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.
Poor Harry... (Score:4, Funny)
"Please, Ms. Rowling, I'm so tired and bleeding from both ends..."
"Is J.K. gonna have to choke a bitch? Get me my money!"
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Please, Ms. Rowling, I'm so tired and bleeding from both ends..."
"Is J.K. gonna have to choke a bitch? Get me my money!"
Whoosh! That went over my head.
Rowling, I believe is a billionaire. This isn't about money; it's about control. I'm guessing here, but I get the impression that these books mean much more to her than as something that got her out of poverty and made her one of the richest women in the World. Like many creative types, their creation is almost like a one of their children. And I'd be pretty pissed too if someone copied things from me and published them as their own work.
Re: (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 thin
Re: (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, Insightful)
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:4, Funny)
This variation, 1a perhaps, is "I haven't read [book or article], but I nonetheless know everything about it and they're idiots."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
Of course, he could have done that in the first place and avoided the whole mess - just like the OTHER authors of Potter oriented books did.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:5, Informative)
In the decision the judge wrote that though the Lexicon was a "work of love from the author" as you put it, the amount of verbatim copying was so pervasive as to disqualify it from Fair Use. I can't, for example, create Bob's Encyclopedia by directly quoting the majority of the Encyclopedia Britannica and pass it off as Fair Use even if I spend years doing it. In her NPR interview she mentioned other reference books she did not sue because they did not directly copy her work.
Also a part of Fair Use is the term "for public good". She did not object that much to the website because presenting information to the public served a public good. Trying to make money off of it, is not "for public good".
From what I read, it was RDR Books that was unwilling to negotiate and advised the Lexicon author not to negotiate. Even if your events are correct, if you wrote a series of books over 20 years, and someone came along and copied your work and tried to sell it, you wouldn't be bitchy about it? "Listen, it looks like I've copied your work. You want to discuss this. No? Bitch."
Re: (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:Poor Harry... (Score:4, Informative)
No one applies for copyright any more, in any country, and there's no need to thanks to the Berne Convention (which just about every modern country goes along with). Copyright is automatic, with no need to take preemptive steps in any member country.
In the case of Encyclopedia Britannica, that was a young America deliberately thumbing it's nose at Britain. Even then, the publishers of Encyclopedia Britannica had a reasonable expectation of copyright protection, sans inflammatory politics.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I'm pretty sure she even admitted that she used this same freaking lexicon in researching her own convoluted backstory.
Lets put this another way. If this story wasn't about a BILLIONARE suing the operator of
The Harry Potter Lexicon
and instead suing
Harry Potter Wiki [wikia.com]
Well, i think there would be a bit more /. rage going around, eh?
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:5, Informative)
This is not a fight between a Big Author and a Little Guy, this is a Scummy Company getting Bitchslapped.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutley correct: being a bitch is not a legal criteron.
However, it's a key criterion in forming my opinion of whether or not she is a bitch.
The court case is done. Public opinion of the world's richest woman is open for change.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like many creative types, their creation is almost like a one of their children.
And just like with children, if you attempt to enact perfect control, you will stifle and destroy that which you love.
Ultimately, every parent has to learn to let their child grown up, and find their own way in the world (the alternative produces hopelessly needy and/or bitter children). Similarly, every artist has to learn to let their art be distributed, and be built-upon by others (the alternative produces hopelessly sterile art and/or a restriction on cultural freedom).
(To take the analogy further: I'm not advocating a complete lack of parenting; nor am I advocating that artists retain no control over their art. But in both cases, they must eventually "let go.")
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. But the Lexicon, unlike most similar publications, failed to build upon the original works. WB/Rowling/Scholastic had no issue with the MuggleNet book, for instance, as it contained primarily analysis rather than just reprinting what Rowling had already written in slightly different wording.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is more than the author of the lexicon did, by an amount roughly equal to "written in slightly different wording".
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:Poor Harry... (Score:4, Informative)
It's typical to show contempt for those artists you consider crass or over-commercialized, by depicting them as metaphorically abusing their creations.
This is called "parody." It is protected fair use. Creating your own comic strip series starring Opus would not be. You can profit from the former. You may not from the latter. The authors of the Lexicon were trying to profit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright is not trademark. You don't have to defend copyright to keep it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?"
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shall I assume, then, that a starving first time author does have the protection of the law to prevent a clearly derivative 'lexicon' of their work?
Yes, you can give up your copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there is no way to give up your copyright, either. At least, no easy way. That's why public domain licenses exist. You still own the copyright, but license it with no strings attached.
This is simply not true (at least in the U.S.). Please do not spread this misinformation.
First, there is an easy way to renounce your copyright and place a work in the public domain. You simply declare that that work is in the public domain; e.g., by a statement saying "This work is in the public domain."
But don't just take my word for it:
It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960). Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998).
FYI, that is from Judge Kozinski's decision, not just some random judge.
The reason people claim it's impossible to do this is because they are afraid that someone, having placed something in the public domain, might come back and claim copyright to it, and that a court might uphold it. That may very well be an issue, but it certainly doesn't prevent you from renouncing your copyright - it simply means that some people might still refrain from using it.
Secondly, there's no such thing as a "public domain license." The very idea of the public domain means that the work is free for anyone to use in any way, without any license. You're obviously referring to copyright licenses like Creative Commons, which seek to provide an expansive, non-exclusive license along with a work. In these cases, you do still retain copyright, but this is not the same thing as the public domain.
For more information, visit http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html [cr.yp.to].
What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course society's subjective judgment is important - if you don't make "enough" from your "intellectual property" you can't very well pay the lawyers to defend it, can you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.
You could defend it yourself.
Lawyers have, however, been known work "pro bono" - or for a share of the proceeds.
Just as writers have been known to form unions, guilds and other forms of trade associations to protect their own interests.
Who defends - your - rights under the GPL?
If your only answer is "me, myself, and I" then why h
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
.
NewYorkCountryLawyer is also an idiot. Because he knows that kind of rabble rousing nonsense wouldn't be tolerated inside a courtroom.
The defendant lost because it was trivially easy to prove that his Lexicon was simply pasted together from passages in the books.
The thief remains a thief no matter how rich his victim.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kdawson is an idiot for not removing the personal bias from the blurb.
Point of order. Why is it wrong for a Slashdot post to express an opinion? Especially where the submitter provided the actual, 68-page, decision so that readers can make up their own mind.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Funny)
"Why is it wrong for a Slashdot post to express an opinion?"
Because of the borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile. opinion must be shared by all, or not exist. there can be no bias, except that of the slashdrone. there must be no argument on what is right, for the slashdrones can not argue.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Why is it wrong for a Slashdot post to express an opinion?"
Because of the borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile. opinion must be shared by all, or not exist. there can be no bias, except that of the slashdrone. there must be no argument on what is right, for the slashdrones can not argue.
Now you tell me.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, because few people read the article (especially when it's the size of a small novel), so making a hugely biased summary distorts the facts. Second, it's supposed to be a news site. Maybe CNN and Fox don't worry about showing their bias, but that doesn't make it right, and it'd be nice if there were slightly higher standards here.
Also, in this case specifically, the "didn't make enough money" comment is just plain stupid, not to mention irrelevant. Is it legal to commit crimes against the wealthy now? Or maybe there's a new law saying you can only make so much money? What does it even mean to make too much money, and who are you to make the determination?
Not really what I expect from a highly over-paid lawyer. ;-)
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Informative)
/. is not, nor has it ever been a news site. It is a current events discussion forum with a tech slant.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, but Ms. Rowling explicitly said that she had no objection if the Lexicon continues to be published for free on the web.
It's really, really hard for me to get worked up over this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true; but it's beside the point that I think NYCL was trying to make.
Copyright exists for a specific reason -- to ensure compensation for creative work, thereby promoting such creative work. That's how copyright is used in theory; to the extent that differs from how copyright is used in practice, copyright is broken (or at least imperfect).
