Multimillionaire JK Rowling moved almost to tears by new Harry Potter Encyclopedia
- Thread starter Trancendental
- Start date
Mr. Anderson
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but the would-be author of the encyclopedia already has a website with all the info on it. Rowling has no problem with that, and in fact, she was quoted saying she loved it. It seems she draws the line when somebody tries to sell a $25 book catalouging her creative license. Sounds fair to me.
[quote name='camoor']It's funny, "watchable garbage with a few moments of brilliance" is typically how I view Southpark.[/QUOTE]
Well-said.
[quote name='camoor'](with rare exceptions such as the brilliant "Carnivale").[/QUOTE]
Dude, that series cliffhanger is the worst case of TV-blue balls ever.
[quote name='Mr. Anderson']I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but the would-be author of the encyclopedia already has a website with all the info on it. Rowling has no problem with that, and in fact, she was quoted saying she loved it. It seems she draws the line when somebody tries to sell a $25 book catalouging her creative license. Sounds fair to me.[/QUOTE]
Which is a point almost everyone in here is missing. Strummerbs makes some good points (though I think the Slate piece is off the mark as often as not) regarding something like a fan encyclopedia falling into the same category as literary criticism or reviews, which I think makes it okay, but it's pretty clear that this whole thread would be practically verbatim if she were suing someone who just decided to write their own Harry Potter book: "stop whining," greedy bitch," "the books suck anyway," etc.
Well-said.
[quote name='camoor'](with rare exceptions such as the brilliant "Carnivale").[/QUOTE]
Dude, that series cliffhanger is the worst case of TV-blue balls ever.
[quote name='Mr. Anderson']I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but the would-be author of the encyclopedia already has a website with all the info on it. Rowling has no problem with that, and in fact, she was quoted saying she loved it. It seems she draws the line when somebody tries to sell a $25 book catalouging her creative license. Sounds fair to me.[/QUOTE]
Which is a point almost everyone in here is missing. Strummerbs makes some good points (though I think the Slate piece is off the mark as often as not) regarding something like a fan encyclopedia falling into the same category as literary criticism or reviews, which I think makes it okay, but it's pretty clear that this whole thread would be practically verbatim if she were suing someone who just decided to write their own Harry Potter book: "stop whining," greedy bitch," "the books suck anyway," etc.
insertcleverthing
CAGiversary!
[quote name='o2012o']Wow, there is a lot of hate on these boards. Also, according to the OP, if Harry Potter is "pop trash," then I shudder to imagine what Lost could be categorized as. Don't get me wrong, it's an enjoyable show, but it is simply watchable garbage with a few moments of brilliance such as the recent episode, "The Constant." From the beginning, at least Harry Potter had direction and the balls to have an end in sight. In anime terms, Lost is 
ing Naruto.[/quote]
What the hell does Lost have to do with anything? And it most assuredly has an end in sight. Shit, they've already freakin' named when it would be! What are you babbling about man?
ing Naruto.[/quote]What the hell does Lost have to do with anything? And it most assuredly has an end in sight. Shit, they've already freakin' named when it would be! What are you babbling about man?
[quote name='camoor']To be fair, Lost Season 1 had suspenseful moments that reminded me of Hitchcock. It also has not finished it's story arc, if they can pull out an ending comparable to the "Sixth Sense" then I doubt you'll be able to find any creditable reviewer who shares your opinion.
It's funny, "watchable garbage with a few moments of brilliance" is typically how I view Southpark.
Admittedly I judge novels and tv shows differently. TV shows I usually watch just for fun (with rare exceptions such as the brilliant "Carnivale"). If I invest in a novel, I want to come away with more then a teenage witchcraft soap opera that relies too heavily on deus ex machina.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you make the differentiation between a reviewer and a critic, because Lost can knock it out of the park, and any "creditable" reviewer will probably be totally blown away. However, a slam-bang ending doesn't excuse seasons of sloppy storytelling, and any credible CRITIC will recognize that.
Because it wasn't full of crap, you will not hear me complain about season 1. Yeah, it hasn't finished its story arc because, for the entire 3rd season, they were still figuring out where they were even going with multitude of arcs that they already started. They created useless subplots that they developed over far too much time. The recent recap episode, and its almost complete neglect of Anna Lucia and Echo(?) just proves this. "South Park" has said all that it needs to say, and I put it in the ranks with most of television's other offerings.
As for "investing in a novel," come on. Seriously. Who "invests" in Harry Potter. If anything, Harry Potter is the "Lost" of the book world; it is popcorn with a soul (whether you agree or not). Except (as I stated before) at least it had - from the beginning - a direction and vision. Contrived Harry Potter conventions aside, the books serve as an interesting illustration of growing up and are hardly soap operas. The magic in the story is merely a means to an end, and that makes its many conveniences tolerable. The wretched attempts at romance in "Lost" fall into the soap opera category far deeper than "Potter" could ever dream.
It's funny, "watchable garbage with a few moments of brilliance" is typically how I view Southpark.
