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.
rate this article
Interested in Companion Books?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
I can’t begin to pretend that by reading a transcript of the trial, and the media articles/opinion pieces/comments about it, I now have the background, expertise and knowledge of copyright law needed to judge the case like many of you seem to have aquired. This guy wrote a great opinion piece, and I , a Harry Potter fan, see a lot of truth in it.
I am so neutral on this case but Card’s comments were just over the top. It’s his right to express them but he clearly doesn’t know anything about the case because his arguments are what the case is all about lol.
@ Fatfriar “The lexicons and encyclopedias are NOT books into you “put any new informations” (created by your own mind, that is). That’s not their nature and sense. They should EXACTLY “paraphrase, ensure different order and repeat stuff, that was already written”. By adding something creative, new into them you’re falsificating and deforming the reality, they’re discrebing (in our case: the world of HP). The Lexicon/encyklopedia should be drily, in matter-of-fact way and ABSOLUTELY FAITHFUL to the primare source.”
Whether the lexicon tries to be absolutely faithful to the primary source or not, it won’t conceal the fact that it’s a copyright infringement. If anything I would like to think when one is trying to stay as close to the books as possible, it only indicates you’ll be infringing on JKR copyright more and more.
“Whether the lexicon tries to be absolutely faithful to the primary source or not, it won’t conceal the fact that it’s a copyright infringement. If anything I would like to think when one is trying to stay as close to the books as possible, it only indicates you’ll be infringing on JKR copyright more and more.”
That will be judged by Mr. Patterson.
It seems like Neil Gaiman is the only one who has any sort of handle on this.
Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but, really, that’s only true if they’re properly informed. If you’re going to express opinions as strongly as, for instance, Mr. Card does, you should really make sure that you have all your facts straight first.
I read the full of Orson Scott Cards article and he says that JK Rowling took ideas from his book just because in his book theres a bit of flying and that theres an old legend who helps ender out (i have read Enders Game) and that he grew up with parents who treated him differently or something like that but you could compare that to other strories like Annie who is an orphan so that must mean that JK Rowling took that idea from annie as well!! UGGG he also goes on in his full article that JK Rowling took names from other people like muggle but she might have read that book along time ago and that word just happened to be in her mind does that mean that shes a fraud because she took some names out of greek mythology!!! NOO!
people who are dising Jk Rowling on a HArry Potter website that claim to be a Harry Potter fan.. how does that even go together?
Until a major news organization covers ALL the aspects of this case, people - for whatever reason: fair or foul. informed or uninformed. - will have misconceptions about what this case is all about.
Judge Patterson is right that “with imagination” this case could be settled and should be settled. IMHO, the longer this drags out, the more harm will come to Jo and SVA. (I don’t give a damn about RDR, Stanford or WB)
So many of the arguments that have to be made in a court case sound ridiculous out of context.
Orson Scott Cards seems to think he holds the patent on the Monomyth style, i guess he must be a few thousand years older than he actually looks. Jo took names from many things, adapted many others from Mythology.
I too studied Classics at Exeter (though not French) and often find myself taking names from Greek and Roman mythology (plus plenty of other areas) for my writing. Lets not forget that she also spends many days walking round old graveyards, looking at memorials for different names. Perhaps SVA could actually put some original thought into writing his own book, probably not.
Is Orson Scott Card a Harmonian? I’ve seen just the same sort of bitter nonsense on Harmony forums – right down to the “she’s a meanie who’s going to alienate all of her fans and no one will buy any more of her books.” I swear, I’ve seen H/Hr shippers say the EXACT same thing. Maybe he’s plagiarizing them?
finishing my thought -
So many of the arguments that have to be made in a court case sound ridiculous out of context.
Making ready-ammunition for someone who seems to have an agenda, whether it’s: I’m jealous; I didn’t like the ending of the series; I don’t like Jo because she’s successful; I’m not a fan of the books anyway; Etc.
My favorite post so far in these comments was the one where the poster first criticized others for namecalling (ok, valid criticism), then also goes on to accuse others of being “wannabe lawyers.”
OK, so if I suspend my emotions about the case and refrain from namecalling and try to make an intelligent argument based on the legal facts of the case, I am a “wannabe lawyer”? (hmmm, isn’t that namecalling?mmmm, that’s yummy hypocrisy…)
So, pray tell, is there any comment we CAN make that you wouldn’t find reason to criticize?
Sorry to be such a comment hog here, but I get so angry thinking of what Jo has gone through through recently. By all rights, this should have been a time for her to enjoy her triumph and decompress and start processing the whole experience.
Although I believe Jo/WB have a stronger case than RDR, I also agree with someone upthread that this never should have gone to trial and that Jo was ill-advised. As difficult as it was/is to deal with an ass like RDR, Jo’s lawyers should have found a way.
As for OSC’s and Ken Jennings’ arguments on the case, I think TLC does an excellent job of pointing out where their legal arguments have been contested by JKR/WB in court, so I’m not going to bother. I just wish TLC could actually have quoted relevant excerpts from the transcripts instead of linking to the transcripts as a whole.
Maybe I will go through the transcripts and extract relevant quotes myself and post them in the comment to OSC’s opinion piece, although it sounds like the comments are being supressed so perhaps I won’t bother. Anyway, why are the comments being supressed on an article that is arguing in favor of the right to comment? Ironic.
