What’s that supposed to mean? She has already written books and donated their proceeds to charity, and she has more money than anyone could know what to do with. She gives an awful lot of that to charity. Why would you not believe her when she says that?
O/T but… what the hell? In what universe? I was on one of the committees until I had to leave for personal reasons, and trust me, anime and smut (and bandfic, RPS, etc. etc. etc.) were definitely explicitly included. Three quarters or more of the board write graphic porn, so the latter accusation doesn’t even make any sense at all. The only thing that was dicey as of my last read through of the drafts was chan, and that was only for “choose your battles” reasons.
Bizarre and amazing the kind of propaganda that’s drifting through fandom about OTW. At least the “women only” accusation has some sort of basis in reality. It’s completely wrong, of course, but I can at least comprehend how someone could make that mistake. :dubious:
The thing that cracks me up about the whole thing is that she would probably make use of the online version to write her encyclopedia. I very much doubt that this case would have come up if she didn’t have plans to write her own.
The other interesting thing about this case is just how personally she seems to be taking this.
Also, how the heck does this little publisher think they are going to cover legal fees for this? I have to assume that the bill for this is going to be huge.
So is the publicity.
I think Zebra means either…
- She’s not going to do it at all (but she doesn’t want this guy doing it either)
or
- She has no plans to donate all the profits to charity.
Personally, I think it’s mostly column 1. She has “plans” in the sense that she’d like to do it. But I don’t think it’ll ever happen. So let someone else do it. But then, I don’t think this book is breaking any laws as long as they keep the quoting to a minimum.
Because she is saying that ‘they’ (RDR) don’t need to publish it because she write it in 10 years, and the ‘give the money to charity’ is clearly a tactic to show that she is benevolent while they are greedy.
I don’t care is she publishes it and keeps the money. Basically she does not have a right to say people can’t publish this sort of work. And since so much of her work is copying other people’s work, I don’t see where she has any complaints. Sure, the original authors of Greek mythology are long dead, but JKR didn’t invent 3 headed dogs that guard passages to the underworld, nor most any of the things she has in her books. The idea that she is going to claim ownership of stuff she borrowed and tweaked is, frankly, outrageous.
It depends on what “this sort of work” is, exactly. She very well might have that right.
Nope, if she “copied” other people’s work, she wouldn’t have rights to it. She only holds exclusive rights for the things she came up with herself.
She is not claiming exclusive rights in three-headed dogs that guard passages to the underworld. She is claiming rights in things like (I’m making this up) an incident in which Harry Potter foiled a three-headed dog named Clarence is guarding a passage to the Room of Brockian Hoofalofoah in the Slytherin tower of Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardy.
She is not asserting rights in ideas that anyone else can use. People can come up with their own stories about boy magicians that fight three-headed dogs. She has exclusive rights in a boy magician called Harry Potter who attends Hogwarts.
http://community.livejournal.com/otw_news/15557.html
I’ve been in fandom for almost 10 years, and I don’t recognize any of the LJ names on that list as being from anime and game fandom, and I consider myself knowledgeable about BNFs. OTW isn’t even a blip on the radar for people in Japanese fandoms. Western media fandom is a whole lot different than Japanese fandom and I don’t consider OTW to have demonstrated the knowledge to represent that community. They haven’t reached out to the common anime comms on LJ, nor to sites like AnimeonDVD or AnimeNewsNetwork.
I should note that I’m friends with Laura from Fanhistory, which may make you go ‘ahhhh, okay, I get it’ towards my opinions. I know I may be coming out of left field, but like I said, hardly anybody exclusively in Japanese fandom knows what OTW is, and if they do, it’s through fandom_wank.
I’m not sure why you think that all of them are supposed to be BNFs - there are a few, but I’m certainly not, and most of the people I’ve met working on it are not.
Uh, I think you’re right, I’m going to go ‘ahhhh, okay, I get it’ now. Perhaps we should just drop it now.
10 years?
Yes, she does: that’s precisely what copyright means. It means there are limitations on what use you can make of someone else’s writing. You can’t copy whole chunks of other books and publish them in a book of your own without the author’s permission. Or at least, there are rules about when and how you can do so, and the issue for the court to decide is whether those rules are being broken in this particular case.
It depends on whether what she’s claiming ownership of is the actual writing, or the specific characters and situations she created, or the ideas of three-headed dogs and magic wands.
My quotes are taken from this article. Actually, I had originally read a shortened version of this article that was published in my local paper, which left out some of the parts that make Rowling look whiny and emotionally fragile. Reading the whole thing, I’m not quite as sure Rowling isn’t overreacting, but I’m leaving all judgment to those who know the full story and are experts in the legalities involved.
I don’t think you understand what copyright protects. Copyright does not protect ideas. Copyright protects the specific expression of those ideas.
But this works against JKR too. Because her whole beef with this encyclopedia seems to be that someone is playing in her sandbox. And she’d have a point if they were making up new stories in her world. You can’t do that.
But writing about her books, how can she fight that? There are probably 100s or 1000s of books written about other creator’s worlds.
See Buffy, The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Lost, The Sopranos, 24, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc, etc, etc.
If it’s true that Vander Ark is using a lot of her own words in these guidebooks, as has been said upthread, then she has a case that he is reusing the specific expression of her ideas.
I don’t like JKR or HP, but I support her desire not to let others capitalize on her wild, confusing popularity without her consent, sure.
But all he has to do is not quote so many passages and he has an instant bestseller on his hands.
The execution of the current version of the encyclopedia might be crossing the line, but the idea of it is not.
No, she would have less of a point if they were making up new stories. After all, author Alice Randall did just that with the characters and world of Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind in her book The Wind Done Gone, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stop its publication (under the doctrine of parody as fair use).
Rowling is not claiming that commentaries infringe on her copyrights and trademarks. She is claiming that the RDR book makes extensive, verbatim use of her texts. In other words, that it is moved beyond commentary and into copying.
I don’t know whether the RDR book in fact does that; I haven’t read it, so I am not coming in on either side of this case. But I think you’re misunderstanding Rowling’s claim, and what copyright protects.
Bingo! That’s why copyright infringement actions are based on proving copying of expression, not ideas. To prevail in this case, this is exactly what Rowling has to prove. “The execution of the current version of the encyclopedia” is exactly the whole point.
The Wind Done Gone was a parody, thus protected by copyright. If someone were to write The Next Generation of Wizards in Harry Potter’s World (in America!), Rowling would be able to stomp out that book quickly even though it would reuse none of the same characters or locations.
I also understand that Rowling is more opposed to RDR’s book because it quotes passages of the HP books. But her constant cry of “I’m going to do it in 10 years… and give all the money to charity!” makes me think she would fight any “Harry Potter Encyclopedia”, whether it quotes her books or not.
Fan site coverage of the hearing:
Rowling said she had read “every word” of the Lexicon.
“I believe [the book] is sloppy, lazy, and that it takes my work wholesale.”
She said, “I think that this book [is] wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work.
There is “little in the way of commentary,” and that the “quality of that commentary is derisory” and that it “debases that which I worked so hard to write.”
“In every entry, you will see my plots, my words, often verbatim, rarely with quotation marks… it sometimes [is] actually misleading.” She said that of the four or five times she was able to find an instance where there is no copying, “on every account [Vander Ark] gets it wrong.”
In cross examination, Hammer asked JKR why she had not, in her own analysis, quoted the entire Lexicon entry; she said that she literally did not have time to do every entry fully, because it would have taken her a week to list all the places where her work had been lifted or copied.
published? for profit? without permission of Joss Whedon etc?