J K Rowling...

[Ducky J]

There are several case references being brought up with this case both in the news and in court. Some have brought up cases where the people being sued were not at fault as they had not infringed copyright or infringed the rights of the persons bringing the case as the people suing didn't own the copyright but rather the right to publish a particular book. I am not 100% sure where the copyright lies as regards JK Rowling and Warners as I am not privvy to what business agreement she has with WB. However, as has been mentioned in the court case, the Publishers and the Author being sued do not own the copyright and thus should have sought permission to use the copyrighted material in the publication - this was reported by a court reporter for the BBC News 24 Channel earlier today as being said by JK Rowling's lawyer(s). As to the copyright laws I cannot comment as I do not know them, but if there are articles/interviews quoting Rowling saying she referred to the online version then this would put a new slant on this case if these quotes are accurate.

 

I would have loved to have sat in the public gallery for this case just to hear both sides of the story so to speak. It is so fascinating when you get such a high profile case in that numerous media sources report it in different ways.

 

I would hope, although this is just a hope, that the truth does come out as regards the Author's intentions and any advice given by the Publishers. It would be a shame if the author was badly advised and got put in the proverbial firing line by a publisher.

 

Hey ho..

[rodrigo1991]

ok... i've been reading through this and i have to say...

most of you are looking at the moral side or this and not the legal side.

 

look at this article from the Wall Street Journal

 

Judge Patterson removed his glasses and addressed the court. “I’m concerned that this case is more lawyer-driven than it is client-driven,†he lamented. “The fair use people are on one side, and a large company is on the other side. . . . The parties ought to see if there’s not a way to work this out, because there are strong issues in this case and it could come out one way or the other. The fair use doctrine is not clear.â€

 

pay close attention to the line

“I’m concerned that this case is more lawyer-driven than it is client-driven,†[/qoute]

 

i've been following the trial on www.mugglenet.com

it has regular updates and sums it all up nicely

 

EDIT: wo0o0o0 900 posts!!

Edited April 16, 2008 by Rodders

[Ducky J]

If you look at high profile "celebrity" cases you can generally see that the only real winners are lawyers who are being paid a heck of a lot of money.

[TommyT]

seriously... as if she hadn't already cashed in with enough Potter books and merch, she'll even turn on her own fans when she feels there's a buck in it for her.

Naturally you've checked the court papers and noted the amount of money she's actually claiming, and also noted her testimony on oath "We all know I’ve made enough money. That’s absolutely not why I’m here," before calling her a "moneygrabbing b*tch?" And if she is awarded any sort of damages, do you not think it likely that in her position and given her statement that she'll donate them to charity?

 

In all honesty, she should just let the guy release stuff, and then carry on with her own.

It's not like it's gonna hurt her sales - people will always buy the 'official' things from the original author etc.

Basically all she is trying to do is protect her copyright, which basically she has to do, otherwise it opens the gate for anybody else to plagiarise her work using the defence that she hasn't protected it before. If you allow other people to breach your copyright and profiteer from it, you undermine your position with regard to any future, potentially more outrageous breaches.

 

JKR is basically being greedy. The only reason that she is denying someone the right to refer to her works is on the basis that she's writing an encyclopedia herself.

 

Tough cookies honey - suck it up.

 

Authors have had reference works written about their books for years. You cannot censor a book that is merely referencing your work and if she does win this it will have major implications for other authors.

 

Is she going to deny "Cliff Notes" on her stuff too? (Assuming it ever gets picked up by the American colleges on their book lists) After all that is a reference book too.

"The only reason that she is denying someone the right to refer to her works is..." And you know this is her only motivation how? It's way more likely that her lawyers have advised her that she has to take this action to protect her copyright, and the film studio will also be pressing her to do so.

The basis of the case is that it's pure plagiarism because there is no real in-depth commentary like Cliff's Notes, simply a re-hashing of her work. The "fair use" defence for reference works etc is that you use the original copyrighted material to illustrate and bring out he points that you are making in your own work commenting on the piece. The majority of the work has to be your own, and the quoted copyright material is relatively minimal. If you're just going to re-hash the original work and put it in a different order with very little underlying work of your own, the fair use defence fails.

Here's an analogy. If somebody put out a DVD called say "Terminator trilogy - another view" and had one chapter called "The Action bits" where they cut all the action scenes together, another called "Great quotes" where they had all the Arnie-isms collected from the films, and another chapter called "Key plot items" where they played all the bits of scenes that explain the plot twists (such as there are), all it would be would be a re-hash of bits of the film, thematically collected with a bit of indexing and perhaps a couple of voiceovers. How long do you think you could sell that before the Columbia Pictures lawyers ripped you a new rear end?

