PDA

View Full Version : J.K. Rowling Goes to Court


Timber Wolf
04-13-2008, 07:31 PM
The next episode in the Harry Potter saga-

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080413/120811248000.html


Harry Potter Author Goes to Court
Sunday April 13 11:48 AM ET

Author J.K. Rowling is eager to tell a judge this week that one of her biggest fans is in fantasyland if he believes a "Harry Potter" encyclopedia he plans to publish does not violate her copyrights.

The showdown between Rowling and Steven Vander Ark is scheduled to last most of the week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Rowling is scheduled to testify Monday in a trial that is sure to generate huge interest among Harry Potter fans and the public. Her lawyer has arranged with the judge to have a private security guard for Rowling in the courtroom and for the author to spend breaks in the seclusion of a jury room away from any die-hard Potter fans in attendance.

The trial comes eight months after Rowling published her seventh and final book in the widely popular Harry Potter series. The books have been published in 64 languages, sold more than 400 million copies and spawned a film franchise that has pulled in $4.5 billion at the worldwide box office.

Rowling brought the lawsuit last year against Vander Ark's publisher, RDR Books, to stop publication of the "Harry Potter Lexicon."

Rowling is actually a big fan of the Harry Potter Lexicon Web site that Vander Ark runs. But she draws the line when it comes to publishing the book and charging $24.95. She also says it fails to include any of the commentary and discussion that enrich the Web site and calls it "nothing more than a rearrangement" of her own material.

One of her lawyers, Dan Shallman, on Friday told Judge Robert P. Patterson, who will hear the trial without a jury, that Rowling "feels like her words were stolen."

He said the author felt so personally violated that she made her own comparisons between her seven best-selling novels and the lexicon and was ready to testify about the similarities in dozens of instances.

David Saul Hammer, a lawyer for RDR Books, which plans to sell the lexicon, said the publisher will not challenge the claim by Rowling that much of the material in the lexicon infringed her copyrights.

But the judge will decide whether the use of the material by the small Muskegon, Mich., publisher was legal because it was used for some greater purpose, such as a scholarly pursuit.

In court papers filed prior to the trial, Rowling said she was "deeply troubled" by the book.

"If RDR's position is accepted, it will undoubtedly have a significant, negative impact on the freedoms enjoyed by genuine fans on the Internet," she said. "Authors everywhere will be forced to protect their creations much more rigorously, which could mean denying well-meaning fans permission to pursue legitimate creative activities."

In court papers, Vander Ark, 50, said he was a teacher and school librarian in Byron Center, Mich., before recently moving to London to begin a career as a writer.

He said he joined an adult online discussion group devoted to the books in 1999 before launching his own Web site as a hobby a year later. Since then, neither Rowling nor her publisher had ever complained about anything on it, he said.

In May 2004, he said, Rowling mentioned his Web site on her own, writing, "This is such a great site that I have been known to 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 (which is embarrassing). A web site for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home."

The Web site attracts about 1.5 million page views per month and contributions from people all over the world, Vander Ark said.

He said he initially declined proposals to convert the Web site into an encyclopedia, in part because he believed until last August that in book form, it would represent a copyright violation.

After Rowling released the final chapter in the Harry Potter series that same month, Vander Ark was contacted by an RDR Books employee, who told him that publication of the lexicon would not violate copyright law, he said.

Still, to protect himself, Vander Ark said he insisted that RDR Books include a clause in his contract that the publisher would defend and pay any damages that might result from claims against him.

He said it was decided that the lexicon would include sections from the Lexicon Web site that give descriptions and commentary on individual names, places, spells and creatures from Harry Potter stories.

In his court statement, Vander Ark still sounds like a fan, saying the lexicon "enhances the pleasure of readers of the Potter novels, and deepens their appreciation of Ms. Rowling's achievement."

But the affection no longer seems a shared experience.

In court Friday, Hammer said Rowling's lawyers did not want Vander Ark in the courtroom while Rowling testifies.

___

On the Net:

Harry Potter Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/

Harry Potter Official Site: http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/



If the judge let's this go to print I wouldn't buy it, even if I were an Harry Potter fan.

Phy
04-13-2008, 10:15 PM
On the Net:

Harry Potter Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/

Harry Potter Official Site: http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/



If the judge let's this go to print I wouldn't buy it, even if I were an Harry Potter fan.