When we discuss "how copyright gets used in practice", society's subjective judgement about who's made "enough" money or other notions of fairness are perfectly r
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 14 years, you will have a point.
For now, you are just making excuses for a mooch.
This action (and verdict) was well within the 1812 notion of what copyright should be.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly,
And the fact that the judgment wasn't for more that about 6,750 bucks goes to show that this was about principle, not the money.
The submission's author's bias, coupled with someone tagging the article with "greed" is just disgusting.
Mod Parent up +115
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:4, Informative)
$6,750 is what was awarded, not necessarily what was demanded. Although the judge, who did the awarding, obviously determined the amount based on principle, Rowling could have asked for astronomical monetary damages out of greed and been rejected -- we (or at least, I) don't know.
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.
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.
literall
Re: (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:5, Informative)
That is true when it comes to trademark protection and patent protection, but NOT copyright protection.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing 'standing to sue' with 'losing a trademark'.
In the U.S. (and probably in the U.K., too), if you become financially damaged in a given situation, and you knowingly allowed that situation to occur, you lose your standing to sue by failing to mitigate your own damages. This is called the 'doctrine of laches [wikipedia.org]' and is a form of estoppel.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
is a form of estoppel.
Godwins Law is invoked.
Hitlers secret police have nothing to do with the conversation.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ancillary to this is she could have given him tacit permission to make his lexicon, or worked out an exclusive licensing scheme. Of course, she's not always in control of who gets sued - just because she owns the IP doesn't mean she retains all publishing rights everywhere.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously JK knows something you don't.
That said, there are serious fans of Dostoevsky that have respect
for Rowling's later novels. Although the first one is said to have
been written with her editors in mind.
You are probably in no position to comment on either author, or the
other 2.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"not until Star Trek: TNG was something of that scale attempted (languages created, cultures defined, etc...) "
Obviously, you have never heard of Scientology.
Re: Narnia (Score:4, Insightful)
>I've never understood these claims about Narnia being religious. I guess the last book in the series is a bit, but most of it is just a story.
I love the Narnia stories, and almost everything else C. S. Lewis wrote, and I think they're a valuable addition to English literature.
But I think you'd be hard-pressed to defend Aslan being tied to a stone and killed in place of someone else's sin, then coming back to life a couple days later and bringing loads of other people back to life for an enormous final battle to overthrow Evil, as 'just a story.' I knew quite well what Lewis was writing about when I read The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe when I was seven years old.
The others -- Dawn Treader, Horse and His Boy, in particular -- are pretty easy to write off as just stories. But LWW and The Last Battle, which *were* the first and last books before idiots decided to start reordering the stories in their storyline order, seem to me to be pretty transparent in their re-presentation of Christianity. I don't think that's a bad thing, mind you: the vision Lewis had of how Christianity should be is a good, noble ideal. But it's never struck me or anyone I know as being particularly cryptic in its presentation.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
BWAHAHAHAHA! _wipes tear away_....you flunked English lit didn't you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke! You vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert!
Re:simple (Score:5, Funny)
Correct, they're baby goats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hold your horses! (Score:5, Informative)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up a moment! NewYorkCountryLawyer, I normally respect your posts, but this one is in need of some serious scrutiny.
As it happens, I was listening to the details of the case this morning on NPR. The problem with this specific book is not that it focuses on the Harry Potter series. The problem is that nearly every description was lifted from the books in a reasonably clear case of plagerism and/or derivitive works. Most reference books contain unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material. However, this particular lexicon made no effort to add such value over the books themselves.
In effect, it was merely a reorganization of J.K. Rowling's books into a dry reference. Something for which only the author has a legal right to grant.
THAT is why the judge found against the lexicon. And he did so with a strong warning that this book is an exception to the usually legal practice:
Re:Hold your horses! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hold your horses! (Score:5, Informative)
Bingo. Coppying excerpts for purposes of ccommentary and criticism of a work is generally an acceptable practice that is considered fair use. Compiling a bunch of excerpts and publishing them as a lexicon without adding anything original and of value is a clear case of infringement.