Gaiman seems to have at least a partially open mind about the issues, and after reading OSC and Jennings, I appreciate Gaiman. OSC and Jennings basically re-state the defense’s arguments while omitting JKR/WB’s arguments (then in the case of OSC go on to make prolific personal attacks that are totally unrelated to the legal issues).
It just worries me that the general public is only seeing RDR’s arguments in the press, which of course is going to lead to bias. I mean, I am biased for JKR, but I can at least eloquently state the opposition’s case and do so whenever I make an argument for JKR/WB.
Is it just me or is every other teen fantasy/ sci-fi writer taking credit for Harry Potter. Maybe Card was being sarcastic when he said Harry Potter mirrored Ender’s Game, but he still said it. I hope he was being sarcastic, because Harry Potter is nothing like Ender’s Game.
I don’t understand why alot of fantasy writers continue to claim that HP is unoriginal. It is a shame that Card feels it is nessecary to compare his compelling Ender’s Game with the equally compelling Harry Potter. His book is fascinating and he needs to be above petty comparisons and accusations. I wonder when we will hear from Jane Yolen. She surely hates HP enough to put out a public opinion. But she might be to busy recycling folk tales to up her book count. I don’t think these authors understand what HP is, or what JKR is going through. She is the first author to reach a billion dollars off of a book. Even Steven King is not on Forbes Richest list.
Card, did make a good point about authors taking things and borrowing from other authors. The fact is there is maybe only 36 storylines when you think about it. If I wrote a book about a young boy who has an elderly guide that gives him advice that influences to adult hood. Card’s Ender’s Game would not be the only story about that. Card even admits taking a word from Ursula K. la Guin. Thats fine for him, it would not be worthwhile for la Guin to pursue that. But in JKR’s case it would be extremly profitable for the authors that claim she borrowed form them to pursue. That is why she is covering all bases. Look at the Nancy Stouffer lawsuit, she could never prove JKR had access to those books and she even fabricated evidence. Also the lawsuit by the Wyrd Sisters an obscure band that borrowed their name from Shakespeare but suddenly has it copyrighted and wants compensation from WB. WB even offered them money to avoid those stupid claims, but they did not take it because a billion dollar industry like HP should offer them more.
I have said since the beginning of this trail, that the threat the lexicon poses is in the future and not now. When the Scottish book comes out RDR would be suing claiming plagarism and copyright infringement. JKR expressed these concerns in the trail and Steve’s continued claims to the Hogwarts timeline makes the threat a reality.
IMHO, this all really boils down to jealosy and regret. Card’s Ender’s Game has had a movie in the works for years, but it has never materialized. Maybe he feels it would be just as succesful as HP but has never got the chance. I am just tired of people bashing HP and claiming all kinds of things about its writer not being original, its cultural snobbery. A cultural snob claims everything popular is trash because it steals this and that, and this book is so much better. But its not, I like Ender’s Game but not enough to read the other books in the saga, because unlike Ender’s Game they suck.
I have to say that I think the point is being missed. SVA was obviously worried because he had a clause added to his contract stating that the publisher would pay any legal fees. Anyone so worried about things that he needs to add a clause like that to his contract ought to just trust his instincts and NOT write the book.
Even if (heaven forbid) that JKR and WB lose this suit, I would never buy the book after all of this bs that has occurred. I have no more respect for SVA, which is sad since I used to think he was really cool. I won’t even visit the Lexicon website any longer, which is a shame since I did think it was a great website.
JKR has a right to sue for copyright infringement. It is up to the judge to decide the merits of the case, I just hope the judge supports JKR/WB.
lolo wrote: “The fact that Jo is just now having a problem with the Lexicon now that it will be published and sold for profit is what makes her seem greedy and selfish. Granted it makes Steve seem that way too. But how can Jo praise it on the web and now condemn it? Doesnt make sense to me.”
Jo has said that she is trying to protect the interests of other writers, and I can see that. By allowing this book (which is 91% material directly lifted from Jo’s books—not paraphrased or commenting on, but word for word) she is fighting the fight for less wealthy authors who may have the same thing done to their work down the line.
The difference between the website and a printed book is that NO ONE was making money out of the website and the deterrent to wholesale plagiarism is that very few people are obsessed enough of have the time to copy out books they will receive no financial gain for.
By Mr Vander Ark and RDR seeking to re-publish Jo’s books without her permission, they will be setting a precedent that could financially ruin other authors.
Authors make money from their ideas, talent and hard work. To take the product of that hard work and claim it as your own is stealing.
Jo is not greedy to seek to prevent these people from stealing what is rightfully hers. I have seen some comments here that were to the effect that she has enough money, let her share some of it. As far as I know, the US (where this lawsuit is taking place) is NOT a communist state and therefore that kind of argument does not apply.
Jo does give a lot of maoney to charity, which is certainly to her credit, but even if she didn’t, she lives and works in a capitalistic society and she is not obliged to let other people steal her work in order to “share the wealth”.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Since DH was published, your interest in Potter fandom has:
- Increased! I'm more involved now than I ever was!795 (22%)
- It's stayed at the same level of fun it always has!1336 (38%)
- Decreased slightly: I only check sites a few times a week now.888 (25%)
- Severely lowered. Without new canon, I'm bored.358 (10%)
- It's gone. In fact, I can't even answer this poll because I'm not really visting a Potter site.112 (3%)
Have these people even followed the trial thoroughly? If they did, they would know that the whole point is that RDR/SVA didn’t cite Jo or provide commentary. Don’t make such harsh statements like that unless you have all the facts. These comments seemed unnecessary and down right mean.