Rowling Sues Harry Potter Lexicon 527
Snape kills Trinity with Rosebud writes "Apparently famous authors don't like it if you try to make a buck using their imaginary property because J.K. Rowling is suing the publishers of the Harry Potter Lexicon for infringement. This should prove an interesting test case for fair use given that the lexicon contains mostly factual information about the series, not copies of the books' text. Of course, both sides seem a bit touchy about imaginary property rights, with Rowling's lawyers being miffed after being told to print it themselves when they asked for a paper copy of the lexicon's website, and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts."
well that's funny (Score:5, Interesting)
"This is such a great site...my natural home." - JK Rowling
I assume this is a lawyer thing
The article claims this happens more often (Score:5, Interesting)
Other popular universes might be Star Wars, Star Trek, the Discworld etc etc. How many of these have books published that are NOT sanctioned by the original copyright holder?
All those Star Trek tech manuals, or star wars art books, or the discworld science books are ALL published with the blessing of Paramount, Lucasfilm and Terry Pratchet. (The ones I got at least)
So are there any books out there that do something similar that were NOT officially sanctioned. I am not talking about parodies like Star Wrecked, these fall under different laws.
Movies spawn novells, these also seem to be often written with the blessing of the studio.
So where is the evidence that this kinda of thing is common practice?
This site is NOT a synopsis or a review or even a discussion site. It is clearly a product designed to work of the original content by extending it. Selling it for money makes it clear they are profitting of someone elses work.
While some one slashdot favor a more lenient copyright system, I think even the most rabid filesharer usually is against people who pirate for profit.
There is a real issue here, who owns the rights to for instance a 3D model of an x-wing. Worse, who owns the rights to a picture of a light-saber. Does it become a Star Wars image because someone hold a sword of light OR does it have to have Jedi written all over it before it becomes a Star Wars image.
But as intresting a discussion as that is, it doesn't apply here. If you browse the site you can clearly see that this is a 100% ripoff of the original work that would have no value on its own. It doesn't fall under the rules for a biography, it is not parody. Fair use is about using a limited amount of someone elses work in your own work.
So how much of this site is their own work and how much that of the original author? I don't think it is a simple measurement, if I produce a detailed layout of the Enterprise, then the resulting blueprint may well be 99% my own work, but that 1% that makes it the enterprise also puts it firmly in the hands of Paramount. Without that 1% it wouldjust be a blueprint, it is their original work that makes it 'worth' something.
Look at it that way, would this site be worth anything without the original work. No, I don't think so.
So I think in this case the copyright/trademark? holder is correct. They tolerated the site because it wasn't commericial, but printing it is clearly designed to earn money. Sorry, but if you want to profit of someone elses original work to such a degree, you got to get their permission first.
writers, journalists, harry potter fans (Score:2, Interesting)
A professor should be able to publish an article interpreting the newest published literature.
A Harry Potter junkie should be able to write a book analyzing the lexicon in the novels.
It's a double standard; the journalist and professor are safe, but the Harry Potter fan gets sued.
Re:she's right (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:she's right (Score:1, Interesting)
And, BTW, this suit is not about an educational or factual work. It's about intellectual property, as long as this concept, however wrong it is, will be defendable, I'll encourage Janet to sue.
Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture. (Score:5, Interesting)
I support the idea of having a lexicon/wiki/whatever. But going out and trying to sell the information that is inside the books is taking it too far.
If you wrote a book, would you want someone taking all the facts out of your book and publishing it for their own profit? This isn't fair use here. If these people wanted to make the sparknotes of Harry Potter, helping the reader understand the books, that is fine. The writer of the notes isn't taking away any money from the author and is adding their own content. This is literally taking every fact out of all 7 books and publishing them for a profit, and not sharing that money with the author.
Re:well that's funny (Score:1, Interesting)
She is even worse than I thought. Ultimate bitch.
Good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture. (Score:2, Interesting)
Them's the breaks when you create something that enters the popular culture. Do you believe that third-parties shouldn't be allowed to sell "unauthorised" software for Windows because that would be preventing Microsoft from making a profit from all the hard work they did creating Windows? If so, then fine; I disagree, but at least you have a consistent position. If you disagree with that, then how is this different?
The content on the Lexicon seems to have taken a lot of time, effort and attention to detail (i.e. hard work) to create, and the author has made it available for free (presumably supported by ads, which may or may not pay for the site). It seems Rowling actually likes the site and doesn't have a problem with it if it's available for free. If people would be willing to pay for such content in book form, then why shouldn't he be able to make a profit from his own hard work? So long as he's not copying from the books so much that it would fail the "fair use" provisions, I can't see how there's a problem with this.
Her whole argument seems to be that she "plans" to release a companion book "one day", and if there's already a companion book it might decrease sales. What I think is that this third-party companion book created by a mere fan would be better than her own book, and she knows this -- and therefore yes, that may well hurt sales. Tough biscuits.
