's sarcasm, though perhaps a bit on the snarky side, is at least relevant to the conversation.
It's not the first time I've been called snarky on Slashdot. So it must be so.
I just find it offensive for a woman who was once poor, and who knows what poverty is, who is now a gazillionaire, to prevent some other person from trying to make a living, not by publishing books that try to compete with her novels and movies or try to rip her off in any way, but for doing a 'lexicon', which is exactly the type of secondary work she has been encouraging people to do these past years because it helps to promote her books and movies, and it is something she has never done, based on the premise that she's been planning to do one some day.
As a legal matter, every United States copyright lawyer knows the judge screwed up here.
As a matter of fairness and morality and decency, only on Slashdot could you find anyone willing to take a stab at justifying her disgusting behavior.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's typical to show contempt for those artists you consider crass or over-commercialized, by depicting them as metaphorically abusing their creations.
For example, Bill Watterson (of Calvin and Hobbes) famously sent Berkeley Breathed (of Bloom County) a comic of Breathed laughing in a powerboat and whipping Opus the penguin, who was frantically shoveling sackfuls of cash into the outboard motor. (I wish I could find this online, it's in one of the collections of C&H.) I don't think he even bothered with Jim Davis, who is beyond parody as a commercial artist.
All artists have a connection to their work; some establish the connection primarily to make money. I don't know where J.K. stands.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Interesting)
They are far from irrelevant if you listen to those arguing for extending copyright laws. They cite the need of creators to earn a living from their work. Here [arstechnica.com] is EU Commissioner McCreevy arguing for term extension: "Copyright represents a moral right of the performer to control the use of his work and earn a living from his performance." Then it's perfectly reasonable to argue that this purpose of the law has already been fulfilled.
More importantly, the law is meant to serve us, not the other way around. We have every business talking about what the law should be, not only what it is. Laws are created and changed by our elected representatives. Limiting one's vision to the letter of the law is infantile and irresponsible for a citizen in a democracy.
Whether our representatives really represent us is a different matter. They certainly won't if we treat their actions - including legislation - as beyond criticism.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Care to elaborate on why the judge screwed up? After reading the groklaw analysis, I'm having a hard time being outraged, as does the defendant's lawyer:
As much as I generally fawn on your analysis of copyright law, I'm finding myself disagreeing on this one. If groklaw is to believed, the defendant copied a lot, especially from the companion books. I don't see why reorganizing original details verbatim should be protected under fair use, but I'd be interested to read why you think they should - or why you don't think that is what the lexicon did.
Re:What's wrong with competition? (Score:2, Interesting)
You kind of gloss over the fact that he "created" his lexicon by taking Rowling's words from Rowling's books and putting them in his book and saying it was original work.
There are other similar books out there and the authors are not being sued because the authors actually contributed something and didn't just copy the work of someone else.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't read it either, but I've heard it's mostly copying, with a little bad paraphrasing thrown in. He didn't even use any user-provided content because he didn't want to share his profits.
She did the right thing here. He was clearly using her work as his own.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Rowling had let this slide, then the next person who copies the character or settings wholesale, and tries to publish "Harry Potter" sequels, would have a valid defense that Rowling didn't protect the copyright for this guy, so she effectively has given up the copyright.
Not at all, copyright holds whether you "defend" it or not. In fact, current laws (via the Berne Convention) don't have any provision for "losing" copyright. You have to explicitly grant or give up rights.
The whole thing is absurd. A popular work always has companion works and fan works. The way to "stop" that is wreck your work so nobody cares about it. One good way to start is beating up on anybody who shows any appreciation for the work.
A lexicon may be a bit over the line but, really, it's not like there isn't "enough to go around". Does she think her "brand" is so weak, the competing lexicon is going to damage hers? That's silly. Fans will snap up her work over anybody's. The dilution would be negligible. I think the risk of souring fans on the work is greater. The RIAA, for example, has been slitting its own fool throat for years, hacking off the music consuming public. Unfortunately, we can't measure "would have been" so it could be shoved in their faces.