Admittedly I judge novels and tv shows differently. TV shows I usually watch just for fun (with rare exceptions such as the brilliant "Carnivale"). If I invest in a novel, I want to come away with more then a teenage witchcraft soap opera that relies too heavily on deus ex machina.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you make the differentiation between a reviewer and a critic, because Lost can knock it out of the park, and any "creditable" reviewer will probably be totally blown away. However, a slam-bang ending doesn't excuse seasons of sloppy storytelling, and any credible CRITIC will recognize that.
Because it wasn't full of crap, you will not hear me complain about season 1. Yeah, it hasn't finished its story arc because, for the entire 3rd season, they were still figuring out where they were even going with multitude of arcs that they already started. They created useless subplots that they developed over far too much time. The recent recap episode, and its almost complete neglect of Anna Lucia and Echo(?) just proves this. "South Park" has said all that it needs to say, and I put it in the ranks with most of television's other offerings.
As for "investing in a novel," come on. Seriously. Who "invests" in Harry Potter. If anything, Harry Potter is the "Lost" of the book world; it is popcorn with a soul (whether you agree or not). Except (as I stated before) at least it had - from the beginning - a direction and vision. Contrived Harry Potter conventions aside, the books serve as an interesting illustration of growing up and are hardly soap operas. The magic in the story is merely a means to an end, and that makes its many conveniences tolerable. The wretched attempts at romance in "Lost" fall into the soap opera category far deeper than "Potter" could ever dream.
[quote name='insertcleverthing']What the hell does Lost have to do with anything? And it most assuredly has an end in sight. Shit, they've already freakin' named when it would be! What are you babbling about man?[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the irony of his original statement in conjunction with his forum icon (a Lost character). Pay attention - he got it. And when I said there wasn't an end in sight, I meant from the beginning of the series. Sure, now that they have picked up the pieces (I hope), everything should wrap up fine. I look forward to seeing how they resolve everything.
I was referring to the irony of his original statement in conjunction with his forum icon (a Lost character). Pay attention - he got it. And when I said there wasn't an end in sight, I meant from the beginning of the series. Sure, now that they have picked up the pieces (I hope), everything should wrap up fine. I look forward to seeing how they resolve everything.
[quote name='o2012o']I was referring to the irony of his original statement in conjunction with his forum icon (a Lost character). Pay attention - he got it. And when I said there wasn't an end in sight, I meant from the beginning of the series. Sure, now that they have picked up the pieces (I hope), everything should wrap up fine. I look forward to seeing how they resolve everything.[/QUOTE]
A criticism of story quality from someone with a Dark City icon? The Barrel O' Irony in nigh-bottomless today, it seems.
A criticism of story quality from someone with a Dark City icon? The Barrel O' Irony in nigh-bottomless today, it seems.
[quote name='trq']A criticism of story quality from someone with a Dark City icon? The Barrel O' Irony in nigh-bottomless today, it seems. [/QUOTE]
If it helps, I am more interested in the film's aesthetics and technical achievement. Perhaps rose tinted glasses factor in as well seeing as how I saw it when I was pretty young and haven't seen it since.
[/QUOTE]If it helps, I am more interested in the film's aesthetics and technical achievement. Perhaps rose tinted glasses factor in as well seeing as how I saw it when I was pretty young and haven't seen it since.
insertcleverthing
CAGiversary!
[quote name='o2012o']I was referring to the irony of his original statement in conjunction with his forum icon (a Lost character). Pay attention - he got it. And when I said there wasn't an end in sight, I meant from the beginning of the series. Sure, now that they have picked up the pieces (I hope), everything should wrap up fine. I look forward to seeing how they resolve everything.[/quote]
Pay attention? That was like two steps removed! How am I supposed to keep up with that? Use my brain and/or sensory organs?! FAT CHANCE.
Also FWIW, I love Dark City too... I pretty much love anything with a cool concept or idea, everything else be damned.
Pay attention? That was like two steps removed! How am I supposed to keep up with that? Use my brain and/or sensory organs?! FAT CHANCE.
Also FWIW, I love Dark City too... I pretty much love anything with a cool concept or idea, everything else be damned.
Now if ever there was an avatar to post content irony to be made, it has to be here.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='o2012o']I was referring to the irony of his original statement in conjunction with his forum icon (a Lost character). Pay attention - he got it. And when I said there wasn't an end in sight, I meant from the beginning of the series. Sure, now that they have picked up the pieces (I hope), everything should wrap up fine. I look forward to seeing how they resolve everything.[/quote]
It's a Battlestar Galactica avatar. Dr. Gaius Baltar to be precise.
Pay attention indeed.
It's a Battlestar Galactica avatar. Dr. Gaius Baltar to be precise.
