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)
And aren't parodies are a protected form of speech?
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
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.
The fact she's an unmitigated sellout aside, Rowling (I have no problem with people making money from their creations, but do NOT take the moral high ground and say you'll never sell the rights, then in the same breath be a media whore who gives their soul to the nearest media behemoth), along with Time-Warner, are becoming cease-and-desist junkies of the highest order. MANY fansites are being shut down.
Who wants to see Harry turned into a hairy troll or forced to gallivant with foreign literary figures? I DO I DO!! LIke the top poster and the article mention, these aren't copies of Harry Potter and Rowlings case is weak.
On the one hand, I think that anyone who wants to publish a 'Star Trek' or 'Star Wars' book should be required to ok it first with the owners of those franchises.
BUT....
If I want to write a sci-fi which takes place in a future 'confederation' with an egotistical Captain 'Church', and a navigation officer called 'Prok' who is annoyingly logical, well that should be ok.
No-one is going to mistake it for the original, but by using some of the same background, I ease the readers immersion into the story, and possibly extend the original in interesting ways.
Note: This is what the Potter books already do, they're based on any number of Boys Own Adventure stories, where 3 or so schoolfriends have all sorts of adventures while dodging crotchety old school-masters, etc.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
She is very forthright about stopping any commercial derivitive works of what she has written. However, her own books are riddled with concepts, story ideas and such things from mythologoy and history. I'm certain there is as much influence from historical literary ideas in Rowling's works as there is of Rowling's works in this Tanya Grotter.
The "philosopher's stone" is not exactly an original concept.
(Though I must admit I'd find it hard to not consider Tanya a copy considering the "Grotter" has been morthed on the front cover to look suspiciously like "Potter".
To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:
Applying your criteria to the legendary National Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings", it appears to fit into each categories exactly the same way a Harry Potter derivative would... Namely, "for profit", "derivative", "almost none beyond generalities", and "increases it" (ala dojinshi).
So, why can I buy the National Lampoon's derivative works, but not an interesting retelling of Harry Potter "regionalized" for Bulgaria?
Well, screw you, Rowling. If you can steal substantial portions of Nancy Stouffer's work, others should have the right to do the same to you.
Time to start looking for copies of as many Harry Potter rip-offs as possible, as well as making a point of reading HP:OotP at the library rather than dropping 7-10 bucks or so to buy it when it hits pulp.
Basically, the Potter books aren't 100% original, nor are they as well written as their predecessors. They all have a very linear plot with Harry in every scene - compare The Two Towers where there are three simultaneous stories- and they're relentlessly literal where they could be surreal. Masefield's stuff is amazingly surreal, but then he *was* Poet Laureate.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
He first ignores the difference between inspired by and derivative works, lumping in Tonya Grotter (which with the data given may or may not be a derivative work) with Harry Potter in Calcutta.
Second, he doesn't consider any of the logical consequences of ending derivative work protection, except for a brief consideration of movie rights.
For example, if international copyright is changed to allow Harry Potter in Calcutta, certainly there's no obvious reason why an unauthorized Harry Potter in New York shouldn't be similarly allowed. Or an alternate Harry Potter 6 book, for that matter.
Translations are derivative works, not the original; all translation is paraphrase. Should a translation of a Rowling Harry Potter into French not pay royalties to her? How about a mere English-languge paraphrase?
Similarly, a movie of the first Harry Potter is not a copy of the book but just a derivative work, and any other version of the film shot by a different studio isn't a copy, either. Should Disney be allowed to suddenly start making its own Harry Potter films based directly on the books?
Moron. He doesn't even raise the questions.
you know michael... it doesn't seem to be a call for copyright reform (LITERARY copyright reform if anything) so much as a defense of the parody.