Link to NPR Audio (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94407484 [npr.org]
Re:Hold your horses! (Score:5, Insightful)
You hinged your argument on the wrong part of that sentence. "Dry reference" is not illegal, nor is it the judge's words. "Reorganized", however, IS illegal when we are speaking about copyrighted works. That is what the judge found against.
Hardly. The lexicon was read aloud in court, along with the source material it pulled from. The book was a clear case of plagiarism to the court. The publisher can feel free to appeal the decision, but I doubt they'll find much sympathy from an appeals judge.
The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publishing large pieces of someone's work for a no-cost reference and publishing someone else's work for profit. The defendant may have had a website that Rowling was happy with and thus not inclined to take legal action against (effectively giving approval for the use), but the book should have either added significantly more value over the source material OR have sought approval from the Rowling before attempting to go to press.
FWIW, PJ does an excellent job in reaching the same conclusion in her Groklaw post. Kudos to kdawson for adding that useful link to balance out an otherwise defamatory post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly. The lexicon was read aloud in court, along with the source material it pulled from. The book was a clear case of plagiarism to the court.
You mean selected snippets of the Lexicon were read in order to trick the judge into believing that that was all there was. A clear logical fallacy, but common tactic in cases like this.
The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publi
Re:Hold your horses! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean selected snippets of the Lexicon were read in order to trick the judge into believing that that was all there was. A clear logical fallacy, but common tactic in cases like this.
Did the defense not have a chance to demonstrate the unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material?
Re:Hold your horses! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of which the defense simply allowed without showing the substantive quantity of original text following the lifted text? Please. If any lawyer is that incompetent, he deserves to lose. Otherwise, for what purpose does legal defense exist?
I will reiterate: It is up to the author to decide how their work is used. Given that there was no charge to the readers of the site, and that web advertising rarely does more than defray operating costs, I can see how she would have given it a nod as an excellent fan reference.
That still conveys ZERO legal right to publish a work of plagiarism for profit. Only Rowling can make that decision. Which (if you read the decision) she attempted to convey in correspondence with the author and publisher. Correspondence that they chose to disregard.
You appear to think that one cannot plagiarize and yet be guilty of poor research at the same time. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion.
Let's say we have original text that looks like this: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical instrument that is capable of some very powerful spells indeed! Yet Harry knows that its power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
Now let's create text that both plagiarizes and adds unsubstantiated claims to the text: "Harry Potter's wand is a 14 inch long, magical piece of wood that is capable of powerful hexes. Harry is a pacifist and thus feels that the power is strong and that he should only use it only in dire situations."
With those very simple changes, we have managed to achieve "getting it wrong" without adding sufficient research to be considered either for fair use or as an original work.
See, that is opinion. The facts presented in the case disagree with your opinion. Until someone demonstrates facts that are contrary to the judge's findings, then I'm afraid you have no leg to stand on.
--
As a personal note, I'd like to add that I have no stake in wanting Rowling to win or lose this case. I have been avoiding the Harry Potter series since its inception and am entirely turned off by its premise. My only interest in this situation is the matter of law and justice. The decision, while an obviously difficult one for the judge, appears to be correct according to everything I have seen about the case to date. Until someone proves otherwise, NewYorkCountryLawyer's post is reactionary and defamatory.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publishing large pieces of someone's work for a no-cost reference and publishing someone else's work for profit."
And if that difference isn't recognized you can be certain that many more fan sites will start getting nastygrams.
It seems to me as if the author in this case was being very open to fan sites but not so much to people tryi
Re:Hold your horses! (Score:5, Informative)
And if you've ever looked at the Lexicon website, you know that it does precisely that.
