“Most commentary on the internet seems to break down into people picking sides based on personalities and opinions. As with most grey areas of law, it isn’t cut and dried, and even when an appeals court-sized decision is handed down, it probably won’t become cut and dried, because “Fair Use” is one of those things, like pornography, we are meant to know when we see them.”
Mr. Gaiman remarks that the first two books he did were unauthorised, and as such, “my heart is on the side of the people doing the unauthorised books”.
So that seems to be a fairly self-serving point of view from someone who has benefited from those grey areas. It is hardly surprising that “his heart” is on RDR/SVA’s side. If indeed we “know it when we see it” I personally see this as very clear cut plagiarism. More importantly, so does Jo, whose opinion should be paramount, as it’s her work being plagiarized. She knew it when she saw it.
I don’t know how everyone here can see the book as “clear-cut” anything; they haven’t seen or read it. If JKR were to challenge the entirety of the fair use doctrine, my sense is that the reaction of the online fan community would be just as blindly in favor of her. Support for broad application of fair use does not make you any less of a fan – it makes you differ in opinion with JKR’s lawyers on a specific legal principle. Gaiman has a point – the overwhelming reaction to this has been about the personalities involved and perceived loyalty to JKR. Really, everybody- the fair use doctrine is a huge, muddled mess of legal precedents and contradictions, and nobody even in the legal community can seem to agree on it completely. I love JKR and the books as much as any of you, but like the rest of you, I haven’t seen the book version of the lexicon. We have no idea whether it is a fair use, and perfectly reasonable courts would disagree on whether it is depending upon who the judge is.
but his point is valid. I want Jo to win, but that is my personal opinion. I feel it is unethical what SVA/RDR have done. However, unethical does not always equal illegal. I have not seen the manuscript for SVA’s book, so I have to rely on the words of others that he plagurized 91% of the work. If that is the case, she should win. I hope that she wins. fair use is a very gray area. I could definetely see how a win for SVA/RDR could hurt other copyright owners. But I do not really think that the fandom would be shut down completely and immediately. But, I do know, that I will never buy this book. I will wait for the Scottish Book.
One other point, I read somewhere that the print run for the lexicon book was only 10,000. 10,000 at $25 is only 25,000. So either way this turns out, RDR can look for a nice tax break on the loss from this book. Between publishing costs, lawyers, airfare to New York, hotels, and food while in New York. I am assuming, most confidentally, that they have spent more than the $25,000 for this book. I am going to check with the SEC to see if they are a public company so I can watch there end of year filings.
Please don’t get caught on the !0,000 copies only. Nowhere in RDR declarations to the court (including contract with SVA) does RDR restrict to that number. That was a number for a first print run.
Of course, if those 10,000 books sold, RDR would print more. Not to mention foreign (non-US) sales RDR hoped to make.
I don’t like, also, that the word “plagiarism” is tossed about so carelessly. The book, whatever it looks like, is presented as a guide to JKR’s books. The case should be about whether a reference volume made up largely of passages from pre-existing work constitutes fair use of the original work. RDR is not arguing that Vander Ark made up these characters or passages from JKR’s text. The question is whether a reference guide can be literal in its references without infringing copyright. Again, Gaiman is right. This case is about personality. To be a fan of someone, or even their best friend, you do not have to agree with them all of the time. In the legal community, some of the closest relationships you will ever see are between people who hardly agree on anything even remotely related to legal interpretation. It’s the nature of the beast. To make this personal, which is what is happening in the online community, is a grave and irresponsible mistake.
That’s an easy comment to make when you are a successful writer now. Well, he just lost some of my respect for him as a creator and innovator of the Graphic Novels.
It would make sense if SVA was actually adding new perspectives – which the court has shown he did a cut/paste of the best bits. I don’t call that writing.
sorry, I mistyped earlier. I did mean $250,000. (that is what happens when you type while eating lunch). I am using the 10,000 run figure because that is the figure that is known without speculating further runs. I am just really saying that it is my personal opinion they will lose money on this deal (with the exception of the tax benefit). Just because Mugglenet’s book had to be rerinted, doesn’t mean that this one will. That is like saying Deathly Hallows sold 10 million copies so Stephen King’s new one should too. But I really hope that their print run is 0, zilch, nada. Although fairly acknowledging that other runs are possible and this is from my foggy memory, didn’t that contraversal OJ book sells alot of copies after the courts gave it to the Goldmans. Albeit it is a completely different type of book. Alot of people bought because of the controversy involved. In my personal opinion, I just do not understand why anyone would want to pay $25 for information that is free and available on the internet or in the HP books themselves.
and thanks, desertwind for that link. That is very helpful for me to see for myself what the book really consists of. It’s not right to make any assessment, other than personal opinion, without seeing all of the facts and evidence. And that is all that this is, my personal opinion, and that and $.50, well you can’t even buy a can of pop with that.