I think getting the thing off the market entirely is overkill. One wonders if she even tried trying to negotiate some kind of agreement on the lexicon.
Finally, and I think most important, copyright is not a "right". It's a grant from the public. We grant the creative (supposed to be) limited monopolies to, as the Founders put it, "encourage the useful arts and sciences". While copyrights and patents are allowed by the Constitution, they are not mandated. We could, if we wanted, via our elected representatives, abolish copyright and there's not a damn thing anybody could do to stop us. It's only too bad the public is ignorant of this fact, we could hold that threat over the heads of corporate beasts instead of being forced to genuflect to them.
My reaction to her being so greedy would be, "Fine, you wanna be a bitch? How 'bout we public domain Harry Potter? Hmmm?"
excuse me, it is (Score:3, Interesting)
200 years before, slavery was legal. people perceived it as a normal thing. despite it was totally immoral.
230 years ago, aristocracy was the elite in france, with a god given right. it was legal, but it was totally wrong.
now here we are, in a world that has very bad distribution of wealth, and an abusable law system.
and we have greedy whores, greedy bitches, greedy fat cats, whatever you name.
literally in law, that kind of infringement may still be infringement. just like it was illegal to honor the priority aristocrats got, in pre revolution france.
something being law, doesnt mean that that something is right.
Goody for her, good for us (Score:5, Interesting)
There are fans out there who associate so deeply with their favorite writers that they mistake themselves as "owners" of the work. We see that all-too-often in the fan fiction arena.
Some writers and their publishers will jump all over these people with cease-and-desists. Viacom did that on fan-based Star Trek web sites for a time until CBS took control of the Original Series rights as well as (through their official magazine) lauding notable fan fiction such as the Star Trek: New Voyages episode project.
I'm a contributor on the Battlestar Wiki, which, as that lexicon web site did, serves as an unofficial encyclopedia on all aspects of the three Galactica series. We even have cast and crew visit and answer questions when they have time. It's a nice site. Plenty of equally great sites like it, too.
But the contributors on Battlestar Wiki, and Memory Alpha, and Wookieepedia know very well that we always enjoy what we do so long as we do not profit in any way, don't claim data as our own, or make derivative works (such as what that lexicon does). If any of these were done, the results that occurred for that lexicon would have been the same.
And I don't want to tick off NBC. They're grouchy.
The fact she only sued for a few thousand dollars shows she was out to prove her rights, not to soak the defendant. I'd be surprised if she bothers to collect.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
Of course it is. What is so often forgotten in this matter is we grant the monopoly called "copyright". While the Constitution allows for these grants, they are not mandated nor are they consider a "right". We, the public, could abolish them if we so chose. Or at least drastically curtail them.
As the point was "to encourage the useful arts and sciences", we do have the right to say, "you've made enough". Particularly because we are giving them something. Something we are under no obligation to give them.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see why reorganizing original details verbatim should be protected under fair use, but I'd be interested to read why you think they should- or why you don't think that is what the lexicon did.
NYCL, this, please. I don't doubt that I may misunderstand the law or how it applies to this case, so having it laid out plainly may help.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:2, Interesting)
I honestly can't remember very many articles in Slashdot that weren't skew by opinion. If you take a sample of the latest articles mentioning Microsoft, Linux, Apple, DRM, politicians, or any other Slashroversial topic. I bet nearly all of them have opinionated summaries. The difference here is that they are a fan of J.K Rowlings, which makes you wrong for having a negative opinion of her.
I was wondering what's going on here. I guess you have put it in perspective for me. I guess I touched a nerve by criticizing the Great God Rowling.
And so my book won't be published either (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, this ruling, which may be entirely proper in this particular case, has a chilling effect on other similar types of endeavors. I wrote a book I called "The Falco Dictionary" covering the Falco mystery novels. It has a tremendous amount of value-added information not found in the books. I have Google Earth coordinates of every single location mentioned in the books. When Falco mentions Troy, for example, I give you the precise geographical coordinates of the model of the Trojan Horse standing outside the visitor center. You can actually see and recognize it in Google Earth. When Falco says he walks past the Forum in Rome, I show you the building, which is still standing.