Pay attention indeed.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='o2012o']As for "investing in a novel," come on. Seriously. Who "invests" in Harry Potter. If anything, Harry Potter is the "Lost" of the book world; it is popcorn with a soul (whether you agree or not). Except (as I stated before) at least it had - from the beginning - a direction and vision. Contrived Harry Potter conventions aside, the books serve as an interesting illustration of growing up and are hardly soap operas. The magic in the story is merely a means to an end, and that makes its many conveniences tolerable. The wretched attempts at romance in "Lost" fall into the soap opera category far deeper than "Potter" could ever dream.[/quote]
I may have been a bit harsh on Potter, to be honest I never read the books and saw about 10 min of the movie, it's just not my thing.
However IMO it's not fair to compare a series of novels like Harry Potter to a TV show. TV shows rely on a strict time format, weekly cliffhangers, budget, and real-world cast considerations. Besides that TV series have to be designed to be easy to pick up in the middle, whereas a novel can assume your undivided attention throughout the story.
I may have been a bit harsh on Potter, to be honest I never read the books and saw about 10 min of the movie, it's just not my thing.
However IMO it's not fair to compare a series of novels like Harry Potter to a TV show. TV shows rely on a strict time format, weekly cliffhangers, budget, and real-world cast considerations. Besides that TV series have to be designed to be easy to pick up in the middle, whereas a novel can assume your undivided attention throughout the story.
[quote name='camoor']I may have been a bit harsh on Potter, to be honest I never read the books and saw about 10 min of the movie, it's just not my thing.
However IMO it's not fair to compare a series of novels like Harry Potter to a TV show. TV shows rely on a strict time format, weekly cliffhangers, budget, and real-world cast considerations. Besides that TV series have to be designed to be easy to pick up in the middle, whereas a novel can assume your undivided attention throughout the story.[/QUOTE]
The constraints of TV in terms of how you define it are becoming a bit archaic. As budgets and viewerships grow, shows such as Battlestar, Lost, and Desperate Housewives (not talking quality here, just storytelling) demand the full attention of the viewer - this is partially proven by the boon of TV on DVD sales over the past years and viewers willingness to "catch up." A show like Lost is almost impossible to pick up in the middle unless you want to be entertained without context. A Harry Potter book accomplishes that as well (I know many people who have only read the third book). In fact, the first chapter of each book explains everything that has happened prior much in the vein of a serialized show.
That was a long paragraph. I can completely understand that Harry Potter may not be your thing, but, from the beginning, I was just saying everyone's criticism of Rowling as being a hack may be a bit harsh.
However IMO it's not fair to compare a series of novels like Harry Potter to a TV show. TV shows rely on a strict time format, weekly cliffhangers, budget, and real-world cast considerations. Besides that TV series have to be designed to be easy to pick up in the middle, whereas a novel can assume your undivided attention throughout the story.[/QUOTE]
The constraints of TV in terms of how you define it are becoming a bit archaic. As budgets and viewerships grow, shows such as Battlestar, Lost, and Desperate Housewives (not talking quality here, just storytelling) demand the full attention of the viewer - this is partially proven by the boon of TV on DVD sales over the past years and viewers willingness to "catch up." A show like Lost is almost impossible to pick up in the middle unless you want to be entertained without context. A Harry Potter book accomplishes that as well (I know many people who have only read the third book). In fact, the first chapter of each book explains everything that has happened prior much in the vein of a serialized show.
That was a long paragraph. I can completely understand that Harry Potter may not be your thing, but, from the beginning, I was just saying everyone's criticism of Rowling as being a hack may be a bit harsh.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='o2012o']I can completely understand that Harry Potter may not be your thing, but, from the beginning, I was just saying everyone's criticism of Rowling as being a hack may be a bit harsh.[/quote]
My beef with her is that she's richer then God and still going after her true fans for a few bucks.
Considering the merchandising crap she's farmed the Harry Potter franchise out to, I think it's fair to say that even she realizes what she wrote isn't War and Peace.
My beef with her is that she's richer then God and still going after her true fans for a few bucks.
Considering the merchandising crap she's farmed the Harry Potter franchise out to, I think it's fair to say that even she realizes what she wrote isn't War and Peace.
[quote name='camoor']My beef with her is that she's richer then God and still going after her true fans for a few bucks.
Considering the merchandising crap she's farmed the Harry Potter franchise out to, I think it's fair to say that even she realizes what she wrote isn't War and Peace.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, and would be in your corner if she didn't already plan on releasing an encyclopedia written by her (she stated this after the last book came out). Perhaps she is concerned that her story will get confused with w/e this guy is releasing and is why she is so upset about it. She hasn't gone after the droves of unnoficial Harry Potter books that I'm sure are out there. What this guy is publishing sounds like fan fiction. I dunno, perhaps I have smiley goggles shielding me from the evils of the world.
Considering the merchandising crap she's farmed the Harry Potter franchise out to, I think it's fair to say that even she realizes what she wrote isn't War and Peace.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, and would be in your corner if she didn't already plan on releasing an encyclopedia written by her (she stated this after the last book came out). Perhaps she is concerned that her story will get confused with w/e this guy is releasing and is why she is so upset about it. She hasn't gone after the droves of unnoficial Harry Potter books that I'm sure are out there. What this guy is publishing sounds like fan fiction. I dunno, perhaps I have smiley goggles shielding me from the evils of the world.
