Slashdot Mirror
Tanya Grotter and the Magic Double Bass
Slate has a piece about Harry Potter and copyright worldwide that is a disguised call for copyright reform. Well written, well argued, extremely good argument, won't be picked up anywhere else.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Won't be picked up anywhere else? This article has been on the front page of msn.com all day Friday.
Art which uses found objects, cultural references, preexisting stories may be protected under the fair use doctrine.
To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education 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. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)
more here
--Stephen
She may have sold the rights, but she hasn't sold artistic control. JK has a lot of control over how the films are handled. She also has a hell of a lot of control over the merchandising. In a recent interview, she said she was horrified at some of the merchandising ideas presented to her and she vetoed them. I do agree about Time-Warner's legal dept tho. Cease and desists to some 11yr old's fan site are not a good PR move.
"It's pretty sad. Rowling always said she would NEVER sell the rights to Harry Potter. Now if you look at he books, there's a small message on the copyright page saying that Time Warner own the rights to all the character names and likenesses."
She didn't sell the rights to the books (IIRC), only to the "names and likenesses," which was probably a mandatory step moving it into the movie industry, having action figures, &c. She probably didn't want to deal with all of the paperwork of subcontracting each individual entity for these things (a company to make toys, &c) and it may have been a mandatory, and not terribly offensive part of the deal for her.
Looking at my copy of Book 4 (I don't have book 5 on hand) it says, in the jacket:
"Text copyright © 2000 by J.K. Rowling"
Thus, I would say calling her an "unmitigated sellout" is probably a bit harsh.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
... and then there are re-labeled rip-offs. Yes, Rowling's work may be deriviative and all fiction works on inspiration from what has gone before it, but names like "Tanya Grotter" (and even naming a book "Harry Potter" when it has no connection to the author) is just trading off the name of her work.
This has nothing to do with copyright reform - the authors of these new books are trading off Harry Potter by slightly changing the name and keeping all the magic and other elements of the book in it. It's not like they're even trying to be different. If they wrote a book about a magician but was different in other ways you could say that 'magic' was in vogue, and it is OK. But is seems like these people are just ripping off quite a lot and writing some stories for the cash.
I don't even like the argument about local market conditions. Harry Potter books are popular everywhere. People love 'Harry Potter'. So people churn out these knock-off books. If the authors wanted to write for the local market I'm sure they could easily make up their own stories but again the just rip-off works just to get the cash.
(As you can tell by now) I don't agree with the author of the article at all. He just wants a cheap argument to allow author's who have no creative insight in the least to get rich off the hard work of others. If the authors stuck to fan-fiction they would probably get my sympathy. But whoring cash for when they have no talent - I hope they burn (metaphorically of course!).
MANY fansites are being shut down.
On the other hand J.K.R. doesn't seem to have any problems with fan fiction. There are quite a few web-sites out there who specialised in publishing Harry Potter fan fiction. I think J.K.R. doesn't want others to profit from her creation and AOL-TW might not like the use of copyrighted material on fan-sites, but they both let people take the characters and settings and try something new with them.
Hank! White!
Practically all the comments here (except "The article is lousy" (#6318621)) are based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of copyright: the notion that copyright protects the ideas (themes, style, atmosphere, characterization, etc.) embodied in a literary work. It does not. It protects only the particular embodiment of those ideas, in other words, the particular phrases and sentences that make up a work. If those are not copied (or translated*), then there is no copyright violation. The Slate article author touches on this a little, but not strongly enough.
All the long threads about derivative works, the thin line between parody and knockoff, and fair use are simply beside the point. If Tanya Grotter does not contain any of the English text of Harry Potter, or Russian translation of that text, then no copying has occurred, and thus no violation of copyright.
Derivative works include some portion or portions of the original work. In other words, they are partially copies of the original, plus some original matter. Without a license, they are generally illegal. Derivative works that parody the original have a special exemption (but it is certainly also possible to parody a work without deriving from it at all). Fair use also is a special limited license to copy. But if no copying is being done, then fair use need not be invoked.
* This actually opens up some very interesting philosophical questions related to the logical coherence of copyright laws, since given the right translation rule, any string can be translated into any other.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Rowland can copyright Harry Potter and his friends, but she cannot and should not be allowed to copyright the idea of a child wizard That concept is, itself, much borrowed from other sources. Even the story of a child wizard in a wonky wizards school has its precedents.
What comes to mind first for me is the Rincewindd character of Robert Asprin's Diskworld series.Born the 8th son of an 8th son of an 8th son, he was destined to be a great sourceror.. Unfortunately, he doesn't believe that -- and neither do most of the people who encounter him. Nontheless, he still manages to both enable and prevent vast magical goings on in his world (depending on whether they are good or bad).
The basic concept of a Harry Potter character is not original and nobody -- even (or especially) someone who has gotten fantastically rich with it should be allowed to control expressions of that basic concept.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.