I show where the author made a few mistakes, having Falco go through a gate in the Aurelian Wall, for example, that was built several hundred years after when he lived. I talk about historical events, dissect names, both real and imagined, point out allusions, and identify mythological characters. From what I have read of the Potter case my book comes nowhere near that state of infringement and amounts to a critical work. But the author objected on the grounds that she might want to do such a companion piece in the future and if her publisher refused her publication on the grounds there was already something out there, this would amount to loss of income, therefore she would sue.
So, given the Potter decision, my publisher freaked out and withdrew the book. Now it's my loss of income.
Re:Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though I agree that the article you posted was a little too opinionated, I am glad you contribute to /.
Thank you.
I think.
. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue doing what I always do. When I report facts I'll report facts. When I'm expressing an opinion along with the facts -- as I was doing here -- there will be no mistaking what my opinion is. I'm entitled to my opinions.
My opinion of J. K. Rowling used to be highly favorable. It has changed due to her pursuit of this mean-spirited lawsuit.
My opinion of the law is not affected by the lawsuit. Only my opinion of Ms. Rowling is affected by the lawsuit. My opinion of the law is that the defendant had a very strong fair use defense, and that the judge erred in concluding otherwise.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I Fail to See... (Score:5, Interesting)
By the points: 1) I fail to see how JKR is "damaged" by this lexicon, unless it misrepresents her books, which there is no argument that ever did.
There was no damage, hence the $6750 statutory damages award.
2) For JKR to claim that this "discouraged" her from writing her own encyclopedia (and giving all that money to charity, which is supposed to melt our hearts in sympathy for her), appears spurious and said to bolster her case is simply because it is so hard to prove false. One is left to believe that JKR has killed a superior work because she fears she can't compete with a better author here.
One of the most bizarre arguments ever made, that it competed with something she was thinking of writing.
3) Despite the large amount of copying that weighed against the lexicon author I find his work transformative rather than mere cut & paste because: a) A huge amount of original research, organization, and sheer effort was put into its creation. b) How can you write any lexicon without referring directly to and quoting the original facts in their most original (hence correct) form? c) This is not intended to, nor would it ever be confused with, being a new, unauthorized HP novel.
Even the judge agreed it was mostly transformative. Only a lunatic would buy the 'lexicon' rather than the novel.
4) JKR is a very controlling author. You need only refer to her tightly demanded release dates for each new book and their draconian enforcement of early released copies for no apparent reason more than to bring additional fame to herself and allow her to read a couple chapters to a few children on the first night of official release.
Well her bringing such a mean-spirited lawsuit certainly supports that notion.
5) How could this have ever been infringement at all when it was never published due to prior restraint shown here? There should have been no statutory damages at all!
Should have been a defendant's verdict.
To me, when JKR put HP out in the world (and was rewarded more than handsomely for it) it became part of the world at large. It succeeded because we cared about it so much. To then say that only JKR can dictate who is allowed to comment on it afterwards def[ie]s logic, humanity, and reason.
That JKR found a judge to agree with her is equally sad.
Very.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:2, Interesting)
They were trying to point out Rowling's greed. She's made billions off of Harry Potter, so what's the point of going after a small little company that would hardly make enough to cover their own costs let alone dent her precious profits?
JK Rowling exploits children.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, early American encyclopedias did actually copy the majority of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the resulting lawsuit, the American judge said basically "bah, that's a British copyright, we don't care about those here". Times have changed.
Re:Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:3, Interesting)
:There is nothing inconsistent in it being a fair use reference work and it doing a lot of "verbatim copying". The question is whether the copying was substantial in relation to the size of the work copied, which in this case it clearly was not.
Secondly, it did not compete with her 'encyclopedia' for one simple reason... there is no encyclopedia.
Thirdly, it did not compete with her poems and songs because... she never presented any evidence to that effect.