The website does, yes. My understanding of the book though is that a lot of this was being driven by the publisher, not really the author of the Lexicon website. The publisher decided to strip out virtually all of the original material from the website in order to shorten the book. The Lexicon book, as opposed to the website, supposedly is almost entirely direct quotes from the Harry Potter books.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NYCL, are you trying to lose all respect? Moryath's post was way off base based on the evidence presented in this case. If you believe otherwise, you need to present a reasonable argument to the contrary. Not simply cherry pick those who agree with you and pat them on the back. Rather than building up that individual, you are dragging your own reputation through the mud.
If you want more support on your side, then I suggest you treat Slashdot as you would a courtroom: Argue your case!
You never know. If you a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No sir. The travesty is not that people have been modded up and down for their opinions. Such is the normal course of things. The travesty is that Mr. Beckerman's lapse in grace and judgment was posted by the editors. Had they passed over his submission, no one would have known of his misstep and his reputation would have remained untarnished.
I am utterly saddened by what this story has done to a man that I deeply respected. This story will cause his future judgments to be called into question, which will s
Dry Reference (Score:3, Informative)
Sure.
A "Dry Reference" is a tidy work arranged primarily for the purpose of being able to quickly identify items or reach the information you want. Think most of the standard reference works (dictionary, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Star Trek or Star Wars encyclopedias, owners' manuals or service manuals for commercial products, various manuals for operating systems or software languages, journals for various professional organizations).
A "Wet Reference" is a reference work written largely in-universe and inten
Just like the books... (Score:5, Funny)
Avada Kedavra!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:5, Funny)
I noticed you accidently wrote at least one sentence that doesn't totally drip with contempt for this ruling.
Dammit. Sorry about that. I don't know how I let that slip through.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wish I could mod myself -1 Complainy, but I gotta agree here...this is a deeply biased and agendized summary. Mod the summary -1 Disappointed. :(
Yes but I did provide you with the actual 68-page decision, so that you could decide for yourself that my post was "biased" and "agendized". Who, other than Groklaw [groklaw.net], gives you that kind of service? And with a :).
Re: (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. M
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it interesting that you seem more incensed about this than about, say, RIAA legal tactics (which I could tell from your other posts you feel strongly about). Does the fact that there are other derivative works that were published for profit and not sued by J.K.Rowling not soften your opinion at all? She wasn't out for the money, either, although she got these 6750 as an award.
Re:Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:5, Informative)
I am curious what is it that makes you so mad about this case.
The decision troubles me because it is flagrantly wrong, and -- because it is widely publicized -- will affect decisionmaking by creators and by publishers. I.e. it will have a 'chilling effect'.
Before the outrage starts... (Score:3, Informative)
It's my understanding that 80% the contents of the website on which the encyclopedia is based is copied verbatim from the HP books. How does that NOT fail the "fair use" test?
Re:Before the outrage starts... (Score:4, Funny)
Because she's got lots of money and that's not fair? Somebody better call a waaaaghmbulance for NewYorkCountryLawyer!
Erm...What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the bad attitude in the submission post?
Someone was trying to release a commercial product whose premise was stealing content from an established work.
If they didn't get hit hard on copyright infringement, they'd get hit hard on trademark infringement, and rightly so.
Like it nor not, J. K. Rowling created the series, and decided to turn it into a commercial enterprise. It's well within her moral and legal rights to make sure a bunch of idiots don't cling to her coattails trying to milk dollars from a popular franchise that they have no legitimate claim to.
Re:Erm...What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it nor not, J. K. Rowling created the series, and decided to turn it into a commercial enterprise. It's well within her moral and legal rights to make sure a bunch of idiots don't cling to her coattails trying to milk dollars from a popular franchise that they have no legitimate claim to.
Well, the judge seems to think there's room for at least some idiots to cling to her coattails and milk dollars from a franchise they have no legitimate claim to. From Groklaw:
Notwithstanding Rowling's public statements of her intention to publish her own encyclopedia, the market for reference guides to the 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.
I.e., no, it's not within her legal rights to prevent other people from making money off her work. There are reasons for why this case wasn't fair use, but that doesn't speak to the issue of people riding her wave as a whole.
