JK Rowling Court case - Third Party wants to publish HP encyclopedia

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=acsenray]
This isn’t a criminal case. There is no “accused” as such.

But anyway, he’s completely indemnified through his publishing contract. He doesn’t actually stand to lose anything himself. The publisher is the principal defendant.
[/QUOTE]

If this is the case, and the writer is *not * a defendant, isn’t JKR just “invoking the rule”? That seems pretty standard.

It basically insists that all non-essential parties not view the testimony of other witnesses.

That is one of the most common practices in litigation.

42

Since there has been extensive press coverage of Rowling’s testimony, what would be the point of excluding Vander Ark from the courtroom during her testimony? It’s not like her testimony is secret. Vander Ark has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this trial, even if he isn’t a named party.

43

The testimony was really interesting. It makes me wonder… there must be dozens of unofficial Harry Potter reference guide books out there. Has J.K. Rowling personally vetted each of those also, or was there something about this project in particular that drew her special attention?

44

[QUOTE=Walloon]
Since there has been extensive press coverage of Rowling’s testimony, what would be the point of excluding Vander Ark from the courtroom during her testimony? It’s not like her testimony is secret. Vander Ark has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this trial, even if he isn’t a named party.
[/QUOTE]

Rules are rules. And this one is even called THE RULE.

His interest in the case is immaterial if he is not a direct party. His interests, it would seem, are being held by the publisher (following the assumption made in my previous post). Extensive press coverage is not SUPPOSED to be an issue, because as a named witness, someone like Vander Ark would be instructed to ignore all coverage of the case at penalty of contempt of court.

It is just easier to have “The Rule” than having judges bogging down their docket by trying to figure out when to apply the rule. Besides, when deciding between the rights of a participant in the trial and someone who is merely an interested, third party, you gotta go with protecting the rights of the party.

I understand your practical considerations. They are very rational. But rationality has no place in the law! :smiley:

[sub]In reality, she just doesn’t want her nemesis in the courtroom, psyching her out.[/sub]

45

What is this rule, Middleman? I’m not familiar with it. I was under the impression that there is a presumption that legal proceedings are public?

Are we not talking about testimony in a trial? Or are we talking about a deposition?

46

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 615. Exclusion of Witnesses

The sequestration rule was meant to guard against the evil of fact-witnesses influencing each other’s account of the facts. It applies to both depositions and trial testimony.

47

Ah. Okay. Of course. Witnesses should not view each other’s testimony. I didn’t catch the “other” in Middleman’s post. It seemed like he was talking about a rule in which “all nonessential parties” are excluded from the courtroom.

Well, of course, if Vander Ark is a witness in this proceeding, then it’s absolutely routine that he not be present in the courtroom during Rowling’s testimony. That makes it puzzling that the Associated Press article mentioned it as if it was some portentious event.

And it completely refutes any idea that Rowling must be possessed of some massive personality problems in order to make such a request.

48

That is based of course on the assumption I made that he is not a named party to the suit.

Either way, she could still be* batshit crazy*.*

But I would not put it past the AP to either not understand the legal maneuverings OR intentionally under-explain to create drama out of the mundane.

  • A technical, legal term.
49

These are the named parties:

Defendants: Does 1-10 and RDR Books (the “Does” are unidentified employees and agents of RDR involved in distribution and sales)

Plaintiffs: J. K. Rowling and Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc.

50

I had a book in my shop called “Barry Trotter & The Shameless Cash-In”, I assume that was protected by parody use.
There are a myriad of derivative works with titles such as “The Unauthorised X-Files Encyclopaedia”.

51

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
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.
[/QUOTE]

The 10 years and give the money to charity was in the New York Times yesterday.

I understand copyright. I don’t think they are in violation. Even if they quote parts of the story.

The question seems to come down to what percentage of this book is quoted from the Harry Potter books verses the percentage of commentary written by the new author.

Her complaints that it is ‘sloppy’ seem irrelevant. Commentaries of this sort have been published legally before this. The publishers do not have to publish a ‘quality’ work, just a legal one. Since none of us have seen this book, we don’t know how much is copied and how much is commentary.

If the book has a listing of the magical creatures that Hagrid taught the students about, it might look something like

Hippogrith (sp) A horse like creature with a bird head and wings. First appearenc in HP 3 and also seen in books etc. etc.

OR it may read like this

Harry approached the hippogrith and bowed. The huge creature bowed solemnly to Harry and allowed Harry to mount him.

In other words, a direct ‘qoute’ from the book.

But we don’t know what the entry looks like.

Well, I guess we could look online and see the lexicon ourselves since that is what they are publishing.
Another question I have.

Are Cliff Notes done with permission? I know they usually are done for ‘classics’ but surely there are some for more recent books. Surely those are done legally.

They ‘quote passages’ and give commentary. If those are legal, then why not this?

52

[QUOTE=Zebra]
Are Cliff Notes done with permission? I know they usually are done for ‘classics’ but surely there are some for more recent books. Surely those are done legally.

They ‘quote passages’ and give commentary. If those are legal, then why not this?
[/QUOTE]

There are a couple of major differences between Cliff’s Notes and similar study guides and what’s going on here. They include:

  • Study guides are overwhelmingly original content. The verbatim quoting they do is minimal.

  • Study guides describe and discuss a work from a broad standpoint. They constitute summaries, commentaries, and discussion. They do not come anywhere close to an inventory of everything that is mentioned in a fictional work.

