Man! I hate when things go all political!
That’s what Stanford is doing: Using this case to advance a political agenda. Stanford, this behavior is not worthy!
BTW Sorry Lilyp, but the precise activities you describe are addressed in the copyright law.
The law says that those activities are not creative enough to justify infringing on someone else’s work. It’s hard work, called “sweat of the brow” in the law.
But the law doesn’t protect hard work (shoot, it’s hard work to re-key someone’s work, word for word). Hard work isn’t enough to get you rights.
The law protects creativity, because the law sees creativity as something special.
That’s what fair use is: A recognition that some copying, some infringement is necessary and good. Rearranging someone else’s work for profit is not necessary or good.
I happen to think the law has it right. Anyone who thinks the law has it wrong should take it up with legislators rather than play bandit and try to illicitly profit from the ingenuity of others.
And Maven, re Stephen King: Were the books licensed by King? Do they include original material as well as copied excerpts? Stephen King From A To Z definitely does.
Without this info, it is like comparing apples to an unknown fruit to be described later.
Has anyone tried to correlate this with the current writer’s strike? With the increase in digital media available on the internet, consumers tend to overlook the fact that writers are not getting much of a percentage from online advertising. Studios are ignoring this issue and have the impression that these writers are not entitled to these residuals. Obviously, without these writers, there are no TV shows that keeps fans tuning in and thus, generating the bucks!
Now, obviously we wouldn’t have been fans of HP without JK Rowling. She has been more than lenient about fan sites! The simple fact is that they don’t bother her as long as they are FREE! What SVA is doing is no different than any of us taking one of the movies on DVD, re-editing them, and selling it without any copyright permission. Sure I may have the skills, technology, and the extra time to rearrange scenes and such but it doesn’t entitle me to publish copyrighted content for my own profit.
As an avid reader of the HP books, I have done my own research and took notes while reading and that helps me more than the Lexicon can. As an anal web designer with reading problems, the Lexicon is not a very user friendly design to me. I can’t imagine how anyone will be able to even read it in published form. My point, if you worship the Lexicon, more power to you but believe me, it is more rewarding to find answers to the HP world simply by rereading the books and doing a little extra research yourself. I am looking forward to JK Rowling’s encyclopedia with added backstories and facts. If you criticize her for not working on it now and getting it published tomorrow, think about how much time she has already dedicated to writing all 7 books! Give her a break! She deserves it! It is sad that it has to be delayed even more because of this issue which could have been easily avoided if RDR and SVA respected her wishes from the beginning.
I just wanted to say thanks to Melissa for keeping everything updated regarding this current case and keeping as unbiased as possible when reporting the events.
I hope this won’t be one of many attempts of people to publish Harry Potter works without consent from JKR/WB and their respected associates. I hope it works out Jo, what a hassle.
@ annabelle, who said: So my question here is, how is this any different than an encyclopedia? It’s more creative, and it does stand on its own, so how does Steve have a case against JKR to publish his book, and this fanfiction writer cannot?
Items that appear in a typical dictionary or encylcopedia are things which are already in ‘the public domain’. This means that no one really owns the topic/item and therefore it can be freely written about. For those things that ARE copyrighted works there is a ‘fair use’ of material applied. Fair use of copyrighted material is approximately 90% originally thought, analysis, commentary and 10% or less of copyrighted materials with all materials appropriately crediting the source/author.
Jo’s work IS copyrighted, therefore she has the right to declare the medium her works appear in. If she says that for free websites cannot publish her copyrighted material in book format, then that’s her legal right!
@ Lilyp who said: One of the things that irritates me the most in all this discussion is the argument that Steve can’t have any money for all the work he had. 1st because it is preposterous to think that he can work for all the fandom for free, but can’t have money.
Well, oddly enough, Steve seemed to think that he wasn’t entitled to make money off of Jo’s work. In fact, he stated, and I quote:
“As the editor of the Lexicon, I get email every so often from fans asking me to publish the Lexicon in book form, so I¢ve dealt with this question before. Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that. Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she¢s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world. And since we¢re fans and supporters of Jo, we wouldn¢t do anything that would violate her rights, even if we could get away with it. We wouldn¢t get away with it, though, since Neil Blair, her solicitor, is very quick to defend his illustrious client in things like this.” From an email he sent Pre-Deathly Hallows release, fall of 2006.
~Also, a public post by SVA on a Yahoo usergroup from 2000, and I quote:
“Amanda asked him: “In all seriousness, why not publish the Lexicon? Donate the proceeds to JKR’s favorite charity or something, but people would love it. Thoughts?”
Steve Vander Ark, still December 14, 2000:
Well, technically speaking, the Lexicon IS published.JKR herself said that she was going to do her own encyclopedia when
the series is done and that fans should "accept no substitutes." The
publishers of the Beacham book were sued by Scholastic etc but it
failed to stop the book going to press. I don't want to offend anyone
or cause problems, especially with Jo. I would love to have her give
her blessing to such a project (I have these fond little daydreams of
getting email from her one day saying she liked the Lexicon and
offering suggestions). But without her permission, I won't publish it
in any form except online. She's entitled to that market, not me and
not the Beacham author. I'm just filling in until she gets time to do
it (or wants to hire me to do it for her! Now THERE'S a thought!!!)."
