Bloody JK Rowling by wytchcroft

TALK STORY

Bloody JK Rowling

POSTED BY: WYTCHCROFT
UPDATED: Friday, May 16, 2008 20:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4205
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, April 14, 2008 2:36 AM

yes it's a rare Wytch rant!:)

has anyone being paying attention to her court case??
i have. here's the latest...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7346093.stm

Bloody Rowling is taking the writer of some (probably not very good - but so what!)
'unauthorised guide to harry potter' book to court for copyright infringement and for potentially damaging the perceived quality of her own product...

if she wins - then bloody great books like 'finding serenity', 'serenity found', 'so say we all', Keith Topping's Buffy guide etc etc will be under threat - as will sundry unauthorised fan web-sites.

at the very least - publishers will think twice about new works that may provoke litigation - 'Joe Fan's Guide To DollHouse' etc whatever.

not to mention her own fan-base.

Rock on JK - proving your place in the pantheon yet again.

..................
tetchy? guess i'm on the mend then huh?:)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 3:17 AM

EVILDINOSAUR

Sorry but I think she has every right to sue. Harry Potter is her property, she created it, therefore she's entitled to a piece of everything related to it. I would want nothing less if I created something that became a huge success.

I have no problem with fan made stuff, but permission from the creator has to be acquired first for anything you intend to sell. For stuff like fan websites though that's not a problem, there's no money changing hands so it's no big deal.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 3:34 AM

HIXIE129

I agree with evilD.. All these unauthorized books and websites try to make money off of others creativity..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 4:44 AM

EMBERS

this encyclopedia, like critical analysis, and scholarly treatise, have traditionally NOT been considered to be copyright infringement historically (and I expect the judge to rule that way this time too)

this is NOT fan fiction, the writer is not using her characters to tell a story, simply to compile her stories and terms and characters....

She is suing because she wants to put out her own encyclopedia but thing book does not prevent her from doing that, there is no real conflict because you know the second they publish the 'official' Harry Potter Encyclopedia it will sell like hot cakes (or worse, Harry Potter books).

New Firefly fans should check this out: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=15816

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 14, 2008 8:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

She ENDORSED the website. She praised the website. She used the website and it's data compilation for her own continued work.
He had not yet written the book. There was not yet a book to satisfy the fans. She had not published a book, and apparently was not interested until she saw the popularity of books like Serenity: The Offical Companion.
he had her endorsing his work of compiling her work, he took off from his job to produce the book. Only after all this work, her publisher said he must forfeit all his work and time and investment.
Seems she was decidedly unclear, and she is willing to let him suffer for it. She could at least have paid him as a consultant and let him return to his life, instead of just pulling the rug out from under him.She does reserve then rights of her work. But she was also very unclear about the exact data and work she was endorsing and praising.
he had no indication that she was going to reverse course and denounce the same work she had been praising.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:46 AM

CHAPTERANDVERSE

I think the problem here is that this is an encyclopedia rather than a fanfic, general overview with comment on characters and themes, or a book on the fandom.
Yes, Rowling supported the Lexicon Web site, because it was a Free resource for fans.
The encyclopedia will make a profit for Steve Van der Ark, who, although he has certainly worked very hard an created an impressive site, is presenting information on Rowling's world without contributing anything new to it.
I think that if this court case finds in favor of the Lexicon and its publisher and this encyclopedia is published then there will be a problem for other fan sites, books, etc. because authors will know that if they do not send cease and desist orders to fan sites, their copyright will be infringed.
And thats when sites and fans will have a problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:24 AM

WYTCHCROFT

gotta agree with Jewel and Chapter here.

also - the guide book guy is not likely to make THAT much profit. Rowling is filthy rich.
And for someone whose literary uh,influences, are pretty obvious - there's also a little pot and kettle here.

also - i have seen children and young adults encouraged into writing using Potter fan fic as the medium. people who would otherwise struggle with literacy. so, again - grr arrgh!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 3:52 AM

CYBERSNARK

I'm kinda on Rowling's side here.