 

I'm probably as confused as ever, but if this is the guy who's done the online version and is now just bringing it out in paper form, she's being a complete hypocrite, as she's said in many interviews she refers to it to keep her plot lines straight!

Rowling acknowledged she once bestowed an award on Vander Ark’s Web site because, she said, she wanted to encourage a very enthusiastic fan.

 

But she said she “almost choked on my coffee†one morning when she realized Vander Ark had warned others not to copy portions of his Web site. She said she now has second thoughts about all the encouragement she has given to online discussions and Web sites devoted to her books.

 

“I never censored it or wanted to censor it,†she said, adding that if she loses the lawsuit, she will conclude she essentially gave away her copyrights by encouraging the Web sites.

 

“Other authors will say, ‘I need to exercise more control. She was an idiot. She let it all go’,†Rowling said.

(http://www.internetlawyer.com/article.cfm?id=142421&type=Daily)

Note my point about the need for her to defend copyright. Also note the hypocrisy of Vander Ark copying her work, but forbidding others to copy his. Additionally, as a website it's tricky to shut down (you can easily move a website to a new jurisdiction), and arguably nobody was making much money from the website, but a book is far easier to take action against, and that was a pure money-making venture.

 

There's a bit of a grey area relating to 'him' and 'the publishers' in terms of who is being accused etc. If people are being really harsh on the guy when he was told there wouldn't be any legal problems then I think that's kinda unfair.

Well, since he's the author of the book, you can hardly sue the publishers without suing him (or he could just take it to another publisher. Anyway, he's fine, the only thing this is costing him is some time off work: "Vander Ark said he insisted that RDR Books include a clause in his contract that the publisher would defend and pay any damages that might result from claims against him." (same reference as above)

[Raylenth]

It's a bit different betewwn books an TV shows. Generally although TV shows may be created by 1 person they are developed and bought to the screen by many, and the rights are owned by the studio, so it's a lot harder to define a person as the owner of the work. They allow people to write unofficial companions because it brings attention to their show, and chances are they may have not had any tie ins written themselves. However when it comes to authors, they are the owners of their work and have every right to defend it from people who use it without authorisation. I've heare of other writers (not just JKR) who won't even allow fan fiction to be written using their books as the characters are their propety.

 

JK is entirely within her rights to do this and remembering what she has done before, I really wouldn't be suprised if she donates any settlement money to cahrity.

[Krypto]

Tommy T said it absoloutly perfect. well done. the worst part is im not even that big of a harry potter fan i just to see somebody getting rich off somebody elses work. its disgusting and he gets everything he gets. I dont think either of us is gonna convince the other so might have to just agree to disagree on this one david ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P:S and just for the record im right and your wrong

[showmasters]

I'm with JK on this one. I think if you read her reasons for bringing the case you will understand a bit more about it:

Latest report HERE

 

She has no problems with fans running websites, and she made no attempt to close down his website or any others. However now he is effectively ripping off her hard work in order to make a quick buck for himself and that's just out of order!

She worked hard on the Harry Potter books over many, many years. Yes they made her a fortune, but she didn't start out rich and it was only her hard work and dedication which made her rich.

 

Just imagine if you spent 13 years of your life writing a story only to have some selfish idiot rewrite sections of it and publish it again under his own name!

 

The other point to bear in mind is that if this book was published it would set a precedent allowing other copycat publications and blurring the lines when it comes to copyright infringement. This is the same thing the writers were striking for in the US.

 

At the end of the day she created the characters and she owns the copyright and this guy is breaking the law by making money off material which doesn't belong to him. It's no different to selling stolen goods in my opinion.

 

Andrea

[Big_Pants]

I love you Andrea

[Krypto]

. It's no different to selling stolen goods in my opinion.

 

 

 

Exactly

[Gandalfia]

I'm with JK on this one. I think if you read her reasons for bringing the case you will understand a bit more about it:

Latest report HERE

 

She has no problems with fans running websites, and she made no attempt to close down his website or any others. However now he is effectively ripping off her hard work in order to make a quick buck for himself and that's just out of order!

She worked hard on the Harry Potter books over many, many years. Yes they made her a fortune, but she didn't start out rich and it was only her hard work and dedication which made her rich.

 

Just imagine if you spent 13 years of your life writing a story only to have some selfish idiot rewrite sections of it and publish it again under his own name!

 

The other point to bear in mind is that if this book was published it would set a precedent allowing other copycat publications and blurring the lines when it comes to copyright infringement. This is the same thing the writers were striking for in the US.