I agree with Maven and Lilyp. Steve’s book is not copyright infringement. There is a difference in the literary world between a original book and a reference book based on the material. JKR has copyrighted the rights to the original books. No one care write a book that continues the books story line without her permission or reproduce her work in it entirety and claim it as their own work, but you can compile the information in the books and organize that information in their own way. The compiling of the information and the organization of it make it a reference book that that does not infringe on her copyright. He states that the original work is hers and he is merely reference her work. His work lies in the compiling and organization of the information.
What the website has copyrighted is the way that the information is organized. If JKR organized her book in the same way as the website or the book she would be in violation of copyright law.
I agree with Steve that JKR has really made a power grab if she think that she has complete control about what is written about the Harry Potter world. Ans YES she did create it and the world is she brain child, but she is trying to over step her copyright and that is a dangerous thing. Just because she wrote it doesn’t mean that other can’t reference it if they give her credit for the original work. She doesn’t own the references to the books.
JKR saying that she is trying to stop it for charity is just low. Any book written by her about the Harry Potter book will sell as well as if Steve’s book hadn’t been published. She is just trying to rile up the fans.
Steve has the right to publish his reference book of compiled information. He has a copyright to the way that he reference the books that does not violate her copyright or they would never have give him the copyright to the organization in the first place. So I say go Steve fight for your rights and I hope that you win.
Oh, man. Those quotes sadden me even more. I can not have any respect for someone who goes so totally back on their word just to make a little money.
Sorry for the double post, but to those who are in support of Steve, have you missed the idea that they not only are breaking copyright law, but they refused to follow the rules of fair use? They have no case and I am shocked that a judge has not simply thrown it out yet. I frankly think that SVA doesn’t much care whether or not the book gets published now. Maybe he’s just hoping for a nice fat settlement from WB to make him go away. Look at what he’s said in the past: he’s not doing this for some underdog reason. He’s doing it for money. He’s greedy. Whether or not you agree if it would hurt The Scottish Book or not, it’s still breaking copyright law. It doesn’t matter how much money someone has, they still have the right to protect their work. RDR winning this case will not help fandom, it will only hurt it.
@ Steelhart, who said: There is a difference in the literary world between a original book and a reference book based on the material.
Steve in no way invented cataloging or referencing. He has a right to copyright the layout of his website, yes. However, legally he CANNOT copyright works that are already owned/copyrighted by others, such as fan editorials, fanart, fanfiction on the Lexicon OR any Harry Potter materials owned by JK Rowling, Bloomsbury, Scholastic, WB.
Referencing in and of itself is not ‘transformative’, which is one of the tests for copyright infringement cases.
There is legal precedent in the following case regarding fair use of copyrighted material in a published reference guide: Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. vs. Carol Publishing Group, Inc. and Golub aka “The Seinfeld case”. Carol Publishing lost because according to the court the work was non-transformative and therefore not a fair use of copyrighted materials :
“Any transformative purpose possessed by The SAT is slight to non-existent. We reject the argument that The SAT was created to educate Seinfeld viewers or to criticize, “expose,” or otherwise comment upon Seinfeld . The SAT’s purpose, as evidenced definitively by the statements of the book’s creators and by the book itself, is to repackage Seinfeld to entertain Seinfeld viewers. The SAT’s back cover makes no mention of exposing Seinfeld to its readers, for example, as a pitiably vacuous reflection of a puerile and pervasive television culture, but rather urges SAT readers to “open this book to satisfy [their] between-episode [ Seinfeld ] cravings.” Golub, The SAT’s author, described the trivia quiz book not as a commentary or a Seinfeld research tool, but as an effort to “capture Seinfeld’s flavor in quiz book fashion.” Finally, even viewing The SAT in the light most favorable to defendants, we find scant reason to conclude that this trivia quiz book seeks to educate, criticize, parody, comment, report upon, or research Seinfeld , or otherwise serve a transformative purpose. The book does not contain commentary or analysis about Seinfeld , nor does it suggest how The SAT can be used to research Seinfeld ; rather, the book simply poses trivia questions. The SAT’s plain purpose, therefore, is not to expose Seinfeld’s “nothingness,” but to satiate Seinfeld fans’ passion for the “nothingness” that Seinfeld has elevated into the realm of protectable creative expression.”
“Power grab”???? SVA, she CREATED this world, the ENTIRE thing, everything that’s in your book and on your site has come from HER MIND!! She has worked hard for 17 years to make sure we have this wonderful place to escape into whenever we feel like doing so. Neither that book, nor the Lexicon would come into being if she hadn’t made this universe. At least she has the right to claim it’s hers. She has never ever come hard onto fansites,fan theories or fan art. The only reason she doesn’t want the book to be published is because it’s not right. It’s morally wrong to say you’re the biggest fan or HP and then do something like this. Do you get ANY of this SVA??
