@ pf
I agree and think the Stanford is using this case and others to change the laws surrounding the internet where ever possible. This one may fail…the next one won’t. Arguably, the internet and law is a pretty gray area and the Stanford group is pushing the envelope. Also doesn’t hurt to take on a high profile case when most are dry and unheard of.
One thing I’m unclear on- did Leaky disapprove of Steve’s book previous to the lawsuit against the Lexicon, or is their disapproval and distancing from Steve purely a response against Rowling’s ensuing lawsuit to the fan published material and Steve’s following actions?
There is an important different here- if Leaky made a statement previous to the lawsuit saying that they didn’t think the original material was appropriate (because of there being no original information, etc.), then that means that they genuinely disapprove of the book itself.
The thought that Leaky is only distancing themselves from the Lexicon because of the lawsuit is a frightening thought- I am perfectly aware that Rowling likes the fan sites and wizard rock, but if hypothetically she changed her mind- then Leaky is saying that they would support ANY action that Rowling took against the fans.
On another note, if a wizard rock song only used reworded phrases from the HP books, would the writer be sued as well? I am unclear on the difference.
Better late than never in severing ties with this parasite, well done. I genuinely hope his entire publishing future crashes and burns. Serious appeal to everyone, boycott this jerk
Leaky’s reasons for distancing themselves from the Lexicon are probably a lot more complex than Melissa and her staff wold probably like to get into publicly. In any event, they tabled their decision as long as they felt comfortable (and perhaps a bit beyond – just to be fair). I personally have only gotten up to exhibit 39a so far and I have not liked the way RDR and SVA come out looking. Stanford may have to bend the law in half and look at in cross-eyed to make this work fall under Fair Use.
As to Wizard Rock – not familar with all the copyright issues in and out – but depending on several factors it may be considered transformative or parody (depending on the way it is written and/or performed) which would fall under the auspices of Fair Use (but I’m not an expert).
(By the by – am under 50 but am a grandparent SEVERAL times over.)
@ Diana If I’ve understood it correctly Leaky were never sure to what extent Steve agreed with RDR’s anti Rowling statements (‘Voldemort’ ‘copyrighthog’ etc). Steve was in the UK and nothing was clarified. It was only AFTER Steve made it clear in an interview that he supported RDR’s stance i.e. that JKR’s position was selfish and harmful to fandom as a whole (and was even a threat to fandom: he cited fanfic, wizardrock etc) that they reluctantly made their decision to separate themselves from Lexicon. If Steve had simply said nothing then the split would not have happened. But then if Steve had not decided to pursue publishing the copyright infringing parts of the Lexicon in the first place none of us would be having this discussion either.
Question to anyone who might be able to answer – Since the suit is against RDR and Does 1-10 could this mean that SVA could be named as one of the Does later?
Just asking cuz I’m no expert.
Not only would I boycott SVA, I would actually pay money to help his book not be published. He has taken JKR’s goodwill and leniency and stabbed her in the back with it. And by association, he has stabbed all fans in the back because what artist is going to be as lenient as JKR after seeing how it can be used against them? I hope he is smacked down hard by the courts so that other artists will see that they can encourage and embrace fan creativity without giving up their rights.
Shelli: As to Wizard Rock – not familar with all the copyright issues in and out – but depending on several factors it may be considered transformative or parody (depending on the way it is written and/or performed) which would fall under the auspices of Fair Use (but I’m not an expert).
Wizard rock falls under a type of creative musical expression known as filking, which is a form of parody. Filk actually came about as a typo of folk {as in folk music} and has been a visible part of sci-fi and fantasy fandoms and conventions dating from the ‘50’s.
Though considered mainstream, Weird Al Yankovic is a ‘filker’. Two of his sci-fi based parodies:
*Yoda [a parody of “Lola” by the Kinks] *The Saga Begins [a parody of “American Pie” by Don McLean]
Thanks Cara! As a devotee of Weird Al I should have put that together! That’s how it falls under Fair Use.
Sorry for the double post – I am used to double clicking on the other ‘puter.
So, in a fit of sheer boredom and morbid curiosity, and being stuck at work on a Friday night, I was looking through the page on RDR’s website (I know, I know, couldn’t help myself) about the Lexibook, and I found this gem of a quote:
“The suit, filed on Halloween, was also designed to frighten the publishers and the authors. “
Who… buh… WHAT? Are they… are they… are they serious? “Look, look! JKR and the WB are bullies, they tried to ZOMG SCARE US by filing on HALLOWEEN!!! Boooooo!!!”
I can’t believe that these people are supposed to be professionals. No, scratch that, I can’t believe that these people are supposed to be adults. No, scratch that, I can’t believe that these people are supposed to be people.
I… I just… I’m speechless.
@ Ashley
I was reading some of the information provided on the Stanford Group website and that argument was used in their last copyright lawsuit as well. Their client lost the suit but was able to get awarded her legal fees..perhaps for harrassment, distress, financial hardship etc. Must be the standard statement in this type of suit…and these are the lawyers. RDR’s statements are quite tacky, in my opinion.
@ Cathy
They’ve used that argument before?! Unbelievable. Un-freaking-believable.
P.F.
so you know, the stanford law fair use project is not about upholding the law. the fair use project according to the fair use project’s mission statement is to dismantle fair use laws to take the rights away from authors to prevent people from unfairly profiting from their hard work. they want to take away copyright from creative people like jk rowling to make it so anyone can simply rework a person’s copyrighted works for profit without adding anything new to it. which is what SVA is trying to do. nearly 90% of his book is material lifted directly or poorly paraphrased as paraphrasing dosent include lifting text, and adding one or two words to it.
stanford law fair use project is not to protect fair use. its not to protect copyright rights of people who create. it is according to them to destroy fair use because what they are trying to do is remove fair use because they belive its wrong to expect that copyright holders have the right to protect themselves from people claiming the right to just lift 84% of a book and then add 15% themselves. what more, SVA all of a sudden is claiming there are 4 authors of the lexicon book. wow, 4 people writing 15% of the book, with jk rowling have written 84% of it. that should mean jk rowling should get all the money since she did most all of the work, and the work the other four did adds nothing of value.