Rowling Sues Harry Potter Lexicon

Snape kills Trinity with Rosebud writes "Apparently famous authors don't like it if you try to make a buck using their imaginary property because J.K. Rowling is suing the publishers of the Harry Potter Lexicon for infringement. This should prove an interesting test case for fair use given that the lexicon contains mostly factual information about the series, not copies of the books' text. Of course, both sides seem a bit touchy about imaginary property rights, with Rowling's lawyers being miffed after being told to print it themselves when they asked for a paper copy of the lexicon's website, and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts."

Comments

she's right

[Adolf Hitroll]

the whole franchise is not even 20 years old so it's normal she shoul dprotect her rights.
I hope she wins now, but not 60 years later, like Disney who doesn't want his earliest works to fall in the PD.

Re:she's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Has free use really become so squashed and such a fairy-tale that you cannot even create factual works about someone elses work anymore? This is obvious free use and even with verbatim passages lifted from her book I still think that's free use.

Re:she's right

[Adolf Hitroll]

Being anonymous doesn't make you right... Quite the opposite: Being a troll might be wrong, but your point is wronger than mine.

And, BTW, this suit is not about an educational or factual work. It's about intellectual property, as long as this concept, however wrong it is, will be defendable, I'll encourage Janet to sue.

Re:she's right

[frup]

Next they will be suing wikipedia for the write up about harry potter they have...

Re:she's right

[unlametheweak]

It's about intellectual property, as long as this concept, however wrong it is, will be defendable, I'll encourage Janet to sue. Interesting point. If these laws exist then it would make sense that people would exploit them. These lawsuits expose the laws (and the people who use them) for what they are. Hopefully this will encourage copyright reform in the manner that patent abuse has brought about (an attempt) at patent reform in the US.

Re:she's right

[unlametheweak]

Just an addendum and a couple of comments in general:

Note, that in the beginning (post Napster but when when Kazaa was popular), I used to argue with RL friends that file sharing was theft. Then the RIAA started getting aggressive and I started hearing a lot of arguments in favour of DRM and harsh laws involving intellectual property. The pro-IP crowd has educated me quite a lot since then. I am now (pretty much) in favour of laws against DRM and the like. When it comes to IP, then let it be free. If you have something that can make the world a better place (music, literature, etc) and only want rich people to enjoy it- then too bad. Don't make those things in the first place. Life isn't fair, isn't meant to be fair, and never will be; but it would certainly be MORE fair without IP. Thanks IRAA et al for educating me.

From the article:

and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts High priced lawyers should get an idea. I feel tempted, but no I won't tell them how to get around this rather lame form of DRM... Let them hire an over-priced computer consultant :P

Re:she's right

[nightcats]

Nope, she's wrong, and I hope the courts say so too. Preventing people from doing literary criticism and background is Death Eater stuff. I wrote a book that two different (and very successful) NYC lit agents loved, which failed to make it all because pubs fear Rowling, WB, Bloomsbury/Scholastic, and their lawyers. So now it's rotting away on lulu.com, and whatever merit it contains is lost.

One of the teachings in that book is this: Wealth is poison; it murders from within. Lucius Malfoy ("bad faith") killed himself with wealth before he embarked on his career as a Death Eater. Rowling has allowed herself to be turned into a corporate person -- such a "corpse" will never rest in peace.

Re:she's right

[krazytekn0]

actually if they *don't* sue wikimedia for their write ups on the various HP books wouldn't that be selective litigation and if you don't sue everyone who you know is using your IP then doesn't that make your lawsuit moot? IANAL (I'm sure you all know that already) but I would be interested in a lawyers take on this, the reason I bring it up is that the Disney company had to sue a local children's hospital here for painting characters in the hallway, not because Disney is evil but because having knowledge of someone using their IP and not taking steps to have it removed or licensed would have meant that they couldn't litigate in the future. Or, possibly Disney just doesn't like having it's characters around sick kids but I don't think that's it.

Re:she's right

[Jarjarthejedi]

Yeah, I've got my browser set up to get past those right click disabling script, not on purpose, but as a side effect of trying to make use of every security extension/tip possible. Not exactly a very useful form of DRM (I wonder if I could sued under the DMCA for getting around that? Now there's an interesting question.)

Re:she's right

[tepples]

The pro-IP crowd has educated me quite a lot since then. I am now (pretty much) in favour of laws against DRM and the like. When it comes to IP, then let it be free. You don't mean Internet Protocol. By "IP", do you mean copyrights, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets? The legal and moral issues for these four distinct property rights are so different that discussing them with lumping the four distinct property rights into the blanket "intellectual" category confuses peoplemmore than it helps them.

Re:she's right

[unlametheweak]

I think it would be fair to assume that I am using the term "IP" in the context of the discussion at hand (i.e. copyrights). To be even more specific, copyrights as they pertain to artistic works such as novels and music (that I alluded to in my post).

Re:she's right

[Piazzola]

If you have something that can make the world a better place (music, literature, etc) and only want rich people to enjoy it- then too bad. Don't make those things in the first place. Life isn't fair, isn't meant to be fair, and never will be; but it would certainly be MORE fair without IP.

So... what you're saying essentially is that someone who creates a piece of music, a work of literature, a computer program, anything that is not physically tangible should get absolutely no protection against anyone else making a bunch of free copies and distributing them?

They'd better not quit their day jobs in order to create such things, then!

Re:she's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Wealth is poison; it murders from within.

I must say that I thought something along the same lines: Wealth is composed of alive entities, hoards, it uses us up for its own dynamics just like we (meaning: biological life) use natural processes in our natural environment for our own plane of existence. However, I don't really see it as personalized relation (such as host-parasite or symbiotic one), it is more complex. Sometimes a hoard of wealth is based on single person, organizations or family, for substantial time but once this human or social entity starts to act against the hoard, the hoard will jump it and find another one, or just "die" and leaks away, its wealth to be absorbed by remaining competing hoards.

Now, from this perspective, following generalization and analogy, living biological organisms are also hoards of wealth... not monetary wealth, but still wealth of scarce organic chemical compounds not commonly found free in the open, at least not for too long.

Reality is a Chaos full of Strange Attractors in all state spaces imaginable, even some deemed virtual (however, there is virtually no such thing as virtual, as long as there are sentient, communicating humans, that is). It is easier to create universal theories then to recognize their particular domains of applicability.

Re:she's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Addenum: major ideologies of industrial era revolve around the wealth hoards - human relationship:

Capitalists believe that hoards can be tamed and put in charge of regulating important activities where their "survival instinct" will regulate the activities most efficiently.

Socialists believe that hoards are not controllable and trustworthy, are potentially dangerous and need close supervision.

Communists (Marxists) believe the hoards are too dangerous and destructive and cannot be held by any human-devised and imposed restraints, so they need to be completely destroyed. However, Communists were in for a nasty surprise: once you remove wealth hoards, there are other types of destructive inhuman hoards or blobs as well, such as violent power concentration points, bureaucratic positions and departments, etc.).

Re:she's right

[Retric]

You can't extract meaning from works of fiction. You can guess the reason why authors uses specific backgrounds / events but a novelists job is to entertain so "it's interesting" is as valid as any other interpretation.

PS: Most forms of literary criticism are BS and a complete waste of time. It's best to focus on dead authors so they don't contradict you with an inconvenient truth?

Re:she's right

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be hard to be so dumb.

Re:she's right

[unlametheweak]

So... what you're saying essentially is that someone who creates a piece of music, a work of literature, a computer program, anything that is not physically tangible should get absolutely no protection against anyone else making a bunch of free copies and distributing them?

They'd better not quit their day jobs in order to create such things, then! Of course I never said that.
If people want to make money off of their artistic works then so be it. If people want "protection" from artistic works then so be it. But that protection should not be an 800 pound guerrela. What I did say is that having no protection in place is better than having protection in place. This is the way it is now. If the government and industry want to change the laws to make things more fair then I may change my opinion.

making a bunch of free copies and distributing them I have nothing against pursuing organized crime. Although there is an assumption on your part that people won't buy DRM-free music or support artists in other ways. Just a couple of links to give that argument a rest:
Gov't Commissioned Study Finds P2P Downloaders Buy More Music
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/

Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' Paid for by 38% of Site Downloaders
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9088/Radiohead's+'In+Rainbows'+Paid+for+by+38%25+of+Site+Downloaders
38 percent is certainly a high figure considering the people who would not have bought the album in the first place (whether it be available freely or not). A 38 percent profit off of the millions who downloaded that album is really quite a lot of money, not to mention the free advertising.

And let's face facts, people signing up for American Idle aren't making God Save the Queen (the punk version or otherwise). Same as the people chasing music labels in general. More likely than not their music will get perverted into "loudness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war or some form of top-10 type copycat sound.

But yes, people should keep their day jobs unless they don't want to live in poverty. Being a musician is hard even if you're signed on to a major label. Same as with book publishing. The corporates will own everything and give you very little. The issue of IP ownership in this context has very little value.

Re:she's right

[megaditto]

How much money do you think 'the people' would voluntarily pay to somebody studying COX-2 gene promoter haplotypes, or Helicobacter species, or giant magnetoresistance?

Re:she's right

[DerekLyons]

Has free use really become so squashed and such a fairy-tale that you cannot even create factual works about someone elses work anymore? This is obvious free use and even with verbatim passages lifted from her book I still think that's free use.

It's obvious free use? Hardly.
 
Free use if for "...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research...", and this site meets none of those tests. It's a reference work and a summary, which are not protected.

Re:she's right

[tepples]

It's best to focus on dead authors so they don't contradict you with an inconvenient truth? Unless their heirs do the same.

Re:she's right

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let them hire an over-priced computer consultant :P"

They paid me 100 quid + my bar tab and I told them it was uncrackable.

Re:she's right

[krazytekn0]

uh, if you're studying those things without a grant then you're pretty screwed anyway.

Re:she's right

[megaditto]

And where does the grant money come from? If you think a lot of people would chose to pay high taxes and premiums if they had the choice...

Re:she's right

[unlametheweak]

How much money do you think 'the people' would voluntarily pay to somebody studying COX-2 gene promoter haplotypes, or Helicobacter species, or giant magnetoresistance? I don't know. I would suspect quite a lot of money if it was useful information. If studying these things could better society in some way, like fighting cancer, then I suspect that 'the people' would pay quite a lot of money. Probably more money than Radiohead could ever dream of making.

If on the other hand, 'the people' are not interested in obtaining information on these topics, and have no other reason to pay for somebody studying these things, then I would suspect that 'the people' would be willing to pay nothing.

Since you seem to have an interest in science, here are a few places where you can read about the wonders of science:

The National Science Digital Library http://nsdl.org/
Public Library of Science http://www.plos.org/
Working Knowledge for Business Leaders http://hbswk.hbs.edu/ (more business oriented obviously)
Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/

Re:she's right

[LrdDimwit]

No. This is a copyright infringement suit, not a trademark case. Trademark law does work the way you describe -- if you do not defend a trademark, you can lose all protection to it. Trademarks are supposed to identify that the trademarked item comes from a particular source; if world+dog can use it without interference, this vanishes and so does the protection. There are number of high-profile cases of this happening to existing trademarks (see below), so most big corporations with very valuable brand names are quite paranoid about allowing them to be diluted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Trademark_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

No comparable mechanism exists for copyright. Copyright holders are free to prosecute whoever they want, and ignore other infringers. There are a couple of defenses (if you tell someone they can do something, for instance, you can't sue them anymore) but generally, a copyright holder is perfectly free to leave websites alone and go after those same people for selling deadtree versions of the exact same content. It so happens in this case they have a weak case, but for other reasons (fair use reasons).

Were it done any other way, one of the consequences would be that all fanfiction would have to be cracked down on (otherwise the owners would lose all copyrights). While a lot of people like to make cracks about how bad much fanfiction is, I don't think many would argue it ought to be cracked down on indiscriminately.

Re:she's right

[shark72]

Each case is different, and has subtle nuances. Fair use doctrine is a set of guidelines that aren't often applied until a case goes to court. The Slashdot audience is made up a lot of computer scientists, so we're used to tests of the form "does $a equal 5?" and we tend to get bound up in false equivalences when trying to grok the legal realm.

Wikipedia generally gets a pass because they are a not-for-profit organization, and (depending on your definition of "lots") they're not swimming in lots of money. The folks who want to publish the lexicon are, on the other hand, taking the traditional route of "sell copies of something" and are clearly in the for-profit realm. If the defendants' lawyers bring up the Wikipedia / selective litigation argument, I don't think it will be too tough for the plaintiff to demonstrate to the court that an apple is not an orange.

There's lots of precedent for this. What immediately comes to mind is Paramount's policy on the Star Trek world: if it's non-commercial, go ahead. This allows amateur fan fiction and the amateur-produced TV shows (which rely on donations) to thrive, but allows them to stop me if I wanted to sell an unaothorized Star Trek novel. I believe this has been ultimately helpful to Paramount; it's allowed the Star Trek franchise to thrive in its own way.

Likewise, of course, J. K. Rowling et al. appear to be taking a similar approach. They're not hassling the legions of Harry Potter fan sites, yet they're bringing down the mighty fist of God on these folks who are trying to make some serious dough off of her work.

Re:she's right

[eno2001]

Disney's still alive? Last I heard, his brain was preserved in a vat of liquid at EPCOT center so that when science reached a point where they could revive it, it would be protected and ready to do their bidding. (Who "they" are is a mystery) Now, I've always been intrigued by this idea of preserving brains and bodies, etc... And I've always entertained the notion that with our limited knowledge of what is actually important in doing that, we may be merely pickling these individuals. When the day comes where we may be able to revive someone, it's entirely likely that the bodies and brains packaged in the past will be nothing better than a gherkin.

Re:she's right

[westlake]

I hope she wins now, but not 60 years later, like Disney who doesn't want his earliest works to fall in the PD.

Disney's earliest works are in the public domain.

Disney was an independent animator in Kansas in 1922. Disney Silent Cartoons [Disney Before The Mouse]

The geek might want to think about the numbers: eighty-five years of corporate independence, all but the tiniest fraction of the studio's production preserved and easily accessible.

The geek might also might want to think about you actually get when a film comes into the public domain.

It isn't ownership or possession of primary sources.

It isn't the technical competence or financial resources needed to work from primary sources. "Steamboat Willie" was released on 35mm nitrate stock with synchronized sound on phonographic disk. That is a problem for MoMA or the Smithsonian.

You get the rights to the characters and story of "Steamboat Willie."

Eight minutes of silent era sight gags linked by a thin narrative thread. You do not get the Mouse in any of his later incarnations. You do not get the trademarked character designs. You do not get The Phantom Blot. You do not get The Sorcerer's Apprentice.

You want to learn from "Steamboat Willie?"

"Vintage Mickey" is $15 on Disney DVD. The complete Mouse in Black and White will set you back about $60.

Re:she's right

[Draek]

well, probably not, but taxes have *nothing* to do with copyright laws, do they?

Re:she's right

[docb77]

you contradicted yourself there. There are several of those categories that reference works could fall under. Scholarship and research both come to mind. Yeah, harry potter is fiction, but it's such a phenomenon that many scholars do study it. It's not completely cut and dried, but it does seem be more obviously fair use than infringement. (Oh yeah, it's fair use, not free use)

Re:she's right

[krazytekn0]

First of all, much grant money comes from the private sector, second of all, it's no one's fault but the publics if taxes are high, that's what happens when you vote to raise taxes, taxes get raised. So yes, the majority of people either don't care or do want high taxes in exchange for these innovations. Because if the majority didn't want it, it would change but it hasn't. Apathy is not a release of responsibility.

Why is it that people think that one year they can vote "yes please try harder to find a cure for cancer" but not have to pay for it somehow. I mean it's not like they can cannibalize social security again and magically come up with more money.

We have the choice and exercise it for a lot of things, we chose not to publicly pay for stem cell research, this doesn't mean that no one in the country is getting paid to research stem cells, it just means that the federal government isn't paying them. And you can bet that the people doing the research aren't doing it for free.

Re:she's right

[dprovine]

Preventing people from doing literary criticism and background is Death Eater stuff.

It sounds like they're not doing any sort of criticism, so I don't think this applies.

I wrote a book that two different (and very successful) NYC lit agents loved, which failed to make it all because pubs fear Rowling, WB, Bloomsbury/Scholastic, and their lawyers. So now it's rotting away on lulu.com, and whatever merit it contains is lost.

I have a copy of The Gospel According to Harry Potter right here, and Amazon lists dozens of books on HP themes: The Wisdom of Harry Potter, The Psychology of Harry Potter, and bunches more. Those publishers don't seem to have been sued. Maybe your agents need to find a publisher who's not an idiot?

Re:she's right

[Nar Matteru]

I hope she wins now, but not 60 years later, like Disney who doesn't want his earliest works to fall in the PD. Fairly certain Walt Disney is dead by now. The company however... well they would scare little children if there was profit in it.

Re:she's right

[lgw]

Does anyone have the facts on the Terry Pratchett / Ponder Stibbons blow-up related to Harry Potter. Apparantly someone got all worked up that an Illustration of Ponder Stibbons looks a lot like a Harry Potter ripoff.

Pratchett freely admits using his time machine to go 5 years in the future to steal Rowling's ideas, but can't explain Josh Kirby's drawings.

Re:she's right

[DustyShadow]

Free use if for "...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research...", and this site meets none of those tests. It's a reference work and a summary, which are not protected. The statute says "including . . ." those categories you listed. It is not limited to those.

Re:she's right

[megaditto]

Sounds fine until you look at how much voluntary money that would require. NIH alone spends about $30 billion a year, that's $100 taxed per each man, woman, or child in the US, each year...

Pentagon budget (NOT including the funds for Iraq/Afganistan): 800 billion per year, or $2700 per US person per year...

The point I am trying to make is that none of the people I know would chose to personally pay to the government and the companies the kind of money that is currently beaten out of them to keep our country great.

Re:she's right

[megaditto]

Are you being sarcastic?

Re:she's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Her first name is Joanne, not Janet.

Re:she's right

[DerekLyons]

Nope, she's wrong, and I hope the courts say so too. Preventing people from doing literary criticism and background is Death Eater stuff. I wrote a book that two different (and very successful) NYC lit agents loved, which failed to make it all because pubs fear Rowling, WB, Bloomsbury/Scholastic, and their lawyers.

No offense - but a quick look says to me that your book is exactly what Fair Use is meant to prevent. You've taken someone elses characters etc... and are using them for your own work. The agents aren't afraid, they just know the law.
 
 

So now it's rotting away on lulu.com, and whatever merit it contains is lost.

If the work contains any actual merit, it should be trivial to rewrite it to stand on it's own. (And if the agents you consulted knew what they were doing, they'd have told you that.)

Re:she's right

[nightcats]

My point was that the agents were all for seeing the book published, and actively marketed it to pubs. Now the one guy worked for William Morris and had just landed a $600K advance for the client before me. He's a member of AAR, and a very highly regarded man in his industry. If he was ignorant of copyright law, then he's got plenty of company. Bottom line is: when you do a spinoff piece, are you stealing the original author's IP? In my case, you might as well say I've stolen the IP of Plato, Lao Tzu, Kierkegaard, Jon Kabat Zinn, C.G. Jung, and many others, because the book contains scores of quotes and over a hundred footnotes. If my work is plagiarism, then so is everything in the literature of literary criticism, and that's hundreds of thousands of books, partner.

Fact is you haven't looked at my book, because Lulu hasn't registered a sale of it in weeks! So I'll give you a fair shake: here's a link to a pdf copy of the text. Read a piece of it, look at the endnotes, and then make up your mind. In future, I would avoid making baseless charges without consulting all the evidence. Maybe you're not a writer and couldn't understand: but there's no harder slap to the face you can give an author than to call him a plagiarist or an IP thief. For professional writers, that's career-ending shit right there.

Re:she's right

[Draek]

no, I honestly can't see why repelling copyright laws should, in any way, require us to repel taxes too, along with it, so if you know why I'd be happy to hear it.

Re:she's right

[megaditto]

Because our government gets a lot of their tax revenue from copyrighted works. Even more importantly, foreign trade depends heavily on enforcable copyrights, patents, and such. The government gets a fat tax kickback any time the copyright/IP things get sold at a profit, which includes all sorts of things from movies and media, books, AIDS drugs, computers and consumer electronics, CD-RWs, F-16 warplanes and other weapons, even.

No government is going to give up such a revenue stream since you can see that for them, copyrights indeed mean tax dollars.

Re:she's right

[FLEB]

If you want what's fair, argue for what's fair. Pushing the extreme agendas of either the lock-it-down or the free-it-all crowds just fuels the irrational fire. By putting forth extreme and untenable solutions on either side, it makes it all that much easier for the other side to see you as someone dismissable, an unreasonable zealot.

Personally, I think the ideas behind basic copyright and IP protection are sound. The fruits of intellectual labor have none of the enforced reproduction difficulty inherent in physical labor or goods. However, lack of general interest in the effects of poor copyright legislation have allowed people with self-weighted viewpoints and interests in unfairness to sway the lawmakers, while the issue remains too complex and niche to raise a blip on voters' radars.

Things are getting better though, I think. The battle isn't turning toward reduction by any means, but the issues are becoming a bit more visible in today's world. Home publishing, computers, and the Internet mean that copyright issues are becoming tangible to more and more people. Efforts like Creative Commons are helping-- if in no other way than to make people realize that these rights are flexible, and to put the copyright debate in a more world-focused framework (as opposed to me-me-me protectionism). The recent folding of some DRM-issuing companies, and the subsequent bricking of their customers' "purchases" is making the downside of DRM clear, and consumers are becoming more savvy and realizing the value of unrestricted formats.

Your first link is beside the point, I would say. Even if P2P makes every artist it touches fabulously rich, it's still infringing on the rights of artists to not use it. Creators of content have the right to reasonably control the first-sale value, terms, and distribution of their work. It should not be the public's right to determine an artist's marketing plan, even if that artist is apparently shooting themselves in the foot. That's capitalism and respect for the individual.

You mentioned Radiohead's album as an example of how the freeloaders can be tapped for cashflow, but the few times this model has been touted as successful have been with bands that have come to the table with airplay and name recognition already (Nine Inch Nails, Prince, Harvey Danger, Radiohead). If people already know and like you enough, a certain number are guaranteed to follow you to whatever self-press, no-promotion label or payment scheme you want to try. For anyone else, the method isn't tested or sound enough to be an example of "how to do it".

And what does quality have to do with it? Just because the critics say it's crap, that doesn't disqualify something from realizing its market value.

Re:she's right

[insertwackynamehere]

First off, that's what makes this writer's strike here in the US (maybe other places too?) a good thing. TV and movie writers want more for their work and maybe other types of artists/writers will follow.

Second, your spelling of gorilla nearly made me choke on my food with laughter :P

Re:she's right

[Draek]

well, yeah but that only explains "why it's realistically never going to happen", not "why a society without copyright forcibly means a society with high taxes". Specially since most governments tend towards "tax as high as the public will tolerate", regardless of the strenght of copyright protections.

Re:she's right

[kehren77]

So you are saying that every site like this should be sued by the IP owner?

The Harry Potter Lexicon is no different than Gateworld and every other site out there that is basically a well done fan site.

She should be happy that there is that much interest in her books and that the site isn't some half-assed, inaccurate piece of crap.

What's next, will she sue Wikipedia over their Harry Potter pages?

Re:she's right

[fuliginous]

Indeed you can go further with what you say. Failing to sue even if you disagree with the laws as they stand can be a big mistake if you want to remain in control of your own work even to a lesser extent than the law allows.

The recent and ongoing (sorry can't find the link) War Hammer 4K fan film story in Germany being itself an example.

well that's funny

[deathtopaulw]

the first thing I see on the main page is a quote from JKR:
"This is such a great site...my natural home." - JK Rowling
I assume this is a lawyer thing

Re:well that's funny

[burne]

If you read on and visit Rowling's site you will notice something. The story is quite different from what the grandfather-post suggests. Rowling has been helping the lexicon so for. But now the makers of the lexicon intend to make money by publishing a book, and that is where Rowling has to draw the line. She's happy helping fans, but selling books based on her work is a bridge to far.

I take no pleasure in the fact that publication has been prevented for the present. On the contrary, I feel massively disappointed that this matter had to come to court at all. Despite repeated requests, the publishers have refused to even countenance making any changes to the book to ensure that it does not infringe my rights. (source

Re:well that's funny

[rvw]

the first thing I see on the main page is a quote from JKR:
"This is such a great site...my natural home." - JK Rowling Direct link to the J.K.Rowling Official Site, Section: Fan Sites.

Re:well that's funny

[deathtopaulw]

hmm ok but then why do I own like 3 books on harry potter that aren't by her?

Re:well that's funny

[hdparm]

So she "helps" someone to promote her work for free, enabling her to add a few more bucks to the mountain of money she already has. But if whoever wants to earn something in return for their work, that's a no-no.

She is even worse than I thought. Ultimate bitch.

Re:well that's funny

[Kierthos]

Did the publishers of those books make a deal with the publishers of the Harry Potter books? Unless we're talking about those "fanfic" Chinese HP books, I'll bet they did.

