oi temper temper Mr.card and im sorry your wromng Jo is in the right here and has already won the battle inthe court of public opinion. I love Ender’s game but i dun the suthor’s atitude. at this point SVA has so alienated the majority of HP fans he will sell very few copies if he does get to publish which he should not
I just love how people who are well known think they are at liberty to give their views on things it’s likely they didn’t even research. All they said was that the Lexicon is ok as long as it does it’s cited properly and gives credit to Jo. Obviously, they couldn’t have researched this at all because the whole point of the case is that SVA/RDR didn’t do what they needed to in fairly publishing the Lexicon.
I will NEVER ever read any of orson scott card’s books after he said that about Jo. He’s dead in my book. This trial makes me so angry sometimes. :[
i just went in to my brother’s room to ask if i could rip up his orson scott card books. He said no lol.
@ibelieveinnargles
You never heard about his books? Well, that´s not too important, I assume.
Go JO! how dare these stupid people be so horrible!!!! I have made a top which i wear non stop(i wash it over night don’t worry!) which says ’ SUPPORT J.K.ROWLING the real H.P. author’! I’m glad neil gaiman seeems to be on her side! xxx
@ibelieveinnargles and FreyaStorm
There is being a supportive fan and then there is being a fanatic. Fanatics give the HP fandom a really bad name. Just saying.
Mollywobbles23 I just wanted to say I really respected your reply to OSC (don’t even want to say his full name) and his nasty rant. You did a great job pointing out where he was wrong in facts or over the line without descending to his horrible level. Well done. I agreed with you 100%.
I am still with Jo on this. The book simply is not transformative enough to stand and it makes me really sad that people don’t seem to see that and go for the hateful comments instead. It is a sad day when a person cannot even protect their work and draws nasty condemnation from those who have not looked at the facts. Jo does not sue every book coming out, just this one. She is right. It does not stand.
Leaky I know this is news (sort of), but it literally made me feel sick to skim just the little bit I did. In the future if you are going to post something like this, can you make sure non of the neg comments are “before the cut.” I’d rather have remained ignorant.
Although to be honest, as far as I’m concerned this is no more valid than any other random blogger’s opinion. And far stupider than most.
Just sayin’-Card’s a militant homophobe (yes, Orson. You are) and his words about a woman who ‘outed’ the sexuality of a popular character are to be taken with a grain of salt. Just nod and smile and recognize it for what it is-like I do with the Chinese who try to talk about Tibet. :P
Try again with no strikeouts. ....Just sayin’…Card’s a militant homophobe (yes, Orson. You are) and his words about a woman who ‘outed’ the sexuality of a popular character are to be taken with a grain of salt. Just nod and smile and recognize it for what it is…like I do with the Chinese who try to talk about Tibet. :P
There’s a really excellent definition of ‘transformative’ work in a link at the bottom of the copyright lawyer’s letter in the Neil Gaiman blog.
Regarding the copyright lawyer’s letter, my first thought was, never mind how much Neil Gaiman quotes from other work such as Kipling, his work is imaginative and original in its own right, so it’s just not the same thing as doing an A-Z index. So I think the argument in the letter is irrelevant to JKs case. The link at the end of the letter includes a definition of ‘transformative’ (as distinct from ‘derivative’): something that takes on an identity independent of the original from which it was derived. The example given is the Andy Warhol ‘Marilyn’ image. I’m glad someone has defined it in this way because that’s how I understand it.
IMHO (I’m not a lawyer though, but I am an academic), academic work such as critical analysis is something completely different from Transformative work because it’s scholarship and not artistic creation. So for me the Transformative argument shouldn’t even apply. But I’m not a lawyer, maybe it counts as the same thing in American law. I just don’t see it as the same thing, so I just can’t see HPL as transformative/creative work at all. Not to mention that I don’t even see it as academic scholarship either! I think it’s purely derivative.
I agree with the thoughts on NG blog that he or someone else? wrote, to the effect that a purely derivative work like HPL should get the author’s permission.
I’m not sure that the copyright lawyer’s letter was talking about HP or another case but anyway the references in it I found irrelevant. Shakespeare and King James bible were written 16th century and early 17th centuries, long before copyright law was even a glint in the milkman’s eye (it was born in 1710). JK Rowling is a living and still writing author so I don’t see why people keep bringing up long dead writers in their arguments! The idea of copyright to protect publishers (with the knock on effect of protecting and profiting the writers) was born because the spread of the printing press had begun to result in the widespread plundering of texts by pirate printers, sometimes even in the same year as publication of the original, which undercut the original creators and discouraged further creative work. So copyright in itself (even ignoring Fair Use) is not about stifling creativity at all, but it is about preventing pirates from stifling further creativity.
I’m a big fan of the HP books, but I must say I agree a bit with Card. I wouldn’t go as far as him to call Rowling an evil witch, but hypocritic, yes definitely! If I’m not mistaken, it was Vander Ark that made the HP-time line on his HP-lexicon and it was JK Rowling herself that thought it was a perfect timeline, however she never planned to put some dates in her books, he did a great job. That same timeline is used by WB on the DVD’s as an extra feature. So now is my question: who is the one that makes the mistakes?
“If I’m not mistaken, it was Vander Ark that made the HP-time line on his HP-lexicon and it was JK Rowling herself that thought it was a perfect timeline, however she never planned to put some dates in her books, he did a great job.”
Yes but her books are fiction, you don’t put exact dates in fiction, that would be completely anal and spoil their flow! Unless your fiction was in the form of a diary like ‘Dracula’.
You would put it in an encyclopedia though. I’d think it’d be pretty important. The question is, as JK created the fiction on which the timeline was built, when she does her own encyclopedia, doesn’t she have the right to include a timeline of her own? I’m not sure that WB had the right to use SVAs timeline, but has it been proven that they did copy it as opposed to creating their own? I don’t know because I’ve never seen either of them. Obviously if SVAs timeline was pretty accurate from the start then another timeline will look similar but that doesn’t prove it’s a copy, unless it was identical wording. It’s be like creating a timeline of some period in history; the end results of different people’s efforts will be largely the same, but phrased slightly differently and some more detailed than others.
Christopher Schiller (guy whose email is on Neil Gaiman’s blog) has interesting post discussing what makes a work “transformative”.
http://wise-old-sage.blog-city.com/gaiman_joint_authorship_and_transformative_works.htm
”... The question of transformative works is whether a truly derivative work—one that actually uses an original work as a basis for a new work—has transcended the influence of the original and established a presence and importance all its own, nearly independent of the original work. ,,, It becomes a truly independent work in the minds of the public.
”,,, Therefore it will be interesting to see how “transformative” the new book would be. My suspicion is that the buyers of such a book would be buying them with the intent to get a “Harry Potter” related tome which doesn’t bode well for the defendant.”