In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
Judge Urges Rowling to Make Lawsuit Disappear
J.K. Rowling by Mike Marsland/ WireImage.com
Who's got an Invisibility Cloak handy? Following three days of emotional testimony, a New York judge presiding over J.K. Rowling's copyright case has urged the author to stop litigating and start settling.
Judge Robert Patterson Jr. told the Harry Potter author and coplaintiff Warner Brothers that copyright infringement has a lot of gray areas in American law, and that the litigation could go on for years of appeals, according to the Reporter. "I think this case, with imagination, could be settled," he said.
As previously reported, Rowling filed the suit against a publisher that plans to print the Harry Potter Lexicon, an encyclopedia compiled by Steven Vander Ark, who has a website with similar content. Vander Ark's publisher, RDR, asserts that the encyclopedia would be used for scholarly use, and would not impact Rowling's sales.
If some of the publishing experts who testified at the case are any indication, the book may find plenty of readers, but probably wouldn't be making the New York Times best-seller list. One such maven called the Lexicon "poor" in quality. What's your opinion? Would settling work magic on this case, or should Rowling stick to her spells and keep litigating? — Anna Dimond
Use our Online Video Guide to conjure up clips of Harry Potter.
Related:
• J.K. Rowling Testifies Today in Lawsuit
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2008 5:55 PM
|
|
If by settle, you mean that it's decided that the book can only be published if the proceeds go to charity, that would be fine. Anything that allows a party to profit financially from the copyrighted work of another is wrong, IMO.
|
|
Apr 16, 2008 7:01 PM
|
|
I read some more interesting stuff about this today, apparently the Lexicon author himself was not the one looking to profit from this, the publisher that approached him about it is. Vander Ark, the author, expressed that he believed it would be a copyright infringement, and the publisher kept assuring him it wasn't. In their contract, Vander Ark required that the publisher agree to cover the cost of any copyright infringement.
|
|
Apr 16, 2008 7:19 PM
|
|
Way to point fingers at an author for fighting for her intellectual property rights. I can't believe how the media is portraying this as something the horrible, terrible JKR is doing to a poor, devoted fan. The book is 90% her work, uncredited no less!
|
|
Apr 16, 2008 8:09 PM
|
There certainly is precedent for lexicons and commentaries founded on earlier literary works, but usually either the copyright or the original writer had expired before the lexicons or commentaries were published.
This seems different. JKR is entitled to her intellectual property and the fruits therefrom -- even if she hardly needs the income.
I don't think we need more than one lexicon or encyclopedia of Harry Potter-dom.
Maybe a suitable settlement would be for her to collaborate with the hapless librarian in the preparation and publication of the work. The end product would be superior. And there should be a carefully crafted agreement ensuring that charity rather than the avaricious publisher reap the profit.
|
|
Apr 16, 2008 10:00 PM
|
|
But there's a history of "unofficial" guides out there. Any time something is hugely popular someone will jump on the bandwagon. TV shows and movies are especially bad for them. Just go into any bookstore and there are shelves of the things.
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 6:00 AM
|
The man wants to be a writer. But instead of writing something original or using the original content on his web site that he should have used, he instead chose to copy verbatim from the Potter books and use that for his book.
Whether he was encouraged by the publisher or just plain stupid, who knows. Rowling has a valid point. He did not use the original content on his web site- which talks aobut her books, but does not plagerize them.
And while the judge in a USATODAY article said he could not read past the first few chapters of the first Potter book due to all the unusual names, etc., when reading to his grandchildren - that shows bias against the book based on his preferences.
This is clearly a copyright infringement issue and if the man is truly a professor and wanna be writer, and did run a web site for years, he should know better.
He needs to either use the content on his web site, write something original, or settle the case.
Rowling has billions and can keep that publshing company in court until they are bankrupt. And even if the judge rules in the publishing company's favor, it will be appealed because this affects all authors living and dead. No one off the street should be entitled to your profits from your hard work just because they re-arranged your words or passages in their own book.
I am anxiously awaiting the Potterpedia book that Rowling says she will do someday. She said the book would probably include never before seen information on the characters, short stories, her drawings and much more. Now that is an original lexicon I want to see.
