can tell you how much I have always hated when people say we should be flattered, if you feel so then fine that’s your business but don’t expect it of others.

Usually though it is anything but flattery and you usually come across this with stolen images. It’s easy it’s lazy and has little to no consideration of the person being stolen from. Just because it is easy and just because a lot of people do it doesn’t make it right.

And this is not about all unauthorized works, a lot of them are allowed and there are plenty out there as evidence. This is about this book with 91% taken content. If this book goes though as it is now I will forever ask myself how. How can something still he fair use and contain so much content of another persons work. Does it not defeat the purpose of copyright.

It’s not just this case either it’s just in general how people frustrate me so much and how much of it is generally due to ignorance and pointing the finger saying “but these people are doing it to”

I would avoid it to because it annoys me so but damn someone has to talk sense and there aren’t always others there to do so for you.

When I heard about this case initially, I immediatley presumed that RDR books was right in its preceedings. I was curious, so i did more research- and when I learned that it was basically infringing upon a copyright, I decided that I didn’t agree with them anymore- and I “sided” with Jo.

The thing is that its become SO personal SO fast. The majority of the fan community hates Steve now, merely because he is opposing Jo. I’m glad we’re all so supportive of her, but it should be because you actually agree with what she is saying, not because she is the mother of our obsession.

I don’t understand how can someone’s heart lie on the side of people doing the unauthorised books.

wow, I can sympathize with it too – and not because I think lifting someone else’s work, and passing it off as your own, is okay. But so many great pieces of literature – the Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare’s plays among them – have come from authors who found their ideas in other people’s work and then went on to produce works of astonishing merit based on those ideas. If you look at the literature of ancient Greece, all those people – Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes – were writing about the same people. They took characters shared by the whole of Greece and produced plays that are still deeply moving – or hilarious, in the case of Aristophanes – 2,500 years later.

I completely sympathize with the idea that there’s too much emphasis placed on originality these days. I think it’s pretty safe to say that every idea has been had, and that the originality and the genius is in the execution, not the idea. People who favor copyright laws that are, in my view, too stringent, have a legitimate interest in defending the right of authors to profit from their work. But I think they go too far in emphasizing originality – originality – originality – at the expense of innovation. Those are the kind of people who basically don’t think any author should ever be able to write a story about a British boy wizard at school again, because it’s already been done. Sure it’s been done. But different people would execute it in different ways, and just because it’s done brilliantly one way doesn’t mean it can’t be done brilliantly another way. Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripedes, Chaucer, and Shakespeare all told stories about the Trojan War. But each work stands on its own merits, because the authors made the plot and the characters their own. If we went to the totally strict view of copyright, authors wouldn’t be able to feed off of each other like that, because that wouldn’t be “original.” One of the purposes behind copyright doctrine is to protect innovation, not just originality.

It’s probably evident to a lot of people here that I favor a more liberal view of copyright law; the farther away a potential infringement gets from outright, total, blanket plagiarism, the more hesitant I am to restrict it. Because I don’t believe that creativity is the product of the vacuum. I believe authors are inspired by other authors, and that there’s nothing wrong or reprehensible about that at all. JKR didn’t make up everything in Harry Potter. She borrowed amply from other authors, not to mention from medieval lore. But she put something into it that only she could; no one else could have written Harry Potter like she did. That’s why I believe in copyright law that protects expression, not ideas or anything like that. To me, the issue in this case, and the thing that complicates this case, is how much verbatim or near-verbatim expression is allowed under the Fair Use Doctrine, especially when there is little that’s added or transformed.

Neil Gaiman seems to fall, like me, in the realm of those who believe that innovation is to be both protected and encouraged. That’s not surprising. There are plenty of characters that Neil Gaiman wrote about – Lucifer, one of his most vivid characters, comes readily to mind – that Neil Gaiman did not invent. And the Sandman would have suffered for the lack of the devil. True, you can argue that Lucifer – like Hector, or Achilles, or Athena, or any of the other characters from Greek mythology – are in the public domain, but it’s hard for me to draw a line between being inspired by an ancient work like the Iliad, and a new one like Harry Potter. No, I’m not saying that anyone other than JKR should be able to write the Continuing Adventures of Hermione Granger and earn a profit off of it: I’m just saying that I understand what Neil Gaiman is saying, and I think it’s the honest admission of an author that everything they write about is not the product of their own brains. The human race has been around for quite some time; so, too, has literature. Every idea’s been had. It’s the expression that matters.

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.

Miguel, you show tremendous good sense here. Thank you.

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.

And again – tremendous good sense. :)

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.

Ha! Are you a lawyer, Miguel? Because you certainly understand the legal profession. :)

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 that it’s unfair to make such assumptions on a blanket basis, Beth – but I do think there’s a difference between people who side with JKR, and back that up with well-reasoned explanations of why they believe she should win under the law as it currently stands, or why they think the law as it currently stands should change, and those people who simply say things along the line of “well, I think JKR is right, and anyone who disagrees with her is no true fan.” That’s just inane.