I like J K Rowling very much. However, I'm with her opponent on this one:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/14/why-jk-rowling-will.html

Why JK Rowling will lose her suit against The Harry Potter Lexicon
Posted by Cory Doctorow, January 14, 2008 9:22 AM | permalink

Law prof Tim Wu has written a great article (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/13/jk-rowling-sues-to-s.html) on JK Rowling's lawsuit against the fans who are publishing a commercial edition of the Harry Potter Lexicon website, in which he explains, in his customary clear and engaging fashion, exactly why the law is not on Rowling's side here.

Unlike a Potter film or computer game, the authors of the Lexicon encyclopedia are not simply moving Potter to another medium. Their purpose, rather, is providing a reference guide with description and discussion, rather like a very long and detailed book review. Such guides have been around forever—centuries if you count the Bible, and more recently for complex works like the writings of Jorge Borges or The Lord of the Rings. As long as a guide does not copy the original work verbatim, it falls outside the category of "adaptation." And that's why it is largely unnecessary to discuss the more complex copyright doctrine of "fair use." Rowling's rights over the guide don't exist to begin with, so we don't need to go there.

ProfessorAlan
04-13-2008, 10:44 PM
I appreciate her dogged determination to protect her copyrighted work, but she is probably off the mark on this particular case.

Timber Wolf
04-14-2008, 12:40 AM
So Phy, you think it is nothing more than a book review?, a "reference guide," I think your reference called it? I have seen similar works for Stargate, Star Trek, etc., I always thought the authors still had to have the original authors permission to publish the work. I mean Rowling could have eventually gotten round to writing the same tyupe of work, using her original notes, and gotten the royalties herself.

So my question is besides just saying you disagree with Rowling, why do you think she shouldn't have the rights to her characters, even in form of a reference work?

Phy
04-14-2008, 08:47 AM
Tim Wu is smarter about IP law than I am. I'll stand by his answer:
http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/

But Rowling is overstepping her bounds. She has confused the adaptations of a work, which she does own, with discussion of her work, which she doesn't. Rowling owns both the original works themselves and any effort to adapt her book or characters to other media—films, computer games, and so on. Textually, the law gives her sway over any form in which her work may be "recast, transformed, or adapted." But she does not own discussion of her work—book reviews, literary criticism, or the fan guides that she's suing. The law has never allowed authors to exercise that much control over public discussion of their creations.

For a fan to write this kind of entry, Rowling says, is to "take the author's hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain." But that's ridiculous. This and other entries aren't, as Rowling seems to suggest, anything like an abridgment of the originals. No one would read the Lexicon as a substitute for the Potter books; it is useless unless you've read the original, and that makes all the difference.

In the end, this dispute is about the current meaning of authorship. Rowling is the initial author and deserves the bulk of the credit, respect, and financial reward. But she has all of that. What she wants is a level of control over the Potter world that just isn't healthy. The authors of fan guides, like house elves, rarely get famous or rich. They deserve legal credit for their modest contributions, not the Wizengamot.

For Rowling to complain about this is naive at best and greedy and shrill at worst. I really like her and support her in most things. Except this.

ProfessorAlan
04-14-2008, 10:31 AM
I have seen plenty of "unofficial" guides to TV shows and book series ..... I read a Christian take on "24," for example. And certainly there are plenty of discussions of LOTR, Narnia, etc .... that are not authorized by the copyright holder.

righter1
04-14-2008, 11:21 AM
Point 1: Doesn't J.K. Rowling have enough money? Why does she need more for this book?

Point 2: This should be one of the highest forms of flattery. Just like someone publishing a 'Guide to' of any number of series' of books--J.D. Robb, Janet Evanovich, etc. For someone to actually take the time to do the research and put together a book pulling the world of Harry Potter into one reference book... that would be an enormous task.

Cymrugirl
04-14-2008, 11:49 AM
The whole case to me almost rings of something personal.

Timber Wolf
04-14-2008, 11:58 AM
Cymrugirl - How so?

Cymrugirl
04-14-2008, 01:24 PM
Well, Ms. Rowling sounds personally hurt to me - from her comments. It sounds as though she had a good relationship with the defendant before this and it makes me wonder if some sort of deception was involved. She's not a stupid woman by a long shot and I would think having been in the book business for this long would have even expected someone somewhere to publish a book of this sort. So why she has reacted this way to this particular person just keeps coming back to me as something deeper than legality. It looks more like a dispute between two people who called themselves friends.

I could be wrong of course - entirely wrong. That's just what it feels like.