... nope, this is mostly a defence of the right to mock. the article concludes with the following (and i paraphrase): "the ripoffs aren't really making that much money! and besides, they're just parodies!" it fails to manage any real defence of the books that appropriate the Harry Potter character itself. saying, as the author does, that the foreign bootlegs are like cheap imitation chinese walkmans misses the point: the Harry Potter world is being invaded, its characters tarnished, the brand confused, etcetera. i don't really give a damn about Harry Potter or the books (never read one), but this seems like an example of copyright law put to good use more than anything. the issue of parody is another matter. the author manages to intertwine the issues in a weak attempt to make his dubious point.
it says nothing damning about the usual copyright issues that set slashdot aflutter (code, genetics, technology, music/record labels, etc etc.) when i first glanced at the header i thought this was going to be something more like this. so i guess it's the word harry potter makes this nerd news (?!?)
in any case
Tanya Grotter is just a parody.
Another nice example of parody is russian "translation" of "Two Towers" movie made by Goblin. In fact, it is mostly new text, which looks like typical russian criminal story. All characters became criminals or soldiers from Russia and nearby countries. Original soundtrack is partially replaced by popular russian and other (Rammstein, Deep Purple etc.) songs.
We (Russians) find it really funny. Virtually everybody likes this "translation", although few of us have seen original "two towers".
If somebody wants to see what it looks like (or sounds like) drop me a line: dimss TA solutions D lv.
(1) Find a Good Idea.
(2) Take the idea to it's logical conclusion.
(3) Get bored with it.
(4) Sell out.
(5) Find next new Good Idea.
(6) Goto 2.
This all assumes point 4 ('Selling Out') will allow you to *improve* your options in life and what you do for a living.
Go for it. I respect anyone who holds onto their principals, but I don't blame you if you do otherwise. If you're truly worth it, more fresh ideas will come easily.
I've been planning on writing someting about just this subject for a while. This is the natural situation, if you think about creativity.
How does creative stuff happen? Some author or musician or whatever really digs something, and feels inspired, and writes something that features all the stuff he digs.
You might create a ripping bluegrass tune in the style of Flatt and Scrugs, or if you're Mr. Bungle, mix surf music with death metal. If you're a writer, maybe you will create an epic like the great Finnish epics, only set in a world of your own creation, or maybe a world where the ancient Greek gods are all immortal personifications, updated for the modern age. Maybe you'll write a story where refugees from Troy found the Roman empire. Maybe you'll write a story about a nerdy boy who becomes a great magician, but who doesn't fight the demon Barbatos and an evil possible future version of himself.
In the days before oppressive copyright, this was the norm. The world of fiction was a big pot of cool stuff and everyone worked out of it. To this day, the rich mythical history of past civilizations shape our current world.
Terry Pratchett said this, and I think it's interesting:
'Books in a genre may well remind you of other books in that genre. This is allowed. If it wasn't, H G Wells would have been the only person permitted to write about time machines. Being a fantasy writer is like being allowed to sit around a big bubbling pot, a stew made up of everything that's gone before. You're allowed to take a certain amount of stuff out, and you don't object if it turns out that you're putting stuff in, too. And so the stew bubbles on. There are only two crimes: one is to claim that the pot is yours, and that the other is to claim that there is no pot.'
He wasn't talking about taking specifics like Harry Potter's name and rough history, but such distinctions are slight and, in my opinion, completely unimportant.
"Won't be picked up anywhere else"
C 12PO
Then why did I read it on msnbc.com last night?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/932117.asp?0dm=
"The misguided global crackdown on Potter Rip-offs"
Granted, it does say slate.com under the header, but it is still what I would call someplace else.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
If Rowlings does have a contract that limits WB to seven movies then more power to her.