Mr. Gaiman must not care a lot about his novels.

Johanna, I’m sure he cares about his novels as much as anyone else. He’s simply acknowledging that in every creative endeavor, there’s something a little parasitic; nothing is wholly original, and nothing stands completely on its own. The complications are in where to draw the line, and Neil Gaiman happens to come down on the more liberal, “anything goes”, “let the market sort it out” side of the line than JKR. Not to say that JKR is herself strict with regard to these things; I think she tends to be more liberal about it than a lot of authors as well. There are some authors who won’t rest until they’ve stamped out every fan site; JKR, far from discouraging that kind of thing, has actively encouraged it, seeing it as the compliment that it is.

I don’t have a side in this case; I’ve only read media accounts of the case; I don’t know enough about it, or the Fair Use Doctrine, to have a very well-informed opinion on it. But I firmly agree with those people who are fair enough to acknowledge that it is a tough case, that there are compelling arguments on both sides, and that admiring and enjoying an author’s work does not mean that you have to agree with her on everything.

Maybe instead of jumping to conclusions, we should ask ourselves how much does he know about the case ? While he may be on the ‘unauthorized books’ side, he may have some reserve (i.e not changing his mind but not agreeing with the Lexicon Book) if confronted with the Pie Chart of Doom for instance ;)

We should always wonder how much people know about the case. Or else people are going to believe wrong statements about Authors (like with Terry Pratchett much more earlier)

Neil Gaiman only gave his opinion because fans asked him to. And we don’t know how much he read on this case.

I always appreciate what Neil Gaiman has to say about things. He has such a gentle yet intelligent manner of speaking and writing. That is a very interesting entry, IMO, whether you agree with the sentiment or not.

Some great posts here, especially from Miguel and some others who have taken pains to really think about all sides of this case. I absolutely agree that this is by no means a cut and dried case. I do hope they can settle out of court. I think the judge is right – that litigation is not always the best way to solve problems, regardless of who wins.

I cannot believe that either side would intentionally create a situation in which a lawsuit like this would be their only option. Surely SVA could not have wanted or welcomed the current situation, which does him zero good and a whole ton of harm within the fan community. Why he would ever knowingly do something that would cause JKR and the fandom to turn against him so bitterly is beyond me. No one can argue that the guy doesn’t love HP. What’s happening now must be his worst nightmare.

I feel for both sides. It seems they could meet and come up with a compromise. I would think that SVA would want this (and he says he does). Sadly though, I wonder if he can only sit and do what RDR tells him to do at this point.

Ah! I just can’t figure out which side is in the right! I think both sides have good points to back up their cases. It still makes me sad that it had to come to a law suit like this! I don’t know what to think anymore!

In response to the article: Steve did not take a general idea, he took the specifics. Those tiny details that distinguish one writer from another.

“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.”

Because it’s a reference guide it’s ok to infringe? Hmmm… I guess they have no other choice but to infringe if you want to explain a book in his own context. In other words, without outside information. But you could have asked permission. Though I guess that’s where Steve got stuck. I don’t think I would approve of the idea of permitting the use of other peoples work for the sake of a reference guide. It’s still leeching of other people’s work. It’s still using somebody else’s creativity. Not to mention the emotional aspect. You took something treasured by the author and decided what to do with it. Even if you’re crediting the author by claiming it’s not entirely your work, it doesn’t conceal the fact you used it without her authorization. Crediting does not equal consent. It’s like robbing a person while telling everyone who exactly you stole from. The victim would still feel violated. I don’t think a reference guide is that important to allow infringement. What does it do besides summing op facts already said in the books. The only benefit is that you find things quicker en make things easier. It’s handy. It does not provide background information, analyzing or critique. It’s just plain and simple handy. So copyright should be forsaken for a handy tool? A handy tool outweighs an authors energy, originality, life and labour? Besides a reference guide won’t help the original work as much as the original work helps the reference guide.

On the other hand reference guides without permission have no chance of existing? Dubious. Nevertheless what makes a reference guide so special (besides it can’t help but to infringe) that infringement should be allowed. Why should it have the same status as news, scholarly work or critique has. I doesn’t have such a noble cause.

However if reference guides are considered fair use then I like to think a heavily amount of compensation should be paid for infringing so heavily. Because after all, it’s not entirely the organizers work. It’s the work of the original author. And in the end, that’s what you’re buyers are reading.

I’m sure many of us feel indebted to Jo for what she has given us, but the bottom line is that copywrite(sp?) is illegal.

I can certainly appreciate Gaiman’s ideas, and he and Terry Pratchett are right. Fiction is a big stew of ideas, names, and plots. Elizabeth, you wrote in a previous post that you couldn’t draw a line between borrowing characters from ancient Greek literature and borrowing from Harry Potter. But there is a big difference. You could no more truly borrow Hector from the Illiad than you could borrow Johnny Appleseed from whoever’s written a book about him.