PleasantOne
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
[quote name='darkinferno9908']I'm disappointed in her really all around; especially after book 2 when she started going after the Fanfiction crew... I gotta agree Lucas is much better to his fans.[/quote]
Has she gone after the fanfic community before? The part of community I'm in has largely been left alone...
[quote name='jollydwarf']P.S. I think Lucas only allows fans to 'do their thing' so as to keep the Star Wars mindshare elevated (which equals more merchandising revenue) and to allow the fanfic to make the Prequels look "impressive...most impressive" by way of comparison.[/quote]
I find it to sometimes be rather the opposite in Harry Potter-verse... with her books (esp. the last one) making the fanfic look like Pulitzer Prize winning masterpieces. Maybe THAT'S what she's afraid of...
I don't know if this whole thing is about greed or not. To me, JKR seems sort of... emo, and exciteable. I can understand having a connection to your creative work, but her's sometimes borders on disturbing to me, the way she talks about it. One of these days I'm expecting her to talk to the media about how, just yesterday, she invited Harry over for tea and crumpets, and he told her to kill! KILL!
Has she gone after the fanfic community before? The part of community I'm in has largely been left alone...
[quote name='jollydwarf']P.S. I think Lucas only allows fans to 'do their thing' so as to keep the Star Wars mindshare elevated (which equals more merchandising revenue) and to allow the fanfic to make the Prequels look "impressive...most impressive" by way of comparison.[/quote]
I find it to sometimes be rather the opposite in Harry Potter-verse... with her books (esp. the last one) making the fanfic look like Pulitzer Prize winning masterpieces. Maybe THAT'S what she's afraid of...
I don't know if this whole thing is about greed or not. To me, JKR seems sort of... emo, and exciteable. I can understand having a connection to your creative work, but her's sometimes borders on disturbing to me, the way she talks about it. One of these days I'm expecting her to talk to the media about how, just yesterday, she invited Harry over for tea and crumpets, and he told her to kill! KILL!
Kfoster1979
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
Full disclosure I am a big potter fan with that said...
A few points the Lawsuit started with WB suing RDR so Steve Van Der Ark is not some poor fan that can't afford to pay for his defense.
Also the money grab people think JKR is after. She has said many many times that all money made from an HP encyclopedia will be donated to charity. Same thing she did when she auctioned off a hand written book a few months ago that went for over 4m.
I don't agree with JKR on this, and I think the Lexicon has every right to do this under fairuse. On top of that I, as a Potter fan, have no interest in the Lexicon book because
A) I have read all the books more than once.
B) I can get all of the info from the web site I don't need a cut and paste job.
However the HP encyclopedia written by JKR I would want to read and would buy on day one. For me has a fan I want all the little crap thats not in the books, and yes the over obsessive stuff .
A few points the Lawsuit started with WB suing RDR so Steve Van Der Ark is not some poor fan that can't afford to pay for his defense.
Also the money grab people think JKR is after. She has said many many times that all money made from an HP encyclopedia will be donated to charity. Same thing she did when she auctioned off a hand written book a few months ago that went for over 4m.
I don't agree with JKR on this, and I think the Lexicon has every right to do this under fairuse. On top of that I, as a Potter fan, have no interest in the Lexicon book because
A) I have read all the books more than once.
B) I can get all of the info from the web site I don't need a cut and paste job.
However the HP encyclopedia written by JKR I would want to read and would buy on day one. For me has a fan I want all the little crap thats not in the books, and yes the over obsessive stuff .
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='hufferstl']The amount of money a person has or does not have should not affect their rights to protect their property.[/quote]
True, but if they are wrong, and then on top of that using their celebrity and wealth to sue a fan into oblivion, then I see a need to call them on it.
JK can use her wealth to buy the finest team of sharks around, the last weapon that we the people have against encroachment upon fair use is freedom of speech and I suggest we start using it.
True, but if they are wrong, and then on top of that using their celebrity and wealth to sue a fan into oblivion, then I see a need to call them on it.
JK can use her wealth to buy the finest team of sharks around, the last weapon that we the people have against encroachment upon fair use is freedom of speech and I suggest we start using it.
Kfoster1979
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']True, but if they are wrong, and then on top of that using their celebrity and wealth to sue a fan into oblivion, then I see a need to call them on it.
JK can use her wealth to buy the finest team of sharks around, the last weapon that we the people have against encroachment upon fair use is freedom of speech and I suggest we start using it.[/quote]
Again I will say it.. RDR is being sued by WB! JKR and Steve Van Der Ark are witnesses. Steve Van Der Ark is not being sued into oblivion.
JK can use her wealth to buy the finest team of sharks around, the last weapon that we the people have against encroachment upon fair use is freedom of speech and I suggest we start using it.[/quote]
Again I will say it.. RDR is being sued by WB! JKR and Steve Van Der Ark are witnesses. Steve Van Der Ark is not being sued into oblivion.
jollydwarf
CAGiversary!