Yes, I think to a degree it’s “about personalities” in the online community. But I think the discussion at Leaky is more educated than many observers suppose. I seem to remember that at the outset of this whole thing, many posters here, if not a majority, were inclined to support SVA and dismayed that JKR would behave in a manner that appeared so uncharacteristic. Then TLC, led by the excellent journalist Melissa, painstakingly and objectively laid out the facts of the case. After people were able to make their own judgments based on those facts, opinions changed. (Speaking for myself, at least.) It’s a shame that almost all of the coverage of this trial has been so superficial.
Oh wonderful, now the JKR Groupies will all boycott Neil Gaiman! :(
I agree with Miguel. To make this personal is irresponsible. We need to look at the facts; why do you think that Melissa isn’t posting anything but links about this? I think there’s lots more going on here that we will never know about.
From what I have read, it seems like the whole issue here isn’t about SVA writing a lexicon, it’s that the lexicon has some direct quotes from JKR’s books which is plagiarism. There are also some incorrect explanations for word and name etymologies, which JKR corrected on the stand. She can’t sue someone to stop the publication of a badly written guide, but she can sue someone for taking her words verbatim and putting them in a book. For instance, when SVA uses the same phrase to describe the brain tenacles.
I, for one, hope that the settle this out of court, so that other proper guides for other novels can still be written and published. Like Judge Patterson said during the trial:
“Litigation isn’t always the best way to solve things. I mean, lawyers like it.
They get all caught up in the ideas of litigation and facts and things they think are to their benefit. But, the point is the parties, how do the parties fare? Is it really worth it? Can’t it be resolved in another way?Too often I feel - and I’m not pointing fingers at anyone here - just that the lawyers get caught up in the case and the clients are just part of the baggage. And I just feel that this case could be settled and should be settled. It takes a little imagination on the part of the lawyers and the client and I just wanted you to seriously think about it because I see cases where litigation hasn’t proved to be the best answer regardless of who won.”
The difference, Nicci, is that you’re not talking about a massively popular web ste and an unknown one sellng the book. MN and Lexicon have similar audiences and standing in the HP community; to compare their sales is fair, relevant and informative.
Just because many of us here side with JKR/WB’s position, dont just assume that we do it because we’re fans, blindly following her whims. That devalues our opinions unfairly. I agree whole-heartedly with Mrs. McClaggan’s post above. I was originally very unsure about how I felt about this suit. I followed the events through Leaky (I’ve said time and again, how impressed I am with how fair and complete their coverage has been). After reading all the information they’ve provided, including the Lexicon book itself, which desertwind so kindly linked above, I’ve come down on the side of JKR/WB.
I’m not a lawyer, so I dont totally get all the nuances of fair use, but I know what I think is fair and right. You shouldnt be able to publish someone elses work, and after alphabetizing, call it your own. It would be somewhat different if he (or they) had put ANY original thought into it. Something… but no… it’s all JKR’s work. He shouldnt be able to sell it. Yes, the Fair Use argument is a gray area, but I know what I think is right.
Posted by Beth (with no aliases) on April 22, 2008, 07:13 PM
report to moderator
Mr. Gaiman must not care a lot about his novels.
However I do agree with him and Terry Pratchett on this:
“Back in November I was tracked down by a Scotsman journalist who had noticed the similarities between my Tim Hunter character and Harry Potter, and wanted a story. And I think I rather disappointed him by explaining that, no, I certainly didn’t believe that Rowling had ripped off Books of Magic, that I doubted she’d read it and that it wouldn’t matter if she had: I wasn’t the first writer to create a young magician with potential, nor was Rowling the first to send one to school. It’s not the ideas, it’s what you do with them that matters.
Genre fiction, as Terry Pratchett has pointed out, is a stew. You take stuff out of the pot, you put stuff back. The stew bubbles on.”
I took this from Mr. Gaiman’s website (it’s in the same post as the one we are discussing here) and I agree with this. But that’s not what this legal battle is about. This is about downright stealing from an author, quoting her and not giving her the credit. I wish people would start seeing that instead of accusing Jo of being some greedy fame w**. Which she is obviously not. :(
"Worrying about poor 'ickle goblins, now, are you?" Ron asked Hermione. "Thinking of starting up S.P.U.G. or something? Society for the Protection of Ugly Goblins?"[br]"Ha, ha, ha," said Hermione sarcastically.
So that seems to be a fairly self-serving point of view from someone who has benefited from those grey areas. It is hardly surprising that “his heart” is on RDR/SVA’s side. If indeed we “know it when we see it” I personally see this as very clear cut plagiarism. More importantly, so does Jo, whose opinion should be paramount, as it’s her work being plagiarized. She knew it when she saw it.