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 6:52 AM
|
This is ridiculous. JKR needs to be careful here because she's floating into George Lucas waters. Remember a multi-year stretch in the 90's and early 2000's when Lucas was suing a new fan ficton website, or suing some fan based creation every month for copyright infringment?
Yes, I understand this is a world she created, and she owns the copyright to all characters, etc. But it's basically a paper printing of a website that Rowling herself has been praising for years. If this was a new story, using Rowling's characters, then I would say she has a legitimate suit. But this is a reference book, and like a previous poster wrote - there have been unofficial guides to HP out for years. Why is this any different?
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 7:55 AM
|
|
I think JK Rowling should stick to her guns and her lawsuit. Why should anyone ride her coattails and profit from her work?
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 8:39 AM
|
But it's basically a paper printing of a website that Rowling herself has been praising for years.
Except now it's going to be available to purchase, not simply browse (the aforementioned article I read said that the online version has only ever brought in about $7,000 through ads and those funds have gone to pay for the server). And it's going to be in direct competition with her own upcoming encyclopedia. AND (this is in response to the person wondering about other unofficial guides to movies and tv shows) the book form of this Lexicon pretty much strips away all the unique work that users have put into the website and instead presents a stripped down guide that lifts passages directly from JKR's books.
Unofficial guides to other things often include a lot of extra work. They have summaries, reviews, analysis, etc. This is what allows them to bypass a lot of the copyright violations. You can write a synopsis of an X-Files episode, review it using your opinions, and then analyze how Mulder and Scully's relationship is a metaphor for whatever, and this is all your unique work. This is fine. But if you were to write down all the dialogue you hear in this episode, word for word, and then sell it in a book of X-Files transcripts? Then there's a violation - there's no unique work put in. It's just selling the original writers' words for your own profit. And this is what the problem with the print version of the Lexicon is.
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 8:46 AM
|
|
Here's the main problem. The Lexicon as a website Jo Rowling loved and praised highly. Once Vander Ark decided to make his website a book, she became distraught. It sounds a bit over the top for me. How is the means of distribution the problem? She likes the site, but the same thing in book form pushes her to tears? It sounds to me like she's going after one of her best fans and it stinks.
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 10:11 AM
|
|
She isn't going after one of her fans, she's going after a company which wants a piece from that huge Potter cake and used a [stupid] fan to make a ton of money. I am sure that she would agree with a settlement if RDR were to donate all the profit to charity or something.
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 10:19 AM
|
Martina, I wouldn't call him stupid, he was smart enough to require the publishing company to agree to bear the burden of any lawsuit. But if he knew in his heart that it was a copyright violation like the told them it was, he should have stuck to his guns and turned them down. And shame on the publishing company for seeing him as a pawn to use for their own profit.
inturnaround, I just explained some of the differences between the website and the print Lexicon in the post above yours. If it's not clear, I'll gladly clarify.
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 10:25 AM
|
Yeah, people need to understand this. A website is one thing. It's free. Jo herself has used the Lexicon website for quick fact checking.
But, now they're trying to sell the content on the website. Except without the critical stuff. Basically, it'll just be "Hippogriff: An animal with the front half of a hawk and the back half of a horse. The most famous hippogriff is Buckbeak, later christened Witherwings, after being provoked by Draco Malfoy in Prisoner of Azkaban, etc." No comment on the origin of the hippogriff, where JKR got the idea, how her hippogriffs differ from other hippogriffs portrayed in media, etc. It's just simple cut-and-paste thing he's doing, and he KNOWS it's copyright infringement. JKR is protecting her baby, her work that she created and that she was able to use to get a better life for her and her daughter.
And, they've already settled on a few issues. They may settle on trademark infringements, but the big one, the copyright infringement isn't expected to settle.
Check out MuggleNet for all the latest news in JKR VS RDR.
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 10:31 AM
|
Thank you the NY Judge for validating my point!!!
A few days back, I have said that JK Rowlings should not resolve suing in court to settle this matter. This should be settled among themselves in a civlized fashion among well-educated people like JK Rowling!
Going to court is not a smart move!!
|
|
Apr 17, 2008 10:37 AM
|
|
|