And there's the crux of the matter. If the publishers/creators/whatever of this lexicon had sat down and hammered out a deal with the HP publishers, there wouldn't be a court case. But it looks like they're trying to do an end run around those publishers, possibly in order to keep all the potential cash for themselves.

Which is damned foolish, considering the amount of money they're going to have spend on lawyers.

Re:well that's funny

[frup]

Similar to A Tolkien Bestiary, by David Day? Published 1979.

Re:well that's funny

[moggie_xev]

I just wanted to point out that she is writing an encyclopedia the profits from the sale will go to her charity, I believe she has also said if she wins the case the profits from the court case will also go to her charity.

Re:well that's funny

[hdparm]

...which is also tax deductible.

Re:well that's funny

[porl]

because you need to get out more?? :D

Re:well that's funny

[moggie_xev]

I suspect it will be gift-aided myself.

Re:well that's funny

[edwardpickman]

It was her choice to stop writing Harry Potter books and she had planned this for a decade so it has nothing to do with running out of ideas.

A lot of people seem to feel the situation is different because she made a billion or so off the Potter series. Why legally has her situation changed since she was an out of work single mother handwriting a novel? She worked for more than a decade creating the characters so why shouldn't she have the right to control her work? If she allows people to freely expand on her work then she looses control and it becomes something she never intended. It happened with Robert E Howard's work after his death. Many other authors added to his mythologies but none of them equaled the original and most were just trying to make a buck off something popular. Nothing is stopping any of these people from creating original works but they know it's easier to get noticed if you lift from something popular. This is more about taking the easy road to success than creating something. She didn't take the easy road so why should others be allowed to ride her coat tails? Rowlings got lucky with the success of the series but I'm thrilled for her. She's not part of the evil empire she's a little person that made good and crossed over. She should be an axample to everyone not some one to villify when she tries to protect her creation.

Re:well that's funny

[A beautiful mind]

This is an example where copyright is fundamentally broken and hinders our culture*. Every work that has been ever been created by humankind is a derivative work of our culture, that is how building a culture works. Copyright criminalizes that process, which is akin to shooting ourselves in the foot.

*Some would say Harry Potter is not the best example of culture.

Re:well that's funny

[nacturation]

...which is also tax deductible. And what would be the point of adding profit to your income just to turn around and deduct it again by giving it away?

Re:well that's funny

[unlametheweak]

But it looks like they're trying to do an end run around those publishers, possibly in order to keep all the potential cash for themselves. It's a book about a book (to put it simply). No "end run" here.

Re:well that's funny

[Xiaran]

You havent met many accountants have you.

Re:well that's funny

[z0idberg]

If her lawyers are working for free I will eat my hat.

In my very limited opinion it is a grey area as to whether this is infringement or not. According to this post Rowling was planning a similar book the profits of which would go to charity, so she asked Lexicon to at least do the same which they wouldn't do.

If she is so concerned about getting money to her charity then why not make "the official" version of the book and donate the proceeds to charity, then instead of pushing the boundaries of fair use with a potentially long and expensive trial donate the money she would have spent on a trial to her charity as well?

That way at least the pile of money that would have been swallowed up by lawyers fees goes to charity. So what if Lexicon makes some money off it as well? did they not put some time and effort into this? With a trial instead of Lexicon making some money it is the lawyers on both sides that make the money that charity will never see.

This comes across less like forcing the profits of the book to go to charity and more like being bitter about someone else getting a (tiny) slice of money out of the H.P. empire.

Re:well that's funny

[Soporific]

I've never put it in that perspective before. I like it. :)

~S

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

So she "helps" someone to promote her work for free, enabling her to add a few more bucks to the mountain of money she already has. But if whoever wants to earn something in return for their work, that's a no-no.

If you think that way about it, you have no problem in helping me with your knowledge, only so I can do stuff that could be decremental to your good name and thus income ?

Or do you mean JK should not be friendly to (what appeared to be) a fan-site ?

Do you really think that its (morally or otherwise) O.k. for those lexicon guys to silently accept professional help (for which JK could have requested payment for, next to all kinds of demands to what those guys where, or where not permitted to do with it) for what appears to be a hobby/fan-site, ony to have them turn around and to exploit that help that way ?

I my book their behaviour is called backstabbing.

Re:well that's funny

[unlametheweak]

I just wanted to point out that she is writing an encyclopedia the profits from the sale will go to her charity, I believe she has also said if she wins the case the profits from the court case will also go to her charity. - Does that mean all gross profits, net profits (how does she and her publishers define net profit) will go to charity?
- Yes, she can still donate to charity with her own Harry Potter encyclopedia etc. I think this would be a selling point over the strictly for-profit encyclopedia.
- Suing for charity. Yes that is an interesting PR move
- I also wander why she just doesn't use one of her other books (old or up-coming) as a charity vehicle, or just give the wads of cash she already has to charity.

Seems to me her charity statements are more like a PR move for suing than an altruistic statement of fact. Rich people with too much idle time can be burdensome.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want absolute control over any works you created, don't release it. Simple as that. All of a sudden since its harry potter fair use goes out the window. Had it been viacom i am sure the situation would be different 'legally' in your point of view.

Re:well that's funny

[hdparm]

You appear noble and at the end of the financial year you get better brake from revenue department.

Re:well that's funny

[Jekler]

I really have to agree with J.K. Rowling on this. The amount of money she made from the series is immaterial. Actions don't become morally right or wrong based on how much money you've made, unless you're a psychopath. The simple fact is, the person who wrote the lexicon wants to make money because it's easier to expand on an already popular work than it is to come up with an original mythos, make it popular, and then write a lexicon for it. If he wanted to undertake the project commercially, the appropriate path would have been to approach the author and publisher and pitch them the idea of a joint project. What he's doing is the equivalent of selling a product called Pepsi Snacks because it's easier to sell something if you associate it with an already popular product. If you just sold "Bob's Snacks", it doesn't have any immediate appeal. Yeah, what a bitch, all she does is write best-selling novels and give huge chunks of money to charity. That's just terrible. I bet there's a special layer of hell reserved for people like that.

Re:well that's funny

[unlametheweak]

A lot of people seem to feel the situation is different because she made a billion or so off the Potter series. The situation IS different. She is a billionaire now (I'm assuming this to be true). She is no longer an unemployed single mother.

She worked for more than a decade creating the characters so why shouldn't she have the right to control her work? She has the right to control her work. She doesn't have a right to control other people's work. Yeah I know in this case the work is based on that of HP. In this case it is not even a fair use derivative work of fiction, it is merely an aid to understanding the fiction.

If she allows people to freely expand on her work then she looses control and it becomes something she never intended. What is this "it" you speak of? "Looses control"? People should not be allowed to control other people; this isn't 1984 this is 2007. We should have learned better by now.

Many other authors added to his mythologies but none of them equaled the original and most were just trying to make a buck off something popular. Who cares. Don't like it, don't buy it.

Nothing is stopping any of these people from creating original works but they know it's easier to get noticed if you lift from something popular. Nobody is stealing here. I haven't read or watched anything HP, I just heard about HP a lot on the news so I don't have any vested interest either way. I remember when I was a kid I would sometimes write stories about Pack Man, Spider Man, etc... with no evil intent. In either case I would suspect that the author in this case probably "stole" a lot of things from other writers, whether it be Shakespeare or contemporary.

She's not part of the evil empire she's a little person that made good and crossed over. You are correct when you say "crossed over". Yes, just like Darth Vader it seems.

She should be an axample to everyone I agree. That's why she should stop the lawsuit and apologize.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there is a special place in hell for people who sue for 'charity'.

Re:well that's funny

[Opportunist]

You also have to see the flipside of it.

If she lets this slide, what's next? A "Harry Potter spinoff" series, where some other wizkids experience adventures at Hogwart (was that the name?), cranked out by the dozen by people who could barely write for daily soaps?

Any kind of good and known brand will get milked, given the chance. At least this time it ain't the original author who got greedy and sold the brand to some company to milk the name 'til it is so tainted and drained that nobody wants to hear about it anymore.

Also, I don't know how much control she still retains over her creation. It's quite possible that she isn't too interested in suing, but the IP holders and their lawyers are.

Re:well that's funny

[ShiNoKaze]

So how much of the encyclopedia she's writing will look surprisingly like the lexicon?

Re:well that's funny

[Opportunist]

Now, while this isn't the best example for "the benefit of copyright", if this was slightly different, I'd be quite happy copyright exists.

Harry Potter is now a quite powerful and "valuable" brand. When you like her books, you know that when you pick up a Harry Potter book, you will get some good entertainment. I haven't read any, but there's got to be something good in them or there wouldn't be people besieging stores where they're sold just to get them the very first day.

If copyright didn't exist, nothing would keep some "organisation" from doing a market survey, see what new artists create something the audience likes and flood the market with crappy knockoffs, written by people who neither care about the underlying "world" nor about telling a good story, all they want to do is latch onto the idea and milk it.

I agree, that innovation creates more innovation, given a chance. A good story told will inspire others to create more good stories. But in today's society, the threat that someone will take a great story and bastardize it for his own goals (i.e. ripping money from the gullible) is higher than the chance that someone can take it to create something nice.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the UK; well not in the way you americans mean when you say it's tax deductible. I believe in the US you can write the entire donation off against tax; in the UK the Charity reclaims (& keeps) the 22% Tax .. if you are liable at 40% rate, you get to reclaim the difference (i.e. 18%) via your end of year Personal Assessment Tax Return.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich people with too much idle time can be burdensome.

Commie bastard.

Re:well that's funny

[GTMoogle]

Unfortunately for your indignation, this is actually an example of the type of work that copyright protects. Rowling doesn't have a leg to stand on, this is a work of research, and it is very unlikely that it will negatively affect sales of the works from which it derives. In fact it's more likely to increase sales.

It does not matter that it is for profit. It does not matter if it hinders sales of Rowling's own reference manual she wants to put out later. Copyright law is pretty clear in this case - They can sell it. If Rowling is successful in stopping it, it's a failure of the court.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain that, shock horror, JK Rowling is still a UK subject and UK resident. Believe it or not, the tax laws are a bit different here.

Re:well that's funny

[trenien]

Calling the confused mess that is HP world an "original mythos" is laughable.

She's drawn pretty much from every source you can think of, from classical folklore, to literature and modern fantasy work (School of magic? Among others, Earth-Sea, anyone ?).

The only (somewhat) original things are the characters, the story and maybe a couple of special effects.

I've taken a look at the website, everything it does is trying to make sense of the mess (it fails). It is based upon the books but (and this is important) they're only used as "supporting evidence".

Now why would people want to devote so much time and thought process to such a pile of manure is beyond me, but that's beside the point. The point is the website IS original work, and as such may be published independently of JKR.

Re:well that's funny

[GTMoogle]

The lexicon would be a work of research, i.e. cataloging spells, creating a timeline. That kind of work is explicitly protected in copyright law, while a story (ab)using the characters owned by her is not. It's just not the same thing, she's just bitter because her mistaken take on copyright law, like so many people, leads her to believe that she has complete control over everything with the words 'Harry Potter' on it.

What she plans to do with her money (charity, hookers, whatever) doesn't make a bit of difference, and doesn't oblige the publishers of the lexicon in any way.

The one thing the publishers can't claim is that theirs is official or endorsed. That alone gives Rowling plenty enough of a head-start for her own encyclopedia potter, along with her ability to add details to the world that don't already exist. The lexicon can't do that, or else it loses some validity of its claim to be research if it doesn't extrapolate from known facts (The books, things Rowling's said publicly already).

Now Rowling's best case is probably that she contributed to the website and now her work is going to be used for profit that she doesn't want it to be. Any tacit click-through agreement saying the works contributed belong to the publisher probably won't hold up in court, and it's a valid complaint on J.K's part - but they only need to excise her contributions and continue on a bit unofficially less endorsed.

Really that's the sleaziest thing the lexicon's trying to do IMO and it has proper recourse. The courts should toss J.K. out on her ass for the case that she's actually bringing.

Re:well that's funny

[mpe]

- Yes, she can still donate to charity with her own Harry Potter encyclopedia etc. I think this would be a selling point over the strictly for-profit encyclopedia.

It would probably also be a selling point that the author is JK Rowling rather than J Random Blogger.

- Suing for charity. Yes that is an interesting PR move.

The only place where lawyers apparently might need charity right now is Pakistan.

Re:well that's funny

[GTMoogle]

It's kinda sad that she's disillusioned, but she's within her rights to sue. Now it's for the courts to decide.

Unfortunately for her case, the Lexicon is a work of research, which IS protected by copyright law. They can talk about the characters, analyze plot, create timelines of the stories, and excerpt text from the books all day long, and they're doing original research. This is what copyright law is for! She seems to have an inflated idea of the rights that copyright gives her, which is NOT a blanket of control over everything containing the words 'Harry Potter'.

Now, the site owners might be total sleaze-buckets and started a site with the covert intention of selling the work of the community, but then the failure was that of the community to post on a site where the (I'm assuming, I have no idea if this is the case) user account agreement claimed that all postings are the property of the site owner. If the site didn't have that, then everyone that ever posted can say they don't want their work used, and they'd have to take it out.

But then, anyone can sue for any reason. It, again, is for the courts to decide whether their claim is legitimate.

Re:well that's funny

[A beautiful mind]

The amount of money she made from the series is immaterial. Actions don't become morally right or wrong based on how much money you've made, unless you're a psychopath.

The problem is that you're assuming copyright CAN be right or wrong in a moral absolutist sense like a lot of laws could be justified in moral terms. Copyright is a TRADE by it's definition, thus whether it is advantageous or a bad deal for "the people" depends on money among other things.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

That way at least the pile of money that would have been swallowed up by lawyers fees goes to charity.

Save The Sharks!

Re:well that's funny

[gEvil (beta)]

...but selling books based on her work is a bridge to far.

Where is far? And where can I find this bridge that gets me there?

Re:well that's funny

[charlieman]

Which is her charity and makes her look like a nice person (which is something some people pay for). Where the money goes later isn't the matter. She get's it first, she can do with it whatever she wants.

Re:well that's funny

[Stormwatch]

No, that's what the evil book says.

The good book says: I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Re:well that's funny

[Jeff DeMaagd]

As far as I remember, there were plenty of unauthorized books that described and cataloged someone else's fictional universe. I don't see what's wrong with that. There may be details about this that might make it infringing.

Re:well that's funny

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Ok, two things:

1) There is a difference between copyright in theory and its implementation. It's not a problem with copyright if suits like these are possible. Copyright reform through the specific defining of "fair use" would correct that.

2) You've fallen into a common trap: assuming that the work being allegedly infringed would have been created without copyright. It's supposed to encourage the creation of works, which has already done. Copyright has paid it's dues, giving you the Harry Potter books, so now it's expecting you to fulfil your end of the bargain (i.e. to not infringe upon it). Of course, because it's benefits have been given and taken for granted, it's seen as the bad guy.

Re:well that's funny

[Stormwatch]

I haven't read any, but there's got to be something good in them or there wouldn't be people besieging stores where they're sold just to get them the very first day.

I somehow doubt it. I've only watched the first movie, and after that I don't feel like watching or reading any other Harry Potter movie or novel. It's boring, the story is horrible, the characters are unlikeable. I think it's more hype than actual value... I'm guessing it is the Pokemon of fantasy novels.

Re:well that's funny

[Dunbal]

which is akin to shooting ourselves in the foot.

      Why act surprised? We humans have proved ourselves to be very good at that.

Re:well that's funny

[A beautiful mind]

You've fallen into a common trap: assuming that the work being allegedly infringed would have been created without copyright.

As far as historical examples go, in the vast majority of cases things get written and published without the need for copyright. Actually, I'm not aware of a single example off the top of my head where a work would definitely have only been created if the author receives the legal assurance of copyright.

Re:well that's funny

[Dunbal]

Presumably she has already paid taxes on her millions. Who cares about the taxes on the interest? I'm trying to imagine what 8% (after tax - assuming she can get 14-20% returns from smart, medium risk investments) of a billion would feel like, every year.

Re:well that's funny

[Roger Wilcox]

First off, I admit I haven't visited the website, so I can't comment on it's contents.

From what I understand, the Lexicon contains factual information about the characters and situations contained in the Harry Potter series - material which Rowling has already published. Factual information is not subject to copyright.

Similarly, cliffsnotes is protected from original authors when printing a plot summary. It's a fact that these characters were in the book and this is what happened to them.

Under the law, using the characters in a new adventure is what would violate Rowlings copyright. The Lexicon isn't attempting to do this.

Before we part, I must state the obligatory: IANAL. However, I do know that Billboard had a very hard time preventing people from publishing their chart histories for this same reason, and a significant percentage of their business depends on selling those chart histories.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

So, like, tell me...where did Rowling get her ideas about witches, warlocks, magic, dragons, potions, spells, etc.?

"Original, you say?" Don't make me laugh. Her ideas are about as 'original' as the English word 'the'.

She has made her fortunes, (good for her, and I'm glad to see that she is sharing some of it with charities), but it would seem that greed is now taking over. Power (money, in this case) corrupts, as they say. Rowling should just ignore it. Let others make a few crumbs from her work, as she had benefited tremendously from merely spinning a story using other people's older ideas.

Suing for 'charity' is just plain ego and greed.

Re:well that's funny

[Rogerborg]

This is an example where copyright is fundamentally broken and hinders our culture

Hang on there a second, Sparky. If your argument is that a Potty Lexicon for children and creepy middle aged wierdos advances our culture, then it's moot, as Rowling appears intent on producing one. The issue is whether this lexicon hinders her incentive to produce one which would, presumably, be superior.

This seems like a clear case that does match the actual goal of copyright, to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". It's not like Disney or Fox suing the pants off of people purely out of meanness.

Re:well that's funny

[afidel]

Hmm, who do I want to lose more, the idiot trying to quash fair use rights or the idiots with right click scripts and clickthrough licenses.

Re:well that's funny

[Opportunist]

Maybe so, but there's a market for it. It's a bit like daily soaps and talkshows. I don't see their appeal, but they must have some, or they wouldn't multiply like rabbits.

Re:well that's funny

[CastrTroy]

Upon reading the summary, I thought the exact same thing. She already has a pile of money, can't she just let it go? It's not like she's a starving artist here. Plus there's still 2 more movies for her to make money off of.

Re:well that's funny

[Gospodin]

...assuming she can get 14-20% returns from smart, medium risk investments...

More economic brilliance from Slashdot! Ha! If you can get that kind of performance, become a portfolio manager immediately. You'll be a Warren Buffett-level billionaire before you know it.

Re:well that's funny

[sharoni]

Now tell me, why on earth should she let someone else make money from her own creation? that just makes no freaking sense.

Re:well that's funny

[slashbob22]

Actually, this brings up an interesting point. Since this is a book about a book is there precedence for Coles Notes type summaries of other works? From my understanding of the content in the lexicon book, it isn't even a plot summary as much as it is a reference.

As someone who has not read (watched or heard) any of the HP series I wont be buying this lexicon book to catch up. Since it is more of a reference than plot driven I doubt many others would buy this INSTEAD of the originals; she is not losing bulk sales.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause you're a dweeb?

Re:well that's funny

[poot_rootbeer]

It was her choice to stop writing Harry Potter books and she had planned this for a decade so it has nothing to do with running out of ideas.

Letting Harry and Hermione sit in a tent for 300 pages without advancing the plot in any way, on the other hand, does have something to do with running out of ideas.

Also, with the publisher's loss of editorial sensibility. Lucrative cash cows often have that effect on them.

Re:well that's funny

[Pope]

Why act surprised? We humans have proved ourselves to be very good at that.

Hell, we invented C didn't we?

Re:well that's funny

[jam244]

And there's the horcrux of the matter.

Fixed that for you.

Re:well that's funny

[Saint Fnordius]

I disagree mainly because it is an unofficial guide. It is more like some of the unofficial guides to video games with the cheat codes and walkthroughs, Though the names and such are listed, it is a reference and not a case of plagiarism. It clearly requires the original works to be of value.

This case does bear strong resemblance to the lawsuits in the 1990's intended to prevent those books, mainly because the game publishers wanted to stifle competition for the "official" guides. I also remember Adobe even got into the act, trying to forbid a "missing manual" publisher of using screenshots.

The hubris and asshattery on both sides aside, there really should not be an issue with the publication of this book. It is just another in a long line of "unofficial guides".

Re:well that's funny

[tompaulco]

And what would be the point of adding profit to your income just to turn around and deduct it again by giving it away?
Well, since it is charity, she gets to look good for donating, but since it is her charity, she gets the perks of traveling around for free, eating for free and enjoying a host of other benefits buried into the administrative costs of the charity. I was not able to quickly find the administrative costs of her organization, unfortunately.
But it is not really so much about her making money in this case. It is more to prevent someone else from making money.

Re:well that's funny

[siride]

The first book or two are pretty lame. The later books are much better (although some parts of 5 and 6 are pretty boring).

Re:well that's funny

[Khelder]

In my very limited opinion it is a grey area as to whether this is infringement or not. According to this post Rowling was planning a similar book the profits of which would go to charity, so she asked Lexicon to at least do the same which they wouldn't do.

Copyright gives authors certain rights with respect to works they've already created, not ones they're just thinking about or may create in the future. If she was planning to do a similar book, that explains her motivation, but has no bearing on whether the Lexicon infringes her copyright on existing Harry Potter books.

Re:well that's funny

[Jekler]

The problem with the "already has a pile of money" idea is that it can be said about virtually everyone. People in third world countries view all Americans as having piles of money in comparison, to change the situation, should your job even pay you? I mean you already have a pile of money, it's not like you need more.

It's just a ridiculous concept that there should be a limit on how much compensation one is entitled to earn. If you do more work, you get more compensation, how much you already have isn't material. By extension, if you produce higher value work, you receive more compensation. (Whether or not you're a Harry Potter fan doesn't matter, as a society we've laid down the dollars to show how much we value it).

It reminds me of Neil Gaiman's situation. He's had a long running dispute with DC, he doesn't get compensated for international sales. Sure he's made a lot of money from his work, but that doesn't mean it's okay to cut him off because he has an arbitrary amount of money someone determined is "enough".

Re:well that's funny

[tompaulco]

What he's doing is the equivalent of selling a product called Pepsi Snacks because it's easier to sell something if you associate it with an already popular product. If you just sold "Bob's Snacks", it doesn't have any immediate appeal.
And what of all the time and effort that went into the creation of these Pepsi Snacks, which undoubtedly had some effect to increase the sale of Pepsi products? Isn't it kind of like the illegal downloads that lead to a purchase not being figured into the numbers? Not to misconstrue my position on that debate, as I think both sides of that one are deplorable as well. But in this case, a lot of people have put a lot of hard work into something that undoubtedly had some positive effect on HP book sales. Which Rowling apparently had no problem with. But now that they want to make some money off of a derivative work, then its a problem.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

>

Let's see.... Young guy, young girl. Alone in a tent for a *long* time with little to do. And nothing happens. It's just as well - she can't write romantic/sex scenes very well.

Re:well that's funny

[tompaulco]

Science Fiction is full of authors using other more famous authors "universes" and there don't seem to be lawsuits springing up all over the place from that. Philip Jose Farmers Riverworld and Dungeon series spring to mind. There are many others. Maybe there were licensing fees paid in these cases?

Re:well that's funny

[ultranova]

If you read on and visit Rowling's site you will notice something. The story is quite different from what the grandfather-post suggests.

So basically, the lexicon site claims they're in the right, and Rowling's site claims she is in the right. Word against word. Impossible to say who, if anyone, is telling the truth.

So the correct form is: "Rowling claims that the story is quite different from what the grandfather-post suggest."

She's happy helping fans, but selling books based on her work is a bridge to far.

Isn't it nice how Rowling may tap folklore and popular culture for free, but heaven forbid anyone tap her work ? That's copyright law for you: hindering the growth of culture since whenever Disney first began perverting it with their legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if Lexicon makes some money off it as well?

Yeah, so what if that heavy cart full of grain that you pulled up the big hill didn't have any grain in it anymore because some jackass took it out so he could get a free ride up the big hill on your shoulders? That's not unfair right?

You sir are a moron.

Re:well that's funny

[SydShamino]

This book of Harry Potter Knitting Patterns clearly says on its first inside page:

This book is not authorized, approved, licensed, or endorsed by Warner Bros., J.K. Rowling, her publishers, or licensors. And it's being sold on Amazon right now.

(Killed time browsing through it at a yarn store last month, waiting on my wife.)

Re:well that's funny

[Dunbal]

If you can get that kind of performance, become a portfolio manager immediately.

Let me introduce you to the world of offshore mutual funds...

It's not MY fault if you're only getting 4-odd% in your "money market" account.

Re:well that's funny

[Miltazar]

Mostly I agree with you. However when it comes to the control aspect I have to disagree. You have to remember this is a work she spent a good portion of her life writing. I think anyone who creates an art should have control over anything that expands their universe. She came up with the universe, its only fair that she decides where to take it next even if she's not the writer.