 

At the end of the day she created the characters and she owns the copyright and this guy is breaking the law by making money off material which doesn't belong to him. It's no different to selling stolen goods in my opinion.

 

Andrea

 

Agree with all of that completely!

 

This guy is out of line. It's not about money, she even said something like "we all know I've made more than enough money".

 

And so what if she wants to stop him because she plans on one day doing something similar herself? They're her characters, she has the RIGHT.

 

Go JK!

[kirsty_]

now now calm down tara dont get excited

[KB]

Ok don't get me wrong... i think she has every right to sue him. I'm just saying she's a money grabbing bitch. Which she is.

[KB]

I'm with JK on this one. I think if you read her reasons for bringing the case you will understand a bit more about it:

Latest report HERE

 

She has no problems with fans running websites, and she made no attempt to close down his website or any others. However now he is effectively ripping off her hard work in order to make a quick buck for himself and that's just out of order!

She worked hard on the Harry Potter books over many, many years. Yes they made her a fortune, but she didn't start out rich and it was only her hard work and dedication which made her rich.

 

Just imagine if you spent 13 years of your life writing a story only to have some selfish idiot rewrite sections of it and publish it again under his own name!

 

The other point to bear in mind is that if this book was published it would set a precedent allowing other copycat publications and blurring the lines when it comes to copyright infringement. This is the same thing the writers were striking for in the US.

 

At the end of the day she created the characters and she owns the copyright and this guy is breaking the law by making money off material which doesn't belong to him. It's no different to selling stolen goods in my opinion.

 

Andrea

 

Agree with all of that completely!

 

This guy is out of line. It's not about money, she even said something like "we all know I've made more than enough money".

 

And so what if she wants to stop him because she plans on one day doing something similar herself? They're her characters, she has the RIGHT.

 

Go JK!

F*ck JK. I actually hate her smug face. She even wades in with her views on politics... shut up. You wrote a childrens book about magic. The only thing that could make her worse is if she married Bono. "How shall we save the world today?... lets talk about how great we are" **** off

[Noddy]

. . . and don't forget the woe is me single parent living off hot water tale.

[Little Miss Idiot]

Ugh while her books are fantastic, I've now got to a point I refuse to buy anything to do with Harry Potter and line that poisonous witches pockets, she is so lawsuit happy and goes after anyone who dares to do anything that she can possibly win against and squeeze a few more pennies out to make up for her so called hard life she once suffered.

 

The indian festival she went after last time was just a perfect example of how much of a money grabbing bint with no appreciation for her fans who buy her books.

That story lies in this linky

[Ducky J]

Having checked out more of the coverage regarding this case, I think that JK Rowling herself is getting some unwarranted bad press. Cases like this go on literally every day in court.

 

There was a recent appeal court ruling overturning a decision regarding the rites to the Procol Harum song "A Whiter Shade Of Pale". If it wasn't for the fact that this particualr song was such an iconic one with a certain proportion of society, then we probably would not have had the press coverage that we did.

 

The same goes for JK Rowling. If this hadn't been Harry Potter related, then it wouldn't have got the covergae it has done. In this specific case, from the court reports, JK Rowling is not seeking compensation but rather a cease and decist to the publication of the Potter Lexicon.

 

As regards reports printed or posted of quotes, interviews etc...only the people present at the time of the interview know what was said, how it was said and in what context it was presented.

 

I do understand that some of the remarks against Rowling are fueled by fans who may write/create themselves. I am someone who has written and drawn for many years, with some of my drawings taking inspiration from existing artwork. However, as I have printed previously, I do hope that the truth comes out. There is substance to Rowling's argument regarding ownership of her own work, and thus having some say in its use. I also agree that Rowling has stated that the reason she has gone from supporting the online Lexicon to opposing the print copy is because of the fact the print version is for commercial benefit and may well put a dent in her proposed encyclopedia where all profits are earmarked for charity; and the fact that the author posted on his website that he woudl not allow quotes etc from his website as it infringed his work.

 

There are many pros and cons to this case, so lets hope it has a decent outcome where the fans do not lose out.

[Ducky J]

Ugh while her books are fantastic, I've now got to a point I refuse to buy anything to do with Harry Potter and line that poisonous witches pockets, she is so lawsuit happy and goes after anyone who dares to do anything that she can possibly win against and squeeze a few more pennies out to make up for her so called hard life she once suffered.

 

The indian festival she went after last time was just a perfect example of how much of a money grabbing bint with no appreciation for her fans who buy her books.