Just think of another famous literary figure who has founded a movie dynasty that has spanned nearly 40 years and 20 movies. (Can you say "Bond, James Bond"?) Of course, Ian Fleming did not have nearly so much control over what the production company did (being dead kind of limits your creative input). At any rate after they ran out of book titles to use for movie titles, they used the titles of the Bond short stories and then they just kind of degenerated into making movies using characters from the books. (Hint, "Moonraker" had nothing to do with with invisible space stations, fleets of space shuttles, or a plot to create the perfect society by killing off everyone living *on* Earth at the time)
I can just see WB thinking ahead ten years to when Harry is all grown up. We could be subjected to a whole slew of "Hary Potter: Secret (M)agent Man" movies. Harry would be the debonair secret agent with a license to "wave his wand". Ron Weasly's dad would play the part of "M", and his sister could play Moneypenny. Hermione would take on the role of "Q". Voldemort would take the place of Blofeld. J-Lo would be the... ermm I'm gonna stop here, if the folks at WB want more details they are going to have to pay me.
So, if Rowlings has limited them to only seven movies, bully for her.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Successful software companies do this, too. One company has done well with Office, a high-priced even more ridiculous parody version of its own Works, a program which is itself a joke on the oxymoronic name.
Remember, an attorney will sometimes file suit on behalf of their client if they see a potential issue. I can't remember who did this a while back, but it has happened in more "high-tech" circles. I *want* to say Amazon did it, but don't quote me there. =^_^=
So the point? Even with all the press exposing this, perhaps JKR isn't completely aware of the gravity?
Weak, I know. Now here's another.
Perhaps JKR is being talked into this by her attorneys in London (or for that matter, the Warner Bros. attorneys - remember, they hold copyright as well due to the movies) and they are taking advantage of some sort of naivete on her part.
Perhaps in the end, maybe it really is an issue. Read the next paragraph for why.
The thing is, in certain circles, it is widely grokked that JKR encourages fans to write stories, within certain limits. But in the fan-fiction realm, commercial publication is largely taboo, fanzines aside. (Admit it, you too have at the very least browsed through fan-fiction of one flavor or another.) What we're seeing here with the myriad of secondary Potter stories is, for all intents, fan publication beyond the level of a zine or your various and sundry internet archives/mailing lists/whatever. Harry meeting Gandalf in China's Leopard etc. at least sounds like an example of this - like another poster said, it sounds like a D&D game. This just scratches the surface.
(Strangely enough, crossover writings are ridiculously common in fan-fiction. Anime fan-fiction *alone* has countless crossups with Ranma 1/2 and (insert favorite anime du jour here), with even the occasional Star Trek crossup, and at least one fusion with Clarke's 2001 series.)
This sig no verb.
I read a treatise some years ago by some economists, I think, with a historical bent. Their premise was that China at one time led the world in science and technology, only to fall behind other societies of the middle ages. The gist of their paper was their contention that China's very size and homogeneity caused it to fall behind the rest of the world. They contended that a single emperor could (and did) call for suppression of learning, burning of books, causing all of China to stagnate. The reverse was true of emerging European states -- they were small and fragmented -- not unified in any way except in their animosity towards one another. No single monarch or head of state had the power to stifle innovation. If France chose, say, to block the use of movable type (I'm using this as an example only -- no research here to say that this actually happened), Germany would/did not, leading Gutenburg to invent and refine the printing press. The authors went on to conclude that the chaos inherent in European states Vs. China enabled the Europeans to far outstrip the original cultural leader of the world.
So -- what do we moderns do?? Why we unify everything on a global scale... Does this strike anyone but me as counterproductive over the long run?
It's interesting in regard to this debate that The Walt Disney Company, arch supporter of eternal copyrights, built their early business off of lapsed, foreign, and potentially unenforcable copyrights. Where would many companies be today if they had scrupulously respected everybody else's intellectual property rights?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I agree, Rowling isn't the best of the lot by any stretch. I read the first book and about 3/4ths of the 2nd book, and had enough -- the freshness had worn off and it was beginning to feel rather Bobbsey Twins-ish. Which, of course, is what Harry Potter really is -- an updated serial much of that type; hence it's no wonder kids like it. I think it was a phenom mainly because it had been a couple decades since such a series was on the market.
Haven't heard of So You Want To Be A Wizard, but the whole school-for-wizards scenario is an old idea all around, in fact it's a fairly standard story launcher in fantasy novels.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?