@i-in the skye
It’s poor quality because for a companion book, it doesn’t offer anything that the books do not already contain. It does not offer much commentary, and when it does, it’s often inaccurate. It’s sloppy because it was put together in a very short period of time and is just organized poorly.
As for the charity thing, the vast majority of proceeds from Quidditch through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts went to charity. Jo gave up her profit as did other contributers.
@Elizabeth
Thank you very much. Although not a lawyer, I deal with these issues on a daily basis, and ever since I started posting to these news report forums (fora?), I have tried to engender the sense that regardless of how one feels, either way, this case is not foregone and could go either way. And, as you say, notwithstanding the statements reported in any number of venues, and whether attributed correctly or not, the conslusion of this case is STILL not clear. So it is good to know that I’m not way off base on that regard.
Now, as a Canadian, we, deal with Fair Dealing, not Fair Use, and that is, as posted previously by someone else, similar to what is extant in the UK and other jurisdictions. It is much clearer and more stingent here.
And yet, having said that, several cases have indicated that, indeed, although it is narrower, and more stingently interpreted and applied in the Canadian system, there is a trend toward interpreting at least certain situations in the same way as the American system would. Essentially the argument is that, although the law is the law, it can be interpreted and circumstances must be considered before rendering a decision.
So there is a trend, albeit a very narrow and still early trend, to moving toward the US type of approach. It has been made clear in many cases in the US, many of which were cited by both Plaintiffs and Defense, that the fair use doctrine and criteria is more guideline than hard and fast rule. So naturally, the outcome of any case depending upon interpretation of fair use is unpredictable.
I also appreciate your pointing out that settlement is always better than “duking it out” in a court of law, because it allows for both sides to reach agreement rather than having one or the other side facing an imposed circumstance that may serve to prolong the whole case through appeals and so on.
Finally, I appreciate your taking the time and making the effort to calmly and rationally deal with the questons and statements by providing insights that are unrelated to the personalities involved and do not “support” one side over the other. These are things I have tried very hard to do myself. And I have NEVER condemned anyone for being emotional about the issues, and have applauded all who have made it very clear that their opinion was just that… THEIR opinion … and there are a great many of you here!
But today was too much for me. I’ve read a lot of postings today and in past weeks, that are mean, possibly libellous, or slanderous, or just plain indicative that rationale discussion and consideration of the ISSUES,notwithstanding the emotional ties, is simply not possible for some people. I just want to say to a great many of the posters here that you are not included in the description I have just provided, and, in fact, it is really a small minority, but it has taken its toll. The time has come for me to stop posting and just lurk, read and hope for insights such as you, Elizabeth, and a great many others (you know who you are, my OLD, or young with OLD hearts, or Canadian or otherwise notable friends!) provide. And I’m sure some of you will say, “well its about time that old fart just shut up”!! And I will.. But I need to make this last point…
It saddens me that people can still say and do what they say and do. It is, perhaps, naive of me to hope for better, but, hope does spring eternal. Or maybe I’m just getting too old to continue to read some of the things I have read and still be able to try and not respond in kind. Before that happens, I’d rather stop responding at all. And please do not misunderstand. I have NEVER concerned myself with emotional statements that are obviously attached to many of the comments we see here. They are understandable (and often touching, I might add) and serve to demonstrate the depth of feeling that this case, these Characters and Stories have engendered.
But what saddens me most is that the real legacy of the HP world and the stories about it is so obviously lost on so many people who purport to understand and support the concepts.
The HP books have served to draw out those who would never have otherwise opened a book for the mere pleasure if reading, or those who would never have considered particpating in a forum like this, and given the impetus to do so. And they have served to demonstrate in a way that has heretofore not really been seen or appreciated by so MANY people in so short a time that there IS a good and bad, and that there IS a right way and an easy way, and that love IS so strong that if we allow it (and a little respect) ... jsut a very little! ... to guide… the way we deal with others, that this could be a better place.
It is sad that the world as it really is struggles so mightily to counteract the good that could envelop it.
At least inMY opinion, for whatever it has been worth.
M.
euphausid wrote: “poor jk? greedy sva? what parralel universe is this? jkr is really losing points with me for all this. she basically called the lexicon a bunch of junk on the stand, when she has previously stated that it is such a good resource that she used it to keep herself straight through the last few books! it’s a reference, and it’s no different if it’s in print as opposed to online. except of course that it may cut into her market share. she’s the greedy one.”