Now is this lexicon expanding the universe? No, of course not. This Lexicon is only restating certain "facts" about the series. They are in no way expanding on her universe, just writing something that will help people better understand that which was already written. Personally, as a writer, my position is as long as its not expanding it should be fair. As long as they are writing a majority of it and properly citing quotes, along with not using too many(30+ pages of nothing but quotes is not fair use) then it should be allowed.

I don't see how this is any different from all those unofficial guide books that are published about games.

Re:well that's funny

[GTMoogle]

They're all assholes from our POV, but only one will reduce your rights forever if they win.

Re:well that's funny

[cpt kangarooski]

From what I understand, the Lexicon contains factual information about the characters and situations contained in the Harry Potter series - material which Rowling has already published. Factual information is not subject to copyright.


Facts are not copyrightable in the US, true, but these are not facts. Remember, everything about the characters and situations is fictional. In order for something to be a fact, it will have to do with the real world. Thus, Harry Potter's favorite color is no more of a fact than he is himself: it's just yet another fictional attribute of the fictional character. How many copies of the HP books have been sold is a fact, OTOH.

Similarly, cliffsnotes is protected from original authors when printing a plot summary.

I don't know. After Twin Peaks v. Publications International, I wouldn't want to be them, at least not with regard to their summaries of copyrighted works (mostly they stick to public domain materials).

However, I do know that Billboard had a very hard time preventing people from publishing their chart histories for this same reason, and a significant percentage of their business depends on selling those chart histories.

Well, see, that's a compilation of facts. Billboard isn't making up how well various records do out of thin air; they discover it, independently existing out there, and merely report on it. Quite different from this case.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

It always fills the cockles of my heart that some absurdly wealthy woman that won the lottery pilfering the stories of C.S. Lewis and Roald Dahl can bicker over further compensation. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever you say, Comic Book Man. Nice ass.

Re:well that's funny

[cpt kangarooski]

Harry Potter is now a quite powerful and "valuable" brand. When you like her books, you know that when you pick up a Harry Potter book, you will get some good entertainment. I haven't read any, but there's got to be something good in them or there wouldn't be people besieging stores where they're sold just to get them the very first day.

If copyright didn't exist, nothing would keep some "organisation" from doing a market survey, see what new artists create something the audience likes and flood the market with crappy knockoffs, written by people who neither care about the underlying "world" nor about telling a good story, all they want to do is latch onto the idea and milk it.

Two problems.

First, what you're describing really is more of a trademark issue than a copyright issue. Copyrights are not meant to, and do not, protect brand identity. Trademarks do that.

Second, copyright does not protect ideas. So it is perfectly possible for anyone to do market research and create crappy knockoffs that rely on the same underlying idea (a boring child turns out to have secret powers, a vital destiny in the midst of a secret war, etc.).

Re:well that's funny

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright reform through the specific defining of "fair use" would correct that.

But it would be a very bad idea. We're better with fair use being decided on a per-use basis, depending on the facts at hand, since it allows use to find novel fair uses. If there had been a statutory definition of fair use in the 1970's, then it would have been before anyone even imagined time shifting as a fair use, and the VCR would've been illegal. New forms of fair use come along all the time: only a vague law can reasonably deal with that.

If there are some specific things that you think should be lawful, I would suggest not irreparably damaging fair use, but instead creating a statutory exception. We've already got loads of them on the books. For example, reselling used copies of works isn't a fair use, but is nevertheless lawful for an entirely different reason. True, any kind of use can potentially be a fair use (though no kind of use is guaranteed to be fair), but we needn't shoehorn everything under the sun into fair use.

Re:well that's funny

[npsimons]

Some would say Harry Potter is not the best example of culture.

Slightly OT, but I would argue that Harry Potter *is* culture, and I'm not even really a fan of it. Like it or not, it's a part of our culture. It's not highbrow, but it's not lowbrow either. While some might say that makes it worse because it's merely mediocre, I would argue that at least it has some good messages, and not ones that are only used to bludgeon you with the author's beliefs. It's gotten tons of kids (and adults!) to engage the parts of their brains responsible for reading that would otherwise go unused. I actually suspect that one of the reasons we *haven't* seen l33t speak and txt speak take over written culture is Harry Potter.

Re:well that's funny

[Orion_]

I've only watched the first movie, and after that I don't feel like watching or reading any other Harry Potter movie or novel. And would you have also concluded from watching the equally bad 1984 theatrical version of Dune that the entire Dune series wasn't worth reading?

Not saying I think they're worth reading, just saying that's a really stupid reason not to.

Re:well that's funny

[npsimons]

Actually, I'm not aware of a single example off the top of my head where a work would definitely have only been created if the author receives the legal assurance of copyright.

I can think of at least one example, and to be perfectly honest I think the world would have been better off without it. I'm not for abolishing copyright altogether, but to paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, those who create only for pay should go harm some other field.

Re:well that's funny

[vux984]

This is more about taking the easy road to success than creating something.

Do you hate biographies, documentaries, and books about history? I mean, because those authors also 'took the easy' road... their work practically wrote itself... all they had to do was write it down. They're leeches on society I tell you, LEECHES! And they must be stopped.

A fact book about harry potter is no different than a fact book about New York City, Coca-Cola, Britney Spears, or Star Trek.

Re:well that's funny

[Bert64]

That's not copyright laws your talking about, it's trademark laws.
As the previous post says, preventing derivative works hinders our culture... And as you said, half-assed knock offs under the same brand would hinder people's enjoyment of the originals...
But what about a derivative work which is clearly differentiated from the original? The "Harry Potter Lexicon" is clearly not a harry potter story, it is quite clearly a lexicon about harry potter, that is a descriptive guide. The only suggestion i would make, is that the name is perhaps changed to "The Unofficial Harry Potter Lexicon"...
Or how about a derivative work that didn't use the brand, let's say a book called "Barry Rotter" or something, but used very similar names and stories... You wouldn't mistake this for the original brand.

Re:well that's funny

[nacturation]

You havent met many accountants have you. Apparently I need to meet some more. I was thinking that if she makes $100M a year, of course her accountant will find ways to reduce her tax burden significantly. However if this lawsuit wins her another $1M on top of that and she donates it to charity she has another $1M in taxable revenue but another $1M in write-offs so it nets out the same. You're saying she could actually come out ahead in that scenario?

Re:well that's funny

[nacturation]

Well, since it is charity, she gets to look good for donating, but since it is her charity, she gets the perks of traveling around for free, eating for free and enjoying a host of other benefits buried into the administrative costs of the charity. I was not able to quickly find the administrative costs of her organization, unfortunately. Yes, that would be a huge benefit. However, if it's not her charity would she actually come out ahead by adding $X to her income and then giving away that same $X to someone else's charity?

But it is not really so much about her making money in this case. It is more to prevent someone else from making money. Agreed.

Re:well that's funny

[mykdavies]

She's not part of the evil empire she's a little person that made good and crossed over to the evil side?

Re:well that's funny

[afidel]

I don't know, if clickthrough licenses are upheld I think we lose quite a bit of rights.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote:------------

She didn't take the easy road so why should others be allowed to ride her coat tails? Rowlings got lucky with the success of the series but I'm thrilled for her. She's not part of the evil empire she's a little person that made good and crossed over. She should be an axample to everyone not some one to villify when she tries to protect her creation

UnQuote:----------- ????????

What do you mean she did not take the easy road. Harry Potter was copied from several sources. When I was a kid a book that had a title called "Larry Potter" published in 1984 time frame. Also Harry Potter is used in 1986 Movie Called "Troll." Very few people remember the book Larry Potter. Or even the movie. Harry Potter is exact copy of Larry Potter in ideas. Harry Potter is derived from previous works. Of course if your are Rowlings who have Millions can buy any US courts and squash all previous works, she is Great example of how you can buy your way out of copyright infringement.

References:

http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/UK/09/19/rowling.court/index.html

Re:well that's funny

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

As far as historical examples go, in the vast majority of cases things get written and published without the need for copyright.

Copyright was created to offset the falling prices in copying technology, technology we simply didn't have in previous years. The past and present are not really comparable.

Actually, I'm not aware of a single example off the top of my head where a work would definitely have only been created if the author receives the legal assurance of copyright.

It's very difficult to prove individual cases, naturally. What copyright does is encourage more works to be created. More works are created under copyright, but I just can't say which ones. If you wanted me to take a guess, I'd say most big-budget movies and pretty much any commercial proprietary software. They're large-scale projects that require much manpower, all of whom would have to be paid reasonably for their services.

As for Harry Potter, without copyright, Rowling may not have felt the financial incentive to produce seven books over the same period of time. Perhaps other works that inspired here would not have been created. Perhaps she would have written a couple of books, but not risk the money distributing them. Perhaps she would have done the whole thing exactly the same, with her writing full time to produce those books while people were still interested in them. She would be eating into her savings for years, but I guess we can't rule it out. Besides, I don't really have to prove Harry Potter wouldn't have been created. The point is that you assumed it would, you haven't provided any evidence why it would, and you've simply ignored the benefits of copyright.

Re:well that's funny

[GTMoogle]

First, a little clarification - I think I implied things that I didn't mean to. I don't know if there was a click-through license at all. I've just read secondhand that Rowling contributed to the site, and there was or was not such a thing. I'm presuming that the site's hosts had this plan all along, or at least for quite a while, and thus would try to cover their asses. Since I wasn't trying to make a point about click-throughs I just assumed the worst case. If there wasn't, Rowling can claim they're using her contribution to the site without her permission. If there was, it probably wouldn't hold up and Rowling can still make the same claim. However, the court case the article is talking about originally didn't seem to be about this matter.

In writing this post however, I'm really suspicion that the news posted about it so far is actually way off the mark. Everyone's talking about Rowling suing about the use of her books and her characters, but it might actually be the case that she's suing over the lexicon publisher's refusal to redact her contributions made to an ostensibly free site for the fans. If that's actually the case then my position takes a 180 and Rowling's in the right. If.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is a TRADE by it's definition TRADE is a voluntary exchange. Copyright prevents peaceful trade. There's no TRADE whatsoever in preventing people from freely transforming the shape of their physical property in whatsoever manner they would choose. Transforming the shape of your physical material property doesn't transform the shape of anybody else's physical material property. That some violently demand, corrupt laws for false justification of violence, doesn't remove the violent nature of copyright. Copyright is an IMPOSITION, a RESTRICTION, on how others can shape their personally owned private physical material property. It's as if you paint the fence outlining your property white and declare by copyright nobody else can COPY you and paint their fences outlining their property white. Copyright PREVENTS trade, and copyright STEALS freedom.

Re:well that's funny

[lgw]

You can reasonably extract 5% a year from a medium-risk investment, after inflation. People have totally unreasonable ideas about how much investments grow long-term. Still, from a billion that's dandy.

Re:well that's funny

[nanoakron]

Mod me down to -1 for this but as an educator I feel it's necessary. Your entire post is very cogent and I agree with all of its points.

loose = not tight.

I think you mean lose. As in lost.

It's a long 'o', which I'm sure in some scandinavian language would have some sort of diacritic, but in English we rely on spelling tradition. Please, it's lose, not loose.

axample. I'm sure you've just made a typo.

villify - only one l - vilify.

Your point is very good thought. I don't mean these in a rude way, I just always think there's room for personal improvement.

Re:well that's funny

[Gospodin]

Let me introduce you to the world of offshore mutual funds...

Thanks, but I work in the industry, and I know very well that you're never going to consistently get 14-20% in "moderate-risk" investments. You might get that in a good year. In a high-risk investment you could get 50-100%, but you could also get -50%. It's absolutely crazy to predict 14-20% returns in perpetuity.

Re:well that's funny

[tehcyder]

A lot of people seem to feel the situation is different because she made a billion or so off the Potter series.

The situation IS different. She is a billionaire now (I'm assuming this to be true). She is no longer an unemployed single mother.

What an incredible display of wit, logic and rhetorical finesse you display in your riposte.

GP says "there is no legal difference between a billionaire and an unemployed single mother" and you say "but she is a billionaire now and not an unemployed single mother, so the situation is different."

Genius.

Re:well that's funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Was simply an attemp to get it through various thick skulls that these two have absolutely no sexual desire for each other, especially when stewing in the enormity of their badly defined task without a clue as to how to progress. Maybe that's a situation for some kind of sex, but apparently not here.

Re:well that's funny

[Roger Wilcox]

Facts are not copyrightable in the US, true, but these are not facts. Remember, everything about the characters and situations is fictional. In order for something to be a fact, it will have to do with the real world. Thus, Harry Potter's favorite color is no more of a fact than he is himself: it's just yet another fictional attribute of the fictional character.

It is a fact that JK Rowling published a book called "Harry Potter" and that it contained characters named "Harry Potter" Ronald Weasley" and "Hermione Granger." It is also a fact that in the story, they went to school at a place called "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry," which was headed by a wizard called "Albus Dumbledore," who assisted them in saving the world from the evil wizard "Voldemort." Any encyclopedic compilation of knowledge about the Harry Potter world is merely a collection of factual information about what Rowling has created.

Look at it this way: would it be fair for Rowling to prevent publication of a critical analysis of her work that used information as specific as Harry's favorite color to illustrate its position? Why should it be any less fair to allow someone to publish that information sans the analysis?

Re:well that's funny

[Kierthos]

You got me. I guess maybe since there's not entire chapters of the HP books devoted to the knitting of magic robes and wooly hats, it didn't need to be approved?

Re:well that's funny

[cpt kangarooski]

It is a fact that JK Rowling published a book called "Harry Potter" and that it contained characters named "Harry Potter" Ronald Weasley" and "Hermione Granger." It is also a fact that in the story, they went to school at a place called "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry," which was headed by a wizard called "Albus Dumbledore," who assisted them in saving the world from the evil wizard "Voldemort." Any encyclopedic compilation of knowledge about the Harry Potter world is merely a collection of factual information about what Rowling has created.

And it's a fact that the first word of the text in the first book is "Mr." And it's a fact that the second word is "and." And it's a fact that the third word is "Mrs." And it's a fact that the fourth word is "Dursley."

And it's a fact that that doesn't matter.

You are totally misunderstanding the policy regarding copyrights and factual information. The reason why we say that facts are uncopyrightable isn't because they are facts, per se. You cannot just try to disguise creative information in the clothes of a fact and say that it's uncopyrightable as a result. This is because the true underlying policy is that only original works are copyrightable. That is to say, if you create a work, then it is copyrightable; if you merely discover something that does not owe its origin to you, then it is not copyrightable.

Thus, today's temperature is a fact; it exists whether I write it down or not, and it is not my creation. Historical events such as the way particular battles played out exist whether I write them down or not. The totally fictional adventures of Harry Potter and the quest for more money do not exist unless someone creates them.

So while you might want to pretend that the events of the books are uncopyrightable, because you think you're clever enough to dress fiction up as a fact, you are dead wrong. In fact, hah, the only way that something akin to fiction can be treated in that manner is if its author earnestly claims that it is a fact even though objectively it isn't: someone who writes a book about how JFK was killed by moon-snipers and claims that it is all true is going to have copyright problems due to the courts having a policy of allowing people to take them at their word (especially since, if they're right, they're unprotectable historical events). Rowling, attached as she may be to her creations, doesn't seem to be going that far.

But don't take my word for all this. Here's what the Supreme Court has to say on facts, from the famous Feist case:

The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, ssume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable. ...

It is this bedrock principle of copyright that mandates the law's seemingly disparate treatment of facts and factual compilations. "No one may claim originality as to facts." This is because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery: the first person to find and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence. To borrow

Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[MikeFM]

Well - she seems to have ran out of stuff to write about Harry Potter so I guess her creative abilities have came and gone leaving her with only a few billion dollars to show for it. Time to start getting sue crazy over IP. Evidently she doesn't realize how much like Voldemort SCO was and how like Harry Potter Linux is. She is on the wrong side. Never thought she'd become a Death Eater.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[heinousjay]

Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit from it?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit from it?

She's a billionaire who has profited from it. It's not like she is in the gutter eating scraps of food.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[2br02b]

That is only true of trademark, not copyright

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit from it?

She's already worth US$1.12 BILLION, and she's suing a site that doesn't appear to be doing anything wrong.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Scudsucker]

That only applies to trademarks, not copyrights or patents.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[1u3hr]

You are legally required to aggressively defend your IPR, otherwise you lose it. Hate the game, not the playa.

No, you are not. This is a common misconception. It applies, if at all, only to trademarks ("Kleenex". "Xerox"), not copyright (this case).

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[NickCatal]

Obviously you did not see the sarcasm in jay's post

I support the idea of having a lexicon/wiki/whatever. But going out and trying to sell the information that is inside the books is taking it too far.

If you wrote a book, would you want someone taking all the facts out of your book and publishing it for their own profit? This isn't fair use here. If these people wanted to make the sparknotes of Harry Potter, helping the reader understand the books, that is fine. The writer of the notes isn't taking away any money from the author and is adding their own content. This is literally taking every fact out of all 7 books and publishing them for a profit, and not sharing that money with the author.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[fractoid]

She's a billionaire who has profited from it. It's not like she is in the gutter eating scraps of food. Let me rephrase the GP's post:

Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit more than you say she should from it?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

Ok. So, how much money should I get to make off of my IP before I don't get to profit anymore?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[tmk]

You are legally required to aggressively defend your IPR, otherwise you lose it. Hate the game, not the playa.

That is a common error. You don't loose rights when you refuse to sue people. A few weeks ago I read a story about someone who did a parody of a website, he used logos and design which are clearly copyrighted. And what happened? The company did not sue the author, they gave him a license for his parody. They did not lose any intellectual property, the did not pay any lawyer or court and they had free publicity. The parody was clearly no competition for them.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[totally bogus dude]

Them's the breaks when you create something that enters the popular culture. Do you believe that third-parties shouldn't be allowed to sell "unauthorised" software for Windows because that would be preventing Microsoft from making a profit from all the hard work they did creating Windows? If so, then fine; I disagree, but at least you have a consistent position. If you disagree with that, then how is this different?

The content on the Lexicon seems to have taken a lot of time, effort and attention to detail (i.e. hard work) to create, and the author has made it available for free (presumably supported by ads, which may or may not pay for the site). It seems Rowling actually likes the site and doesn't have a problem with it if it's available for free. If people would be willing to pay for such content in book form, then why shouldn't he be able to make a profit from his own hard work? So long as he's not copying from the books so much that it would fail the "fair use" provisions, I can't see how there's a problem with this.

Her whole argument seems to be that she "plans" to release a companion book "one day", and if there's already a companion book it might decrease sales. What I think is that this third-party companion book created by a mere fan would be better than her own book, and she knows this -- and therefore yes, that may well hurt sales. Tough biscuits.

This seems like just another case of a commercial entity failing to meet consumer demand for their IP, and trying to sue anyone who DOES step up to meet that demand. Meeting consumer demand is pretty much the cornerstone of our entire economic system. What's more, in this case, meeting that demand isn't just a matter of providing the copyrighted content in a more convenient format (ala torrents), but providing supporting material which enhances the copyrighted content. It adds value.

Also, how many books are there in the Harry Potter series? Most fans seem to have bought them all. I don't think they'll hesitate to buy an "official" companion book as well as an unofficial one. ;P

Another thought: why not partner with this guy to release an official companion book and split the proceeds?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

I agree that is going too far to sell someone else's work but if you were a billionaire would you really care that much? All it's going to get you is negative publicity to the point where it's not even worth it.

Hence why I said it's not like she is hardly making any money from her work. She, her children, her children's children, her children's children's children, etc, etc are set for life. None of her familey will ever have to work for at least 500 years maybe longer on that money.

So why go for the jugular on some fans making a bit of borderline legal cash or the side to fund their site?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Bloke down the pub]

Are you saying it's OK to steal from the rich but not from the poor? That sounds like the politics of envy to me.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

No, I am saying she is so rich that why does she even care if someone makes a few $100 because of her. She probably spends more in a day then these guys are stealing (is that even the right word?) from her.

These people are her fans so going after them only makes her look bad. Why bother?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

You can profit as much as you want, but why go after your fans that use your work to fund their fan site?

It doesn't make sense since she wouldn't benefit from taking them down and would actually effect her negatively from all the publicity.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

Are you seriously proposing that she wouldn't make any more money because of this website?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

She's not suing because of the website. She's suing because they're trying to make money off the website by publishing a book.

Capisce?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

You're totally correct, but the original question was why should she profit more when she's already worth billions?

It's the wrong question to ask because it implies she's being immoral for profiting. The correct question is, why alienate your fans? This merely implies that she's being shortsighted (or even stupid).

Also, once again, let me point out that she's not trying to "take down" the site. She contributes to the site. But she does not want them to make money by publishing a book.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, O.K. What do the Sparknotes do, if not take facts out of the book? Heck, facts are not enough for Sparknotes---they usually also take the plotlines! (And for serious literary work, not some fairy tale for kids, students DO use it as a substitute for the actual novel---literally taking money away from the author.)

I'd seriously have to doubt your intelligence if you somehow believe a lexicon (i.e. a dictionary) is an adequate substitute for an actual story with dialogs.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

You didn't answer my question. Are you proposing she wouldn't make any more money from her creative works? Are you saying that this book would sell so many copies that it is worth it for her to take legal action?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

Oh, goody. I was wondering when the poor analogies would show up.

Microsoft releases APIs and so forth allowing other entities to produce software: It is explicitly allowed because it adds value.

Rowling explicitly allowed these folks to add value with their fan work. She does not explicitly allow them to make a profit by selling books.

The only "point" in your post is that she would be a lot smarter to try other options. This is correct. But nowhere do you state a case that she is legally or morally obligated to pick another option.

Likewise, if M$ stopped allowing people to develop windows programs, it would be stupid on their part, but it's their OS, they control the keys to the kingdom, and they can do whatever they want. In fact, since you have suggested it, it would not amaze me to think that in order to exert more control and generate more revenue, they might charge people fees to develop for the platform.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[A beautiful mind]

Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit more than you say she should from it?

Actually, he's just the person to say. You see, copyright is a bargain between the government - in the name of the people - and the author. In any other case, for example if the government would aquire toilet seats for billions of pounds, the people would be rightly outraged at both the government and at the company selling the toilet seats for billions.

Remember, copyright is a monopoly, thus without any balancing power of a free market.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

Well sucks to be her because after looking at the wiki which they want to re-package it looks like fair use to me. I can't see any large blobs of text taken from the book.

The only reason she is putting up this lawsuit is because she wants to re-package the wiki herself which is probably why she was contributing to it in the first place.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Inda]

1 million dollars.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Voltageaav]

You underestimate the human ability to throw away money. Mike Tyson made over 300 Million during his boxing career. He's now bankrupt.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Bloke down the pub]

No, I am saying she is so rich that why does she even care if someone makes a few $100 because of her.

That sounds more like yes.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[arose]

But going out and trying to sell the information that is inside the books is taking it too far.

No it's not, factual information isn't and shouldn't be protected.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[totally bogus dude]

Microsoft releases APIs and so forth allowing other entities to produce software: It is explicitly allowed because it adds value.

A lot of time and effort has been spent on projects like Samba and WINE and Microsoft Office format readers & writers to implement compatible implementations compatible with Microsoft's software. A significant part of the effort required to do this is due to Microsoft's choosing not to publish APIs and documentation, because they clearly don't want others to benefit from their hard work, at least not without licensing it from Microsoft.

Do you really think Microsoft would have permitted such developments if they'd had legal standing to squash them?

Rowling explicitly allowed these folks to add value with their fan work.

That's very nice if she did, but there is absolutely no requirement for her to do so. The only time you'd need permission is if you're breaching copyright. Using excerpts from texts for purposes of critique and commentary is a very well-established exception to copyright, and does not require any kind of approval, explicit or otherwise, from the copyright holder.

If the material to be published actually constitutes a violation of copyright, then fine -- she has a good case and good luck to her. TFA suggests that it's a load of hocus pocus, but it does exude more than a hint of bias, so I guess it is premature to criticise her for this.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

See my other comment in this thread. They're not stealing from her, it's all fair use and the reason shes kicking this up is because she wants to compile the wiki herself and make the book.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

Your question is irrelevant to the issue at hand; I therefore feel no need to answer it.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[john83]

It was this website: getafirstlife.com.
Here's the story.

As another replier says, parody is protected, but LL could have made some trouble for this guy regardless. Instead, they displayed a sense of humour and a piece of good PR.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are probably thinking of:

http://www.getafirstlife.com/
http://secondlife.com/

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

Yeah, but I think that's because WINE and Samba tie into some core functionality. Emulating windows (yes, I know what "WINE" stands for :P) =/= running programs ON windows.

If I understand your point, talking ABOUT Harry Potter should be fair use? I can agree with that. Talking about Harry Potter for money?

Well...most of the instances I can think of where you might do that would also be fair use--like where you give a lecture or something. So maybe she doesn't have a leg to stand on after all. Maybe she's just overreacting?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

*ahem*

That's not really a lot of money, these days.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

The lexicon book is trying to usurp the author's own "encyclopedia" of details. She has announced her intentions of creating a book solely for this purpose, while adding more details not included in the 7 books. JK Rowling has crates and crates of notebooks that contain details about the Potter universe. What does this lexicon book do but steal away sales from JK Rowling's own encyclopedia and information from her books? The way the lexicon book is being presented, it cannot fulfill its claims as being the "harry potter authority," nor can it present original information if it claims the informations are facts. JK Rowling has the right to lay sole claim to her characters.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

I think it's pretty relevant as she plans to copy the wiki herself and sell a competing factoid book. Since the wiki is fair use it's not stealing. She just has sour grapes because someone beat her to it.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[elFisico]

I support the idea of having a lexicon/wiki/whatever. But going out and trying to sell the information that is inside the books is taking it too far. Wrong. Information is free (well, it used to be and it definitely should). It is the physical representation of that information that gets protection, via copyright or patents.