I just want to say that it's reallly funny how both sides of an argument and opposite opinions about Rowling's work can be expressed here--which is a good thing--but if the same thing happens in a thread anticipating/discussing a given Nintendo game...well, to stay thematically 'on point'...
"Mr. Poster, please have a seat."
"Mr. Poster, please have a seat."
To me the concept of "fair use" is the problem I have with this. It seems that I could reprint one of JKR's books in its entirety, as long as every paragraph has some sort of comment or explaination about it and it would be covered. I feel that the only person that should be able to create a book filled with the people and locations of the HP universe should be the IP holder, which I believe is JKR.
Also, I hate that "blogs" are now pretty much news sites that put a one-line comment so that they adhere to "fair use" and steal the traffic from the original news souce.
[quote name='camoor']True, but if they are wrong, and then on top of that using their celebrity and wealth to sue a fan into oblivion, then I see a need to call them on it.
JK can use her wealth to buy the finest team of sharks around, the last weapon that we the people have against encroachment upon fair use is freedom of speech and I suggest we start using it.[/QUOTE]
Also, I hate that "blogs" are now pretty much news sites that put a one-line comment so that they adhere to "fair use" and steal the traffic from the original news souce.
[quote name='camoor']True, but if they are wrong, and then on top of that using their celebrity and wealth to sue a fan into oblivion, then I see a need to call them on it.
JK can use her wealth to buy the finest team of sharks around, the last weapon that we the people have against encroachment upon fair use is freedom of speech and I suggest we start using it.[/QUOTE]
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='hufferstl']To me the concept of "fair use" is the problem I have with this. It seems that I could reprint one of JKR's books in its entirety, as long as every paragraph has some sort of comment or explaination about it and it would be covered. I feel that the only person that should be able to create a book filled with the people and locations of the HP universe should be the IP holder, which I believe is JKR.[/quote]
That's a bit ridiculous.
I don't think anyone would support someone who reprinted the Harry Potter books with one line at the bottom. An encyclopedia also has little in common with a fictional book. An encyclopedia doesn't tell a story, it isn't creative, and it isn't even very useful without the original source material. It has alot more in common with a book review or cliff notes then a creative work.
Frankly, your vision of expansive IP protection is rather scary. Under it I would have to throw out my "classic movie" coffee table books (which are filled with pics from influential movies), quit visiting the excellent fan-made game guides and game plot analysis at Gamefaqs, and give up discussing the TV show "Carnivale" with fellow enthusiasts on message boards. All of these books/sites exhaustively reference characters and plot lines within the original works. None of them has resulted in a diminishing my interest in the original IP, or diverting my dollars away from the owners of said IP.
That's a bit ridiculous.
I don't think anyone would support someone who reprinted the Harry Potter books with one line at the bottom. An encyclopedia also has little in common with a fictional book. An encyclopedia doesn't tell a story, it isn't creative, and it isn't even very useful without the original source material. It has alot more in common with a book review or cliff notes then a creative work.
Frankly, your vision of expansive IP protection is rather scary. Under it I would have to throw out my "classic movie" coffee table books (which are filled with pics from influential movies), quit visiting the excellent fan-made game guides and game plot analysis at Gamefaqs, and give up discussing the TV show "Carnivale" with fellow enthusiasts on message boards. All of these books/sites exhaustively reference characters and plot lines within the original works. None of them has resulted in a diminishing my interest in the original IP, or diverting my dollars away from the owners of said IP.
strummerbs
CAGiversary!
[quote name='hufferstl']To me the concept of "fair use" is the problem I have with this. It seems that I could reprint one of JKR's books in its entirety, as long as every paragraph has some sort of comment or explaination about it and it would be covered. I feel that the only person that should be able to create a book filled with the people and locations of the HP universe should be the IP holder, which I believe is JKR.
Also, I hate that "blogs" are now pretty much news sites that put a one-line comment so that they adhere to "fair use" and steal the traffic from the original news souce.[/QUOTE]
That's not the case here, though. Fair use is a pretty vague legal test, but some of the major elements is the nature of the use and extent of the use, and the effect on the market for the original work. In your example, a wholesale copy would not constitute fair use, because it basically eliminates the market for the original work, and uses the entire work. In the encyclopedia being discussed here, my impressions have been that the only portions of Rowling's work reproduced are short, relevant quotations to illustrate the entries and discussions. Vastly different things. A person isn't going to substitute purchasing the original work by buying the encyclopedia, they are just going to use it to supplement them.
Also, your comment about having the only person able to create a book about Rowling's creation should be Rowling eliminates completely the ability to have independent discussion of creative works. Are you proposing making students writing book reports about Harry Potter into infringers? What about a graduate thesis (which may be made into a book) about the themes or tropes contained in the Harry Potter series? Fair use is a legal means to provide that free speech and discussion of creative works can exist, acting as a specific exclusion from the copyright law which provides solid legal protections for creators against unjust and improper copying or use of their works.