Creating a FREE resource is a very different animal than publishing something FOR PROFIT. It doesn't matter how much profit, it's a legal issue.

And I'm sure that "Finding Serenity" and all other pop-culture reference books were carefully authorized by the creators and/or rights-holders. That doesn't appear to have been the case here; if it was (and Rowling was given input as is her right), this wouldn't be an issue.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:44 PM

WYTCHCROFT

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I'm kinda on Rowling's side here.

And I'm sure that "Finding Serenity" and all other pop-culture reference books were carefully authorized by the creators and/or rights-holders.
-----

nope, they weren't. edited by jane espenson et al but no - the books have COMPLETELY UNAUTHORISED in big friendly letters on the cover.

so do many useful reference works etc that i have and use for different fandoms and media.

the repurcussive damage this case could cause (and its petty nature) is what angers me the most... since it far outweighs the alleged offense.

you really think paramount or Lucas have lost so very much over unauthorised star trek/wars material? i surely don't.

..........................

"I'm having a Grateful Dead moment - Bootleg the puppy!" Joss Whedon.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 7:44 PM

BORIS

I doubt Jane Espenson would have been so rude as to proceed with gathering and publishing the written pieces in Serenity Found and Finding Serenity, if Joss and co had a problem with it. Besides, these books are not a Marketing venture. Jk is suing because someone is trying to make money off her (albeit none too original) ideas. It feels Acutely crappy when you create something, and someone sees how successful it is, copies a significant part of it and offers it up for sale. (yes this has happened to me, and it sucks when someone steals your baby, camouflages it a little,and rides your coat tails to gain financial success.It particularly sucks, when their version of it is of lesser quality, because people still refer their complaints to you as the original creator.Of course I am offering this from the point of view of a low income earner that does not create things specifically to make money...JK is on a differnt plane, but I imagine it still feels shitty even if you are a mega billionaire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 8:15 PM

BORIS

I've just been thinking of an alternate response...It would be really wrong of JK to sue, if she saw the marketing potential of what the guy was doing, and then decided to do her own version, after having had access to his hard work and seemingly encouraged it...I don't know her or her intentions, but considering: the "borrowings" in her books; the utter bleghness of the last three( all the kids at work agree with me, It's not just my opinion); and her aggressive marketing strategies so far; it would not surprise me if this was the case. I'll be interested to see what comes out of the court case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:48 AM

TRISTANPERRY

It's a trick section of the law, although for the most part companies/writers aren't too concerned about breaches of Intellectual Policy as long as it promotes their own creations (thus earning them money in the longer run through increased fan bases).

However having a book published, entirely for profit, without asking for any permission, is quite different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:24 PM

BIGGESTDAMNHERO

So what. She came from nothing made tons of cash, no some lowlife wants to cash in on her creation. Good for her. What if you were in her shoes? No different than musicians wanting to keep their songs from internet thieves. Authors can sue over plagiarism all the time. So get over it. Would Joss sit by if somebody recreated Firefly, but changed for example the name of the ship? Bet ya he wouldn't. He's a thief, or at the least a opportunist.

"And I'm thinking you weren't
burdened with an overabundance of
schooling"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:50 PM