Amazingly slanted summary (Score:5, Informative)
The lawsuit was to stop the publication of the book; it had nothing to do with the $6k.
Ok, let's look at this clearly (Score:5, Insightful)
Competing negates fair use? (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, can someone explain why competing reference books rule out fair use, especially given that she admits she hasn't even started on her version, years after his has been done?
For those of you defending this decision... (Score:5, Insightful)
actually read it, please. It's linked there. The judge relied on VERY fair-use unfriendly Second Circuit case law to come to his conclusion.
While the judge does admit that the author does not have control of these types of works, and the judge states that some types of works should be encouraged, the actual analysis of what would constitute transformation really does make the likelihood of such works being published less likely.
The judge left a pretty darned high threshold for what is considered "substantial" copying, and mentioned things like "fictional facts" and "paraphrasing" used to determine infringement.
In any rate, the ruling is vague enough in its analysis that I'm confident it will act as a bar towards publishing similar works, even when verbatim copying does not occur. I expect publishers and potential authors will be more reluctant to pursue such works in the future.
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.
Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts AWARDED the minimum statutory balance, but that was the judge's decision.
The Battlestar Wiki and Wookiepedia are technically derivative works. We're pretty much relying on fair use for the legality of the wikis, and those arguments were weakened by this case somewhat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Negative. She was out for more, the judge was the one that decided the actual amount.
From the article:
hrm, biased much? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm reading this blurb like this, "Judges, in a remarkably stupid an uninformed decision, said that JK Rowlings can be a greedy bitch." Wow.
Orson Scott Card's take on this mess (Score:3, Informative)
For those of you who missed this the first time, you should really read his take on this whole mess. [hatrack.com]
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the thing- for non-legal practitioners, the decision has implications beyond the text of the legal findings. This decision is specific to the facts of this case. That doesn't matter as much to some as it does to attorneys.
Are the legal findings sufficient to cause additional risk in publishing such a work?
Are publishers going to want to use resources to publish a book that has a stronger possibility of a lawsuit, whatever the merits of this particular case?
The judge's analysis of transformation- in m
Re:And so my book won't be published either (Score:4, Informative)
So what's the solution
There needs to be a more detailed code of best practices, as, e.g., what has been agreed to for documentary film makers [centerforsocialmedia.org], or what we are hoping to see for user-generated online video [blogspot.com]. Also there should be some kind of very inexpensive arbitration forum where these issues can be resolved quickly, expeditiously, inexpensively, and before -- rather than after -- the creator has invested his or her time, energy, and money.
I Fail to See... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 defys logic, humanity, and reason.
That JKR found a judge to agree with her is equally sad.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Mr. Judge, you suck too! Go back to law school and actually learn something about fair use, derivative works, and copyright law!"
Sigh. RTFJ - he DID cite caselaw and Supreme Court rulings regarding fair use, and in his "judgement" (you know, where the title comes from), this work failed to qualify. Something like 80% of the book was copied verbatim from the HP books - that's not a lexicon, it's a Reader's Digest condensed version.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Trolls can now post news on \., film at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
an author protecting her solely-created IP from some little fanboy trying to profit off her work and his "doesn't get out much" Potter addiction hardly warrants this kind of posting
I disagree. The vitality of the "fair use" defense is of extreme importance to the balance in copyright law. A highly publicized, and dead-wrong, decision like this casts a chill over our freedom of expression.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
\.
I'm sure you were making an excellent point. Unfortunately your geek card is being revoked due incorrect usage of the backslash, thus stripping any meaning of your comment.
/ : this is a slash, aka forward slash, or "that weird diagonal line you use on the interwebs"
\ : this is a backslash, aka "the other one you don't use... do you? what's a share? wait wait? What's it called again?"
Have a nice day,
the geek card policy enforcement internet police.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Despite what a lot of people are saying, Rowling did not sue. Her publishing company did.
Not so. J. K. Rowling is the second named plaintiff.