So Rowling is clearly in the wrong if she insists that the whole H.P. universe is protected because she invented it. Only her words describing that universe are protected. The lexicon has every right to collect and write about each and every item in that universe, using the exact names and concepts and so forth. But it must not use any of Rowlings sentences to do so...

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[gpw213]

But going out and trying to sell the information that is inside the books is taking it too far.

No it's not, factual information isn't and shouldn't be protected.

By that logic, a verbatim copy of the whole series would be "factual information" about the contents of the series. This is not like trying to copyright the population of the Congo, or trigonometric tables. This is an original work of fiction, and has no independent existence outside of her work. Based on the description of the lexicon, calling it fair use seems something of a stretch, and calling it "factual information" is a complete farce.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[unlametheweak]

Being "bankrupt" does not mean you have no money, or even that you are poor. It is merely a legal device used to stop creditors from harassing you (to put it simply). It does not even mean that your debts are necessarily written off.

In a case with somebody rich like Mike Tyson, it allows them to sell off house A to pay off house B as an example, despite what the original contracts may state. That's assuming they are not liquid enough to pay off their debts. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, but that is my understanding, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

it allows them to sell off house A to pay off house B

WTF are you on about? You don't need to be bankrupt to sell or buy a house.

I'm not a lawyer or an accountant

Really? We wouldn't have guessed. Perhaps in future you could, I dunno, shut the fuck up or something?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Jesus_666]

She's a billionaire who has profited from it. It's not like she is in the gutter eating scraps of food.

Well, technically she is, but British cuisine has always been rather peculiar.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[DanielJosphXhan]

That is a common error. You don't loose rights No, *that's* a common error.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Bloke down the pub]

First three words of the linked post:

She's a billionaire

The amount is irrelevant; if it's fair use it's fair use, and if it isn't, it isn't. So why did you even mention how rich she is?

Don't bother answering - it's because you're a jealous little gobshite and boo-fucking-hoo, it's not fair.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Dunbal]

Are you saying it's OK to steal from the rich but not from the poor?

Why not? After all, the government does it.

Oh sorry, when a government does it it's called TAXATION...

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Kyojin]

Actually, by making an agreement with the author - giving him a license for his parody, they ARE protecting their IP. Later if somebody does infringe on their IP, the infringer cannot refer to the parody case and claim "But you didn't defend it then, so why now?" because they had a specific agreement in place allowing that.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Dunbal]

Umm, there are plenty of other examples apart from Mike Tyson. Gary Coleman? I'm too lazy to look up more. Riches to rags is a lot easier than rags to riches. Ask Britney Spears. Oh she has plenty of money, still. But not for long if she keeps it up.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

I was responding to this..

Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit from it?

My point was that portraying her as some poor artist/creator that has lost money is completely false.

She created this universe but that doesn't give her a monopoly over it. She can't copyright wizards, spells or flying broomsticks. What's next? No one can use an elf in their IP because it was in lord of the rings?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[ericlondaits]

No, "fair use" as a protection is based on the length of the extracts use from the original, and in how much monetary value it takes from it.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then, next station: CliffsNotes...

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[unlametheweak]

She has announced her intentions of creating a book solely for this purpose, while adding more details not included in the 7 books. If there was a contractual agreement between the two parties not to publish a book, then this lawsuit would make sense. If there was an oral agreement, then this would also make sense (though not putting it in writing would be rather stupid). Otherwise praising the information on their Web site and then after-the-fact telling them what they can or cannot do with that material does not make sense. Whether JR or other's think this is fair or not is besides the point. The real question is whether it is legal, and if it is illegal then should the laws be changed.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[NekoYasha]

Um, that case was actually not just about copyright but trademark as well.

If you don't defend your trademark then you lose it. This, of course, doesn't apply to copyright.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

Yes! Fine, I don't disagree, but look back. This is a tangent. We were talking about whether or not she "deserves" to make more money, since she's already a billionaire. THAT is just politics of envy. "Wow, that JK is such a bitch, she has so much money, and she won't let her fans profit off her ideas!"

Whether or not the fans have that right is an entirely separate issue that should be decided by existing laws (there must be a better way to handle this).

And whether or not JKR is being a fool is a third issue (there is DEFINATELY a better way to handle this).

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Thanatopsis]

Yeap - Under your twisted version of fair use, Cliff's Notes are illegal. The lexicon is a PERFECT example of fair use since it takes a huge amount of lifting to make a dictionary like that. Where do you get your knowledge of IP law?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LingNoi]

Actually I was rebutting this comment..

Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit from it?

It's sarcastic but trying to make out that she is some poor artist or creator that has had her work stolen. That is not the case and it's more complicated then that.

She's not some poor artist which is why I pointed out she's made billions of pounds.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[unlametheweak]

Ok. So, how much money should I get to make off of my IP before I don't get to profit anymore? 1 million dollars or 10 years of protection, whichever is less.
Make anymore money and I fear you will become lazy.
Have something that is out of print, then you aren't making money off it anyway.
Write ten worthy books and invest wisely then you are on your way to being one of the mega-rich.

If you can get rid of the middle-men (book publishers that is, who like the record labels keep most of the profit) then reaching your goals could be easier. Like with indy record labels, I think this could be a spur to the industry.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[EchaniDrgn]

Actually, if we're thinking of the same instance it was a trademark not a copyright. In the case with Second Life they licensed their trademark in order to defend it. The gentleman invited a "cease and desist" order from them but got a "permit and continue" letter instead.

In licensing their trademark to the parody site they are exercising control over the trademark and can show they weren't letting people use it without permission. These are two sides of the same coin with regard to protecting Intellectual Property.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[DrinkDr.Pepper]

But isn't "Harry Potter" a trademark?

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[porcupine8]

I believe this is a situation where "RTFA" is an appropriate response. You had no idea that this was about a book rather than a website, and you had no idea that she has been long planning to write a similar book whose sales might suffer due to this other book. You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole with every reply.

(For the record, I DON'T think sales of her encyclopedia would suffer - aside from the fact that millions of people will snatch up anything with her name on it, it's well-known that she has tons of notes for character backgrounds and side plots that never made it into the books, which people are dying to read about in her encyclopedia and the Lexicon won't have.)

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

I don't see how that's relevant. Either the website is exercising fair use rights or not. Case closed. Whether or not she is a billionaire or a pauper is irrelevant, unless you want to discuss how rich she should have to get before she gives up her rights.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

How do you arrive a that figure?
Are you saying you're really motivated by concern for whether or not authors get lazy? They make more than a million dollars and their art suffers?

I think you have the cart before the horse: creating content is a lot harder than simply enjoying it. In music, there has long been an issue where artists remix and mashup other artist's work...that's not the same as bittorenting a song!

As an aside, publishers are really not teh debbil. That would be Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Amazon. Research what they force publishers to do sometime, and see what a horrible effect they're having. Independent local bookstores FTW!

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[1u3hr]

But isn't "Harry Potter" a trademark?

Quite likely. But that doesn't stop anyone from mentioning the name or making a website about him. "Apple" (computers) is a trademark, I can make a web site about Apple computers without their permission. I just can't sell a computer under that name.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

So when confronted with how the world actually works your response is to continue spouting idiotic deductions from whatever set of axioms happen to be floating in your head?

Here's a lesson you should be learning:

1. The world is not a deductive system.
2. You cannot deduce reality from whole cloth. Sorry, Descartes Jr.
3. When confronted with a subject you don't know anything about, stop and learn about it.
4. If after learning about a situation you still have something useful to say, make sure that you aren't rejecting reality to promote your ideological beliefs.

What you've learned instead is:

If I keep repeating my original position enough and castigating reality for not being like it, I will win the Internet. I win! I win!

How you look to observers:

I am divorced from reality! I tell the world it's wrong! I would be telling you the world was flat if it wasn't for schooling before puberty! I'm a fucking nutbar! Rawwr!

Hope that helps.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[unlametheweak]

How do you arrive a that figure? I don't know. It's pretty arbitrary. I guess I got that figure from the same place where the copyright lawyers got the 70-years-after-death copyright extensions from

Are you saying you're really motivated by concern for whether or not authors get lazy? They make more than a million dollars and their art suffers? It's a rhetorical argument. If the pro-copyright zealots can use economic principals to justify their cause, then I feel it's fair game for me too :)

I think you have the cart before the horse: creating content is a lot harder than simply enjoying it. In music, there has long been an issue where artists remix and mashup other artist's work...that's not the same as bittorenting a song! "Stealing" is all relative. Remixes and mash-ups are also things that copyright holders go after (I think we would agree on this). I can't find the quote off hand, but it's a common saying (and a rather lame paraphrase, so excuse me) that nothing new has been created in 500 years. Yes bittorenting a song is easier than creating a song. And listening to a song that has been DRMed can be very frustrating (from what I have heard).

Research what they force publishers to do sometime, and see what a horrible effect they're having. Thanks for the tip. I shall put that on my to-do list. I was going to state that payola is still alive and well in the music industry in the US, but when double-checking with Wikipedia it appears that things may be changing enforcement-wise (See Third-party Loophole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola).)

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[geekoid]

"If you wrote a book, would you want someone taking all the facts out of your book and publishing it for their own profit?

What the fuck does 'like' have to do with it?

"This is literally taking every fact out of all 7 books and publishing them for a profit, and not sharing that money with the author."

And that is fine. Copyright law does not include control over someone else writing about your work, or the facts about your work. NO WHERE is the mentioned at all, nor should it be.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Oligonicella]

She's not. Just her wizards, etc.

And your money envy certainly has biased your translation of the sentences. No mention in them at all about her economic state. That was injected by you.

The fact remains that she did do all the hard work. Why do you think she shouldn't make more money now? Oh, your words -- she's a billionare.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[truesaer]

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt you're correct on this. Why would movie studios bother optioning books if all they have to do is avoid using the same exact sentences in the movie? The concept/world is part of the copyright. Specifically, copyright gives the creator the exclusive right to "derivative works." I can't see how a harry potter lexicon could possibly not be considered a derivative work.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright law only exists to provide incentive "to advance the arts". Is one million dollars profit per artistic work not incentive enough? Are wonderful artists going to pursue ditch digging careers out of spite?

The politics of robbery is preventing the freedom of copying, and pushing the monopoly protection terms to absurd term limits. Copyright claimants have taken advantage of the general population and abused their constitutional gift (in spite of the economically provable fact that copyright actually hinders the advancement of the arts). It's time to eliminate completely the means for abuse.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[fractoid]

oh.. erm...

One hundred, beeelion dollars!!

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[zobier]

That is a common error. You don't loose rights No, *that's* a common error.

*that's* funny.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[LoveMe2Times]

What kind of rate of return would a venture capital firm want before funding the creation of your IP? Now, just as companies continue to make profits after their patents expire, some companies make money selling public domain works. The question isn't "How much money should I get to make?" but "When should my exclusive monopoly end?" Ignoring the practical complications of accounting gamesmanship to manipulate how much capital was really invested, the methods that any venture capital firm uses to decide whether to invest would be a good place to start. If it costs $175,000 to write the book (say, two years labor), $500,000 in initial marketing, and $500,000 for an initial print run, and you found an investor who really believed in you and the book, how much return would they want before coughing up the million and change? 10:1? 25:1? 100:1? Note that further marketing costs and further print runs are just the costs of doing business and don't need protection, because you're no longer taking a point-blank risk (you already know if you have a successful product at that point). If your monopoly protection was cut off at $30 Million for a 25:1 return on investment, I doubt that would deter very many would be authors. Of course, very, very few books ever make $30 Million. Let's say the author actually got 10% for a cool $3 Million. And if you were an established author with a record of turning a profit, you might reasonably claim that the cost of your labor has gone up. On the other hand, you're less risk, too. You might negotiate $1,000,000/year in labor, do more marketing, and make a larger initial print run, but only need a 10:1 return to make the risk worthwhile.

Then, you could apply for a copyright just like you apply for a patent, submitting appropriate accounting information, along with the terms under which you would be willing to make your work available to the public. Subject to an IRS audit, the Copyright Office could accept, reject, or make a counter-offer. Term length, amount of renewal, renewal fee escalation, profit termination, and other elements could be negotiated. If you were contemplating investing and wanting copyright protection, you might file a preemptory application with estimates the capital expenditure require. If you can't get terms you find acceptable, you don't pursue the project. If the profit auditing was too onerous, you might elect for shorter terms with more quickly escalating renewal fees. Would you rather have three year terms with exponentially increasing renewal fees, or 25 year terms with mild renewal fees but a profit cutoff? It is feasible to come up with a system that makes sense and actually works, but a one-size-fits-all model won't cut it. And if a copyright can be transfered and sold, it is not at all unreasonable to think you can come up with a dollar amount at which exclusivity cuts off.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Draek]

because once people's incomes reach a certain level, and their notoriety in society gets up to a certain point, "good will" and "extra publicity" starts being much more valuable, both short- and long-term, than the dollars they'd get from pointless litigation such as this one.

no, suing them isn't illegal, in fact she has the full power of the law on her side on this case. However, that doesn't mean it's not completely *retarded* to do so.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[The Cydonian]

I think it's pretty relevant as she plans to copy the wiki herself and sell a competing factoid book

I'm sure you missed the part where Rowling was actively contributing to the wiki herself.

Since the wiki is fair use

I'm thinking the courts would disagree with you on that one.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[MikeFM]

They didn't send me a check either. I read all seven books on their release days and what appreciation do they show me? Nuthin! Those cheapskate rat bastards! At least they could have sent me a free copy of the prequel.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[MikeFM]

Of course she doesn't deserve to make more money. She has the right to make more money but that doesn't mean she could or should. It's up to her to make it happen.

From a purely social point of view - once the individuals needs are taken care of they begin to have a responsibility to take care of society as a whole. The richer you are the more responsibility for society you have. The trade off of benefiting from civilization is that it's not every man (or woman) for himself. Money only has value because society says it does. People refrain from theft and brutal tactics to take what they need and want because it's the civilized thing to do. You can't reap the benefits of civilization without doing your share or the system ceases to make sense and eventually crumbles. So for the wealthy, the needs of society come before their making more money so I really have to say that JK doesn't "deserve" to make more money.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[MikeFM]

Once you've taken care of your needs, and your families needs, to live and are making at least the median income then you start to have a responsibility to society that outweighs societies responsibility to you. The greater your wealth the greater your responsiiblity. That certainly doesn't mean you can't still profit from your IP but it does mean that the benefit of society of use of your IP outweighs any benefit to you in deciding it's use.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[MikeFM]

It's not okay to steal but it's not okay for the rich to keep their wealth. It is okay to be constantly regenerating wealth but hoarding and greed is bad. In the case of the wealthy not constantly using their wealth to the public benefit it's the job of the government to redistribute the wealth for them. Just the same as it's the government's job to keep people from stealing from the rich.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[jotok]

It's a nice idea but your conclusions are contained within your premise. You have something of a bootstrapping problem here. Even the "self-evident truths" in the Declaration of Independence can be traced back to, for instance, Kant, who laid the groundwork by sorting out the basic principles of morals.

Whereas, here you suggest that "society" is a self-evident objective good, and since it enables money to exist (along with a bunch of other nice things) then those other things are subordinate. Do you see the circularity here? We form society for certain goods, but at some point, society becomes the end, not the means, and those goods now become means when before they were ends. So at first people participate in society because they get something out of it, and if they are successful, then society takes it all away. Kind of like how, for some, safety is seen as a requirement for liberty to function, but then later, security becomes more important than freedom.

There is a short-circuit here somewhere.

On the face of it I don't disagree with your sentiment--that once you make billions of dollars you ought to stop worrying about collecting money and start giving back--I just think your justification isn't working.

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[elFisico]

It's not about the sentences but also about the whole setup. While you are free to write a story about four kids and a dog and their adventures along the british coast, you would get into some troubles if it would be about two boys and two girls and a dog who find a lost pirate treasure and solve a criminal case on the side... especially if one of the girls wants to look like a boy. Then it'd be considered a rip-off of a Enid Blython novel.

So while it wouldn't be possible to write another book about Harry Potter and his friends, it would be possible to write about another kid that gets its education in a school for sorcerors (say, the MIT-equivalent if Hogwarts was Harvard), set in a universe with the same rules as H.P.

Or you could call him Hairy Porter and do a parody...

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like you're talking about linden labs sending the opposite of cease and desist letter to the owner of getafirstlife.

It's right here: http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2007/01/my-project-du-jour-getafirstlifecom.html#comment-75509

Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture.

[Bloke down the pub]

Government takes money from the Rich? Mod parent funny.

The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[FredDC]

... with Rowling's lawyers being miffed after being told to print it themselves when they asked for a paper copy of the lexicon's website, and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts."

This will probably keep them busy for a while!

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[aproposofwhat]

RightClickus Enabluis!

<Harry:> Wow, Hernione, you fixed that for them!

:P

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[jamesh]

I was once asked to prepare some data for the opposing side in a court case. My instructions were fairly simple:

1. Take the .MDB database
2. Load the data into a spreadsheet
3. Export it as a CSV
4. Open it in notepad and remove all the commas and end of line characters
5. Print it

The printed copy of the data was what would be given to the other parties lawyers.

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[RuBLed]

Okay, someone give them back the mac mouse now...

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[Dachannien]

I personally prefer "Firefoxius Noscriptius".

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[Opportunist]

Funny, that's how I comply with the GPL when asked for a copy of the source...

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[Dunbal]

Dear aproposofwhat,

      It has come to the attention of our firm, L.L. Dullard, Cohen, Goldberg and Associates, that you have published or caused to be published the names of two (2) characters that are the intellectual property of our client, Ms. J.K. Rowling...

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[aproposofwhat]

Ha! Not only that, but my partner has a pet rat by the name of Harry Potter, so your client can possibly sue for damages relating to the devaluation of the character's value by association with a rodent :P

How is Dullard, by the way? I haven't seen him since he gave up ambulance chasing for health reasons :)

Re:The ultimate lawyer-keep-away strategy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this right-click disabling script? I can right-click on HPL just fine.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

the lexicon contains mostly factual information

And all this time I thought it was a work of fiction. You mean magic is real!?!?

Re:Wow

[mrjb]

You mean magic is real!?!?
What do you mean real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then "real" is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Re:Wow

[ta bu shi da yu]

The above comment has a certain unreal feel to it.

It's almost as if the parent post things they are in The Matrix. That is so 4 years ago.

Re:Wow

[ta bu shi da yu]

The above comment has a certain unreal feel to it.

It's almost as if the parent post thinks they are in The Matrix. That is so 4 years ago.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because something is false doesn't make it not a fact. It's just a false fact.

Re:Wow

[Shaudius]

It is not truth as opposed to false, it is fact as opposed to fiction. IANAL but at least as I understand it in US copyright law there are several cases involving what a fact is. In order to be a fact the assertion has to be represented as a fact(true), iirc. Nothing that JK has done has been represented as true, and therefore falls out of fair use. There's a case about this involving a telephone directory publisher who inserted fake numbers into a telephone directory. Another company took and compiled the directory and included the fake numbers. The case hinged on the fact that the first company represented the numbers as real, and hence facts.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah. Deja vu.

Re:Wow

[Bender0x7D1]

See xkcd for your answer.

Re:Wow

[Critical Facilities]

Was it the same comment? Sometimes when they change something.......ah you get it.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

And all this time I thought it was a work of fiction. You mean magic is real!?!? You must not be a Christian... not only is magic real, it is the biggest threat to our children today....

Re:Wow

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually that case, Feist, v. Rural, hinged on something else. The fake numbers were just tell-tales to determine if someone had copied the phone numbers from that source, as opposed to getting them independently. While that's useful to prove copying, it isn't useful for anything else, and is not really important otherwise.

Well, she needs to eat.

[onefriedrice]

I guess she's not satisfied with just being a billionaire. She needs to be a richer billionaire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_billionaires

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[Soporific]

I have a feeling this a lawyer thing but you'd think most billionaires would feel some kind of shame after a while, I know I would.

~S

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[FredDC]

You'd be surprised how cheap get-rid-of-your-shame services are! Spend a few coins every year on your favourite charity and feel good for the rest of the year! Enjoy your castles and vacation houses on the worlds whitest beaches! Drive around care-free in one of your many flashy brand new sports cars! All this available now at a charity near you!

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[ortholattice]

I stopped buying Harry Potter books for my son a few years ago after she went after some kid who posted a homework paper on Harry Potter, unlike most authors who would probably be flattered. I just didn't feel like contributing financially to someone so mean-spirited anymore. (My son still insisted on reading the books, but either we got them from the library or he borrowed from a friend.)

Maybe fame and fortune changes the fundamental nature of a person, or maybe she was already that way and only mean-spirited people tend to achieve fame and fortune; I just don't know.

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[Macthorpe]

I don't remember this, nor can I find any reference to it. Do you have a link?

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped buying Harry Potter books for my son a few years ago after she went after some kid who posted a homework paper on Harry Potter

You're a better fiction writer than she is!

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[ortholattice]

I don't remember this, nor can I find any reference to it. Do you have a link?

I'm surprised no one remembers this. At the time it struck me as rather petty and mean. But it was quite hard to find, since it is a needle in the haystack of 9610 hits for "Harry Potter" "takedown notice". Anyway, I found a reference to it in "Intellectual Property and Free Speech in the Online World" (PDF file) p. 15 (PDF p. 18), footnote 39. I vaguely recall a newspaper article on it a long time ago.

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he can't. It would have to be factually correct for him to do that. Look, this is simple: Rowling has money and ortholattice doesn't. How dare she! She's clearly evil, being richer than ortholattice like that!

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[Macthorpe]

Thanks for the link, allowed me to do some interesting investigation.

Apparently the offense in question was a kid sharing his Harry Potter book report via a P2P network (seemingly accidentally). However, it was Warner Bros who asked the kid's ISP to block his access as their 'system' for determining whether it was part of a movie torrent flagged it as illegal. Clearly it wasn't, but it sheds light on the incident.

JK had zero input in that, and there certainly was no 'going after some kid' on her part. That's probably why nobody remembers it in the fashion that you put it forward - because that's not what happened.

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[aproposofwhat]

Try this document, page 59.

I can't find the actual takedown notice, but a congressional committee hearing isn't a bad source.

The issuer of the notice wasn't Rowling, but Warner Bros., so it's perhaps unfair to blame her for this one.

Re:Well, she needs to eat.

[Anonymous Coward]

i think this is a very unfair comment about Jo. She maybe a billionaire but she isn't sueing them because she wants the money but because they are using her imagination for thier personal use. She has the right to want the harry potter books and series to be seen as all her own work! The other people wanting to gain from her work isn't right, it is her idea to write a book about a wizard boy, his friends and his school not theirs. She wrote the books from her own mind and decided how she wanted them to finish. It is plain to see she wanted her books to end on a high. The other company should see that it is up to her how far they go with the idea of her books and if they don't then it is up to her to stop other people carring on her franchise.

The article claims this happens more often

[SmallFurryCreature]

Other popular universes might be Star Wars, Star Trek, the Discworld etc etc. How many of these have books published that are NOT sanctioned by the original copyright holder?

All those Star Trek tech manuals, or star wars art books, or the discworld science books are ALL published with the blessing of Paramount, Lucasfilm and Terry Pratchet. (The ones I got at least)

So are there any books out there that do something similar that were NOT officially sanctioned. I am not talking about parodies like Star Wrecked, these fall under different laws.

Movies spawn novells, these also seem to be often written with the blessing of the studio.

So where is the evidence that this kinda of thing is common practice?

This site is NOT a synopsis or a review or even a discussion site. It is clearly a product designed to work of the original content by extending it. Selling it for money makes it clear they are profitting of someone elses work.

While some one slashdot favor a more lenient copyright system, I think even the most rabid filesharer usually is against people who pirate for profit.

There is a real issue here, who owns the rights to for instance a 3D model of an x-wing. Worse, who owns the rights to a picture of a light-saber. Does it become a Star Wars image because someone hold a sword of light OR does it have to have Jedi written all over it before it becomes a Star Wars image.

But as intresting a discussion as that is, it doesn't apply here. If you browse the site you can clearly see that this is a 100% ripoff of the original work that would have no value on its own. It doesn't fall under the rules for a biography, it is not parody. Fair use is about using a limited amount of someone elses work in your own work.

So how much of this site is their own work and how much that of the original author? I don't think it is a simple measurement, if I produce a detailed layout of the Enterprise, then the resulting blueprint may well be 99% my own work, but that 1% that makes it the enterprise also puts it firmly in the hands of Paramount. Without that 1% it wouldjust be a blueprint, it is their original work that makes it 'worth' something.