Also, I hate that "blogs" are now pretty much news sites that put a one-line comment so that they adhere to "fair use" and steal the traffic from the original news souce.[/QUOTE]
That's not the case here, though. Fair use is a pretty vague legal test, but some of the major elements is the nature of the use and extent of the use, and the effect on the market for the original work. In your example, a wholesale copy would not constitute fair use, because it basically eliminates the market for the original work, and uses the entire work. In the encyclopedia being discussed here, my impressions have been that the only portions of Rowling's work reproduced are short, relevant quotations to illustrate the entries and discussions. Vastly different things. A person isn't going to substitute purchasing the original work by buying the encyclopedia, they are just going to use it to supplement them.
Also, your comment about having the only person able to create a book about Rowling's creation should be Rowling eliminates completely the ability to have independent discussion of creative works. Are you proposing making students writing book reports about Harry Potter into infringers? What about a graduate thesis (which may be made into a book) about the themes or tropes contained in the Harry Potter series? Fair use is a legal means to provide that free speech and discussion of creative works can exist, acting as a specific exclusion from the copyright law which provides solid legal protections for creators against unjust and improper copying or use of their works.
strummerbs: I see a clear distinction between a graduate thesis or book report and an enclyclopedia being published for sale. A book that talks about the underlying themes and a character analysis to me is all original work and would be a fair use. But for someone to write a definition and history of Harry Potter or any other character or setting seems unfair. They did not create the property and yet they are publishing "facts" about these which could not be the message that the original author intended and could even damage the IP. Can this author under fair use, say that possibly, Harry exibited homosexual tendencies or that Ron was a possible drug addict? At what point does JKR get to protect her characters?
Kfoster1979
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
Well the whole argument is that RDR is not coming up with any analysis, or discussions of the books themes. That the book is nothing more than a cut and paste of the Lexicons web site, in its self is nothing more than a cut and paste from the Books and Q and A sessions JKR has had. Now if thats is the case that Steve Van Der Ark is adding no analysis or commentary of his own to aid in discussion of the text then I can understand JKRs anger. On the filp side if the book is discussion and analysis it is fair use.
strummerbs
CAGiversary!
[quote name='hufferstl']strummerbs: I see a clear distinction between a graduate thesis or book report and an enclyclopedia being published for sale. A book that talks about the underlying themes and a character analysis to me is all original work and would be a fair use. But for someone to write a definition and history of Harry Potter or any other character or setting seems unfair. They did not create the property and yet they are publishing "facts" about these which could not be the message that the original author intended and could even damage the IP. Can this author under fair use, say that possibly, Harry exibited homosexual tendencies or that Ron was a possible drug addict? At what point does JKR get to protect her characters?[/QUOTE]
What's the difference between an encyclopedia making these statements and a thesis doing the same thing? Rowling's ability to protect her characters is by making MORE speech, not suppressing legitimate discussion. Clearly, fair use would not protect malicious statements designed to damage the IP, but if there is a legitimate discussion, sure, they can discuss it.
It should be noted that fair use does not extend to fan fiction and the like, so if the encyclopedia purports to include new creative material using Rowling's characters, that material would likely infringe her copyright. However, as long as the encyclopedia is simply a collection of the "facts" created by Rowling in her books, she doesn't have the right to control such collection or discussion of those facts. I can fairly state that on p.X of Book 3 Harry says this, which indicates ABC. What I can't do is make a new story using Harry Potter characters. It's a fine line, but the courts have been pretty good, in my opinion, at balancing the rights of the authors with the rights of the public to engage in discussion of the work.
My understanding of this encyclopedia is that it contains no additional creative work. It is simply a concordance of the previously published material. This is a huge indicator of fair use. Now, the fact that it is being sold is a strike against fair use, but it is not determinative. Based on the facts that I know, which are admittedly incomplete, I would be inclined to bet that a U.S. court would find this to be fair use.
What's the difference between an encyclopedia making these statements and a thesis doing the same thing? Rowling's ability to protect her characters is by making MORE speech, not suppressing legitimate discussion. Clearly, fair use would not protect malicious statements designed to damage the IP, but if there is a legitimate discussion, sure, they can discuss it.
It should be noted that fair use does not extend to fan fiction and the like, so if the encyclopedia purports to include new creative material using Rowling's characters, that material would likely infringe her copyright. However, as long as the encyclopedia is simply a collection of the "facts" created by Rowling in her books, she doesn't have the right to control such collection or discussion of those facts. I can fairly state that on p.X of Book 3 Harry says this, which indicates ABC. What I can't do is make a new story using Harry Potter characters. It's a fine line, but the courts have been pretty good, in my opinion, at balancing the rights of the authors with the rights of the public to engage in discussion of the work.