I have to say the mention she makes of referencing that website when she was writing (versus her other move of buying a copy of one of her own books!) struck me as very encouraging. Of course, I haven't written half so much as she has, but still details I've written about characters start to blur after I get so far into a story and I amaze myself with how much of my writing time can turn into my reading what I've already written to be sure I don't contradict myself!

Timber Wolf
04-14-2008, 05:47 PM
Well, I'm not sure how I feel about the lawsuit. I'm only playing devil's advocate here to get some discussion going.

I think if I her money, and someone wanted to write a reference book to my characters I'd be flattered they wanted to spend that much time looking up the stuff they are putting in the book. I don't think I'd worry about losing a few bucks.

On the other hand I have detailed notes about my characters, etc., and may figure if I went to the trouble of trackihng the info to begin w/ and people want a refence guide to my characters, why don't I go and turn my own notes into something publishable.

I half think she's between a rock a nd a hard place (darned if she does, darned if she doesn't). I'm wondering how her losing the lawsuit will affect other writers, but I'm also wondering what unintended consequences her winning may also have.

michaelsnyder
04-14-2008, 05:50 PM
I'm okay with the lawsuit...and I don't care who wins...so long as the they make the punitive damages check out to Michael Snyder in Spring Hill, TN!!!

Phy
04-14-2008, 11:05 PM
Well, Ms. Rowling sounds personally hurt to me - from her comments. It sounds as though she had a good relationship with the defendant before this and it makes me wonder if some sort of deception was involved. She's not a stupid woman by a long shot and I would think having been in the book business for this long would have even expected someone somewhere to publish a book of this sort. So why she has reacted this way to this particular person just keeps coming back to me as something deeper than legality. It looks more like a dispute between two people who called themselves friends.

I've wondered that myself. But if that's true, that makes this lawsuit even ickier, so I've taken to hoping that she's simply misguided about the legality of this, as I'd rather believe that she's misled rather than anything like vindictive.

Tash
04-17-2008, 04:00 PM
Hope my digression does not offend but you all seem to be very up on info about Ms. Rowling. My sister shared an article once with me about her on a campaign to stop praying in English schools , anyone else heard about this?

Much Luv
Tash

Phy
04-17-2008, 09:43 PM
I've not heard of that, but I have heard of this (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml).

Tash
04-18-2008, 10:54 AM
Okay I checked out that site but there just seem to be allot of anti Christian stuff out there about her I was just wondering if you all were aware, I mean the mere fact that she uses blatant witchcraft as the basis of her books is slightly disturbing and quite anti Jesus. Maybe she is unaware (as was alluded to in one of the site suggested) that she is being "used" , cause she says that she prays and gets idea's from "god" ...who know but we should be aware of every angle and test every spirit.

Just one i came accross.
http://thejezebelspirit.blogspot.com/2007/10/jk-rowling-outs-headmaster-dumbledore.html

Much Luv
Tash

kaulimus
04-18-2008, 11:24 AM
I think this could very easily turn into the same old debate of whether or not Harry Potter is anti-Christian. Let me just say that to put a work of fiction within the realm of the strictist Christian limitations, one can prove anything anti-Christian, even Christian fiction itself. Even the Bible tells of murder, rape, foul language... Revelations is full of fantastical imagery, largely symbolic (as most all fantasy is).

I think the issue does lie with the author. Do we agree with her lifestyle? After all, CS Lewis writes a similar type of fiction, and he's adored by most Christian book types. With regards to much of Rowling's discussions of faith (which, yes, I do keep up on), I find her to be a woman struggling, and struggle we all do, and we are better for it. We can pray that she finds a resolution to her struggles, but to be honest, all of us struggle our whole lives. With regard to this court situation, I can't agree with her. I find her case pretentious and an alienation of the fans she claims to care so much for. It is, perhaps, an outword sign of her struggle.

And that's my two cents on everything!

Cymrugirl
04-18-2008, 11:31 AM
Something tells me that if C.S. Lewis had given us nothing but his works of fiction, there are many who would not revere him as they do. My grandmother certainly wouldn't allow me to read the Narnia Chronicles in her house.

Rebecca
04-18-2008, 11:33 AM
Let's stay on the original topic of the lawsuit. The other topics are all good discussion, but belong in their own threads. If anyone would like to start a separate thread for the topics, feel free. ;)

Rebecca

Tash
04-18-2008, 11:51 AM
understood and agreed