I’m sure this has already been address, but I’m only just getting back to this topic. first of all, I’m pretty sure she was referring mostly to the BOOK as being substandard. Secondly, she when referring to the website, she talked of how short it came to being an actuall reference work or transformative work, because it went NO FURTHER then her work when explaining things. She used the “alohamora” charm as an example of the one place he attempted to go further, and then got it wrong. Nothing wrong with her stating that. She is, afterall trying to prove its NOT a transformative work.
And she never said she used it to keep herself straight through the last few books. Talk about putting words in someones mouth. I think she said (but not sure) that she had popped over a few times to get remind herself of her own facts (emphasise those last 3 words) instead of buying her own books. So… two things we can learn from that (a) whats in his lexicon is the exact same info as in her books, nothing more, and (b) she actaully did cut into her own profits because of the lexicon, thereby proving her own point! LOL!!
And remember, her Scottish Book will give all proceeds to charity. That’s not my definition of greedy.
Yes, I-in the skye, I do believe she will donate evey red cent to charity and that doesnt make me nieve. She donated every red cent of her two previous books (Quidditch and Fantastical Beasts) and those continue to raise money for charity. There’s a precedent already set as far as that goes.
Well said Morton. With a comment like that I know I for one will always appreciate anything you have to say.
The issue of how much Jo would give to charity with the profits of the “Scottish book” is what she would earn as the author. Though I can’t answer for her publishers etc etc. She would def give the money that she would recieve to charity. So she is right when she says she be donating the money from the books to charity. You can’t call her a liar on that.
poor quality because for a companion book, it doesn’t offer anything that the books do not already contain.[/i]
This has already been addressed in those court proceedings. The Lexicon is unlike the books that mugglenet and others have produced. The Lexicon is just an A-Z reference guide and SVA never pretended that it is anything more than that. And if you read the testimony, they agreed that such a reference book would be useful to kids alike who are just being introduced to the HP series.
sloppy because it was put together in a very short period of time and is just organized poorly.[/i]Work on the Lexicon started as early as year 2000. Since then, JKR has no complaints and in 2004 she even paid the site honor by giving it an award. For 8 years the Lexicon helped promote the series and maintain interest and enthusiasm for the series, so JKR is appreciative and thankful and endorsed it, and now the series is over, she no longer needs it and is now saying it is poor quality? SVA was a speaker in HP conventions and defended the HP series from those who called it witchcraft and wanted to ban it. He himself had his share of hardships for the love of HP so i think its not fair to judge him only being after the money. Maybe more the other side is about the money, the only difference is they have already amassed billions out of HP while SVA is still poor up to now.
for the charity thing, the vast majority of proceeds from Quidditch through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts went to charity. Jo gave up her profit as did other contributers.[/i]So they say. 100% I dont think so because surely they had to get some to cover at least the expenses for producing/printing it. Like I said, dont be naive. That is also the reason why printing copies of those were limited because production entirely for charity is something that is impossible to sustain for long.
I just thought of something. Even if SVA wins the case they have already lost. The cost in legal fees alone has got be seriously eating into any profit they had ever hoped to receive.
@ Iolanthe
“Screen caps from a DVD are not copyright. You can only copyright an entire movie, (i.e. the moving image, sound, performances) not each single frame that makes up the movie.”
This is so wrong its not even funny. The disclaimers at the end of the film credits on all movies indicate that all components that make up the film are copyright and then list the legal entities that hold that copyright. The only time screen caps from DVD films would be alowed at all (in the case of HP is when you include with the use of any image “(C) (fill in the current year) by Warner Bros.” Without that notation YOU ARE in violation of copyright. Set photos are also not free for your use in most cases. The photographers on set were hired by WB to do so. The photos become the property of WB and they own all usage rights. They paid for them.
Its an entirely different if one of the stars takes photos of them and their pals on the set and post them on a blog. At that point it becomes a personal photo. But then at that point, you still must post a credit indicating the source of the original photo with the current year and the little© symbol. Barring that, a letter as proof that you have permission to use said photo is also acceptable should a legal issue arise. Then you can produce the letter indicating you had permission to use the private photo on your website or book.
“Movie copyrights last about 8 years before they lapse unless renewed. Once the studio has purchased a book, they can make any kind of movie they want, usually. After a certain time, rights revert back to the author.”
Copyrights in the US do NOT last 8 years. They last somewhere between 75 and 79 years at which point they have to be renewed or they become public domain. Currently Disney is looking at renewing its copyright on the image of Mickey Mouse as they do not want outlines, reproductions and so on suddenly appearing all over the place.
If the 8 year rule were true, there would be a lot more programming in the PD as most film libraries are too large to easily have renewals put forth. It would be a full time job for anyone to daily tally up things that have to be renewed and sumbit them. Same is true for book and music. There is no 8 year copyright expiration in the US (can’t speak for other territories around the world as I live in the US).
In the case of the studio buying the rights to turn a book into a film, its called an “option.” Most of these kinds of contracts last for one to five years and can be extended if the studio is making a good faith effort to bring the material to the screen. If a studio has not made any effort at all, the owner of the book or other publication can chose to not extend the option and shop it around to another studio that will move on the project.
A good example of this is the leap frogging of “John Carter of Mars” from one studio to another. It was at Disney… it was at Paramount… it was at WB.. it was at Jim Henson’s Studios… now its at Pixar. The ERB estate has made a small fortune off of the leap frogging, but as of this time no one has been able to find a good way to tell this story on a reasonible budget. Pixar may be the first studio to successfully accomplish that feat.
In case you want to know my background for posting this answer, I worked at Intel for three years as a contractor. My job there was to make sure that the site complied with trademark usage, proper copyright notations and enforcement of Intel and their business partners copyright across the web when violations were brought to our attention. I was also responsible for making sure new pages met their legal standards before being posted on the web.
Light bulb went off after I left this site. Don’t you all benefit from the Leaky Cauldron? I know I do. Well it is entirely based on information from and concerning the books isn’t it. Isn’t it full of copyrighted images and dotted with passages from the book? Aren’t we all just being a little hypocritical to criticize when the makers of this site also have clearly benefited by riding the coattails of JKR? They have used the cache of this site to reap benefits that all fans would die for, so they have gotten “paid” in a sense already too. Let’s be real. Even the name of the site is a copyright infringement.
actually copyright last for the life of the artist (in this case Jo) then 70years. If you do not believe me here is my source with citation
How long does a copyright last? The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration
@I-in the skye
As far as charity is concerned you are confusing net with gross. 100% of net profit is still quite a tidy sum to a very worthwhile cause (Comic Relief if I’m not mistaken).
This last, unresolved issue is about the copyright infringement. I work in an academic library. I have asked librarians (some who have read ‘the canon’ and some who have not). I would say that SVA and RDR have a slim chance of winning (albeit very slim). But here in the library we just don’t see it. What we do see is Stanford attorneys with the bit in their mouth, fully prepared to take this to the bitter (and I do mean bitter) end. I have a feeling that WB feels the same way. The years spent in court will be emotionally draining for everyone.
Judge Patterson is a seasoned professional with many years on the bench. His father was also a jurist. He will interpret the law based on the best evidence presented. But, as he said, this could conceivably go on for years.
Personally, I would rather read a definitive work written by the person who has been carrying this universe in her head for nearly two decades. It will certainly be more accurate.
Beth the profits of those books went to charities, so says press releases. What charity exactly? where? how much? how much percentage of sales? proof? does anybody know? I didnt say she is a liar, I believe some parts went to charity indeed, but not all, for sure.
And JKR is one to complain about a poor quality companion book when she has not once complained about poor quality movie adaptations eh!
DorisCrockford – you’re welcome. :)
Morton – aw, don’t go! I enjoy your posts immensely. I understand completely how frustrating discussions can be when people won’t even try to be fair, and I know this is just something we do for fun, not something terribly important. Still – I believe that when the calm, rational people withdraw from discussions because there are too many people who want to engage in simple mudslinging, everyone loses. I agree with you – there’s nothing wrong with being emotional. (I’d be a base hypocrite if I thought that, because it doesn’t take much to make me cry!) Smart, good-hearted people can disagree on both little things and extremely important things – that’s just part and parcel of living in a complex world. But if they stop talking to each other and let the immature, vitriolic namecallers and mudslingers take over, we get – well, we get pretty much every presidential election America has had since World War II, where candidates are more concerned with scoring a good soundbite at the expense of their opponent than talking about what’s good for the country and the world.
Passion is good; life would be miserable and not worth living without passion. But discussions require more than passion – they require logic, and reason, and sense, and civility, a willingness to consider another point of view and respond to it. We can be firm and still be sensitive; we can be passionate and still be fair. But the potential for an interesting and worthwhile discussion decreases substantially when the mature participants on both sides are drowned out by the ones who only want to score zingers. Any fool can have an opinion; someone with a functioning brain can back it up with reason; someone with a functioning heart is willing to consider the other side as well and at least try to understand why someone would think and feel the way they do.
In other words – please stick around. The vitriol’s easy to spot and worth the effort to ignore. :)
I in the Skye Jo critised the quality because 90% had been lifted from the books, therefore there is no effort in the work, nothing new. And some of the facts taken were wrong! Hence ‘poor quality’. Please dont be stupid.