That story lies in this linky

Hey there..after reading your post I did a little digging as I was most intrigued by what you had said. After reading the article on the link, I tracked down further reports regarding the Indian Festival incident and found some interesting facts that some sites have decided not to print.

 

It is a matter of public record in India that the final ruling against the organisers of the event was because the event turned out to be a large scale commercially sponsered event including one sponser being a major Indian high street bank. It also turned out that the organisers were not religious charities and the event was set up near to an official religious festival. All reports by the Associated Press slating Rowling etc were later retracted after being proven to be false. It also turns out that the lawyers for Warner Bros - it was them who brought the law suit - only requested the $50,000 fine as under Indian law, Warner Bros Lawyers were told that they had to request a monetary amount.

 

I also looked at other legal cases regarding Rowling/Warner Bros, and not including the injunctions against firms trying to sell the books before the launch and secrecy agreements, the total listed that I could find barely hits double figures. They include alleged copyright infringement arguments in both directions; alleged fraudulent e-books being sold on auction websites; one of libel against a major UK based supermarket chain and the infamous blackmail case in 2005 surrounding the Half Blood Prince publication.

 

It is a shame that such cases are brought, but the alleged plaguerism of other people's work in many formats such as music, the written and spoken word and art itself is nothing new.

[TommyT]

Ugh while her books are fantastic, I've now got to a point I refuse to buy anything to do with Harry Potter and line that poisonous witches pockets, she is so lawsuit happy and goes after anyone who dares to do anything that she can possibly win against and squeeze a few more pennies out to make up for her so called hard life she once suffered.

 

The indian festival she went after last time was just a perfect example of how much of a money grabbing bint with no appreciation for her fans who buy her books.

Go and talk to a copyright lawyer, and see that she basically has two choices. Having laid down clear guidelines about what representations can be used, and in what context, the festival was clearly in breach. Which means her two choices were either sue for breach of copyright, or let them get away with it. And accept that the case against any future, worse, copyright breaches (such as maybe somebody just pirating the books) would be undermined, as the defence would be able to say that the witness doesn't care about copyright having allowed previous breaches of the published limits to go unaddressed. Basically, if you don't defend your copyright, you lose it. To be honest, I pity her having to spend so much time cracking down on people trying to exploit her creations.

Oh, and the damages mentioned in the Indian case? It was suggested they would be going to charity. Still not seeing that moneygrabbing accusation stand up...

[Big_Pants]

Thank God Tommy and Ducky do the research the rest of us can't be bothered to. Thanks guys!

[Ducky J]

Thank God Tommy and Ducky do the research the rest of us can't be bothered to. Thanks guys!

So BP..you are admitting to being lazy lol..classic...made me smile..

 

On a more serious note...I like doing research as it is a major part of my business. Plus, being an old git I have seen many of these celebrity cases over the years and the full truth gradually eeks out.

 

It seems that reports from the States are hinting at the start of an agreement. Need to find out specifics as there are several conflicting reports of what the agreement may or may not be.

[nicky]

Who's a "money grabbing hoe"?!

 

Isn't JK that dude from Jamiraquai?

[Ducky J]

Who's a "money grabbing hoe"?!

 

Isn't JK that dude from Jamiraquai?

[showmasters]

Ugh while her books are fantastic, I've now got to a point I refuse to buy anything to do with Harry Potter and line that poisonous witches pockets, she is so lawsuit happy and goes after anyone who dares to do anything that she can possibly win against and squeeze a few more pennies out to make up for her so called hard life she once suffered.

 

God, I don't believe ANYTHING I read or watch in the press these days!

 

Andrea

[Little Miss Idiot]

*sigh* The Indian thing was just one example of something I found a negative in her favour, anyway, thanks to the people who were able to maturely discuss opinions and not resort to making snarky comments that made me feel hurt.

 

I'll end my part in this "debate" now and wish you all well.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Little Miss Idiot

[showmasters]

Sorry, I've just re-read my comment and it did come across a bit snippy. I really didn't mean it to be!

 

I can understand anyone getting sick of seeing or reading about the latest media interest (because we really need one more documentary about Heather Mills or Britney!). I just meant that it's not always the celebrity's fault, half the time it's just the media jumping on the band wagon and making a mountain out of a molehill. And that makes it very difficult to separate the hard facts from the hype and the reality from the spin.

 

Take this article for instance

 

The poor kid is doing and interview, is questioned (again!) about girlfriends, and mentions he once saw a good looking girl at an Australian premier. And it ends up as a massive hunt to find the girl just so that the press can string the story out for as long as possible!

 

Andrea