Whatever little sympahy I had for him has completely vanished. I can’t believe he wrote this. And what is it with NYT? I agree here with whoever said they seem to have some anti-Jo thing going on, what with publishing an early review of DH to now this. Please RDR and SVA, drop it now and give Jo some peace of mind!!!
PS: thanks a ton Melissa for all the unbiased reporting and keeping us up with the case.
Thank you Cara for answering my question, I was only curious as to why it was different. I’m not for either fan fiction or an encyclopedia being published for money, I just honestly don’t see how Steve has a case in this at all.
Because I have way too much time on my hands and can’t sleep….
Ok, if today I decided to quit my job, and build a washing machine from scratch, using my own washing machine as a guide, could I then claim rights to the mangled blob that I would call a washing machine? I mean, it would take a lot of WORK, and I would maybe alphabatize the washing cycles… like Cotton- Delicates- Silk- Towels- etc. etc. The washing machine I used to copy from didn’t do that! It had Towels before Cotton!!! Now, any washing machine maker that decides to put Towels before Cotton on the wash cycles, is going to break my copyright, even though in no way did anything to invent the thing in the first place, I put a lot of work into making my own so therefore, why shouldn’t I get credit for my hard work?
And for that matter, I borrowed my friend’s pants the other day. I rolled them up so they could fit in my boots, which she never did, and I think they looked much better on me, so in my opinion they should be mine now. I mean, she hardly wears them anymore and she has so much money she could just buy new ones, it’s not like I stole them from a poor person or something.
Does this make any sense? No… it doesn’t…. neither does Steve’s argument in this matter.
And incase this isn’t obvious, this IS all a joke, I didn’t make my own washing machine… I made a dryer!
Didn’t Steve ask Jo if he could move to the UK and work with her on the encyclopedia? To me it sounds like after being turned down, he completely turned away from his respect for her, took back the remark “without her permission, I won’t publish it in any form except online” and decided if she won’t let him work with her so he might as well just publish my his encyclopedia and make money off it. I don’t know, but he sounds like he took it a bit too far with suggesting he move to the UK assuming he will work with JK Rowling on the encyclopedia. Honestly, I think it may have freaked her out a bit.
I don’t think she needs him really. I have no doubt that JK Rowling is capable of looking back at her notes and organizing it the way she wants it now that she’s finished with the last book. Some people don’t realize how many different ways artists approach their creative work. We know that she has notes on a range of things from napkins to massive notebooks. She has a brilliant mind and usually brilliant minds can work in odd ways. Some say she is unorganized because she didn’t recompile her notes the way Steve was able to but she was writing an entire series for crying out loud! I’m sure she wasn’t worried about compiling her notes from A-Z while her mind was creating the stories. So what if Hermione’s birthday wasn’t clear in the books but the important example is at least we all comprehended that Hermione was the same year as Harry and Ron.
And it’s even more hypocritical to say that she wants to preserve her charities. If she was really concerned about charity, why didn’t she even begin to work on the book? don’t the charities need the money now? She has millions and millions of dollars and everything she touches can be transformed in money, why don’t she give other things to those charities now? I can only think that she is using the charities to manipulate the fans and the judge and that she doesn’t want Steve to publish his book (after allowing a lot of other encyclopedias be published), because his work is really serious and exposes her mistakes.
Posted by Lilyp on February 08, 2008 @ 10:29 PM
Ummm..Lilyp, Jo already gives a lot of money to charity, she has a seperate unit set up for that. And about her starting on the encyclopedia right now, she worked for 17 years, the least she deserves is a break. And now,with this case on her head, do you really think she can have the heart to start that encyclopedia? And how can Steve’s book expose her mistakes? It started from her, and she knows that world MUCH better than ANYONE including SVA. As fans,we know what we read and speculate, but she’s the one who has it all in her head.
Wow. This guy does realize that he is not the author of the Harry Potter books? The true rights belong to the author, which is J. K. Rowling, and she should have a say in what book, in relation to HER work, is or is not published. She told fans ages ago of her plans on writing a Harry Potter encyclopedia, and now Vander Ark thinks it is his duty to step up and take over her project just because she is taking a break? Let’s also not forget that she is writing the Scottish Book for charity! Who would have the nerve to try to compete against that? I cannot believe that someone who considers himself a fan of Harry Potter would have such disrespect for its creator. I hope Jo wins this case, and we can look forward to the real Harry Potter encyclopedia.
As I’m not the most computer literate person in the world I was wondering if anyone else had the same problem I did with the links in Melissa’s article? I tried a few different ways to click on the links, but the articles never came up. I even tried turning off the popup blocker. I ended up having to write the whole address down and retype them into another browser.
Having finally got to the NYT artilce, I am now regretting all the effort. I felt quite sick to the stomache by the time I finished the article.