Regardless, the point that I feel that many people miss is that RVA is not borrowing characters, plot points, names, ect. to come up with a new story. If the printed lexicon is like the website, then he’s just taking all the little bits of info that Harry and the others have read while they did their homework, and put it in order. It’s quite different from other unauthorized books, such as The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter, which I own. That book asks questions like “why is Harry able to see things in the mirror of Erised?” and then follows with an original essay describing the history of scrying. You could no more sue the author of that book than you could the grade school kids who write their book reports on Harry Potter.

In any case, Neil Gaiman was just giving an opinion to people who had asked for it. Many people are divided on this issue. His heart lies with the unauthorized edition. That doesn’t mean he’s sitting on the steps of the courthouse with “Go RVA!” signs. I’m sure many of the pro-RDR/RVA people’s hearts lie with Jo, but they feel that the Fair Use laws could be extended. I feel that if the Lexicon is published, a free resource for Potter fans will be lost to us. I’ve seen a few fanfic writers who have to withdraw their material from the internet once they write an ORIGINAL story that gets published. I can’t see RDR allowing the Lexicon to remain online for free.

Great post, Elizabeth. well thought out. I agree completely about how authors often borrow from, or are inspired by, other works and then they take that inspiration and run with it. You talked about the ills of stifling innovation and creativity in order to save originality. All very good points. My problem the entire time I was reading it, tho, is that there is nothing innovative or creative in the Lexicon book. And yes, many of us have read it. It’s posted publicly on the judicia website (see first page for the url). There are plenty of opportunities for the author(s) to get creative and to add original content, but they dont.

Example (which I may have seen elsewhere, and just dont remember): in the segment about Fawkes, all the book does is pretty much list his accomplishments per book. How about information on the name, “Fawkes”, like how it’s an homage to Guy Fawkes. Or how about some background on the mythology of the Phoenix itself? Well, maybe it’s under the entry for Phoenix? Nope. All that does is re-list Fawkes’s accomplishments, and describe their appearance, as listed, in COS and Fantastical Beasts. Jeez… just go to Wikipedia, and you can start adding some of that original, creative content.

Cathie wrote: “I cannot believe that either side would intentionally create a situation in which a lawsuit like this would be their only option.”.

The thing is, it probably could have ended without a lawsuit, but RDR acted in what many (myself included) think was an utterly unprofessional manner when approached about the book. You can go thru Leaky’s information to find the original postings, but RDR seems to have tried hard to push this into court. One example: after the C&D was issued, and JKR/WB requested a copy of the book in order to review it for copyright issues (which I believe is standard), they were told to (paraphrasing here): print out the website if you want it; if you have trouble, your publishers probably have tech support to help you out.

There was another example where RDR had a deadline to … do something (provide info? respond to the court?) ... RDR asked for an extension because the president had a family crisis to deal with, but instead of dealing with a family crisis, he was trying to sell the book to publishers in other countries.

I think that might be a big part of the issues many of us have with this case. I know it’s true with me. RDR has acted in such an arrogant, unprofessional manner, that it’s very hard to find merit with their case. It seems that they did everything to delay and stonewall any progress that could have been made, and forced the issue into court. Maybe that’s me picking my sides based on personalities. So be it.

Ps: One thing I found funny: Neil Gaiman said that we pick sides based on personalities, and then goes on to say that because his first books were “unauthorized”, that’s why he’s on that side. LOL! He just fell into his own pigeon hole.

Wow. He sort of just contradicted himself there. I agree with LemonFaerie (post #1).

These are great posts. Everyone has a written out his or her opinion really well and I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone’s posts. I also want to talk numbers as well. SVA’s book may have a really narrow audience.

SVA wants his book to sell and the trial and attention that it is getting free publicity so one assumes that people will be interested in buying it. There will be people buying it, for that reason alone. I think that the true memebers of the Harry Potter fandom will have no use for a book like this.

Why would a real fan who has read all the books need to know, for example, what a Deatheater is? We already know that answer. I usually don’t buy companion books and I would like to know how many people would buy something like that?

I would buy the Lexicon book. I am one of the fans who requested such a book before Steve decided to publish.

Because MuggleNet was able to publish a NY Times bestselling book that simply regurgitated fans’ theories on Book 7, I didn’t realize there would be any objection to the Lexicon in print. Now, however, I can see both sides of the issue, Jo’s and Steve’s, and I am really not sure which side should win, but I do know that the case is not nearly as black and white as most fans like to think.

Great post, Elizabeth!

Gaiman is also in the vanguard of fan fic: he used to have a contest called “The 24 hour comic” in which people were invited to write and draw a Sandman story, using his characters, etc., in 24 hours, and he would publish it, which he did.

The “Sandman” series draws on many literary references as does Harry Potter. My dad used to say “There’s nothing new under the sun” and there really isn’t. Most things are suggested by something else, what we see and hear and read all around us. How it is put together is where the individual gift/vision comes in. Nobody creates in a vacuum.

I was interested to read that comic book came out before HP though; I always thought they were ripping off Harry Potter! I have never read the comic, just a cover I saw once and thought, wow, what a rip-off!