My understanding of this encyclopedia is that it contains no additional creative work. It is simply a concordance of the previously published material. This is a huge indicator of fair use. Now, the fact that it is being sold is a strike against fair use, but it is not determinative. Based on the facts that I know, which are admittedly incomplete, I would be inclined to bet that a U.S. court would find this to be fair use.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='hufferstl']strummerbs: I see a clear distinction between a graduate thesis or book report and an enclyclopedia being published for sale. A book that talks about the underlying themes and a character analysis to me is all original work and would be a fair use. But for someone to write a definition and history of Harry Potter or any other character or setting seems unfair. They did not create the property and yet they are publishing "facts" about these which could not be the message that the original author intended and could even damage the IP. Can this author under fair use, say that possibly, Harry exibited homosexual tendencies or that Ron was a possible drug addict? At what point does JKR get to protect her characters?[/quote]
Gods forbid we slander the name of a fictional character. How will they protect themselves, they're not even real.
Gods forbid we slander the name of a fictional character. How will they protect themselves, they're not even real.
Kfoster1979
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
[quote name='strummerbs']What's the difference between an encyclopedia making these statements and a thesis doing the same thing? Rowling's ability to protect her characters is by making MORE speech, not suppressing legitimate discussion. Clearly, fair use would not protect malicious statements designed to damage the IP, but if there is a legitimate discussion, sure, they can discuss it.
It should be noted that fair use does not extend to fan fiction and the like, so if the encyclopedia purports to include new creative material using Rowling's characters, that material would likely infringe her copyright. However, as long as the encyclopedia is simply a collection of the "facts" created by Rowling in her books, she doesn't have the right to control such collection or discussion of those facts. I can fairly state that on p.X of Book 3 Harry says this, which indicates ABC. What I can't do is make a new story using Harry Potter characters. It's a fine line, but the courts have been pretty good, in my opinion, at balancing the rights of the authors with the rights of the public to engage in discussion of the work.
My understanding of this encyclopedia is that it contains no additional creative work. It is simply a concordance of the previously published material. This is a huge indicator of fair use. Now, the fact that it is being sold is a strike against fair use, but it is not determinative. Based on the facts that I know, which are admittedly incomplete, I would be inclined to bet that a U.S. court would find this to be fair use.[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. The one question I would ask is can't it be seen as plagiarisms if he adds no analysis or discussion of the information? I know he will give proper citation of JKRs work but where is the line exactly?
It should be noted that fair use does not extend to fan fiction and the like, so if the encyclopedia purports to include new creative material using Rowling's characters, that material would likely infringe her copyright. However, as long as the encyclopedia is simply a collection of the "facts" created by Rowling in her books, she doesn't have the right to control such collection or discussion of those facts. I can fairly state that on p.X of Book 3 Harry says this, which indicates ABC. What I can't do is make a new story using Harry Potter characters. It's a fine line, but the courts have been pretty good, in my opinion, at balancing the rights of the authors with the rights of the public to engage in discussion of the work.
My understanding of this encyclopedia is that it contains no additional creative work. It is simply a concordance of the previously published material. This is a huge indicator of fair use. Now, the fact that it is being sold is a strike against fair use, but it is not determinative. Based on the facts that I know, which are admittedly incomplete, I would be inclined to bet that a U.S. court would find this to be fair use.[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. The one question I would ask is can't it be seen as plagiarisms if he adds no analysis or discussion of the information? I know he will give proper citation of JKRs work but where is the line exactly?
strummerbs
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Kfoster1979']Thanks for the clarification. The one question I would ask is can't it be seen as plagiarisms if he adds no analysis or discussion of the information? I know he will give proper citation of JKRs work but where is the line exactly?[/QUOTE]
The main thing to note about fair use is that there is no line, specifically. It's kind of like the Supreme Court's rubric for pornography, "I'll know it when I see it."
Fair use is defined in U.S. Code as exempting from copyright protection limited uses "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." 17 U.S.C.A. 107. Certainly, a pure concordance of where various Harry Potter characters, settings, and items appear could be classified as scholarship or research uses, even if no new analysis is provided. Research includes the simple collation of materials, so long as the use is limited.
The main elements used by the court include, "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C.A 107. None of these elements are determinative, but they serve as a guide for a court in making its determination. So long as the encyclopedia is unduly using Rowling's material to co-opt the market or something of that nature, I'm fairly confident that what this could be properly classified as fair use.
The main thing to note about fair use is that there is no line, specifically. It's kind of like the Supreme Court's rubric for pornography, "I'll know it when I see it."
Fair use is defined in U.S. Code as exempting from copyright protection limited uses "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." 17 U.S.C.A. 107. Certainly, a pure concordance of where various Harry Potter characters, settings, and items appear could be classified as scholarship or research uses, even if no new analysis is provided. Research includes the simple collation of materials, so long as the use is limited.
The main elements used by the court include, "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C.A 107. None of these elements are determinative, but they serve as a guide for a court in making its determination. So long as the encyclopedia is unduly using Rowling's material to co-opt the market or something of that nature, I'm fairly confident that what this could be properly classified as fair use.
HeadRusch
CAGiversary!
Wasn't she like dirt poor at one point? Now she's the wealthiest person in the UK? So she's got that "killer instinct" to protect every last penny.