Look at it that way, would this site be worth anything without the original work. No, I don't think so.

So I think in this case the copyright/trademark? holder is correct. They tolerated the site because it wasn't commericial, but printing it is clearly designed to earn money. Sorry, but if you want to profit of someone elses original work to such a degree, you got to get their permission first.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[1u3hr]

Other popular universes might be Star Wars, Star Trek, the Discworld etc etc. How many of these have books published that are NOT sanctioned by the original copyright holder? All those Star Trek tech manuals, or star wars art books, or the discworld science books are ALL published with the blessing of Paramount, Lucasfilm and Terry Pratchet. (The ones I got at least) So are there any books out there that do something similar that were NOT officially sanctioned. I am not talking about parodies like Star Wrecked, these fall under different laws. Movies spawn novells, these also seem to be often written with the blessing of the studio. So where is the evidence that this kinda of thing is common practice?

I've read a dozen books about Tolkien's Middle Earth, none "licensed" by Tolkien or his heirs. And many similar books, eg about Tarzan, James Bond, etc. Note that these are originally or primarily literary works. When it comes to other media, as you cite, it becomes more complicated. Partly because when big media companies get involved, they tend to make lots of trademarks and such. Also, most books about, say, Star Trek, would want to use photos or illustrations from the original shows. While you can indeed use slabs of text as "fair use", photos are a lot more restricted. As for books, with the studio's "blessing" comes the right to use images and trademarked items ("USS Enterprise", "light saber", etc.). Nevertheless, there is a huge amount of fanfic online, and occasionally in print. Rarely have these been challenged legally, if they were and defended competently, I think many would be quite legal.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[H0D_G]

actually, the science of discworld series was written in part by pratchett himself, so I believe they are authorised...

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[erroneus]

Let's be clear and simple on this point:

Copyright is about the right to copy something. There are rules about fair use and how much copying versus original content is allowed. In this case, it would seem NO amount of copyrighted material was extracted and used, but rather statistics and facts about the series of works are being written.

And the question of "who owns the facts" has been up in the air for a while. Let's look at sports statistics and facts. The various parties in control of profiting from baseball, for example, have started lawsuits against publication of histories, stats, facts and figures related to baseball. "Who owns the facts" is a big deal.

Initially, I was thinking "not copyright -- it can't apply! they must be talking about trademark or some other intellectual property." This is not the case either. This is a [potentially] useful collection of information about the series.

And to pick another slashdot favorite parallel reference: The Church of Scientology often threatens and sues for copyright infringement for very similar activities. Often listing facts, histories and statistics about the CoS results in "copyright" related legal activity where the CoS is the plaintiff.

Who owns the facts?! How far can this "fact owning" notion go? Can people get sued by paramount for the creation and listing of the number of times that Spock says the word "Logic" or "Logical" for the purposes of a drinking game?

This is an important issue and it should really be put to the test and laid out clearly in precedent or law for it to be clear to everyone. "WHO OWNS THE FACTS?"

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[A beautiful mind]

Selling it for money makes it clear they are profitting of someone elses work.

And that would be bad because? Remember the 'work' in this case is just information!

This entire society wouldn't exist if copyright would have existed since ancient times. The creation of derivative works is the cornerstone of a healthy culture, since almost everything is a derivative work, just not always blatantly obvious.

If copyright would have gotten abolished in the early 20th century, we would be possibly not only culturally richer, but more technologically advanced aswell.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[ThirdPrize]

Yes, it does make you wonder what classical music would be like if each time a composer "borrowed" a bit from anothers piece of work they got sued. Or if someone had copyrighted the three chord blues progression.

In this case however, I think she should sue.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[actiondan]

It _is_ common for books to be published about fictional universes without the consent of the creators of the origianl material.

The clue to look for is "unofficial guide" in the title.

Such books exist for all kinds of universes from books, tv shows and movies. Those based on TV or movies are also noticable because they do not use images from the original on their cover.

Look at it that way, would this site be worth anything without the original work. No, I don't think so.

How far do you want to take this idea? Do I need to get clearance from Adobe to write a guide to Photoshop? I mean, what would the value of my Photoshop guide be without the original IP in the software?

Do I need to get clearance from the town planners before I make a map of my town? What would my map be without their creativity? (and trust me, with our one-way system they got very creative)

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[rucs_hack]

You should watch 'Free Enterprise'. Play it with the dvd commentary on and you get a fascinating glimpse into the problems of writing a film that employs the star trek mythos.
They could talk episode titles, say Kirk and Spock's names, describe those characters, talk about events in episodes, and quote to their hearts content, but they could not use any images or trademarks like the federation insignia on a boys shirt, although they could 'rip' the shirt, kirk stylee, to pretend it was just temporarily concealed. Plus they could have an ornamental enterprise, a small one, in a box.

Posters were a problem too, they would have had to pay a fortune just to show a few posters about the place. Thus you get some interesting, but obscure posters on walls.

The film itself is cracking, really funny, but it wasn't until I put the commentary on that I realised how hard it had been for them to get through the permissions thing.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[The Evil Couch]

There are countless books entitled "Unofficial guide to..." or something similar. So, to answer your question, yeah, this happens frequently with Star Wars, Star Trek, Diskworld, X-Files, et al. There is a derth of precedent for this sort of work being sold. If Rowlings wants to publish her own official Harry Potter encyclopedia, maybe she should quit wasting time with litigation and actually do it. The official one will almost certainly be published more widely and sell much more readily than whatever that web site puts together. It'll sell even better if hers beats theirs to store shelves.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[rucs_hack]

If copyright would have gotten abolished in the early 20th century, we would be possibly not only culturally richer, but more technologically advanced aswell.

Nice idea, but copyright came into being because the concepts of intellectual property have changed. There was a time when books, for example, were copied by scribes, and the authors got no money. However the concept of making money from copies and derivative works of books hadn't been considered, and anyway, people who wrote the books originally were either well off enough to not mind, or paid on the initial writing of the book. If someone scrubbed their name from the work and republished it, that would be frowned upon.

As soon as we got the printing press books became a potential source of regular income in a way they had never been before, that needed new protection mechanisms for authors.

Nowadays we have otherwise ordinary people who wish to make a living from writing books. They can only do this if they can be assured that others won't just start reprinting their work and taking away their income.

If Rowling allowed this work that gains its value from her work to be published without having some control over content, she would be laying open her work for exploitation. Precedent is a dangerous thing. She is rich, yes, but rich because copyright controls have enabled her to be the sole controller of her work. Without that she'd just be someone who wrote a few stories that circulate the Internet in text files.

Nor would we have movies. If a movie company was only able to make money from the first showing of a film, they wouldn't make them. If a new piece of technology could be copied immediately without permission, there would be no incentive for invention. That computer your using, how much of the technology it contains would have been invented if there were no chance of making a profit from it? Nothing, not even the plastic it contains.

Our society, far from being enhanced, would be harmed if there were no copyright. We no longer live in the ancient world, idea's require protection, and they cost money to develop that needs to be recouped.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[fireboy1919]

Look at it that way, would this site be worth anything without the original work. No, I don't think so.

That makes one of us. Rebrand it as Tobin's Spirit Guide, chuck a few references to Gozer and Vigo in there, and it's good to go.

It's a lexicon of magic about a specific magic universe. It doesn't really matter very much who wrote the universe...even if less people would go/contribute if it wasn't about Harry Potter.

Personally, I'd much rather see one that comes from the Eragon series. The books are fantastically predictable, but the magic system is very consistent. Even the "will and word" idea from the Belgariad by David Eddings might do.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[supermank17]

I might be more inclined to be on the lexicon's side if it were full of facts they'd researched themselves or something. But perusing their site shows an awful lot of stuff copied directly from the books. More than I would be able to in good conscience call Fair Use. I'm not quite sure how this relates to the Church of Scientology or Baseball stats/facts though. In both of those cases most of the information is available in forms other than those published by the CoS or MLB. You can do original research to get that information, if you so desire. But it seems that all of the information in this lexicon is yanked in some form or another straight from the book. Perhaps summarized or condensed a bit, but theres even a fair bit that is a direct quote.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[mpe]

As for books, with the studio's "blessing" comes the right to use images and trademarked items ("USS Enterprise", "light saber", etc.).

Paramount went through a phase claiming tradmarks on just about anything they could get away with. Including character and ship names. Anything that might stand a chance of ebing upheld in a court...

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

"WHO OWNS THE FACTS?"

We the people?

I guess the truth is finally up for sale.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[er_head66]

Actually, in Canada at least, it's quite clear who 'owns the facts'.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#4

Other items which are not protected by copyright include:
        * names or slogans;
        * short phrases and most titles;
        * methods, such as a method of teaching or sculpting, etc.;
        * plots or characters; and
        * factual information.

Facts, ideas and news are all considered part of the public domain, that is, they are everyone's property.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[erroneus]

I wouldn't be surprised to find the same is true in the US as listed above, but here in the US, lawyers will argue that the sky is green, up is down, left is right and right is wrong and they'll sue you for saying otherwise.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[MtViewGuy]

All those Star Trek tech manuals, or star wars art books, or the discworld science books are ALL published with the blessing of Paramount, Lucasfilm and Terry Pratchet. (The ones I got at least)

Bingo. Remember all those illustrated books from DK publishing for Star Wars, the DC Comics universe and the Marvel Comics universe? They were not only done with the permission of the copyright holders, but the copyright holders (Lucasfilm, DC Comics and Marvel Comics) often assisted in writing these illustrated books.

The problem with the upcoming Harry Potter Lexicon is that it was done not as a commentary book, but a reference book using another person's creation without permission. Remember all those books speculating about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows before the final HP book came out? Rowling and Warner Brothers never did object to these books because they were considered books commenting and speculating on what Rowling would do in the final HP novel, which has no serious copyright concerns.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[poot_rootbeer]

it would seem NO amount of copyrighted material was extracted and used, but rather statistics and facts about the series of works are being written.

"Facts" from a work of narrative fiction are much different than a list of phone numbers or the statistics from a sporting event, though.

Can there be any argument that the lexicon book would NOT be a derivative work of Rowling's stories?

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil cases aren't always about direct matters of law. Obviously law trumps all, but often a civil case is more about doing what is right and correcting damage done. In this case you have JKR who has helped out a site organizing HP information non-commercially. The site is about to change direction and release it commercially, but it's well known that JKR has intended on doing so herself for a long time. The site used her and then undercut her, when without her they wouldn't have any material at all.

The law may be mum on the issue (it's probably not covered under copyright or trademark), but it's pretty clear that these guys are being douches, and if the facts back that up, a judge *will* award damages.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[skeeto]

IANAL

It has already been established that a collection of facts is not protected by copyrights. Way back when the first phone books were published by phone companies, competitors would use the information from those phone directories in their own phone directories. It turned out that this was perfectly legal because the list of phone numbers was not covered by copyright law. So, I would guess that a list of spells from a fictional universe would be not protected by copyright law.

Read Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[Anonymous Coward]

"Facts" from a work of narrative fiction are much different than a list of phone numbers or the statistics from a sporting event, though.

What if the sporting event is professional wrestling? Are those statistics not real facts just because the matches are depictions of scripts, which are nothing but works of fiction?

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[mykdavies]

It's slightly misleading to say that,

Copyright is about the right to copy something. There is a natural right to copy things; copyright is about imposing restrictions on that right.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[erroneus]

I'm rather counting on that being the legal assessment in this matter, in fact. But nothing prevents them from filing the suit anyway... it's a long way from being counted as frivolous at the moment. But still, the idea that someone else should be disallowed from "profiting" on another person's 'created universe' is interesting because I don't think it is really tested, but then again, there doesn't seem to be an IP entity with which to describe or contain a fictional universe of people, places, things or ideas. If there were, countless authors would be lining up to register "The WoW" universe, "The Star Wars" universe and so on.

And again, as it has been ruled in the case of MLB vs CBC Marketing regarding the ownership or rights to use baseball stats in their fantasy baseball leagues in CBC Marketing's favor. (I believe the case is still awaiting appeal filed by MLB from what I read.) But the more these types of cases are tried, the more clear this sort of case will become.

It is my guess that there will be some attempt at creating an IP definition for a creative universe whereby an entity will be allowed to sue in the event that someone wishes to exploit it in some way similar to the situation under discussion. I also presume it will fail simply because there will not be enough backers of the idea.

Re:The article claims this happens more often

[Anonymous Coward]

> So are there any books out there that do something similar
> that were NOT officially sanctioned. I am not talking about
> parodies like Star Wrecked, these fall under different laws.

Oh yes -- the Mastercom Data Center Ships of the Fleet series,
now long out of print sadly. Starfleet Dynamics. Officers'
Training Manual. All those Nitpickers guides.

All derivative, unauthorised publications. And all leagues
above the licensed trash that the mainstream produces.

writers, journalists, harry potter fans

[cynicsreport]

A journalist should be allowed to write a review on a book, and be paid for it.
A professor should be able to publish an article interpreting the newest published literature.
A Harry Potter junkie should be able to write a book analyzing the lexicon in the novels.

It's a double standard; the journalist and professor are safe, but the Harry Potter fan gets sued.

Re:writers, journalists, harry potter fans

[Roger W Moore]

There's a reason:

A journalist has a publisher standing behind them who can afford to buy lawyers.
A professor has a university with a law faculty standing behind them which makes lawyers.
A Harry Potter junkie has their significant other standing behind them wondering why on earth they spend their time writing all that stuff.

Re:writers, journalists, harry potter fans

[Xiaran]

I think this is a case where the Harry Potter junkie should have the government standing behind them. I say this as a pretty non big gevernment type of guy I might add.

Re:writers, journalists, harry potter fans

[DerekLyons]

It's a double standard; the journalist and professor are safe, but the Harry Potter fan gets sued.

If the Harry Potter fan was merely analyzing the lexicon in the same manner as a journalist reviews or a professor interprets - you'd have a point. But have you actually visited the website? It goes somewhat beyond that.

Re:writers, journalists, harry potter fans

[GaryPatterson]

It depends on how much of the original work is quoted and used in the secondary work.

A journalist may put in a few quotes, but the entire article is their own work and can stand alone without reading the original. A review is very different from the original work.

A professor may use more of the original work, but the article is their own work and can stand alone without reading the original. An analysis of the themes and motives (or just writing style) is very different from the plot itself.

A lexicon like the one under discussion uses many quotes and cannot stand alone without the original work. It depends entirely on the original books and the secondary author adds nothing new.

I don't believe there is a double standard here, as the third case is completely different from the first two.

I had a quick look at the site, and it really is a comprehensive guide to the Harry Potter universe. If I were more interested in the universe, I'd be fascinated by it. Having said that, it is completely drawn from the books with no interpretation or analysis to aid a fair use defence. The only similar guides I've ever seen published have been with the express approval of the author or copyright holders (I'm thinking Tolkien books and map collections, Discworld quizzes and maps, WH40K anything, Star Wars anything, etc) so it looks like there's a pretty well established rule here.

JKR Legal Advice - Get Opera

[AmigaHeretic]

Your lawyers might try Opera if they want to "copy" text from a web site. Legal experts hah! They're using IE. I mock them.

My consulting fees are $500.00 billable at a minimum of 4 hour increments. I'll send a bill.

Haha..

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, both sides seem a bit touchy about imaginary property rights, with Rowling's lawyers being miffed after being told to print it themselves when they asked for a paper copy of the lexicon's website, and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts. Now that's just plain funny... I know that those scripts are easy to bypass but it must have been a sight to see those lawyers try and fail for a couple of hours before somebody finally took pity on them and showed them how (not that I pretend to know why anybody would take pity on a copyrights lawyer with computer problems).

Disabling the right mouse click?

[mutende]

[...], that's not the weirdest thing of all. That honor is reserved for the Lexicon itself, which certainly takes liberal advantage of fair use to print hundreds of little snippets from the Harry Potter books. But try to copy one line from the site for purposes of commentary and criticism, and you're met with the dialog box, "copyright 2001-2006 The Harry Potter Lexicon." Nice.

I have no problems copying snippets off the HP Lexicon site, do you?

Re:Disabling the right mouse click?

[AmigaHeretic]

It's only certain parts of the website. Like if you click on the books.

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/book_fb.html

Try that link in IE and you get the message "copyright 2001-2006 The Harry Potter Lexicon"

Re:Disabling the right mouse click?

[mutende]

It's only certain parts of the website. Like if you click on the books. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/book_fb.html [hp-lexicon.org] Try that link in IE and you get the message "copyright 2001-2006 The Harry Potter Lexicon"

I don't have MSIE. All mousebuttons work as expected in Firefox on Linux.

Re:Disabling the right mouse click?

[AmigaHeretic]

It works in Opera too. I posted that earlier. It's probably just IE. One of those crazy non-webstandard things. Disable right click?? WTF??

But on the links with the books like this one... http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/book_fb.html

It won't let you copy by right clicking in IE. Most of the rest of the site lets you right click and copy it's just the sections where he seems to quote from books.

Re:Disabling the right mouse click?

[VGPowerlord]

In Opera, I have the "Allow script to receive right clicks" box unchecked, so I never run into this problem even if a standard version is used.

Re:Disabling the right mouse click?

[imroy]

From the source of that page:

// No rightclick script v.2.5

// (c) 1998 barts1000

// barts1000@aol.com

So... we have a nine year old piece of JavaScript written by an AOL'er. No wonder it doesn't work with modern, standards-compliant web browsers.

You!!

[fractoid]

Fail!!

Like most present, you have never brought both subject and comment together... :P

Nothing imaginary about the money

[syousef]

Which is what this is all about. Does anyone else here get suspicious when they see a multi-milionaire defending their property rights supposedly so the proceeds can go to charity?

Re:Nothing imaginary about the money

[Aris Katsaris]

Do you think she really needs the extra money? I think this is even simpler than money -- it's the mere irksomeness of seeing other people doing something with something of her own that she doesn't approve of, for reasons she doesn't approve of. It's what had her prevent WB from gaining rights on her characters themselves -- what made her prevent the screenwriters of the 6th movie from presenting Dumbledore as straight. It's consistent with her character. The money thing is, I guess, merely the justification that a court can understand, given how "violating my creative pride" is probably not something a court is allowed to punish. I wish JKR well, I think she's on the right here.

Re:Nothing imaginary about the money

[syousef]

Thats the problem. Everyone thinks it's okay to restrict other people's ability to think or produce because they got their first. Copyright is abhorent. Patents are abhorent. EVERYONE builds on what OTHER people laid down for them. As far as I'm concerned no one has any right to CONTROL what they've made PUBLIC. Profit perhaps, control not so. Being creative, coming up with an idea is no excuse to stifle the creativity of others. By all means she can express whatever disapproval she likes but to actually limit someone from producing something interesting or creative because they don't match her creative vision is sheer arrogant wankery.

Good

[Zorque]

Sure, sure, mod me down, but I don't agree with them trying to make money off of her name. Sure, if it was free (which it was in website form, and of which Rowling herself approved), it'd be great. But I really don't think it's OK for them to profit off of this. I'm sure many people here would be incensed to find out they'd paid money for a pirated copy of an album (I know this is different, but they're both IP issues), and I know if you'd created a bunch of highly successful books you wouldn't make them public domain either (you will probably say that you would, but honestly... would you really pass up the chance to actually make money off of your hard work?).

Re:Good

[HappyEngineer]

I don't understand that attitude. It's one thing to own the copyright for a specific work of fiction you created. It's another thing to own a copyright on the world and characters that you created. Sure, sue anyone who grabs text wholesale from the books. But I have never understood why there is any rational reason that I can't go and write (and sell) a book about hobbits who learn magic at Hogwarts in an attempt to prevent Goldfinger from making another death star.

I've been making a little list of constitutional amendments. One of them is that copyright never lasts more than 5 years and copyrights do not apply to imaginary characters and worlds (only to specific text).

Imagine how awesome it'd be if Star Wars wasn't under the thumb of George Lucas! Someone might actually make a film that had a decent plot and dialog that didn't make you want to cringe. For the good of the world I think it's only right that authors not have dictatorial control over the worlds they create. Authors get old and start to suck. It always happens. It's best if they don't maintain control into their declining years.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly think she invented the notion of magic, witches, sorcerers, and the like? She must have taken those ideas from elsewhere and turned it into a new work. By your logic, she should list and pay everyone and anyone who led to the creation of the harry potter world.

Fortunately, the world doesn't work this way. Unless the lexicon copied text, artwork, sounds, etc, they're not in violation of jack squat. You can't ban competition because it makes business hard.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure many people here would be incensed to find out they'd paid money for a pirated copy of an album (I know this is different, but they're both IP issues)

With the best will in the world, you don't have a career in law ahead of you.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

years and years you work on some great book, if only in your own eye. You get it out there and some one says no it would be better if your main was a ... cat beating... spam making... time traveling.... cat person. Now what you worked hard on has had a mexican hat dance performed on it. and then they sell it with the original name and your book which was evidently having a good showing is now the bottom of the shelf never to be sold because so many people are pissed that Hanz Valourous is now Meow Catbeatins. You didn't make it but it was the universe you came up with so people will associate it with your work. Seeing why we have intellectual property yet?

Re:Good

[HappyEngineer]

The obvious response is to require that creative works be labelled in obvious ways. When it comes to Harry Potter, if the author isn't Rowling then people will know it's not the official book. Some people may say that if it's not Rowling then it's not cannon. If Rowling wants to compete then she'll need to keep up the quality of her books. If her books start to suck then she should not have any right to prevent others from picking up the slack.

In fact, since she has quit writing Potter books I guess that means that Potter is finished. The current IP laws allow her to hold Potter hostage to her personal whims. That's not right.

In any case I already said that copyright should last 5 years. That's plenty of time to make plenty of money of creative works. I'm not denying the need for IP laws. I'm denying the need for IP laws that last for a long time. And, I'm denying the need to IP laws that go beyond the specific content of a work to broad concepts and worlds and ideas.

"imaginary property"

[richie2000]

I think we should use the phrase imaginary property much more often.

Re:"imaginary property"

[A beautiful mind]

I'll pay you with an imaginary 0+4i dollars for your imaginary property.

Re:"imaginary property"

[richie2000]

I'll pay you with an imaginary 0+4i dollars for your imaginary property. That's a deal. Just follow the link in my sig and help yourself.

Re:"imaginary property"

[Pecisk]

Heck, I bet this could become most popular tag for /. stories.

Re:"imaginary property"

[Martian_Kyo]

Can I shoot people who trespass on my imaginary property?

Re:"imaginary property"

[richie2000]

Yes, but only with imaginary guns & ammo.

Re:"imaginary property"

[_mythdraug_]

But it isn't a long step from "imaginary property" rights to "virtual property" rights.

Re:"imaginary property"

[Captain Sarcastic]

Here's your 0-2i dollars change (All I did was rotate the money 90 degrees)

Re:"imaginary property"

[westlake]

I think we should use the phrase imaginary property much more often.

Then you won't mind signing over the rights to the imaginary - the intangible - property which is in your 401(K)?

Re:"imaginary property"

[richie2000]

Then you won't mind signing over the rights to the imaginary - the intangible - property which is in your 401(K)? As my 401(K) is a figment of your imagination anyway, sure.

Rowling...

[Jugalator]

There are few professional writers I've seen lately that are greedier than her... :-p

Re:Rowling...

[evwah]

Ever. not just lately. This is worse than Harlan Ellison; at least he was a talented greedy schmuck. Excuse me if the RICHEST AUTHOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD comes off as a bit of a greedy whore when she sues others for MORE MONEY.

I don't give a damn about her intellectual property. She's made enough off of it already. If she donates $990 million out of that $1billion dollars to charity, then I might have slightly more sympathy. But instead she has three homes, worth more than 6 million pounds.

I'm all for authors making money, but there are limits. I grew up with the ideal that you should at least have to WORK SOMEWHAT to make money. Writing seven books should not entitle you to billions and billions of dollars in perpetuity.

If she wants more money, she should write more books, and pray that her writing talents aren't crap. Which they are.

Re:Rowling...

[Macthorpe]

There's a lot of misinformed whining going on in this topic, but you took the cake.

If you'd bothered to read any of the backstory, you'd actually understand why this is happening. However, apparently you need someone to force-feed you knowledge before you open your mouth so here it is.

JK is not suing for more money for her, she is going to give it to charity. This is because she was intending on releasing this exact same book and donating the proceeds to charity as she has done on several occasions before. She asked the Lexicon guys to either not publish or donate a portion of their proceeds to charity, but they refused. Considering the lexicon contains information that she gave them, free of charge, for them to turn around and sell that on for pure profit for themselves is pretty shitty conduct, and for them to do so at the same time as her planning what will turn out to be an enormously generous charitable donation is absolutely outrageous.

So, she's not suing 'for more money', she's not suing because she's a 'greedy whore', she's suing because she's trying to do a good deed and is being undermined by people that she previously helped out.

Is that enough information for you?

Re:Rowling...

[Thanatopsis]

Actually she thinking about publishing a book like it. If it were the "exact book" she would be violating copyright.

BSD

Re:Rowling...

[MutantBlue]

WTF? How much money is someone allowed to earn according to you? Please let us know so we can be sure not to offend. By the way, I feel you've made quite enough money so please stop, it upsets me. Waaaahhhh.

