Slashdot Mirror
J. K. Rowling Wins $6,750 In Infringement Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down. After a trial in Manhattan in Warner Bros. v. RDR Books, she won, getting the judge to agree with her (and her friends at Warner Bros. Entertainment) that the 'Lexicon' did not qualify for fair use protection. In a 68-page decision (PDF) the judge concluded that the Lexicon did a little too much 'verbatim copying,' competed with Ms. Rowling's planned encyclopedia, and might compete with her exploitation of songs and poems from the Harry Potter books, although she never made any such claim in presenting her evidence. The judge awarded her $6,750 and granted her an injunction that would prevent the 'Lexicon' from seeing the light of day." Groklaw has an exhaustive discussion of the judgement.
"Please, Ms. Rowling, I'm so tired and bleeding from both ends..."
"Is J.K. gonna have to choke a bitch? Get me my money!"
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up a moment! NewYorkCountryLawyer, I normally respect your posts, but this one is in need of some serious scrutiny.
As it happens, I was listening to the details of the case this morning on NPR. The problem with this specific book is not that it focuses on the Harry Potter series. The problem is that nearly every description was lifted from the books in a reasonably clear case of plagerism and/or derivitive works. Most reference books contain unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material. However, this particular lexicon made no effort to add such value over the books themselves.
In effect, it was merely a reorganization of J.K. Rowling's books into a dry reference. Something for which only the author has a legal right to grant.
THAT is why the judge found against the lexicon. And he did so with a strong warning that this book is an exception to the usually legal practice:
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
*JK points wand at lexicon project*
Avada Kedavra!
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
When the verdict was announced in court, there was a big puff of smoke. I notice most of the media forgot to mention that part. You'd think someone would have pointed out that smoking in a public building isn't polite...
ed duval the very last person
But I noticed you accidently wrote at least one sentence that doesn't totally drip with contempt for this ruling. Please don't let this happen again - you know we /.ers don't know what opinions to have unless you spell it out for us.
It's my understanding that 80% the contents of the website on which the encyclopedia is based is copied verbatim from the HP books. How does that NOT fail the "fair use" test?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Why the bad attitude in the submission post?
Someone was trying to release a commercial product whose premise was stealing content from an established work.
If they didn't get hit hard on copyright infringement, they'd get hit hard on trademark infringement, and rightly so.
Like it nor not, J. K. Rowling created the series, and decided to turn it into a commercial enterprise. It's well within her moral and legal rights to make sure a bunch of idiots don't cling to her coattails trying to milk dollars from a popular franchise that they have no legitimate claim to.
It's been a long time.
I heard J.K. Rowling interviewed on NPR about this. She listed many of the books that are derivative works that she is thrilled about. The commonality with acceptable books is that they add original thoughts. The targeted book contained no original thoughts but just indexed material from her books, in many cases copying the content and even indexes from her books verbatim.
The lawsuit was to stop the publication of the book; it had nothing to do with the $6k.
I'm a big tall mofo.
That if there was more original text, and less direct copying from the books, this would not have infringed.
I guess the judge has actually seen the lexicon. He knows how much is original and how much is copied.
"Mr. Judge, you suck too! Go back to law school and actually learn something about fair use, derivative works, and copyright law!"
Sigh. RTFJ - he DID cite caselaw and Supreme Court rulings regarding fair use, and in his "judgement" (you know, where the title comes from), this work failed to qualify. Something like 80% of the book was copied verbatim from the HP books - that's not a lexicon, it's a Reader's Digest condensed version.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I heard the same story on NPR yesterday. Here's a link to the story summary and the full audio with Rowling's explanation:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94407484
I'm a big tall mofo.
As stated above, copyright law has nothing to do with whether someone is successful. The fact is that Rowling had given them permission to have their verbatim copied lexicon as long as it was only free on the web. As soon as they tried to change it into a published work the whole thing changed. She made them absolutely clear from the beginning that no permission was extended to copying her work directly and selling it. So, this is one of very few of these cases where I would side with the super rich, mostly because that's fair in this case but also because it's the actual creator of the work who owns the copyright. This is what copyright is for, protect the CREATOR of stuff from freeloaders so that original creators have an incentive to keep on creating. It is usually abused by corporations who have half enslaved a bunch of creators (music business), but in this case the rights reside with the author. And as the judge states, works like this lexicon are usually protected, except it just copies too much directly, therefore it is not protected. Fair cop
If it makes you feel any better, most of my submissions get rejected.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"Makes me want to burn my dork card."
Just don't burn your dork - I've heard that REALLY hurts.
Unless you're into that sort of thing.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Seriously, can someone explain why competing reference books rule out fair use, especially given that she admits she hasn't even started on her version, years after his has been done?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You kind of gloss over the fact that he "created" his lexicon by taking Rowling's words from Rowling's books and putting them in his book and saying it was original work.
There are other similar books out there and the authors are not being sued because the authors actually contributed something and didn't just copy the work of someone else.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
actually read it, please. It's linked there. The judge relied on VERY fair-use unfriendly Second Circuit case law to come to his conclusion.
While the judge does admit that the author does not have control of these types of works, and the judge states that some types of works should be encouraged, the actual analysis of what would constitute transformation really does make the likelihood of such works being published less likely.
The judge left a pretty darned high threshold for what is considered "substantial" copying, and mentioned things like "fictional facts" and "paraphrasing" used to determine infringement.
In any rate, the ruling is vague enough in its analysis that I'm confident it will act as a bar towards publishing similar works, even when verbatim copying does not occur. I expect publishers and potential authors will be more reluctant to pursue such works in the future.
Sure.
A "Dry Reference" is a tidy work arranged primarily for the purpose of being able to quickly identify items or reach the information you want. Think most of the standard reference works (dictionary, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Star Trek or Star Wars encyclopedias, owners' manuals or service manuals for commercial products, various manuals for operating systems or software languages, journals for various professional organizations).
A "Wet Reference" is a reference work written largely in-universe and intended to be read cover-to-cover for its own reading value. Think of many of the looser reference guides to various fantasy worlds often written either by the author or with direct author involvement, such as the Dragonriders' Guide to Pern or the Silmarillion.
The term "dry", in terms of books, is often a substitute for the word "boring" - not that it necessarily is to all people, but in that a general reader (which is to say, someone without interest in the subject of the reference work) trying to sit down with it is going to have about as much fun as someone who forgot to bring a novel on their plane flight and is now stuck reading the torturously boring in-flight magazine.
society's perception does matter. because it sets the standard of the day for creating laws.
200 years before, slavery was legal. people perceived it as a normal thing. despite it was totally immoral.
230 years ago, aristocracy was the elite in france, with a god given right. it was legal, but it was totally wrong.
now here we are, in a world that has very bad distribution of wealth, and an abusable law system.
and we have greedy whores, greedy bitches, greedy fat cats, whatever you name.
literally in law, that kind of infringement may still be infringement. just like it was illegal to honor the priority aristocrats got, in pre revolution france.
something being law, doesnt mean that that something is right.
Read radical news here
There are fans out there who associate so deeply with their favorite writers that they mistake themselves as "owners" of the work. We see that all-too-often in the fan fiction arena.
Some writers and their publishers will jump all over these people with cease-and-desists. Viacom did that on fan-based Star Trek web sites for a time until CBS took control of the Original Series rights as well as (through their official magazine) lauding notable fan fiction such as the Star Trek: New Voyages episode project.
I'm a contributor on the Battlestar Wiki, which, as that lexicon web site did, serves as an unofficial encyclopedia on all aspects of the three Galactica series. We even have cast and crew visit and answer questions when they have time. It's a nice site. Plenty of equally great sites like it, too.
But the contributors on Battlestar Wiki, and Memory Alpha, and Wookieepedia know very well that we always enjoy what we do so long as we do not profit in any way, don't claim data as our own, or make derivative works (such as what that lexicon does). If any of these were done, the results that occurred for that lexicon would have been the same.
And I don't want to tick off NBC. They're grouchy.
The fact she only sued for a few thousand dollars shows she was out to prove her rights, not to soak the defendant. I'd be surprised if she bothers to collect.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I'm reading this blurb like this, "Judges, in a remarkably stupid an uninformed decision, said that JK Rowlings can be a greedy bitch." Wow.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
For those of you who missed this the first time, you should really read his take on this whole mess.
Otherwise I'm sure she would have sued for millions, not a paltry 6,750. I'm fairly certain this is about her keeping control over her creation.
The courts AWARDED the minimum statutory balance, but that was the judge's decision.
The Battlestar Wiki and Wookiepedia are technically derivative works. We're pretty much relying on fair use for the legality of the wikis, and those arguments were weakened by this case somewhat.
The thing is, this ruling, which may be entirely proper in this particular case, has a chilling effect on other similar types of endeavors. I wrote a book I called "The Falco Dictionary" covering the Falco mystery novels. It has a tremendous amount of value-added information not found in the books. I have Google Earth coordinates of every single location mentioned in the books. When Falco mentions Troy, for example, I give you the precise geographical coordinates of the model of the Trojan Horse standing outside the visitor center. You can actually see and recognize it in Google Earth. When Falco says he walks past the Forum in Rome, I show you the building, which is still standing.
I show where the author made a few mistakes, having Falco go through a gate in the Aurelian Wall, for example, that was built several hundred years after when he lived. I talk about historical events, dissect names, both real and imagined, point out allusions, and identify mythological characters. From what I have read of the Potter case my book comes nowhere near that state of infringement and amounts to a critical work. But the author objected on the grounds that she might want to do such a companion piece in the future and if her publisher refused her publication on the grounds there was already something out there, this would amount to loss of income, therefore she would sue.
So, given the Potter decision, my publisher freaked out and withdrew the book. Now it's my loss of income.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
>I've never understood these claims about Narnia being religious. I guess the last book in the series is a bit, but most of it is just a story.
I love the Narnia stories, and almost everything else C. S. Lewis wrote, and I think they're a valuable addition to English literature.
But I think you'd be hard-pressed to defend Aslan being tied to a stone and killed in place of someone else's sin, then coming back to life a couple days later and bringing loads of other people back to life for an enormous final battle to overthrow Evil, as 'just a story.' I knew quite well what Lewis was writing about when I read The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe when I was seven years old.
The others -- Dawn Treader, Horse and His Boy, in particular -- are pretty easy to write off as just stories. But LWW and The Last Battle, which *were* the first and last books before idiots decided to start reordering the stories in their storyline order, seem to me to be pretty transparent in their re-presentation of Christianity. I don't think that's a bad thing, mind you: the vision Lewis had of how Christianity should be is a good, noble ideal. But it's never struck me or anyone I know as being particularly cryptic in its presentation.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Correct, they're baby goats.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
an author protecting her solely-created IP from some little fanboy trying to profit off her work and his "doesn't get out much" Potter addiction hardly warrants this kind of posting
I disagree. The vitality of the "fair use" defense is of extreme importance to the balance in copyright law. A highly publicized, and dead-wrong, decision like this casts a chill over our freedom of expression.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No sir. The travesty is not that people have been modded up and down for their opinions. Such is the normal course of things. The travesty is that Mr. Beckerman's lapse in grace and judgment was posted by the editors. Had they passed over his submission, no one would have known of his misstep and his reputation would have remained untarnished.
I am utterly saddened by what this story has done to a man that I deeply respected. This story will cause his future judgments to be called into question, which will significantly reduce his ability to communicate news to the Slashdot readership. A blow from which I can only hope he will be able to recover.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Despite what a lot of people are saying, Rowling did not sue. Her publishing company did.
Not so. J. K. Rowling is the second named plaintiff.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
By the points:
1) I fail to see how JKR is "damaged" by this lexicon, unless it misrepresents her books, which there is no argument that ever did.
2) For JKR to claim that this "discouraged" her from writing her own encyclopedia (and giving all that money to charity, which is supposed to melt our hearts in sympathy for her), appears spurious and said to bolster her case is simply because it is so hard to prove false. One is left to believe that JKR has killed a superior work because she fears she can't compete with a better author here.
3) Despite the large amount of copying that weighed against the lexicon author I find his work transformative rather than mere cut & paste because:
a) A huge amount of original research, organization, and sheer effort was put into its creation.
b) How can you write any lexicon without referring directly to and quoting the original facts in their most original (hence correct) form?
c) This is not intended to, nor would it ever be confused with, being a new, unauthorized HP novel.
4) JKR is a very controlling author. You need only refer to her tightly demanded release dates for each new book and their draconian enforcement of early released copies for no apparent reason more than to bring additional fame to herself and allow her to read a couple chapters to a few children on the first night of official release.
5) How could this have ever been infringement at all when it was never published due to prior restraint shown here? There should have been no statutory damages at all!
To me, when JKR put HP out in the world (and was rewarded more than handsomely for it) it became part of the world at large. It succeeded because we cared about it so much. To then say that only JKR can dictate who is allowed to comment on it afterwards defys logic, humanity, and reason.
That JKR found a judge to agree with her is equally sad.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
\.
I'm sure you were making an excellent point. Unfortunately your geek card is being revoked due incorrect usage of the backslash, thus stripping any meaning of your comment.
/ : this is a slash, aka forward slash, or "that weird diagonal line you use on the interwebs"
\ : this is a backslash, aka "the other one you don't use... do you? what's a share? wait wait? What's it called again?"
Have a nice day,
the geek card policy enforcement internet police.
Actually, there is no way to give up your copyright, either. At least, no easy way. That's why public domain licenses exist. You still own the copyright, but license it with no strings attached.
This is simply not true (at least in the U.S.). Please do not spread this misinformation.
First, there is an easy way to renounce your copyright and place a work in the public domain. You simply declare that that work is in the public domain; e.g., by a statement saying "This work is in the public domain."
But don't just take my word for it:
It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960). Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998).
FYI, that is from Judge Kozinski's decision, not just some random judge.
The reason people claim it's impossible to do this is because they are afraid that someone, having placed something in the public domain, might come back and claim copyright to it, and that a court might uphold it. That may very well be an issue, but it certainly doesn't prevent you from renouncing your copyright - it simply means that some people might still refrain from using it.
Secondly, there's no such thing as a "public domain license." The very idea of the public domain means that the work is free for anyone to use in any way, without any license. You're obviously referring to copyright licenses like Creative Commons, which seek to provide an expansive, non-exclusive license along with a work. In these cases, you do still retain copyright, but this is not the same thing as the public domain.
For more information, visit http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down.
Since when does the amount of money made on any work have even the least bit to do with whether or not someone can plagiarize such work? Infringement is infringement no matter how much the creator has made. This judgment was just, fair and well deserved.
I am Jack's smirking revenge.