53

[QUOTE=An Gadaí]
I had a book in my shop called “Barry Trotter & The Shameless Cash-In”, I assume that was protected by parody use.
[/quote]
And there was Bored of the Rings, by the Harvard Lampoon.

54

[QUOTE=Zebra]
The 10 years and give the money to charity was in the New York Times yesterday.

I understand copyright. I don’t think they are in violation. Even if they quote parts of the story.

The question seems to come down to what percentage of this book is quoted from the Harry Potter books verses the percentage of commentary written by the new author.

Her complaints that it is ‘sloppy’ seem irrelevant. Commentaries of this sort have been published legally before this. The publishers do not have to publish a ‘quality’ work, just a legal one. Since none of us have seen this book, we don’t know how much is copied and how much is commentary.

If the book has a listing of the magical creatures that Hagrid taught the students about, it might look something like

Hippogrith (sp) A horse like creature with a bird head and wings. First appearenc in HP 3 and also seen in books etc. etc.

OR it may read like this

Harry approached the hippogrith and bowed. The huge creature bowed solemnly to Harry and allowed Harry to mount him.

In other words, a direct ‘qoute’ from the book.

But we don’t know what the entry looks like.

Well, I guess we could look online and see the lexicon ourselves since that is what they are publishing.
Another question I have.

Are Cliff Notes done with permission? I know they usually are done for ‘classics’ but surely there are some for more recent books. Surely those are done legally.

They ‘quote passages’ and give commentary. If those are legal, then why not this?
[/QUOTE]

This link has a pie chart at the bottom of the document going over the percentage of work that was just quotes from the books. It’s a pretty significant amount. Take into account that Rowling made the chart herself, but I’m assuming she has more detailed documentation that didn’t go into passage-by-passage listings.

55

That pie chart was produced by Warner Bros., not Rowling. Rowling researched some entries which took parts of her work verbatim, but not the entire book. A declaration filed by Stephen Vander Ark (the author of The Harry Potter Lexicon) gives some examples of entries in the book (pages 18-19). In her testimony on the first day of the trial, J.K. Rowling stated that not all of the entries were this well-researched: for example; the entry on Remus Lupin (a werewolf) does not comment on the obvious meaning of his first and last names, the magic spell “alohomora” (which unlocks doors) is claimed to have come from the word “aloha” when it actually comes from an East African word meaning “friendly to thieves,” and the entry for “ogre” gives no information on ogres in myth or what an ogre is- only that Ron and Hermione claim to see one.

56

From the Times of London:

57

Rowling is willing to allow RDR to publish the book as long as it is rewritten to rely less on her own words and more on original writings about the words she has written. As the judge points out, a guide like this would be helpful since there are many “strange names and unusual words that would be gibberish in any other context.”

The testimony has ended, and the judgment will probably take a few weeks. There were three claims- false advertising, misleading business practices, and copyright infringment. The first two claims were due to a quotation from J.K. Rowling about the Lexicon website RDR planned to place on the cover: “This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing). A website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home.” (She stated in court she now bitterly regrets writing this.) Although the quotation was going to be stated on the cover to be specifically about the website, Warner Bros. posited that if one did not see that indication, they would believe the quote was about the book and thus falsely assume that Rowling not only approved of the book’s publication, but enjoyed the book. RDR agreed to remove the quotation from the cover, thus, these two issues have been resolved.

The issue of copyright infringement- the big portion of the case- is yet to be resolved. The judge fears that the case will be appealed and go on for years all the way to the Supreme Court in a Bleak House-style never-ending case, and hopes the two parties can come to an agreement.

58

[QUOTE=Zebra]
Hippogrith (sp) A horse like creature with a bird head and wings. First appearenc in HP 3 and also seen in books etc. etc.
[/QUOTE]

Hippogryph. It’s an “f” sound not a “th” sound at the end.

[QUOTE=An Gadaí]
I had a book in my shop called “Barry Trotter & The Shameless Cash-In”, I assume that was protected by parody use.
There are a myriad of derivative works with titles such as “The Unauthorised X-Files Encyclopaedia”.
[/QUOTE]

That was released here in the US as Barry Trotter & the Unauthorized Parody (it’s “…Shameless Parody” in the UK, apparently) and I listened to it as an audiobook. It was pretty funny. I see on Googling that there were two more: Barry Trotter and the Unnecessary Sequel and Barry Trotter and the Dead Horse… I’m now pondering reading them… Thanks for reminding me of all of that stuff! I’d totally forgotten it existed.

As to the case… if that pie chart is anywhere close to accurate… like within a 50% margin of error… then the book is pretty clearly infringing on her copyright.

59

Well, without specific examples, that pie chart is useless. At the heart of the case is how much direct quotation from the HP novels is involved, not the quality of the writing.

It’s a pity none of the journalists have seemed to pick up on that point enough to provide specific examples.

60

[QUOTE=pesch]
Well, without specific examples, that pie chart is useless. At the heart of the case is how much direct quotation from the HP novels is involved, not the quality of the writing.

It’s a pity none of the journalists have seemed to pick up on that point enough to provide specific examples.
[/QUOTE]

But the pie chart does address how much direct quotation from the HP novels is involved. “91.41% Rowling material” is the largest sector of the chart. Rowling hasn’t produced anything so far that isn’t HP-related.