BORIS

From what I've been reading, there's a good chance JK's the thief here..kind of. even though the original concept was hers and she owns it, she did encourage the guy's website, and was aware of his intention to create the encyclopaedia...interesting how she only got shirty about it when it was nearly time to publish. interesting too how she had said she wouldn't write anymore Harry potter books, and now says she intends on producing her own encyclopaedia, and other related books...I respect her right to make money off her own idea, but not at the expense of hard work penned by others with her insincere "I'll see how good your take on my idea is and then take ownership" encouragement. And what was that whole Dumbledore is Gay thing, if not a marketing ploy? kudos to her for rising from poverty, but I think she's too greedy now. Joss Whedon has not complained about the novelisations and other publications about his creations. aLSO there have been some quite blatant Buffy ripoffs that have been televised, and I haven't heard him complain so your argument on that point is kind of nullified. Jk is a master opportunist, she should teach classes in it...being a chronically cynical individual I would not be at all surprised if the story of her rise from the ashes, turns out to be a fabrication, or an exageration of the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:42 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by boris:
From what I've been reading, there's a good chance JK's the thief here..kind of. even though the original concept was hers and she owns it, she did encourage the guy's website, and was aware of his intention to create the encyclopaedia...interesting how she only got shirty about it when it was nearly time to publish. interesting too how she had said she wouldn't write anymore Harry potter books, and now says she intends on producing her own encyclopaedia, and other related books...I respect her right to make money off her own idea, but not at the expense of hard work penned by others with her insincere "I'll see how good your take on my idea is and then take ownership" encouragement. And what was that whole Dumbledore is Gay thing, if not a marketing ploy? kudos to her for rising from poverty, but I think she's too greedy now. Joss Whedon has not complained about the novelisations and other publications about his creations. aLSO there have been some quite blatant Buffy ripoffs that have been televised, and I haven't heard him complain so your argument on that point is kind of nullified. Jk is a master opportunist, she should teach classes in it...being a chronically cynical individual I would not be at all surprised if the story of her rise from the ashes, turns out to be a fabrication, or an exageration of the truth.

If it's based on her work, it's a derivative work. The original copyright owner owns all derivative works under copyright law.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:35 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by wytchcroft:
nope, they weren't. edited by jane espenson et al but no - the books have COMPLETELY UNAUTHORISED in big friendly letters on the cover.

*looks at her copy of Finding Serenity* Um, no, sorry, but it doesn't.
I have had books titled 'The unofficial/unauthorized' something or other, usually for X-files. However, there was never an 'Unofficial episode guide to the X-files' or unofficial novels, because those were put out officially. And I noticed as the years went on that there were fewer and fewer of those kinds of things, so I doubt taking umbrage to unauthorized companion books is without precedent.
Personally, I'd like to know what she has to say about the world she created. Most fans of anything have some very differing ideas on how things should be, and I just prefer canon. Fan ideas can run rampant online, but I don't want to pay for them too terribly badly. I mean, I doubt anyone would want to pay to read what I think about the Harry Potter universe, even if a few people did find it interesting. There's fanfic everywhere, there's discussion everywhere, and so long as they're not getting paid for it, there's no foul. You're saying you're concerned that fansites will be shut down over this? No, they won't, because members don't have to pay for those.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:50 PM

BORIS

I agree with that...Legally she does own all links to her work...but she should give credit to anyone she encouraged (or didn't discourage)to develop her concepts further. She didn't stop the guy from writing the thing, she just doesn't want him to publish it, so she can do her own. I'm not so sure she would have created her own encyclopaedia if someone else hadn't developed it to a point where it looked like it was going to take off. I would like to find out the whole story in this situation just to see who's right and who's wrong, and whether there is a compromise required.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:58 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by boris:
(or didn't discourage)

Lack of 'no' doesn't mean 'yes' in this or anything else.
I'm quite sure she was planning an encyclopedia before someone 'proved' it was a paying proposition, too. Number one, she had already written two 'reference' books for the series: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them as well as Quiditch Through the Ages, and she was saying years ago that she was thinking of doing an encyclopedia of Harry Potter to tie up all the threads she didn't get a chance to address throughout the books. When HBP came out and everyone was lamenting that there would be only one more book, she pretty much said 'fear not, more Harry is coming, not in an eighth novel, but in an encyclopedia which will give details and backstory to anyone interested.'
Number two, correct me if I'm wrong, but anything connected to Harry Potter is a paying proposition by default. It wasn't something she'd have to wait and see on.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE