In The News
JKR/WB vs. RDR Books Trial: Opinions
Companion BooksSeveral public figures have voiced their opinions on the JKR/WB vs. RDR Books court case:
Hugo and Nebula award-winning writer Orson Scott Card claims that J.K. Rowling’s “hypocrisy is so thick” that he “can hardly breathe”.
He goes on to say:
“Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited.”
He predicts the outcome of the case:
“1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law’s provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.
2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark’s legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.
3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.”
(EDITOR’S NOTE: With regard to Mr. Card’s statement that a published work of fiction may be written about or quoted “as long as the source is cited”, note that plaintiffs JKR/WB’s claim that the Lexicon book fails to properly quote or cite Ms. Rowling’s works. Exact testimony regarding such is available here in the trial transcripts).
Game show Jeopardy! wiz Ken Jennings writes about the trial on his blog in an entry entitled “Harry Potter and the Glossary of Doom”. He says:
“Books like The Harry Potter Lexicon are nothing new. When I was a kid, I had a bunch of unlicensed glossaries like these on my shelves: Robert Foster’s Complete Guide to Middle-Earth, Bjo Trimble’s Star Trek Concordance, etc. (Both of these books may later have been approved by their respective marketing empires, I’m not sure, but they were strictly fan-pub back then.) Even today, you can walk up to the TV/Movies shelf in a Barnes & Noble and find cash-in essay collections and reference works analyzing Lost, Firefly, The West Wing, and other hits. All these books profit by putting the Big Media Brand Name front and center on their covers–without the pop-culture teat, they wouldn’t sell a single copy. Profiteers, right, “Jo”? Burn them all!”
Jennings also notes:
”...the plagiarism claims are silly. Direct quotes from the books are rare, and are used only in epigrammatic fashion. Rowling may be referring to the fact that the Lexicon does faithfully describe facts and events from her series, and at length, but that’s an inevitable feature of any reference book. The literary references all look legitimate to me, as if due care has been taken to rephrase them away from Rowling’s language.”
On the subject of companion books, he says:
“In a free society, it’s good that people can talk and write freely about art. Good things come out of a society being able to talk and write freely about art–whether the artist likes it or not. Fan-published “derivative works” are a tiny legal niche, but they’re not an entirely unimportant one. Maybe you’re a Gilmore Girls fan who’d love to see an index annotating and explaining the show’s dense web of cultural references, or a U2 fan working on a complete concordance to their lyrics, or a Spider-Man fan with an issue-by-issue chronology of his Marvel Comics-owned “life” on your website. This stuff is going to keep disappearing if the legal precedents keep following the Twin Peaks and Castle Rock path.”
(EDITOR’S NOTE: With regard to Mr. Jennings’ statement that literary references are legitimate if “due care has been taken to rephrase them away from Rowling’s language”, note plaintiffs JKR/WB’s claim that the Lexicon book too frequently uses JKR’s exact language. Exact testimony regarding such is available here in the trial transcripts).
Finally, author Neil Gaiman follows up on his post from the 19th regarding the trial and fair use with two additional entries:
On the 24th, Mr. Gaiman’s clarifies fair use for a reader of his blog with:
“As far as I can see it’s only about a couple of really grey areas of copyright law—I suspect, and I am SO not a lawyer, that it will come down to whether or not what Mr Vander Ark had done to Ms Rowling’s work in his Lexicon was sufficiently “transformative” as to render it a new work.”
He offers as an example:
“If someone did a website in which everything in Sandman is listed in alphabetical order, as a concordance or lexicon… whether or not I was going to do one doesn’t matter. Whether or not someone else is making money off my work and words and ideas doesn’t matter. Whether it’s a good lexicon or a bad lexicon doesn’t matter. Whether it quotes me extensively may or may not matter (how extensively I’m quoted is a matter of Fair Use, but paraphrase me and you are home and dry on that count). What matters is whether it sufficiently transforms what I’ve done into something else by taking those entries and putting them into alphabetical order. “
Today, Mr. Gaiman writes a follow up on copyright, in which he posts a letter sent to him by one of his readers, a lawyer who co-authored a paper on fair use for the Journal of the Copyright Society of the United States. Leaky readers may find the letter informative.
Thanks as always to our readers who have emailed or posted links to articles or editorials on the trial.
Complete Leaky trial coverage can be found here.
Interested in Companion Books?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
Posted by mollwobbles23 on April 25, 2008 @ 11:40 PM
I am very proud to be the first to commend you, Mollywobbles.
i’m suprised by all the negativity towards Jo about this. and the fact that people are being sexist makes no sense either. is it just because she’s a girl she can’t keep someone else from making money off of what she’s spent her life on for almost 20 years? i support Jo.
I’d just like to say that while I found Card’s uninformed opinions and his oafish means of expressing them dismaying, and the importance of Ken Jennings’ equally uninformed opinions inexplicable (who is this guy, and why should we care what he thinks?) it does my black little heart good to see that everyone who has posted in the comments here so far does, in fact, know what they are talking about, rather than taking OSC’s word for it. Thank you guys for restoring a little bit of my (admittedly meager) faith in fandom.
A part of me died when I read Orson Scott Card’s insults to our beloved Jo. I read his Ender series in the weeks before DH. I bought The Great Snape Debate largely because of his contribution. I listened to SnapeCast interview him on the way to the release party. Basically, he has been linked with Potter, for me and especially with the Potter summer. To hear him so brutally and hatefully tear Jo down wounded me. More than that, his disloyalty-cruelty, even-”disgusts” me. I won’t be able to read his books again for a very long time, if ever.
This case sure seems to be revealing the best and worst in people. Unfortunately for Card, or rather, for me and fans like me, his grotesque side has been shown. I’ve lost all respect for him. No one calls Jo an “evil witch” and earns me as a fan. End of story.
A part of me died when I read Orson Scott Card’s insults to our beloved Jo. I read his Ender series in the weeks before DH. I bought The Great Snape Debate largely because of his contribution. I listened to SnapeCast interview him on the way to the release party. Basically, he has been linked with Potter, for me and especially with the Potter summer. To hear him so brutally and hatefully tear Jo down wounded me. More than that, his disloyalty-cruelty, even-”disgusts” me. I won’t be able to read his books again for a very long time, if ever.
This case sure seems to be revealing the best and worst in people. Unfortunately for Card, or rather, for me and fans like me, his grotesque side has been shown. I’ve lost all respect for him. No one calls Jo an “evil witch” and earns me as a fan. End of story.
Orson, Orson, Orson – It’s more complicated than that. Get yo’ facts before you go around calling her a “greedy evil witch” based on the information you read one morning off of AOL.
It’s kind of unreasonable to judge the Lexicon if we haven’t even read it yet.
More than that, his disloyalty-cruelty, even-”disgusts” me.
Yes, that’s what I find so repugnant about his comments as well. I have no problem with people disagreeing with Jo’s actions and saying so (though I myself fully agree with and support her, make no mistake), but the way Orson Scott Card expressed himself was cruel, and very mean-spirited.
I haven’t read any of his Ender books, so I have no opinion of him as an author. But reading his little rant has left me with a very low opinion of him as a person. His remarks reveal him to be childish, petulant, petty, and yes, very very bitter. Oh, and “evil witch”? Really, Mr. Card, how old are you?
@ Owen
Actually, a lot of people HAVE read it, or read most of it. The whole manuscript is online now, on Justia.com, I believe.
I haven’t read the whole thing myself, but I’ve read enough bits and pieces of it to make me strongly agree with JKR/WB’s assessment that it infringes on their copyright.
So no, we’re not being so unreasonable as you might think. ;)
Ken Jennings holds the record for the most Jepardy wins (74) with winnings of more that $2 million. As Jepardy is a game show for brainiacs, he is sort of the quintessential brainiac. I’ve seen a few interviews with him and he seems to be a pretty nice guy.
kelly Krels:
I don’t believe anyone is calling Orson Scott Card a Harry Potter hater. I believe they’re calling him a bitter, misinformed ass. Which he is. Just read his comments.
Card contributed to The Great Snape Debate? Oh man! I wish I had remembered that before I wrote that comment!
“i’m suprised by all the negativity towards Jo about this. and the fact that people are being sexist makes no sense either. is it just because she’s a girl she can’t keep someone else from making money off of what she’s spent her life on for almost 20 years? i support Jo.”
Posted by maryhappyface on April 25, 2008 @ 11:44 PM
I think you’ve hit on a very relevant point. If she was a man, he wouldn’t be calling the man “evil.” When woman stands up for herself in the business world, she’s a word that rhymes with “witch.” When a man does it, he’s dynamic and strong.
I guess I’ll read Jenning’s blog now. I’ve read the other two. I had take a break from the crazy.
Marlena—You’re telling me that Card used to be such a fan of Harry Potter that he contributed to SnapeCast and The Great Snape Debate (I don’t know what those are, but it says something that he, a famous author, contributed to them)? And now suddenly we have him denouncing JKR as a greedy witch (because founding charities and donating to them is so greedy, isn’t it?). I find this highly suspicious. I believe that he is either a) engaging in a desperate publicity stunt, b) sore that Dumbledore is gay (Mr. Card is outspokenly anti-gay, and has gone so far as to state that homosexuality should be punishable by law), or c) simply jealous of JKR’s superior talent (this would explain his attempt to compare his trivial little tales to Harry Potter). Whatever the case, I find it impossible to believe that a mere copyright lawsuit could by itself move Card to make such venomous, misrepresentative comments about someone whom, as little as a year ago, he apparently quite liked.
Although I may not agree with everything Card or Kennings said, I have to say I’m a little disappointed in some of the comments I’m reading here on Leaky. The negativity is very off putting. If you feel Card was out of line by calling JKR names then go ahead, express your opinion. (By the way I do think he was a little overzealous with the comparisons but anyone who has read his articles in the past will realize that’s just the way he writes.) But when you start calling him names in return and making over-generalized comments based on a quick google of his name, it doesn’t exactly make you seem much better than him. I’ve always viewed this website as a positive place but lately it’s just been a lot of name calling and whining. I love to read everyone’s opinions but I’m starting to get sick of the bashing. Just remember those two men have access to the same information as everyone else and they came to their own conclusions. They made some of the same fallacies many of the people here have made. I personally think that in this case there is no right or wrong. Both sides have many good points and I honestly wish that a compromise could be made. The only thing I see for sure is a lot of overly eager fans (and, I suppose, non-fans) of the books expressing a lot of polarized opinions without backing them up. When did leaky become a breeding ground for wannabe lawyers and angry fans, who a year ago were impatiently waiting for the last book? I want that leaky back and until this case is over and “resolved” I think I’ll get my HP fix somewhere else.
@ Cam: Nope, sorry, I’m not going to feel bad for expressing my opinion of Mr. Card’s remarks. He has a right to his opinion, but I also have a right to be disgusted at the childish and vicious way he has chosen to express himself.
And as for Mr. Jennings, I don’t think anyone has insulted him except to say, “Ken Jennings? Who? The Jeopardy guy? And why exactly is a former game show contestant publicly weighing in on this?” I don’t call that bashing. I call it a valid question.
Good luck finding another place for your HP fix, though.
Mr. Card continues to prove that his arrogance again gets in the way of rational thinking. Sadly, he believes himself to be the most righteous entity in the writing universe. His opinion makes it clear that he knows little about this case. He probably formed it from reading a report on CNN.
This really pains me as Enders Game is one of the greatest novels of all time.
isnt it amazing how people open their mouths spitting out ignorance? They say ‘shame on Jo’ and state that she’s greedy and wrong to own her work. They make statements such as ‘its free if you quote’, while as noted, the whole issue (and they would have known this had they done the research) is that the book apparently does NOT quote.
At the same time, even if they say it’s fair and can win (and I hope not), it begets a whole host of problems. What right can it be said that music, and movies, are wholly copyrighted, yet books cannot? All are forms of art, and all need to be protected. One cannot discriminate. And if this is deemed fair in relation to books, when can we now see it for movies? Can we look forward to seeing duplicate movies of a subject, using the same lines?
If the current law says its okay to for Steve and RDR to do as they have, and they win, then I hope WB/Jo DO appeal, and make the effort to get the law changed. The law is outdated and in this technological age needs to be updated.
It takes a LONG time to work on art (be it novel, movie, music, etc) and it should not be discounted.
I vote for Jo.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Moving the HBP film to July 2009 is:
- Completely unforgivable35 (45%)
- Annoying, but I'll get over it28 (36%)
- Not something I care about.4 (5%)
- Cool; who wants to go to the movies in the winter anyway?1 (1%)
- Awesome! I get to save $10 until next year.3 (3%)
- Awesome! I get to save $10 because now I'm skipping this movie!4 (5%)
- I've made a Facebook group, started a protest, called my local councilman, staged a sit-in, started a boycott, and organized a million-fan march because we won't stand for the - wait, what was this about again?2 (2%)
I responded in the comments to Card’s blog with the following. I’m posting it here and in the forum for posterity’s sake as it very well not be accepted by his staff:
“1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law’s provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.”
It does, does it? Have you read it? It’s available in court documents to do so (see SVA’s declaration, it’s an attachment). I haven’t read all of it (don’t have the patience or time), but I’ve read bits and pieces. As a person who knows the HP universe very well, I can tell you that it is not transformative at all. I can think of many ways to rephrase and elaborate further on things. An example of this would be the entry on Death (which JKR pointed out herself). In the Lexicon it is nothing more than mentioned as a character in the story of the three brothers who met death on a bridge and took three things belonging to him, called the deathly hallows in legend. This would be a prime opportunity to discuss the numerous ways that different characters approach death, from Voldemort who flees it, to Dumbledore who sees it as an adventure to Harry who meets it head on in sacrifice. But, nope, there’s none of that in the book.
As a reference guide, it also fails. Not even the defense’s own lawyer knew what was meant by the citation (HBP10), which means Half Blood Prince, Chapter 10. There’s no page numbers. Why? A more thorough approach would be to have a page number for each time, for example, acromantualas are mentioned in the books. Again, there’s none of that. Not even all terms that should have their origins explained, have that. There’s no sense to it at all. This is just barely touching the surface of the inadequacies of this book.
“2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark’s legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.”
I’m not sure I follow. You do know that SVA is not named in the suit and that he’s merely a witness, do you not? He was in no way forced to acquire legal counsel, he just thought it would be a good idea. Also, the defense’s lawyers are with the Fair Use Project from Stanford and are doing this pro-bono. So, RDR are paying nothing for this case.
“3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.”
Really, is all this ad hominem necessary? It’s rather childish, don’t you think? If she was a poor author who was protecting her rights, you wouldn’t say a darn thing about it. If you did, you’d probably support her. Just because she has money, does not mean she cannot protect her copyright. You fail to realize that numerous companion books have been published under fair use and with her permission. She allows fan fiction, fan art, and wizard rock, with no problem whatsoever. The profits from her encyclopedia will go to charity. Eighty percent of her last charity books’ profits went to Comic Relief. I imagine it will be about the same percentage for the encyclopedia.
“Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing.”
Yes, that’s why Harry Potter conferences are considered work-enhancing seminars for teachers and more and more universities are offering literature courses that use HP as a basis.
Perhaps only bitter authors like you are doing the sneering because you’re envious. You’re so upset that a “children’s book series” gets more attention and acclaim than your books that you lash out at the author in a vain attempt to help you look down on her. How about you instead concentrate on writing your own stuff. I’m not saying something has to be successful to be good. I know very well that the opposite is often true when it comes to literature. But, then Shakespeare’s plays were incredibly popular and incredibly good and have stood the test of time.
She hasn’t done anything to you. All she has done is write her books, been good to her fans, and protected her right to her work in an effort to protect her fans and authors who can’t afford to protect their rights like she can.
Also, as for the material being on the website, the site also has essays, which considerably ups the ante of fair use. Why couldn’t they be published? They’d no doubt be considered fair use. Fans can access the website for free. That’s not so with the Lexicon book.
Anyway, all this information about the case is available to the public. I suggest you read it before you decide to give your opinion on it. Looks like you fell for the media’s propaganda. “Rowling sues fan”? No. One look at the lawsuit says that RDR is the defendant and not SVA.
And if you’re going to make fun of Jo for crying, play fair and do the same for SVA. Or don’t do it at all. It’s your choice of whether you want to seem like an ass or not.
I doubt this will be allowed through by your staff. I’ll be surprised if it is.