This seems like just another case of a commercial entity failing to meet consumer demand for their IP, and trying to sue anyone who DOES step up to meet that demand. Meeting consumer demand is pretty much the cornerstone of our entire economic system. What's more, in this case, meeting that demand isn't just a matter of providing the copyrighted content in a more convenient format (ala torrents), but providing supporting material which enhances the copyrighted content. It adds value.
Also, how many books are there in the Harry Potter series? Most fans seem to have bought them all. I don't think they'll hesitate to buy an "official" companion book as well as an unofficial one. ;P
Another thought: why not partner with this guy to release an official companion book and split the proceeds?
Re:The article claims this happens more often (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright is about the right to copy something. There are rules about fair use and how much copying versus original content is allowed. In this case, it would seem NO amount of copyrighted material was extracted and used, but rather statistics and facts about the series of works are being written.
And the question of "who owns the facts" has been up in the air for a while. Let's look at sports statistics and facts. The various parties in control of profiting from baseball, for example, have started lawsuits against publication of histories, stats, facts and figures related to baseball. "Who owns the facts" is a big deal.
Initially, I was thinking "not copyright -- it can't apply! they must be talking about trademark or some other intellectual property." This is not the case either. This is a [potentially] useful collection of information about the series.
And to pick another slashdot favorite parallel reference: The Church of Scientology often threatens and sues for copyright infringement for very similar activities. Often listing facts, histories and statistics about the CoS results in "copyright" related legal activity where the CoS is the plaintiff.
Who owns the facts?! How far can this "fact owning" notion go? Can people get sued by paramount for the creation and listing of the number of times that Spock says the word "Logic" or "Logical" for the purposes of a drinking game?
This is an important issue and it should really be put to the test and laid out clearly in precedent or law for it to be clear to everyone. "WHO OWNS THE FACTS?"
Re:she's right (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well that's funny (Score:2, Interesting)
*Some would say Harry Potter is not the best example of culture.
Re:Stallman to the rescue... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:she's right (Score:3, Interesting)
Note, that in the beginning (post Napster but when when Kazaa was popular), I used to argue with RL friends that file sharing was theft. Then the RIAA started getting aggressive and I started hearing a lot of arguments in favour of DRM and harsh laws involving intellectual property. The pro-IP crowd has educated me quite a lot since then. I am now (pretty much) in favour of laws against DRM and the like. When it comes to IP, then let it be free. If you have something that can make the world a better place (music, literature, etc) and only want rich people to enjoy it- then too bad. Don't make those things in the first place. Life isn't fair, isn't meant to be fair, and never will be; but it would certainly be MORE fair without IP. Thanks IRAA et al for educating me.
From the article:
Re:well that's funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Trademark not Copyright (Score:2, Interesting)
Even our patent office isn't that crazy. No suit here.
Copyright only covers the form of expression not the ideas expressed. So unless she was a material contributer or the lexicon copied large sections of her books, there's no successful routs for suit here either.
This one is close enough that a good lawyer might be able to win on Trademark grounds.
Fictional characters can be Trademarked. So if I go around drawing pictures of Donald Duck for a living, I could be liable even though the actual drawing was all my own original work. The idea is that the franchise and brand association could be weakened by such an action. So the "Harry Potter Action Toy" would be a clear Trademark violation, but the "Lexicon of Recent Popular Fantasy" probably wouldn't be. It all depends on the details of what words are used and how they are used.
Also, there are unfortunately far reaching incentives to pursue trivial Trademark infringements. If Rowling doesn't enforce the Trademark, she could loose the rights to it. Many companies fear these sorts of leaks in the dike especially since several companies have run into trouble with it (e.g. Xerox, Frisbie (but I think they eventually kept their Trademarks)).
All in all, this is a fairly weak suit for Rowling, but not necessarily frivolous. It all depends on the details.
Re:well that's funny (Score:2, Interesting)
It's probably not about the money (Score:5, Interesting)
Her concerns tend to be around keeping Harry "pure" - that is retaining control over how everything around it is presented, rather than wringing every last penny out of it.
In this instance it will be about wanting a single authorative lexicon, rather than multiple competing ones, some of which will not fit her vision of things, meet the quality standards she wants or whatever.
I'm not saying that this is right/legal/good, just that claims of greed show little understanding about the individual they are being made against and are probably wrong.
Re:she's right (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the teachings in that book is this: Wealth is poison; it murders from within. Lucius Malfoy ("bad faith") killed himself with wealth before he embarked on his career as a Death Eater. Rowling has allowed herself to be turned into a corporate person -- such a "corpse" will never rest in peace.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well that's funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Not saying I think they're worth reading, just saying that's a really stupid reason not to.
It's to late for Rowling to change her mind. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now all of a sudden she has decided it is a copyright violation. Apparently it wasn't yesterday, but today it is because the owners want to make money from it.
The intent of the owners does NOT change whether the site is a copyright violation. If it wasn't a violation yesterday, its not a violation today just because someone might make a penny.
Haven't you made enough fucking money off this crap anyway?