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."
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.
Because she's got lots of money and that's not fair? Somebody better call a waaaaghmbulance for NewYorkCountryLawyer!
At the bottom of the
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.
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
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.
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
Correct, they're baby goats.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
There was no damage, hence the $6750 statutory damages award.
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.
One of the most bizarre arguments ever made, that it competed with something she was thinking of writing.
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.
Even the judge agreed it was mostly transformative. Only a lunatic would buy the 'lexicon' rather than the 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.
Well her bringing such a mean-spirited lawsuit certainly supports that notion.
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!
Should have been a defendant's verdict.
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 def[ie]s logic, humanity, and reason.
That JKR found a judge to agree with her is equally sad.
Very.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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