Aren’t there already tons of “Lord of the Rings” and “Chronicles of Narnia” encyclopedias? Aren’t they legal? What’s the difference?
I wonder what JKR would say if Steve offered to give all proceeds to charity…
Well, any attempt to “choke creativity” should indeed be condemned. But, as we all can tell, there’s nothing creative about the Lexicon, just a recanting re-telling of Rowling’s content in a different structure.
It’s pretty obvious that Mr. Nocera from The New York Times didn’t do his reseach.
(Sorry about my bad english, you can tell it’s not my primary language…)
“A Tight Grip Can Choke Creativity”
laughs Too bad JK Rowling doesn’t have a tight grip and that this book isn’t creative! I don’t even know why anyone is defending Steve, other than they see a big corporation versus a little publisher and assume that the little guy is the victim. I mean really, I think defending free speech is a wonderful thing but people writing editorials for such respectable papers as the New York Times should at least do their research first. Sigh.
This is all very, very frustrating to me. Sigh. I just…there are so many things I want to say…but I want to respect Melissa’s wishes since she does such a wonderful and admirable job herself of remaining civil and professional throughout this whole ordeal.
But I will say this...I do not think this is a "power grab" or Jo trying to "choke" creativity. Creativity?? What creativity? Uh, the creative ability to put scenes in sequential order and the ability to put someone ELSE'S story on your own lap top Sigh. This is not just directed at Steve...but at any person who has wanted to do this with another author's work. Jo has worked so very, very hard to get where she is now. She has, I'm sure, been through hell and back in her life. She deserves to have a say in her own CREATION. What Steve is attempting to do, in my opinion, is NOT creative freedom. It is just making his website that is FREE already, portable for what is it again....$25!
This is (the harry potter books), as she would put it, like one of her children. She has done so much for this world with her novels…as far as improving literacy among children and her unwavering generosity. She deserves to keep her work sacred as she sees fits. We stand by you Jo!!!!!!
This statement from Steve in Ansible is, if you will forgive the phrase, a magician’s trick. It’s misdirection so the audience will only see what he wants them to see. The idea that Jo wants to control anything written about Harry Potter is false to start with – and then he builds his case from there.
Jo has been, and I have to believe will continue to be, supportive of commentary, analysis and fan related endeavours. Fanfic, podcasts, websites and the like will be completely safe whatever the outcome. The argument from the WB/JKR side is that the Lexicon book contains her copyrighted work: Timelines, characters, locations and plot details. Not an analysis of the story line or themes involved. Her work, repackaged, for profit. That is copyright infringement and not fair use.
Susie – Stopping the publication of a book that infringes on an author’s creative works is not at all like banning a book…any more than putting a lock on your house infringes on a thief’s right to express himself by taking your stuff.
And Steve, if you are reading this, listen to budb and let your lawyers do the talking. You just dig yourself deeper by giving quotes about the case in the media.
something happened to my post. I swear my computer is so funky sometimes- now watch once I post this the other will show up- strange. What I basically said was that he has alot of nerve to call this his idea and try and take her work away from her- like I said he is trying to take credit for something he didnt do.
Chris,
I may be speculating, but I think with regard to LOTR….
I believe Tolkien sold the rights to LOTR. That’s why the Tolkien estate did not benefit from subsequent publishing and the movies.
Everytime Vander Ark opens his mouth, he only manages to make a bigger and bigger idiot out of himself.
In my opinion, Rowling is in every way right in controlling others using her work. I wouldn’t be happy if someone was making money over my back with something I created which took me years to create. Of course it is flattering that people really get into your work, discuss it, fantasize about it and have this massive fandom. But that doesn’t give them the right tot use it for personal gain.
And as far as I can read, Rowling doesn’t interfere very quickly into HP-related stuff. There’s a lot she could take legal action against, but doesn’t.
However, my opinion doesn’t mean much in law of course. :P
No woder RDR/SVA haven’t dropped this, they have bloody Standford to back them!!! And what upsets me is that am pretty sure that for Standford it’s just a chance apply all their conniving knowledge to do obtain some kind of legal precedent. Let’s hope WB/JRK outsmart them. This is appalling really. My support goes to JK
did I say something wrong- if I did I am really really sorry. I just love Jo and I dont like it when others feed off someone. You guys probably are wondering what Im talking about- but my first post is gone. Im so sorry if I was to mean, I didnt mean to be, I was just sticking up for her. But this is bothering me – I dont know where it went.
There is a name for people who “live off” other people’s work… I won’t mention it (no worries, Melissa!!) but we all know what it is. He is labeling himself that way, I find that interesting. I just do not understand any of their arguments. Its Jo’s world, Jo’s work, Jo’s everything, in what alternate universe should she not have complete control over it?
Just think if she’d had a real crystal ball way back when and seen this mess coming at her, she could have decided just to make personal copies for her special family and friends, like the Beedle book, and none of us would ever have known Harry at all. I can only imagine how frustrated and hurt Jo must be by all of this, especially coming from Steve who she thought she knew.
And “free speech…” Seriously? As an argument, that is just disingenuous. Free speech does not mean that anyone has a legal right to make money off that “free (copied) speech.”
What is it with the New York Times? Aren’t they the ones who printed a review of Deathly Hallows before it was released? Maybe it’s just my imagination, but this paper seems to have an anti-JK Rowling bias. Whatever happened to fair and balanced journalism?
Wow. We’re supposed to refrain from name-calling on here, but the New York Times hit piece had no problem with name calling. But by calling something an “Opinion Piece” you can seem like an actual journalist while completely ignoring journalistic principles.
Nocera says: “But the law absolutely allows anyone to create something new based on someone else’s art.”
Then he completely ignores the fact that the whole crux of this case is whether or not the Lexicon consists of anything new. He just implies that it does. In the examples he gives of other cases, the works probably WOULD be covered under fair use, and he cleverly implies (by omitting any details about the Lexicon) that the Lexicon is exactly the same as these other examples (i.e., consists of mostly new material or analysis).
But all that aside, it sounds like Mr. Nocera never met a use he didn’t find fair anyway, and that is probably more important to him than things like adding vital details to his story. Man, it’s amazing how convincing one can sound by only giving half the story.
Hahahahaha. ‘She invented Harry Potter and is, to all extents and purposes, Harry Potter and the universe itself! But how DARE she try to control it??? How DARE she? It’s mine, too! Because I’m a special snowflake~” Hahahaha. This is more than slightly reminiscent of those people who sue because the coffee is hot. If it didn’t involve or inconvenience someone I have a lot of respect for, I’d almost find it entertaining.