Re:Rowling...

[Anonymous Coward]

Christopher Tolkin

Kevin J. Anderson

Alan Dean Foster

And every other author who as written a Star Trek or Star Wars novel.

All of these people know there's a market for the material, and they just crank out new books based on somebody else's work. Rowling has a least stopped, for a little while.

Re:Rowling...

[Macthorpe]

Some valid pedantry, there.

Replace "that exact book" with "a very similar book", but my point still stands.

And lo, there was much rejoicing on Wikipedia

[Sockatume]

I don't want to sound like a grumpy old asshole, but one of my pet peeves with Wikipedia is that 90% of the effort in writing about fiction seems to go into rewriting them in encyclopedia form, which is less useful for somebody trying to find out about those works of fiction than, say, collating background information, analyses and discussions about said fiction. If these rewritings are found to be copyright-infringing derivative works, then it might redirect the Wikipedia's efforts in a more interesting direction.

Stallman to the rescue...

[Orthuberra]

No Slashdot thread is complete without RMS's opinion on the matter.

Re:Stallman to the rescue...

[jonas_jonas]

Much more interesting than Stallman's opinion is an article from 2003 linked by Stallman: http://www.slate.com/id/2084960/

Are these James Bond books ABOUT or based ON

[SmallFurryCreature]

I think that is the key difference. I can write a book ABOUT Harry Potter and Rowling would have no case. This site is based ON her work, not ABOUT her work.

A book that shows you a made up layout of Q's lab (sorry not a James Bond fan so don't hang me if I get it wrong)n is different then a book that tells you about when the movies were made or talks about the people involved.

Lots of people have written a shit load of articles ABOUT Trek. Discussions of the women in spocks live, who would have been a good wife for him. Less has been written about WW2 then Roddenberry's creation, BUT it is ABOUT Star Trek. Not based on Star Trek like a blueprint of the Enterprise.

One book listed the planets and its inhabitants as seen in the series. IF it had been a simple list that used pictures and just quoted the original work THEN it would have been ABOUT the series. But that book was styled as an official Federation reference, and had taken the original info and presented it in a new format clearly designed to look like it was from a real manaul. This made that book based ON the series.

If I publish a detailed biography of all the characters in James Bond then that probably would be okay, IF I wrote it as if I was the Human Resource Director responsible for hiring these people, it would not. I think. Maybe, that was really my question. When does fair use end?

Re:Are these James Bond books ABOUT or based ON

[Anonymous Coward]

But that book was styled as an official Federation reference, and had taken the original info and presented it in a new format clearly designed to look like it was from a real manaul. This made that book based ON the series.

This has got to rank pretty high up on the list of "stupidest things ever posted on Slashdot". In the past few hours, anyway. Seriously, what the fuck? You clearly have no clue about copyright and trademark law, so why do you continue to blather on as if you do?

Re:Are these James Bond books ABOUT or based ON

[1u3hr]

I think that is the key difference. I can write a book ABOUT Harry Potter and Rowling would have no case. This site is based ON her work, not ABOUT her work.

You can't write a book "about" Harry Potter (or Bond, etc) that is not "based on" the original works. So I don't see your distinction.

Books (and sites) that discuss the original works are clearly fair use. These are classified as scholarship, no matter how geeky they may seem. The grey area comes when you write fiction using another writer's characters. If it does not quote large tracts verbatim, it may well be quite legal. Authors have built on each others' works for centuries. It's only quite recently that corporate ownership of "media properties" (Star Wars (TM), etc) have tried, and often succeeded, in making it seem that they own any and all concepts related to a fictional story. Star Wars, and Trek, both "borrowed" heavily from pulp SF of earlier decades and movies. But now if anyone wants to build on their versions, they are threatened by C&D letters. Few have the gumption or resources to challenge these claims. And as for Harry Potter, it is clearly very much descended from popular fiction of earlier times (Tom Brown's Schooldays; The Sword in the Stone, etc). Nothing wrong with that, but it really means JKR has no moral right to block any others in turn from building on her work. And legally, I doubt she could make a case.

Right-click disablers are evil

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one of those internet rules. The party with the right-click disabling script is always wrong no matter what. No exceptions. Kill it with fire.

Re:Right-click disablers are evil

[Bryansix]

It's not like these things are hard to get around. I mean any dolt could figure out that you can just host the page yourself with absolute references to the content and leave out the script and then you can right click and download to your hearts content.

Re:Right-click disablers are evil

[jagdish]

Or you could use NoScript.

Seems like Mrs Rowling is getting all too greedy

[the100rabh]

I Wonder how different is RIAA, MPA and Mrs Rowling..Seems like money got into her head now

It's going to charity.

[Anonymous Coward]

There obviously aren't enough HP fans on /.
JKR has been talking for months about creating an encyclopedia much like what the Lexicon is doing. Her intention, however, has always been to donate the proceeds of it to charity. She has asked that the Lexicon at least agree to do the same, but they've refused. So, now she's suing, and surprise, whatever winnings will go to charity as well.

This is not a case of a rich person trying to get richer.

Re:It's going to charity.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, she can't give part of the billion that she already has to charity? So the content, as published online is ok, but in book form it is suddenly wrong?

Re:It's going to charity.

[east coast]

There obviously aren't enough HP fans on /.

What? I'm a big H.P. fan. Oh, you mean Harry Potter? Sorry, sorry... I was thinking of writer...

Intellectual Property? Eh?

[bob.appleyard]

What concept? What is it?

Re:Intellectual Property? Eh?

[s4m7]

If you don't understand it, you probably will never own any.

Re:Intellectual Property? Eh?

[Loucks]

That's OK. He'll just take someone else's.

Re:Intellectual Property? Eh?

[tepples]

What concept? What is it?

Property is the right to exclude. Something subject to property is called "proprietary".

A copyright is a property right in a work of authorship. A patent is a property right in an invention or industrial design. A trademark is a property right in an identifying mark.

Now some organizations think they can make money by lobbying governments to increase the scope of copyrights, patents, and trademarks. They have coined the term "intellectual property" in this aim. First off, treating copyrights, patents, and trademarks under the blanket term "intellectual" covers up the fact that copyrights, patents, and trademarks have different purposes and different scopes. For another, the organizations often call refer to works, inventions, and marks themselves as "property" even when discussing aspects other than their status as property, subtly coercing people to believe that works, inventions, and marks should be property.

Not Surprised

[libcrypto]

J. K. Rowling's lawyers seems to be on a suing spree.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=487334&in_page_id=1811 This one they lost.

Re:Not Surprised

[RockMFR]

"Thousands of worshippers are expected to flock to the replica of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry"

Hahaha

Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[Wolf von Niflheim]

Rowling has made enough money out of this franchise as is. In my opinion her "idea" behind Harry Potter isn't very original anyway, certainly not enough to go these lengths.

Why am I saying this? Because the Harry Potter universe looks remarkably similar to the book "Groosham Grange" written by Anthony Horowitz in 1988 almost 10 years before the first Harry Potter book was published. And guess what? Groosham Grange is about a boy that enrolls in a school for magic and the students engage in magic contests. Sounds familiar?

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[MLease]

Well, I haven't read the book, but after looking over some reviews, it appears that the resemblances between "Groosham Grange" and "Harry Potter" are fairly superficial; yeah, there's a young lad as the main character, and he's going to a school for magic, but that seems to be about it. All stories stem from a limited number of basic ideas; it's the execution of those ideas which make the difference. OTOH, the H.P. Lexicon is intended as a reference for the Harry Potter universe itself. It seems to me that someone writing a book about (and making a profit from) Rowlings' characters and setting is worth compensation to her, at the least.

-Mike

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[The Evil Couch]

And before that, Star Wars.

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[Dunbal]

Harry Potter book was published. And guess what? Groosham Grange is about a boy that enrolls in a school for magic and the students engage in magic contests. Sounds familiar?


      Even older than this, Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea books start out just like that - a young boy enrolls in a school of magic and later has adventures, etc. I remember reading this stuff in the early 70's.

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[aadvancedGIR]

It's totally different.

In Rowling's book, the caracter's name is GrangeR, and it's clearly not a boy.

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[spun]

There is a difference. LeGuin is a philosophical master, Rowling is a derivitive hack. And only the first half of the first Earthsea book has anything like Harry at Hogwarts. Ged graduates in the middle of A Wizard of Earthsea, the very first book.

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[daemonaetea]

I'm sorry, are you trying to argue that she copied his work? You mean that a young boy mysteriously finding out about his unknown destiny, involving involving some power, isn't entirely her own work? And then contests of that power! I'm sorry, but stories of these sorts can all be reduced to such a derivative description. Such stories have been popular for thousands of years. If you wanted to claim she copied I'm sure you could have found works much older than that to use for your claim.

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[MemoryDragon]

Actually the Wizard of Earthsea was written in the mid 70s and the first harry potter in many parts almost looks like a blantant copy with dozends of pages more. Besides that Le Guin is a way better author.

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[MemoryDragon]

Yes and no, the first halfs are strikingly similar with a boy growing up at evil (step)parents then enrolling into a sorcerse academy, even the theme of the boy having a constant nemesis is similar. Le Guin in the second half of the book then enrolls into one of her best philosophical stories, while harry potter then becomes standard monster fare. I assume Rowling must have read the book, before writing HP, I dont know if she could get the philosophical background, I dont know, I doubt it.
Btw. even more similar to harry potter is Spellcasting 101 from Legend Entertainment in its beginning theme. But Spellcasting definitely is different since it makes an entire mockery out of everything.

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[MemoryDragon]

No, boy growing up at evil stepparents, finding out about his sorcery talent, then enrolling into a sorcerers university, and constantly having an evil arch nemesis. The main difference is, that in LeGuins book the entire arch nemesis angle becomes in the end a philosophical mirror about a person itself and his/her aspects, while in LeGuins book a monster is slain. Ah yes and it took LeGuin about 150 pages to get to the point with a master writer weaving the story ;-)

Re:Taking it to far too protect "her" ideas

[Lehk228]

you do realize that evil (step) parents, magic, and a boy going out on his own for adventure are pretty standard plot components, that's like saying GM ripped off a Ford engine design because both use pistons and valves.

Imaginary Property?

[th3rmite]

I do believe in this case, the intellectual property is a little more than imaginary. Harry Potter as an idea has become a very profitable subject. The storylines, the characters, the locations are all very much the invention of JK Rowling. She wrote books about them, thus making the idea very tangible.

How can anyone not be on her side? This site is not just publishing derivative works based on Harry Potter, they are making a PROFIT from her ideas.

Re:Imaginary Property?

[sigzero]

So what if they are making a PROFIT from her ideas? Look around and see that that happens every gosh darn day with just about everything you use.

Re:Imaginary Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

ahaaaaaa.... her invention....

"In European bestiaries and legends, a basilisk (from the Greek basiliskos, a little king, in Latin Regulus) is a legendary reptile reputed to be king of serpents and said to have the power of causing death by a single glance." Source Wikipedia

And now let me see... what lethal power does JK's basilisk have...

Need I say more....

Re:Imaginary Property?

[shark72]

"I do believe in this case, the intellectual property is a little more than imaginary."

Correct; the substitution of "imaginary property" for "intellectual property" in the writeup was plain and simple flamebait. I'm surprised it hasn't yet been tagged as such.

"How can anyone not be on her side? This site is not just publishing derivative works based on Harry Potter, they are making a PROFIT from her ideas."

For many people, it's because J. K. Rowling (a) has a profit motive herself, and (b) is already quite well off. For many folks, rights are not a black-and-white issue: some artists are clearly more equal than others.

This outlook serves many people well (for instance, it's a great way to build one's music and movie collection for free and without guilt) but I think it can ultimately be self-destructive. If your sympathy for other's rights ends when they have a net worth of, say, $100K, what happens when you reach that point? If you've been sowing the seeds of indifference for the well-off on your way up, karma just might bite you in the ass.

Re:Imaginary Property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once someone is well-off to the point that all of their needs are guaranteed, barring complete irresponsibility, for the rest of their lives, people don't worry about their ability to squeeze every dime out of previous labors. It's not practical.

In fact there's a problem with the simplistic view of the world as being a set of rules that are absolutely enforced, in that it puts the value in the rule over the effect. The rule becomes important, while the results are "just the way it is." Then people game the rules, and nothing is to be done, because those are the rules. It's a silly ideal to begin with, and one that is far from reality.

Rules only matter to the extent that their existence engenders a better result. However the enforcement of rules often has more to do with power than with engendering a better result. When something negative results and the parties are insufficiently powerful to avoid it, then after the fact it is rationalized in terms of rules.

If I had J.K. Rowling's wealth I wouldn't care about making more. I wouldn't care about taxes, competitors, or carry-ons. Indeed, the only thing that I would care about with regard to my wealth is that it not all be taken away before I died. In her position she is more interested in absolute control over her empire than money, but the money doesn't hurt either. That particular problem I don't have. I certainly have no delusions of controlling the world or any particular corner of it like a despot. The idea is bemusing at best.

So I don't think my view undermines me at all, since I don't value or covet the position of being dictator of derivative European mythology, or the sole beneficiary of mountains of wealth. I don't worship mammon. I don't look fondly on those that do. Should I find myself so fortunate I hope sincerely that it doesn't make me as batshit insane as so many others who do.

Re:Vagina!!

[mrbluze]

Fanny? Is that you?

I see the Firehose is working well

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=358015

'Submitted by [blank] on Thursday November 01, @06:41AM'

She has failed in legal action before

[Chrisq]

She failed previously to sue for "generic" use of characters. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7040191.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7041863.stm

Trademark not Copyright

[mdmkolbe]

Intellectual Property doesn't exist as a legal concept. Only Patent, Copyright and Trademark exist and they are very different. Lumping to them together under one rubric clouds the issue. So lets see which of these she could file suit under.

Patent

Even our patent office isn't that crazy. No suit here.

Copyright

Copyright only covers the form of expression not the ideas expressed. So unless she was a material contributer or the lexicon copied large sections of her books, there's no successful routs for suit here either.

Trademark

This one is close enough that a good lawyer might be able to win on Trademark grounds.

Fictional characters can be Trademarked. So if I go around drawing pictures of Donald Duck for a living, I could be liable even though the actual drawing was all my own original work. The idea is that the franchise and brand association could be weakened by such an action. So the "Harry Potter Action Toy" would be a clear Trademark violation, but the "Lexicon of Recent Popular Fantasy" probably wouldn't be. It all depends on the details of what words are used and how they are used.

Also, there are unfortunately far reaching incentives to pursue trivial Trademark infringements. If Rowling doesn't enforce the Trademark, she could loose the rights to it. Many companies fear these sorts of leaks in the dike especially since several companies have run into trouble with it (e.g. Xerox, Frisbie (but I think they eventually kept their Trademarks)).

All in all, this is a fairly weak suit for Rowling, but not necessarily frivolous. It all depends on the details.

Re:Trademark not Copyright

[poot_rootbeer]

Copyright only covers the form of expression not the ideas expressed. So unless she was a material contributer or the lexicon copied large sections of her books, there's no successful routs for suit here either.

I agree, they should publish the book, but take out all the content that originated with Rowling.

I'm sure "The _____ ______ Lexicon" will be a best seller. Art students will use its many blank pages as a sketchbook; teenage girls, as a diary.

Tolkien in the pre-movies era?

[Graftweed]

I don't know about those other works you mentioned, but there are quite a few books published about the Tolkien universe that as far as I know have not been sanctioned by the Tolkien Estate, or whoever holds the rights. Two that I own and just quickly browsed over are "The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth" by Robert Foster and "The Atlas of Tolkien's Middle-Earth" by Karen Wynn Fonstad. I'm not sure how one should go about trying to determine if these works have been "sanctioned" or not, but they bear very little reference to anyone other than the respective authors.

Maybe you mean there is little evidence this sort of thing is common practice when there is vast amounts of money involved. Both of these works were published when there was still no mention of a LotR movie trilogy. So what has changed from say, 10 years ago, is not the letter of the law, it's simply that there are people making a lot more money from Tolkien's works.

In Soviet Russia...

[jonas_jonas]

... they make you Tanya Grotter!

Tanya Grotter and the Magic Double Bass

Some quotes from the article:

Rowling's ability to stop the Potter pretenders is largely a function of the new regime of international copyright.

And further down:

The case for preventing literal copying--in which a foreign publisher simply reprints a work without permission--is strong. But Potter follow-ons are different from the American Dickens piracy of the 19th century and DVD piracy of today. Literal copies are what come out when you use a photocopier. Potter's takeoffs are different: They either borrow characters and put them in a new, foreign context (Potter in Calcutta) or just use the themes and ideas of Potter (as in Tanya Grotter's case) as inspiration for a different kind of story. They aren't a direct replacement for a Potter book, the way a literal copy is, but rather a supplement or an adaptation.

And something that could simply be said in this discussion:

Copyright should be no different. So long as it provides Rowling sufficient incentive to write, it should strive to maintain as much competition and facilitate as much international trade as possible.

haha

[tkrotchko]

You know what's worse than lame scripts that disable right click?

Lame scripts that haven't been debugged properly so they only restrict you on IE.

What's even worse is lawyers who claim to be expert in IP and internet law who don't know there's another browser except IE.

I *KNEW* it was a bad thing when we let AOL hook up to the Internet. The place has gone downhill ever sine.

Authorisation in Discworld

[IBBoard]

Ditto for the Discworld Companions. Pratchett wasn't as actively involved in the creation of the maps (what with being an author rather than an artist) but he did still have his input on them, and I imagine it was the same with Stephen Briggs and his play adaptations as I think Pratchett is quite friendly with Briggs.

Interestingly, according to Stephen Briggs' site then he owns the rights to some of the plays, despite the fact that they're based on Pratchett's work. It'd be interesting to see how that relates to this case, as well as how all those well researched unauthorised Trek books relate.

Re: suing for charity...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see.

So, one now sues for 'charitable' purposes?

Appalling greed, since Rowling has more than enough money, yet doesn't want someone else to make some? Let it go.
Get out more. Do some actual charity work yourself, Rowling. rather than farming it out.
Hell, make your books free now, online, as creative commons. You've made your millions, now SHARE!

Think I'll donate all of my Harry Potter books, movies, etc. to a children's charity. They leave a bad taste in my mouth now.

Not enough money?

[G-News.ch]

So, Rowling has like $900 Million, yet she still cares about others making money? Why, because she would want to make it otherwise? Like she gives a damn. This is ridiculous. BTW: What's that "imaginary property" in the article? Is that property that you only think you possess?

but...you don't need a licence for a parody

[pitu]

as it is considered to be a separate work of art

"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[Mr Europe]

"test case for fair use given that the lexicon contains mostly factual information about the series, not copies of the books' text."

Actually that is no factual content, but result of Rowlings's imagination. She has invented that all.

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[thebigmacd]

Actually it is factual content; factual content about the series. It's not factual content about real life. You'd have to be a real Harry Potter nerd to get those two confused.

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is factual content; factual content about the series. It's not factual content about real life. You'd have to be a real Harry Potter nerd to get those two confused.

Oh, you mean like Vista CDR-edition is factual content about the exact bits that makes up a Vista CD?

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[Dunbal]

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from writing a "How to use Vista" book and using factual content about the OS (ie screenshots, procedures, mothods, icons, etc) in your book, so long as you make sure to cite the source.

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[cfulmer]

There's a distinction in copyright law between creative expression and factual information. You can copyright creative expression, you cannot copyright facts. And, you can only be held liable for infringing the creative expression, not the underlying facts.

You can't get around copying somebody's creative expression by calling it "a fact about their creative expression." The most obvious example of this is "the text of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is as follow . . . " You may technically be making a factual statement, but it would still be infringing since you're copying the creative expression.

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[Thanatopsis]

Sorry but facts are not copyrightable. If I say Dumbledore dies in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, that particular truth about the book isn't copyrightable. Sorry.

BSD

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[cfulmer]

I think I said "You cannot copyright facts." So, no real argument there. But, I think that this is really the wrong way to analyze the current problem. In general, the idea about facts not being protected doesn't really apply to facts about a protected work. Facts contained in the work are unprotected, but facts *about* the work, depending on their expressiveness may be.

There is a popular, but unfortunately incorrect, belief that in order to infringe a book, you actually have to copy text from the book. In fact, the creative expression protected by copyright is deeper than the text itself. For example, in some circumstances, a character can be an appropriate subject of copyright. So, anybody who writes a book starring a 13-year-old orphaned student at an elite English school for wizards who happens to have a lightning-bolt shaped scar over his eye, given to him by his arch-nemesis when he was a baby, may very well be infringing the Harry Potter character, even if this other student were named "John Smith." The more similar John Smith is to Harry Potter, the more likely the infringement.

The difference is the "idea-expression" dichotomy -- ideas are not subject to copyright; you can only copyright your expression of those ideas. And, unfortunately, the line between the two is blurry, although there are things which are clearly on either side of that line.

I suggest that the better way to think about Dumbledore's death is to ignore the factual question and ask whether it's an idea or expression. I would argue that the death of the main character's mentor is really just an idea and thus, is not protected.

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[geekoid]

"Facts contained in the work are unprotected, but facts *about* the work, depending on their expressiveness may be."

You could not be more wronf.
Yes, you are so wrong that the word 'wrong' when used about your statement needs to be wrong.

I can discuss another's work without violating copyright. In fact, copyrightn shouldn'e even come into it.

She's just being a Pissy control freak who doesn't understand copyright law and the underling philosphy. DO these people even know that works about their works make them more known?

Re:"Factual Content" ? NOT.

[cfulmer]

We're not talking about discussing a work; doing so doesn't implicate any of the copyright holder's Section 106 rights. So, you're right -- copyright doesn't come into that. But, that's not what we're talking about.

The fact that an infringing activity makes a work more known or increases its sales DOES NOT make it non-infringing. A movie producer, for example, must still get permission from a book's author before turning it into a movie, even if the movie would increase sales of the book.

As far as the rest of your comment goes, how old are you, 12? I've already given an example of a "fact about a work" that infringes on that work: "the text of Harry Potter is as follows: . . ." The only question is where the line is drawn between that statement and the statement "Dumbledore dies in book 6"? You'd do better addressing the merits of what I'm saying than just asserting that I'm "Wronf."

Who's Stallman?

[denzacar]

I admit...
I only saw first and third Harry Potter movie, and didn't read the books, but this is the first time I hear of a "Stallman" mentioned.

Re:Who's Stallman?

[someone1234]

If you don't know then simply move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Who's Stallman?

[aadvancedGIR]

You might consider him as a kind of teacher in defense against evil in the magical world of free (good) vs proprietary (evil) software.

HP fans on /.

[denzacar]

There obviously aren't enough HP fans on /. I guess its because they spied on people.

copyright covers more than direct copying

[pbhj]

There are (at least) derivative works too.

Most (but not all) of the creativity behind the lexicon comes from the mind of Rowling or whoever she was inspired by. Hence this work is derivative.

On another note - I like the way the lawyers asked for a paper copy so they'd have at least one instance of real-world (not internet) copyright infringement to sue with ... "look they're already handing out paper copies to whoever asks for them and so have materially damaged our poor client to the tune of $200 billion".

Meh. Rowling should do the right thing by the creative community and drop the case. She probably will anyway, just after the defendants sign over 10% more profits than they wanted to.

Re:copyright covers more than direct copying

[mpe]

Most (but not all) of the creativity behind the lexicon comes from the mind of Rowling or whoever she was inspired by. Hence this work is derivative.

What next people (or their estates) claiming copyright on biographies?

Re:Rowling broke my heart

[clickclickdrone]

>I was in love with Albus Dumbledore but rowling broke my heart sayinf he is gay. Wish I was a man.
Ah, you need to cast "Genderus Changeus" and shop for a new wardrobe.

Insipid?

[rocketman768]

...and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts. Insipid means bland. I seriously doubt that was its intended meaning as used here.

Re: suing for charity...

[Macthorpe]

Do some actual charity work yourself, Rowling. rather than farming it out. Here's a link where JK wrote two books specifically for charity.

Consider this a learning experience.

Take a hike, Rowling!

[kimvette]

Rowling, it turns out, has long wanted to produce her own companion book to the popular children's series and donate the money to charity. She believes that the Lexicon would eliminate much of the demand for her product (because past titles with "J.K. Rowling" on the cover have sold so poorly).

Okay, so why not donate to charities from the $1bil+ you already have? Why must you buy a court's prejudice against fair use to make yet more money? If your book isn't going to sell, have you considered it's not because there is competition, but because your other books might suck, or, at least do not capture the interest of your target consumer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hreader?

Do you see the C.S. Lewis estate suing folks who write books about the Narnia series?

Also, where were you when book reviewers were publishing reviews which contained facts, character names, and plot details from your Harry Potter books? We didn't see news of your suing THEM now, did we? Well, why didn't you? They profited directly from your books by publishing those reviews, you know. . .

Re:Take a hike, Rowling!

[Aris Katsaris]

"Do you see the C.S. Lewis estate suing folks who write books about the Narnia series?" The difference between "estates" and original authors morally dilutes the issue IMO. The "estate" are themselves secondary people benefitting from the original author's work. In my opinion, the original author has a greater moral right to restricting things than his mere legal heirs. JKR helped the hp-lexicon people. The HP lexicon owes everything to her work. Then the hp-lexicon people disrespect her wishes -- not her *estate's* wishes, but her own wishes. Let them burn in hell.

Re:Take a hike, Rowling!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's counter everything you wrote so that we can completely negate your post.

1) She has already written books where all the profit went to charity.

2) I don't think she has any problem selling books.

3)She helped and supported these people when they were doing this for free. Now that they want to make a profit off of that collaboration, she is stepping in and saying that it isn't acceptable.

4)Book reviewers do not directly profit from Harry Potter book reviews. The profit from the advertising or subscriptions.

It's funny...if someone is poor and being screwed over, we think they should fight. If someone is rich and screwed over, we expect them to just roll over. Stop judging people based on your insecurities. It isn't Rowling's fault that you are poor and bitter.

Re:Take a hike, Rowling!

[Petrushka]

Do you see the C.S. Lewis estate suing folks who write books about the Narnia series?

If this suit is successful, that is exactly what I expect we shall see.

I think I'd better keep an eye out and if necessary forward this story to some folks I know who write articles and teach courses about children's fantasy books, including both Rowling and Lewis.

Seriously?

[supercrisp]

I'm an English prof. My shelves are full of books that regurgitate the facts of the books they address. They're called "reference works." A lot work goes into them, and they're often quite useful. Yet they can in no way replace the books they are about. Novels and such are textual works of art. Reference books are not. They are references to works of art, useful for study, which is what I'm guessing Rowling fanatics do with this info on Hairy Pooter. But those reference books, useful they may be, just aren't the thrill of reading the Real Thing(tm).

*BLAM*!

[Martian_Kyo]

You are dead to my imagination now

Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[elFisico]

Only the words describing an idea can be copyrighted. So while it has been common courtesy to ask an author before you write novels set in his or her universe, it is not required by law. And this is rightly so, because the work lies in crafting the words, not in having the idea.

If I would write another H.P. novel, I would have all the work, so I should get the money, no? You might say that Rowling developed all the characters and should be compensated for that work. I say, she already has been compensated und I had to work hard to get the feeling for the characters and "get them right". So I clearly should be compensated for that work also. The only thing that Rowling can try to enforce is the "Harry Potter" trademark.

But of course greed makes you see things differently...

(IANAL, so my information about and interpretation of copyright law may be wrong, but my moral basics tell me that this is the way it should be)

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[Oligonicella]

Very fine piece of rationalization.

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[Mr. Underbridge]

(IANAL, so my information about and interpretation of copyright law may be wrong, but my moral basics tell me that this is the way it should be)

Unfortunately your 'moral basics' don't count for much in court.

So while it has been common courtesy to ask an author before you write novels set in his or her universe, it is not required by law.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. This is why the estate of Margaret Mitchell allowed an authorized sequel to "Gone with the wind" near the end of the copyright period of the original book. They felt it was likely someone would do so after the copyright ended, and preferred it be authorized.

Put it this way - if it were legal at all for Potter sequels to be published, we'd be swimming in them. Which, incidentally, is the case in China, where copyright laws aren't generally enforced.

In general, wanting something to be law based on your own definition of morality doesn't work really well.

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[DerekLyons]

(IANAL, so my information about and interpretation of copyright law may be wrong, but my moral basics tell me that this is the way it should be)

Your moral basics tell you it's OK to claim someone elses work for your own?

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your moral basics tell you it's OK to claim someone elses work for your own? That's what J.K. Rowling's moral basics told her. She used the idea of wizards and people flying on brooms, and hundreds if not thousands if not hundreds of thousands of ideas originally thought by others for her own. If it's ok for Rowling to copy others in part or in whole why shouldn't it be ok for others to copy Rowling in part or in whole? It's completely arbitrary, not to mention intellectually and philosophically bankrupt, for Rowling to copy the idea of "boy wizard" whislt declaring nobody should copy the idea of particular "boy wizard Harry Potter". She and all the pro-copyright advocates are blatant HYPOCRITES. So my moral basics tell me these thugs are getting away with their hypocrisy only to the extent they are backing up their VIOLENCE with guns and the threat of physical material harm, including imprisonment, death, and seizure of assets not belonging to them.

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[elFisico]

Unfortunately your 'moral basics' don't count for much in court. Unless my moral basics conincide with the law... :-) And you haven't shown that they don't.

Regarding sequels: yes I can write a sequel to H.P., as long as I don't use the same names, which may be trademarked. So while it is surely not possible to have Hairy Porter himself in such a sequel (except if it is clearly a parody), I can write a book that tells the story of a different kid and its adventures in Hogwarts. I may not be permitted to mention the name of the school or of the now-famous teachers, but there is no way anybody can prevent me from telling a story about a kid at a sorcerer-school...

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[elFisico]

Your moral basics tell you it's OK to claim someone elses work for your own? No, I'm talking about the idea, not the whole work. You see, having an idea is only 1%, the remaining 99% are the crafting of words describing that idea...

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[Mr. Underbridge]

Unless my moral basics conincide with the law... :-) And you haven't shown that they don't.

I'd suggest actually reading some law rather than concluding that the law somehow mirrors your opinion. There is a wealth of established case law on this matter.

Regarding sequels: yes I can write a sequel to H.P., as long as I don't use the same names, which may be trademarked.

Then it's not a sequel, is it? Nor is it relevant to the current matter, since the proposed book does, in fact, use the names.

So while it is surely not possible to have Hairy Porter himself in such a sequel (except if it is clearly a parody),

Correct.

I may not be permitted to mention the name of the school or of the now-famous teachers, but there is no way anybody can prevent me from telling a story about a kid at a sorcerer-school...

Who ever said otherwise? You've provided a rebuttal to a strawman of your own creation.

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[tehcyder]

(IANAL, so my information about and interpretation of copyright law may be wrong, but my moral basics tell me that this is the way it should be)

Thanks, that was really, really useful.

Re:Ideas cannot be copyrighted!!

[elFisico]

Thanks, that was really, really useful. I'm glad I could be of any help...

This does happen quite often

[brank]

Other popular universes might be Star Wars, Star Trek, the Discworld etc etc. How many of these have books published that are NOT sanctioned by the original copyright holder?

Answer: any of them that have mainstream popularity. So, not Discworld, but pretty much any TV series that people have heard of. Star Trek, the X-Files, even teen dramas.

Do a search for "Unauthorized X". Heck, even searching for "unauthorized Discworld guide" brings up an unsanctioned Voyager book! Unsanctioned media tie-ins tend to be less popular than licensed media tie-ins, but they have existed for decades. "Encyclopedias" like this about particular media phenomena are extremely well-established.

Most bookstores carry unauthorized episode guides right along side the licensed ones. There are also Cliff's Notes-type series that aren't authorized (I don't know if Cliff's Notes itself ever is or not).

well

[Anonymous Coward]

dont you just love it when muggles fight?

Break the system...

[Keeper Of Keys]

and mod parent even further up.

It's probably not about the money

[Tyrannosaurs]

If you look at Rowling's history in matters of licensing, you'll tend to find that if she's anything she's a control freak rather than greedy. The contract with WB for the films gives her a near unprecidented level of control over the films, and she personally reviews many of the merchandising proposals.

Her concerns tend to be around keeping Harry "pure" - that is retaining control over how everything around it is presented, rather than wringing every last penny out of it.

In this instance it will be about wanting a single authorative lexicon, rather than multiple competing ones, some of which will not fit her vision of things, meet the quality standards she wants or whatever.

I'm not saying that this is right/legal/good, just that claims of greed show little understanding about the individual they are being made against and are probably wrong.

Re:It's probably not about the money

[Rod Beauvex]

Well, given how Hollywood has fucked up every single movie movie, especially the one based off popular franchises since god knows when, can you blame her for wanting complete control over all the aspects of it?

Re:It's probably not about the money

[DerekLyons]

Her concerns tend to be around keeping Harry "pure" - that is retaining control over how everything around it is presented, rather than wringing every last penny out of it.

Given the sheer amount of crap, and level of crap, that's been marketed as Harry Potter merchandise - I have a hard time swallowing this.

Re:It's probably not about the money

[Bemopolis]

I have a hard time swallowing this.

That's what Hermione said. Hmm, hold on a sec, someone at the door...a cease & desist order? It appears I've been Dumbledored.

Satire solves everything

[sadangel]

Simple. Re-title the book "The Lexicon of the Godless World of the Evil Harry Potter and his Stupid Friends". Presto! Suddenly it's satire and protected speech.

I think it is fair use

[walterbyrd]

>>If you wrote a book, would you want someone taking all the facts out of your book and publishing it for their own profit? This isn't fair use here.

You may not like it, but there is nothing illegal about it. Copyright means the right to *copy* . Unless you are making a *copy* of Rowling's works, then Rowlings - or her publishers - should not have a case.

People write books about other books all the time.

Ego

[microTodd]

All discussion here about how much right an author/imaginer has to "protect" their property, I suspect a lot of this is ego. Ms. Rowling is probably very protective of her work because she thinks she's the greatest writer since Charles Dickens.

See following quote: "In February 2007 Rowling issued a statement on her website about finishing the final book, in which she compared her mixed feelings of "mourning" and "incredible sense of achievement" to those expressed by Charles Dickens in the preface of the 1850 edition of David Copperfield, "a two-years' imaginative task." "To which," she added, "I can only sigh, try seventeen years, Charles...""

I mean, wow. That's like me reading John Carmack's .plan and saying, "Oh John, if only you had to work on my XML-driven timesheet application..."

Re:Ego

[confused_demon]

Clearly that comment is parody and protected free speech.

Honestly, I wonder if her, or her fans, realize the damage she's doing to the long-term viability of her work. At this point I think she's successfully united the seemingly disparate groups of Christian fundamentalists and the OSS community against her books being used for education.

Re:Ego

[MikeBabcock]

Feels ... massive ... space-time ... rift ... opening! :o

That can't be possible ;-)

NOT Fair Use.

[BobGregg]

From the Fair Use doctrine itself:

"...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research..."

No. There is no "benefit for society" rationale for this. This is a private, commercial work, done purely for the author's own profit. There is nothing "fair use" about this book AT ALL.

On the other hand, there is an interesting question of whether it actually infringes on *copyright*, per se, due to not really using significant portions of the original work, at least not word-for-word. But that's a different issue.

When people water down the meaning of Fair Use, they're poisoning the well for legitimate uses of it, which are already being trampled left and right.

Re:NOT Fair Use.

[Thanatopsis]

"...criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research..."
There is no "benefit for society" rationale for this.
Seems to me a complete list of spells, locations and timelines falls under the scholarship heading. Here's a hint there is no "benefit for society clause." It's just a version of Cliffs Notes which last time I looked were printed for profit.

"it actually infringes on *copyright*, per se, due to not really using significant portions of the original work,"

If it does have the original work in it, it's not copyright infringement.

BSD

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[DustyShadow]

Hmm...I think the site has a strong case that it is a transformative fair use. Transformative uses are usually cleared as fair. As long as this book isn't cutting into Rowling's market, then I think they've got a strong case. I don't really see how it would cut into her market. If anything, it'll be helping her.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[Pope]

Where are you in law school? The US and UK have different laws concerning copyrights, you know.

The entire purpose of copyright

[lemur337]

is this:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It seems likely that U.K. copyright and patent laws were formulated with similar intent. So Rowling is done producing "useful Arts" based on her characters. Let some else bring us some more "useful Arts" we can enjoy.

That's the whole point of copyright, and patents for that matter. This point got lost somewhere along the road to unrestricted corporatism.

Re:The entire purpose of copyright

[cpt kangarooski]

FYI, patents deal with the useful arts. Copyrights deal with science. Remember, the clause was written in the late 18th century, and there have been changes in the language since then. By useful arts, what is meant is applied technology; by science, general knowledge. It's reflected in the structure of the clause as well, which always invokes copyright first, patents second: science, useful arts -- authors, inventors -- writings, discoveries. And there are still some remnants left of the old uses of the words, e.g. how patents are concerned with prior art, state of the art technology, and persons having ordinary skill in the art.

Also, while British copyright law was pioneering in its day, and was indeed concerned with the public good, AFAIK this has not been the case for a long time.

Re:The entire purpose of copyright

[fwr]

That's informative, and interesting. However, it doesn't take away from the point of the parent post. If Rowlings isn't going to be making any additional Writings about the characters in her series it is in the interest of Progress to allow others to do so. Actually, it would be in the interest of Progress to allow for derivative works even if she had planned on continuing the series. As long as it is made clear that it is a derivative, and not an original, I don't see a problem with it. The new Writing would also need to refrain from plagiarizing significant portions of Rowlings' Writings. Rowlings would still have protection for the actual creative work that she did with the original Writing. Not allowing for derivative Writings would be like not allowing for the improvement of inventions a la patents. That would be kind of an ass-backwards way of looking at things. You would then be intentionally interfering with Progress in a detrimental manner, not in a positive way.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[AndersOSU]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but wouldn't this make every piece of literary criticism and analysis of a copyrighted work infringing?

What is the difference between this case and a doctoral student exploring the themes of e.g. a collection of poems by E.E. Cummings in a thesis?

Right-click irony

[Scratch-O-Matic]

One of my truly favorite websites, a myth-debunking site, has that right-click disabling script. I found that out one day when I wanted to learn more about some information they posted, so I tried to copy and paste into Google (a very common operation for me.) When I wrote an email to tell them how much I disliked the function and how it interfered with a common-sense means of research, they told me that they were trying to prevent the theft of their work. The funny thing is that when I looked at the page source, I saw that the script was a verbatim copy (including remarks) of one that is available for download from hundreds of places on the Internet, minus the copyright notice and the warning to "keep this notice intact!"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[Critical Facilities]

I don't really see how it would cut into her market.
Really? You don't see how a book that is a collection of notes/stories/maps/spells etc that were created by Rowling in her books that is obviously marketed directly at readers of the series could be infringing on her market/audience? Is it that hard to imagine that Rowling herself might have had the intention of publishing such a book herself in the future?

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[Xebikr]

The subject painting this as containing "factual information" is wrong

I'm not sure you understand the word factual. No one is arguing that Harry Potter is not fiction. However, there is in fact a book series featuring a character called Harry Potter. It is a fact that in this book he attends a school called Hogwarts. It is a fact that in the book Harry Potter battles a villain named Voldemort. This analysis can be repeated for all of the details concerning the novels. If I did continue and started to name other characters, other places, explained how they were connected and what place they have in Harry Potterland, at which point has my post become infringing?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[bitslinger_42]

You may be right, and since I'm not even studying to be a lawyer, I'll presume you are, but this still illustrates how fundamentally broken the copyright system is. Producing study guides on major works has been a staple of literary study for a really long time. Many, many original authors (i.e. Rowling) would never produce such a guide themselves, since writing a guide is significantly different from writing a novel. Where in the hell do they get off believing that they should get a cut off of the labor of someone else? This is just as stupid as that condo association in Chicago that is trying to prevent people from taking pictures of the building that they live in.

Rowling became filthy rich from the Potter world. Good for her. Just because she was successful there shouldn't mean that she (and her children, and her grandchildren) should be guaranteed profit from the labor of anyone else in the world that does something related to that world. It takes a serious amount of work to produce a lexicon such as this; it isn't just a matter of "their minimal contribution in reassembling work". It takes several passes through a work, first recording the names of people, places, etc and on what pages the references occur. Then, go back through each of the terms listed and attempt to pull out a short, meaningful description of them. Next, go back through and try to make sure that you've dealt with all of the various ways that a given thing is referred to, such as He Who Must Not Be Named as an alias for Voldemort. Finally, put everything in some order (typically alphabetical) and do the formal typesetting, etc. I know a guy that wrote a reference guide to the works of James Joyce, and it took him YEARS of work to complete.

Should Rowling be able to make money from her own labor? Sure. Should she have a say in whether some other author can use the characters in new stories or in other products (i.e. the Hitachi Harry Potter Magic Wand, the Hermione G-String Bikini, etc.)? Definitely. Should she be able to prevent people from producing literary criticism, study guides, and scholarly works that are ABOUT the Potter world? Absofuckinglutely not!

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[jdjbuffalo]

That's a good point.

The only difference I can think of is that you wouldn't be making money off your doctorate.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:One Factor of FOUR

[DustyShadow]

Well, like you, i don't have all the facts and I have not even looked at that website, so therefore, I cannot say if it is a derivative work.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Cliff's Notes, Watch Out!

[spun]

If this lawsuit succeeds, future generations will be deprived of the helpful shortcut of Cliff's Notes and the like. Really, what's the difference between Cliff's Notes and something like this Lexicion thing? Sure, a lot of them are on books that are in the public domain, but by no means all. You can't copyright an idea, only its expression.

How do Cliff's Notes get away with it, then?

[spun]

If what you say is true, I would think they would have been sued into oblivion.

Re:Follow the Money

[AndersOSU]

I kind of expected book review type stuff was different, I was really wondering about more analytical stuff. What about something like a companion piece to Finnegans Wake? I believe this is still under copyright in the US, and given how elusive the prose in this work is I imagine that there have been at least as many sales of companion pieces as there have actual copies of the book.

So my question is, is it your opinion that these companion pieces in derivative works in violation of copyright, or is a companion piece somehow different from the Harry Potter encyclopedia?

Million dollar idea

[spun]

But isn't "Harry Potter" a trademark?

You've just given me a million dollar idea! Hairy Pothead brand rolling papers. They roll like magic! Expectum Aymsohigh!

How good are they?

[spun]

You appear noble and at the end of the financial year you get better brake from revenue department. Cool, I need a new set of brakes.

Since when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Harry Potter junkies have significant others? Like, their mothers?

Why allude?

[tepples]

I think it would be fair to assume that I am using the term "IP" in the context of the discussion at hand (i.e. copyrights). Several publishers of copyrighted works, knowing that they face an uphill battle at best in a lawsuit on copyright grounds, turn to trademark claims on the names of the characters, especially the trademark on "Harry Potter" for books. Or would nominative use be a valid defense here?

To be even more specific, copyrights as they pertain to artistic works such as novels and music (that I alluded to in my post). If you want to discuss copyrights, and you don't want to bring comparisons to patents into the mix, then why allude and not just say "copyright"?

Re:Why allude?

[unlametheweak]

I had a feeling you would probably get me on a technicality (which would be rather troll-like if you did that on purpose). In this case the Harry Potter we are referring to here is copyrighted works of fiction (and not a trademark), which is the point of discussion. Nobody is talking about selling Harry Potter t-shirts after all.

If you want to discuss copyrights, and you don't want to bring comparisons to patents into the mix, then why allude and not just say "copyright"? There's really no reason. You seem to be the only person who doesn't seem to realize that this whole discussion is about the HP series of books and the copyright issues surrounding them. But then again, I suspect that you really do know what we are talking about.

FYI:
What a trademark is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
What a copyright is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Q.E.D.

Re:Why allude?

[tepples]

You seem to be the only person who doesn't seem to realize that this whole discussion is about the HP series of books and the copyright issues surrounding them.

I do realize this. Some publishers have been using trademarks to try to extend the scope of their copyrights by adding trademark infringement or trademark dilution charges to copyright infringement actions. I was unsure whether "intellectual property" in this thread meant "only copyright" or "both copyright and trademark". But more generally, I'm trying to get people to say what they mean. If you mean "copyright", say "copyright", not a phrase whose denotation is "copyright, patent, trademark, and/or trade secret" and whose connotation includes "I'm intentionally being vague about this".

Re:Why allude?

[DustyShadow]

Several publishers of copyrighted works, knowing that they face an uphill battle at best in a lawsuit on copyright grounds, turn to trademark claims on the names of the characters, especially the trademark on "Harry Potter" for books [uspto.gov]. Or would nominative use [wikipedia.org] be a valid defense here?
This is because characters generally have very thin copyright protection. Only the most distinctive characters will get protection under copyright law. For example, only the main characters of the potter series would be protectable. To find infringement of one would still require someone to copy them almost exactly. Rowling cannot claim copyright in "a wizard boy who's parents were murdered and went to a wizard school and does some magic stuff." She has no protection in that idea.

Re:One Factor of FOUR

[DustyShadow]

And yes, I do understand that it is only one factor of four but most cases that find a transformative use in the first factor put very little weight on the other 3. I suggest reading Kelly v. Arriba Soft.

They are with permission

[paladinwannabe2]

At least with Riverworld they were invited to participate- and if you're talking about Dungeon magazine, that's owned by TSR. A better example would be the Unauthorized Tolkien guides- there are few authors that have a Universe big and popular enough to justify unauthorized books detailing them, but Tolkien is one.

Writing books in a universe is clear infringement (for instance, I couldn't write a story about hobbits living in the Shire called "Hanging out with the Bagginses") but I could write books about the universe (for instance, I could write a book in which the protagonist was a big Tolkien fan, or write a book analyzing the themes of Good and Evil in 'Lord of the Rings'). There are even Cliff Notes about Lord of the Rings, so I assume that even such an obviously derived work as Cliff Notes are legal.

My guess is that Rowling is just annoyed because she helped this site get material and keep it accurate, with the assumption that they wouldn't be selling it. Depending on the level of assistance she provided them she may have a case- and if they ever implied to her they wouldn't be selling it, she should be able to stop them selling anything she helped them with, which might be a considerable part of the guide. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

Wow, Brewster millions...

[EddyPearson]

Does this mean that JK has managed to piss all of her money up the wall already? She needs to initiate a lawsuit to make a quick buck?

If not then we can just put her on the same pile as Prince. Totally selfish, and quite happy to make life difficult for their consumers for apparently, no particular reason.

Celebrities: Where's the love gone for your public? Don't forget, we made you, and can get rid of you even faster.

Copyright should even be applies here.

[geekoid]

Copyright applies to the work.

" to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies"
They aren't copying the works and reselling them.

"to import or export the work"
There aren't importing or exporting the harry potter books.

"works that adapt the original work"
The aren't doing that either.

"to perform or display the work publicly"
The aren't performing or displaying the Harry Potter works.

"to sell or assign these rights to others"
They aren't assigning rights to the harry potter books

Those are the ONLY rights the copyright holder can exercise.

Creating a work about another work is not a violation. See numerous books about Tolkien's work.
This is like saying Rolling Stone Magazine can't talk about specific music, or that movie reviews can't talk about movies, or that dummies books on visual basic violate Microsoft's copyright.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[BrGaribaldi]

I have two comments based on your post. The first is about the lexicon making a lot of money as long as no one has published anything similar. The thing that no one mentioned here is that JK Rowlings is planning on publishing her own version of the Lexicon. The original story I read made it sound like her complaint wasn't so much that someone else was making money off her work (go to any book store and you will find dozens of books about the Harry Potter series) it was that they were going to get their version of her next book to market first and it would affect the distribution of the official version of the Lexicon.

My other comment is that I believe much of the content on the Lexicon site is developed by readers, a wiki site if you will. How do you think all the people who have helped build the site feel now that the site owners I trying to make some serious money off their work as well as pissing off Rowlings. I'm sure that they gave up all their rights to whatever they posted so there is no legal way for them to stop the publication, but I also haven't seen anything about fan reaction.

Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[an.echte.trilingue]

Every single work written by arguably the greatest author in the English language (Shakespeare), just like every single work written by the arguably greatest author in the French language (Molière) heavily incorporated elements from previous authors well beyond the standard that we would call "copyright infringement" today. All modern scientific progress is built on the works of others. True human genius is cumulative.

Now, I understand the logic behind copyright and patent laws in modern society: we wish to give an incentive to creators to create by giving them unfettered rights to what they create. I also agree that we need to have a system in place to encourage creation.

However, it seems to me that we are reifying the practice: something that we as a society have constructed and continue to construct is being treated as a right in and of itself. I think that JK Rowling and all of the people associated with the "Harry Potter" machine have made enough that the objective of our copyright laws is being fulfilled. It is time for them to let it go.

But they won't. And that is what is scary: our culture is being taken from us and given to corporations. There is no legitimate reason that Mickey Mouse, which is part of our culture and should be free for us all, should still be covered under copyright. Walt Disney is dead. His children are rich (sort of).

The process is hardly conducive to the creation of more culture. Look at the music industry, where this process has advanced the most: has any really good music been published on a wide scale lately? No? Then lets get rid of the institution that no longer fulfill its purpose.

I have a right to my culture. You have a right to your fan fiction, to your culture.

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[Pojut]

Shakespeare was total shite. Every play and sonnet was the same, the way the events played out were mostly the same, and his prose was unreadable.

I never really understood the whole thing with Shakespeare...the guy was a one-trick pony.

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[p3d0]

I never really understood the whole thing with Shakespeare. Exactly what I was going to say.

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[an.echte.trilingue]

Well, regardless of whether you liked him, the fact remains that he was enormously influential in English literature. He was the first (English) author to really treat romance seriously, he was the first (English) author to really explore human psychology (making him a true child of the renaissance), he was the first English author to really write about the people around him in the language that those people used (another renaissance concern for humanity), and he coined a great number of terms. He created the narrative nature of modern English literature. Most poets and authors who followed him for centuries tried to imitate him in some fashion.

The fact that most of his plots were the same is a cultural difference between today and his era. In his time, playwrights repeated the same memes over and over (a legacy of the middle ages, when most people preferred safe continuity to dangerous innovation in most aspects of their lives), using the variations within those basic story lines to communicate their message.

As for his prose, I even though I am no literary scholar, your assertion astounds me. The prose sections of Henry V are widely regarded as some of his best work. Of course, the fact that it is "unreadable" is perhaps related to the fact that is was intended for live performance (have you ever tried to read a movie script? not very enthralling) and to the fact that it was written in various English dialects from the 16th century.

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[Pojut]

By "unreadable", I didn't mean I couldn't understand it or it wasn't exciting...I meant the way that things are portrayed in his plays/books/whatever are just off to me...it's like taking sandpaper to my brain.

That said, if I were asked to say one positive thing about Shakespeare, it would be that he had a fantastic sense of humour...I would venture to say that the humour that he sprinkled throughout his works were the only thing that kept me interested during high school.

And you are right, I can't deny the impact he has had on literature as a whole...but that doesn't mean I have to like his work ;-)

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[Maximum Prophet]

The fact that most of his plots were the same is a cultural difference between today and his era. In his time, playwrights repeated the same memes over and over

Imagine a beowulf cluster of Shakespeares. (:-)

In Soviet Russia, Shakespear copies you!

No, I've never seen a modern writer copying the same memes over and over again...

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[dprovine]

I never really understood the whole thing with Shakespeare...the guy was a one-trick pony.

His plots were usually recycled from other stories, but that was what was expected at the time. Remaking an old hit movie in hopes of getting a new hit movie is just the modern Hollywood version of a practice that's been around for a very long time.

Shakespeare stands out not for the plots but for the language. If you get a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, and flip through to Shakespeare, he's got over 1500 entries, lots of them things people say every day and have no idea of their origin. "Good riddance", "give the Devil his due", "jealousy is a green-eyed monster", "more in sorrow than in anger", "foregone conclusion", "a sea change", "a sorry sight", "brevity is the soul of wit", and literally dozens of other common expressions weren't common until Shakespeare put them together.

Isaac Asimov once wrote that coming up with something totally new is far harder than you imagine until you actually try to do it. Shakespeare came up with new phrasings so perfectly worded so often that they've become part of the language, and he did it hundreds of times. You may know that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" comes from Shakespeare, but did you know it was true of "discretion is the better part of valor", "eaten out of house and home", "exceedingly well read", "wear your heart on your sleeve", and "lay it on with a trowel"?

It wasn't Shakespeare's plotting that made him famous; his stories were usually based on some earlier story, because that's what investors were willing to put money in: something that had already been a success. (Modern sequels exist for the same reason.) Shakespeare's ability to use the exact right words in the exact right way is what makes him such a big deal. Mark Twain once wrote that the difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. Shakespeare gets props because he was able to deliver lightning so often.

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[Fallingcow]

Isaac Asimov once wrote that coming up with something totally new is far harder than you imagine until you actually try to do it.

Incidentally, Asimov wrote an excellent guide to Shakespeare. That and his guide to the Bible are both great.

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[nightcats]

Well, since this is a geek realm here, perhaps the final words--or letters--should be GPL. Or, more apt to book publishing, CC. I've written four books, and if any of them were to be published (I don't count Lulu as publishing, sorry), I'd want them to have CC licenses on them. It's in line with what I teach anyway: the more you defend something, the more walls of paranoia and litigation that you erect around it, the less does it become art. I am no more afraid of someone teaching the Tao "better" than me through the use of my work than Ubuntu developers are of Warren Woodford (MEPIS) making a better use of their code (and specifically, of KDE) than they did (he did). There is abundance enough for everyone; it is only the insane pursuit of wealth that destroys from within.

Re:Just imagine Shakespeare in a copyright world

[westlake]

Every single work written by arguably the greatest author in the English language (Shakespeare)...heavily incorporated elements from previous authors well beyond the standard that we would call "copyright infringement" today.

Not true.

The simplest argument to make here is that the Shakespearean production totally eclipsed everything that came before it. His contemporaries are read only by academics, their plays performed only as theatrical curiosities.

That is the mark of the creative artist who can place his own stamp on a popular genre and make it is own.

Be luckless enough to get your own history play on stage and he will strike back with a Falstaff, the pageantry and patriotism of Henry IV and Henry V. You will be plowed into the ground so deep it will be as if you never existed.

I think that JK Rowling and all of the people associated with the "Harry Potter" machine have made enough that the objective of our copyright laws is being fulfilled. It is time for them to let it go.

The purpose of copyright law is to encourage and protect the production of original works of art, as an inspiration to others.

Derivatives are fan fiction. Derivatives are for the second rate.

Brad Bird learns from "Steamboat Wille." He writes and produces The Iron Giant, The Incredibles. Ratatouille.

It is very revealing, how quickly the geek is willing to appropriate the work of others, without ever having accomplished anything significant himself.

what is scary: our culture is being taken from us and given to corporations. There is no legitimate reason that Mickey Mouse, which is part of our culture and should be free for us all, should still be covered under copyright. Walt Disney is dead.

This is nonsense.

The Mouse was a corporate creation from the beginning.

Disney himself had very limited skills and training in animation. He was as much a product of the bleak black and white world of rural Kansas as The Wizard of Oz.

What he brought to animation was a strong sense of story, a relentless drive to pursue technical and artistic excellence and innovation beyond his own abilities.

He risked a hell of lot on films like Snow White, Fantasia, Victory Through Airpower. Some of the greatest films in the Disney cannon did not show a profit for almost fifty years.

Disney was above all else an entrepreneur who built and built and built and kept his independence.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[UbuntuDupe]

This is clearly a derivative work. The subject painting this as containing "factual information" is wrong. Nothing about the Harry Potter "world" is factual. None of its characters exist, none of its events really happened. There was a Seinfeld episodes guide a while back that makes the applicable principles quite clear. The court rejected the argument that the guide was just "factual information" about the series--plot points are not facts.

Not a lawyer, but I don't see how this can be the case. Talking about the *fact* of what *a book describes as happening in a story* has never to my knowledge been regarded as infringment. Spend an afternoon on Wikipedia, and see all the literary works that have in-depth plot synopses and character descriptions. I can't even imagine how it would be, esp. given all the Cliffs-Notes type publications out there.

"Harry Potter wandered into the celler and saw a black cat [blah blah blah assume the exerpt is too long to be convered by fair use]" is infringement. "In Chapter 3, Harry Potter sees a black cat upon wandering into the cellar. This is a pivotal foreshadowing moment in the plot..." is not.

(IAalsoNAHarryPotterFan)

She's worse than merely annoying.

[jbn-o]

She's ridiculously litigious and her inaction against her publisher is a threat to human rights. Richard Stallman (RMS) has good coverage of this issue and an explanation of why this campaign against buying Harry Potter books is necessary.

As others have pointed out here on /., she's a billionaire. Therefore she can afford to do quite a lot of things to her liking. I don't believe that she's "massively disappointed that this matter had to come to court at all". She's disappointed that this publisher hasn't buckled to her will (even though she stood up for herself against charges of plagiarism from the author of the "Larry Potter" stories). Perhaps more publishers will publish their works and defend themselves against malicious charges of copyright infringement.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are confusing "derivative" work with "transformative" work. Transformative is taking the underlying ideas or concepts, which are NOT copyrightable, and creating something different from the original work that does not impact the original market. As you may recall, it is the EXPRESSION of an idea that is only protected. A derivative is similar to the original work. I don't believe that is the issue here. The book is not a "sequel" or provide a story line that draws on the original book. The case you cite is Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publishing Group. There the court held that a trivia book was within the potential licensing market for "Seinfeld", mainly because it relied on the expression of ideas found in the series. However, under SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Miffin, the Court held that "The Wind Done Gone" was a transformative work, had no impact on the potential market for "Gone With The Wind". The question in this instance is whether the work is truly transformative. That I cannot speak to as I have not seen the material (for that matter, I haven't read any of the books or seen any of the movies). I suspect that her participation in the development, when she believed it was a "work of love", may bar her from claiming it will have a negative impact on her potential market.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[celtic_hackr]

Excuse me, but copyright owners DO NOT have exclusive rights to derivative works.
In fact they have no rights to derivative works, outside of using extensive use
of their existing works. Let me show you with examples.

If I write a book about Harry Potter going to live in New York and getting involved
with you-know-who's sister and all the twists and turns that might involve, including
background information occasionally, then I completely own that work.
If however, I take the Sorcerer's Stone and change the title and change the stone to
a fob, and keep almost all the other text the same, then this is clearly not a derivative
work but an infringing work.
Author's get control over their own writings, not other's writings.
The Lexicon, I haven't seen so do not know if it is infringing. But if they have put together
a real Lexicon, then they have made a derivative work, by definition, and are not infringing.
Go and read about copyright on a copyright office's website and come back when you've learned
the definitions and facts of copyright law, especially since you profess to be in law school.

Copyright expires

[jonnythan]

As far as I know, Cliff's Notes only exist covering works whose copyrights have expired.

A quick perusal of their list didn't reveal a single book still under copyright.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[DragonWriter]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but wouldn't this make every piece of literary criticism and analysis of a copyrighted work infringing?

No, it wouldn't.

What is the difference between this case and a doctoral student exploring the themes of e.g. a collection of poems by E.E. Cummings in a thesis?

The difference is that purpose is a consideration in Fair Use analysis, and that "criticism", "scholarship", and "non-commercial educational purposes" are explicitly held out as purposes that weigh in favor of a finding of Fair Use. Note that Fair Use is a limitation on the basic exclusive rights under copyright, so before Fair Use analysis is necessary, the use must be one that would otherwise be infringing.

Re:Careful

[DustyShadow]

Also, the transformation was given significantly less weight in Kelly than the fourth factor

I'm suggesting that the analysis of the last 3 factors is determined by how the 1st factor is decided. Thus, I disagree that the 4th was given less weight because the 4th was decided entirely on the fact that the court said the use was transformative.

which suggested that the thumbnails drove traffic to Kelly's site, which did not decrease the market for his pictures but may have actually increased the market.

I would suggest that this lexicon book "drives traffic" to the harry potter books.

Wrong

[spun]

You did no such quick perusal, because one of the first books on the list at their web site is Animal Farm, published in 1945. Another is The Bean Trees published in 1988. You didn't look at their site at all, those books are on the first page!

Re:Wrong

[T-Bone-T]

I say that if those were missed, it was indeed a quick perusal rather than an in-depth perusal.

insipid

[Anonymous Coward]

Insipid means bland. Not annoying, or whatever it was that you were trying to convey by this "...using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts."

very simple case

[drDugan]

Rowling and her lawyers don't "own" the harry potter universe. There is no legal vehicle for owning whole concepts - save patents which restrict the practice to specific claims. She has copyright and trademarks and other legal rights defined by states who have (until recently) the monopoly on military force to enforce it. Copyright does not apply here, unless she is pressing the fair use limits which on my read of the site, this is clearly within a reasonable legal scope. In no place have I seen diligent enforcement of trademarks on the content I read in the site, so I assume the book will not violate her trademarks.

So, the premise of the lawsuit is flawed, and will most likely fail. ironically, the effect is exactly opposite to the seemingly intended result - stopping the book. Rowling's dogs have given a bunch of free press for the effort and the book will have much better sales as a result.

Balance.

Re:very simple case

[Lehk228]

she doens't own the universe, just all of the recognizable parts she created, such as the characters, fictional places, and events. you know, the things the lexicon is based on.

CliffsNotes

[tepples]

You don't see how a book that is a collection of notes/stories/maps/spells etc that were created by Rowling in her books that is obviously marketed directly at readers of the series could be infringing on her market/audience? I don't. Transformative works intended to be sold as companion products alongside the official texts are not automatically infringing. Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin discusses how the fourth factor (effect on market or value) primarily refers to market substitution. The plot and character synopses of CliffsNotes books do not substitute for the official texts, despite what some lazy students might tell you.

Re:Plot Points Are Not Facts

[Gilmoure]

I thought she wrote the Sorcerer's Stone. Changing the title a bit won't allow you to publish it.

Cliff Notes

[MooseTick]

I wonder how Cliff Notes fall into this category. I'm sure they don't get approval for every book they summarize, analyze, quote, and review.

Re:Plot Points Are Not Facts

[Xebikr]

Ok. You are absolutely right, and I am wrong. I had thought there was at least a little bit of sanity left in copyright law and I was wrong about that too. I did some research on the Seinfeld case your mentioned, and I am floored. I am absolutely astounded that the power of copyright holders has been extended that far. I have now amended my brain to include the fact that it is illegal to even write a trivia question about the content in a work that is still under copyright. Book reports and movie reviews are also illegal. Wow. (Before you go telling me those are fair use, keep in mind, fair use can only be decided by a judge, and the works are infringing until you are sued and successfully use fair use as your defense.)

For those wanting more information about the case he was talking about, Ken Jennings has a good analysis here and here.

Interesting Quote...

[Lunatrik]

Quote from the top left of the lexicon page: "This is such a great site...my natural home." - JK Rowling " I guess she changed her mind.....

Regarding the disable right click script...

[zabala]

Two words (kinda): CTRL+P Thanks.

Do you have a releveant point?

[fuzznutz]

>>> Harry Potter as an idea has become a very profitable subject. The storylines, the characters, the locations are all very much the invention of JK Rowling... How can anyone not be on her side? This site is not just publishing derivative works based on Harry Potter, they are making a PROFIT from her ideas.

Uhhh... So what?

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise9.html

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

The youngsters around here have certainly drunk a lot of the big media company Kool-Aid. It shows up whenever there is a controversy like this...

Re: suing for charity...

[jagdish]

Rowling made no mention of the tax benefits the auction's action would bring her and apparently the BBC never asked. Consider yourself enlightened.

Here's a hint

[FoxNSox]

Disable Javascript! Some people can be a little thick. Maybe if Rowling and her lawyer put their heads together, they may think to Google how to bypass those right-click disabling scripts.

Not OK, but more OK

[wurp]

Clearly taking $1000 from someone who has $1 billion is less harmful to them than taking $1000 from someone who has $1001. It is wrong either way, but the first is far less wrong.

I'm not rendering any opinion about the morality of this particular case. I would have to know what kind of content was in the book, how much of it was Rowling's work, whether they were attempting to present themselves as associated with Rowling, etc. Details matter.

Re:Plot Points Are Not Facts

[UbuntuDupe]

Why do people keep modding you up, when all you do is keep "proving" that Cliff's Notes and the like are illegal?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Shakespeare perhaps not the best example

[Fred Ferrigno]

Shakespeare's works were copied by unscrupulous book dealers in his time and he took them to court over it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

right click disabled

[cavedwler]

Hmm.. anyone ever use the menu.. "edit-select all- copy" not difficult....

Re: [She invented it.] Cough BS

[micromuncher]

Are there no stories about boy wizards with currious pasts? The wonderful thing about JKR's writing is that there is nothing new. Absolutely everything in there is borrowed. However she is an execellent plagiarist in that she weaves all these things together in an entertaining fashion. And there is well marketted hype.

How many stories use latin or faux latin for spells?
How many stories have trolls, goblins, werewolves, and griffins?
How many stories have cloaks of invisibility (or rings)?

http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm

Re:Careful

[Gulthek]

I would suggest that this lexicon book "drives traffic" to the harry potter books.

Even if your suggestion is correct, just because something is beneficial doesn't mean that it's legal!

Also, Rowling has already stated that she'll be releasing an encyclopedia of the HP universe. Can you see how sales of that could be negatively influenced by this lexicon?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'm not a lawyer either

[Tetsujin]

I just wanted to add, I also am not a lawyer. Please take that statement as legal advice only to the extent that I am advising you not to rely on what I've said in legal matters.

So if your court case depends on whether or not I am a lawyer, my advice is to not listen to what I have to say about it: you may well decide that I am a lawyer and that you should take my advice, in which case you will know that you shouldn't.

Glad you like it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman didn't like that term, though, when I first suggested it to him. He hates lumping them together at all.

I grant that he has a point insofar as they're all separate-but-related areas of law, but I honestly think that the term is more correct than intellectual property and conveys a useful message. In other words, I guess I don't care that RMS doesn't like the term and I intend to use it anyhow.

I'm siding with Rowling.

[themusicteacher]

I can't help but side with Rowling in this. She has been very lenient with most fansites, even giving out awards for various ones - including the Lexicon. She was very supportive of it when it was a not-for-profit fansite, but now that he's trying to publish it and make money off of it, she says no. I can't blame her at all for that. From what I can gather from reports I've read, it's only a collection of facts from Rowling's books, and not a collection of critical commentary or essays about her work, so it really isn't fair use at all.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[seasleepy]

I believe one of the main reasons the lawsuit exists is that Rowling has stated her intention to put out a HP encyclopedia. And from what I've read in various places, it sounds like the owner of the HP Lexicon site felt slighted by that announcement (as he had been hoping to be included in any official encyclopedia), and decided to put out his own book. Thus prompting the lawsuit.

Attribution Needed

[fm6]

The Fair Use Doctrine has an official text? I doubt it. It's just a popular (though not universally accepted) interpretation of traditional copyright law.

There are laws that attempt to define "fair use". But that's legislation, not doctrine.

Re:Plot Points Are Not Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

So then, can the copyright abolitionists add yet another member to their growing ranks? We've got byor (bring your own rum), fancy pirate songs, phat unlimited artistic booty loot, and freedom. :D

Not only is copyright insidious, but these copyright claimants are inserting public domain material into their copyright claims. At least with the competition of the numerous posts on the internet copyrighted content will continue to be more and more marginally ignored. Free content will continue to get better and better, and there won't be nearly the time nor the motivation to pay for stuff in any where near the quantity of previous times. All the supply ever made will compete with all the newly created supply, pushing prices down.

But copyright is enforced by total violence. Copying is natural economically beneficial human behavior. Rowling ripped off the idea of "wizards", ripped off the idea "people flying on brooms", and you can go on and on finding ripped off ideas that are elements of the Harry Potter series which the bitch has claimed copyright on. It doesn't get any more HYPOCRITICAL then freely copying others whilst declaring others shouldn't copy you. The witch probably lives in a house with doors and windows too. She didn't invent doors or windows, but apparently she has no problem ripping off the ideas of others when it benefits herself.

UPDATE

[GTMoogle]

In hindsight, I'm suspicious that there's been some misinformation about the specifics of the lawsuit.

If J.K. Rowling is suing over the lexicon's use of her characters and excerpts from her book, then it's a work of research and should be protected.

If, however, and I think this is reasonably the case, Rowling is suing over the lexicon publisher's refusal to remove her contribution to the website that was ostensibly free to the community but has been illegitimately co-opted (with or without a theoretical click-through I know nothing about, I was just hypothesizing), then they're changing a publishing agreement and Rowling's case is a lot stronger.

I don't know which is the case, but I'm now leaning towards J.K. being in the right.

It's to late for Rowling to change her mind.

[SETIGuy]

She visits the site. She is aware of its existence. She has participated in its development. She has given implied consent to its existence.

Now all of a sudden she has decided it is a copyright violation. Apparently it wasn't yesterday, but today it is because the owners want to make money from it.

The intent of the owners does NOT change whether the site is a copyright violation. If it wasn't a violation yesterday, its not a violation today just because someone might make a penny.

Haven't you made enough fucking money off this crap anyway?

Re: suing for charity...

[Macthorpe]

Seeing as JK hasn't commented on tax benefits, and the BBC didn't ask about tax benefits, and neither you nor 'Axcess News' have brought any proof of your claim, I don't think you've enlightened me on anything.

How hard is it for people to assume that a good deed is being done because it's a good deed?

Re:Plot Points Are Not Facts

[fluffy99]

Philosopher's Stone was the original title the book was released under in Europe.

Harry Potter kills himself, doesn't he...

[Qwrk]

... or did I just spoil your plot ?

The book is due on 17th Nov at 01.00h here. But as I'm living above a bookstore I've seen them boxes standing around. Jacked one open and indeed; he kills himself! Aahhh, too bad, ain't it ?

Re:Plot Points Are Not Facts

[DustyShadow]

FYI, top fair use attorneys, including the one in charge of Google's current Google Books infringement case, believe the Seinfeld case is probably not good law anymore.

Re:Plot Points Are Not Facts

[idontgno]

She wrote "Philosopher's Stone". Scholastic, the US publisher, decided that Americans are too ill-read and undereducated to understand what a Philosopher's Stone is. ("Whut, Lurlene, I thot that Harry Potter guy was a sor-ser-er, not some freethinker egghead.")

Sad to say, I think Scholastic was right in this decision, but pay no attention to me. I'm just kinda bitter about the incredibly poor state of classical education in the current American society. (I was going to say culture, but around here "culture" is just what you find growing in moist dark creases of the typical mouth-breather's body.)

Missing the point.

[landley]

Right now Warner Brothers can afford to ignore fanfic. If it's published for free on the web and they turn a blind eye, it doesn't erode their rights. They can afford to be nice.

This lexicon idiot is saying that publishing online for free is a precedent allowing him to publish in print for money, without any further barriers. If they convince a judge of that, it would force corporations to aggressively police the web to take fanfic down to prevent it from becoming a precedent. He's trying to force corporations to be evil.

Re:IANAL, but I am in Law School

[bill_mcgonigle]

In fact, there's a good case to be made under the current law that a lot of stuff most people consider "fair use" is in fact infringing

Well, thar's y'er problem!

Re: suing for charity...

[humanifesto]

For real. And one way or another, it's charity. If someone donates a bunch of money to a cause, and as a result gets a huge tax return, does that negate the good they've done by donating to the charity? Of course not. If I donated 50 million dollars to a cancer research firm, and they ended up finding a cure for cancer with that money, I'd probably become very famous as a result. Do you think that anyone with cancer would refuse the treatment saying "oh, that guy only donated the money to get famous"? I highly doubt it.

right click work around

[codingmasters]

The Disabled Right-Click thingy is easily worked around with Firefox, making it pointless.

Re:Careful

[siriuskase]

I don't think sales of Rowling's book will be negatively impacted at all. If the Lexicon book is anything like the website, it will be a reference book, whereas, Rowling's book would be humorous. I don't think she could write a real reference book if she tried. I don't think that her fans would want her to waste her time trying, not when we have an experienced librarian (Steve at the Lexicon) who seems to have a knack for that sort of thing.

Another Author's view on fanfic

[Tpenta]

This is a question that comes up sufficiently on Raymond E. Feists's mailing list that he has an answer in the FAQ at http://crydee.com/raymond-feist/fan-fiction-the-facts>FAQ

Quoted below from the website:

Fan Fiction - The Facts

Now, the "official" notice:

Fans are discouraged from writing any fiction in Midkemia or using any of the characters created by Raymond E. Feist in other settings. While the author understands this practice of "fanfic," or fan fiction stems from enthusiasm over the work, it is nevertheless a copyright infringement and an abuse of the author's legal rights. The author suggests that fans turn that creative impulse into creating their own, original, worlds and characters. It's much more entertaining creating your own universe than working in someone else's.

OK, that's the official disclaimer.

The reason I have to take this position is due to years of abuse by fans of other writers/TV shows/movies. The copyright issues are complex and often don't seem to make sense, but the financial risk to myself and my family is real. So, be the "Raymond E. Feist" of your own universe and have a blast. If you get good at it, you never know, someone might someday be writing you fan mail.

Thanks for understanding.

Best, R.E.F.

There are real concerns about this kind of thing from an author's point of view.

Tp.

Re:Another Author's view on fanfic

[unlametheweak]

Fans are discouraged from writing any fiction in Midkemia or using any of the characters created by Raymond E. Feist in other settings... The author suggests that fans turn that creative impulse into creating their own, original, worlds and characters. I agree. Hopefully fans will be intelligent enough to create their own fantasy worlds so that they won't have to buy the books of these writers. I certainly hope these writers continue to discourage fans, because in the end a discouraged fan is not a fan, and hence there is no dependence on these writers / artists for entertainment.

Re:Another Author's view on fanfic

[Bomby]

Back during the heyday of MUDs, MOOS and the like, some friends and developed a Feist themed MUD named Midkemia. We were about to go live and allow more than playtesting when we got the cease and desist order from his laywers. Another group had already signed exclusive rights to make a game environment based on his universe. He was quite kind about it however, responding to personal emails and sending autographed hardbacks of his newest book before it hit the shelves.

Rowling should sue--and Win

[gevantry]

Rowling has a solid case. Harry Potter and everything about the Harry Potter universe is her property. It's not anyone else's, and they don't have a right to to try to use it to make a buck for themselves and thumb their noses at Rowling. She has spent decades meticulously putting her imaginary world together, and these bloodsuckers come along like disease-bearing mosquitoes. Swat the little bastards. I hope she slaps them so silly they never see straight again.

Old news

[gravis777]

It is amazing how long it takes some things to show up on Slashdot. This was reported on hpana.com last Friday. Actually, that was an update to the story, which was reporting an article she wrote on her website. There is an an older update from November 1st that also talks about it. I cannot find the original article, it has rolled off of the old news page.