That, and she no doubt has a hoarde of legal eagles sucking at her teat on retainer who NEED stuff like this to keep them on the payroll.
That, and she no doubt has a hoarde of legal eagles sucking at her teat on retainer who NEED stuff like this to keep them on the payroll.
remember in the Early books they would use the word "Mom" instead of "Mum" like the original version? Or the first book getting a name change? Rowling was never happy about those changes and I guess she is much more protective of her work now that she has the power.
integralsmatic
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 68 (100%)
i could be gay and post the justin timberlake song "cry me a river" but i wont
But! cry me a billion and one rivers!
But
! cry me a billion and one rivers!
Mr. Anderson
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='strummerbs']The main thing to note about fair use is that there is no line, specifically. It's kind of like the Supreme Court's rubric for pornography, "I'll know it when I see it."
Fair use is defined in U.S. Code as exempting from copyright protection limited uses "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." 17 U.S.C.A. 107. Certainly, a pure concordance of where various Harry Potter characters, settings, and items appear could be classified as scholarship or research uses, even if no new analysis is provided. Research includes the simple collation of materials, so long as the use is limited.
The main elements used by the court include, "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C.A 107. None of these elements are determinative, but they serve as a guide for a court in making its determination. So long as the encyclopedia is unduly using Rowling's material to co-opt the market or something of that nature, I'm fairly confident that what this could be properly classified as fair use.[/QUOTE]
Even with fair use taken into account, RDR is still trying to sell (key word here) an encylopedia of Rowling's IP as a product on the market. At the very least, they would need to pay JKR or WB royalties. The online encyclopedia that the author runs does not bring him any revenue (besides ads maybe? I haven't been to the site), thus, there is no problem. But for some schmuck to make money off your creative license is a bit too much to swallow, and understandably so IMO. From what I understand, JKR embraces the fanfiction fanbase. Now what do you think would happen if somebody tried to sell HP fanfiction? Obviously, the hammer would be dropped. I know fanfiction not the same thing as a collection of information, but the basic principle remains the same. I believe JKR and WB are in the right here.
Fair use is defined in U.S. Code as exempting from copyright protection limited uses "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." 17 U.S.C.A. 107. Certainly, a pure concordance of where various Harry Potter characters, settings, and items appear could be classified as scholarship or research uses, even if no new analysis is provided. Research includes the simple collation of materials, so long as the use is limited.
The main elements used by the court include, "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C.A 107. None of these elements are determinative, but they serve as a guide for a court in making its determination. So long as the encyclopedia is unduly using Rowling's material to co-opt the market or something of that nature, I'm fairly confident that what this could be properly classified as fair use.[/QUOTE]
Even with fair use taken into account, RDR is still trying to sell (key word here) an encylopedia of Rowling's IP as a product on the market. At the very least, they would need to pay JKR or WB royalties. The online encyclopedia that the author runs does not bring him any revenue (besides ads maybe? I haven't been to the site), thus, there is no problem. But for some schmuck to make money off your creative license is a bit too much to swallow, and understandably so IMO. From what I understand, JKR embraces the fanfiction fanbase. Now what do you think would happen if somebody tried to sell HP fanfiction? Obviously, the hammer would be dropped. I know fanfiction not the same thing as a collection of information, but the basic principle remains the same. I believe JKR and WB are in the right here.
strummerbs
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Mr. Anderson']Even with fair use taken into account, RDR is still trying to sell (key word here) an encylopedia of Rowling's IP as a product on the market. At the very least, they would need to pay JKR or WB royalties. The online encyclopedia that the author runs does not bring him any revenue (besides ads maybe? I haven't been to the site), thus, there is no problem. But for some schmuck to make money off your creative license is a bit too much to swallow, and understandably so IMO. From what I understand, JKR embraces the fanfiction fanbase. Now what do you think would happen if somebody tried to sell HP fanfiction? Obviously, the hammer would be dropped. I know fanfiction not the same thing as a collection of information, but the basic principle remains the same. I believe JKR and WB are in the right here.[/QUOTE]
Barring some contractual agreement between Rowling and the author of the encyclopedia, if it's fair use, no royalties need to be paid. Period. As I mentioned before, the fact that the book is being sold is a knock against fair use, but it is not determinative, and I think in this case, the encyclopedia is fair use. I also already mentioned that fan fiction is something else. Fan fiction is likely to be considered copyright infringement, and Rowling could likely take action against such uses, for sale or not. An encyclopedia of research information is a different beast.
Barring some contractual agreement between Rowling and the author of the encyclopedia, if it's fair use, no royalties need to be paid. Period. As I mentioned before, the fact that the book is being sold is a knock against fair use, but it is not determinative, and I think in this case, the encyclopedia is fair use. I also already mentioned that fan fiction is something else. Fan fiction is likely to be considered copyright infringement, and Rowling could likely take action against such uses, for sale or not. An encyclopedia of research information is a different beast.
[quote name='camoor']
Frankly, your vision of expansive IP protection is rather scary. Under it I would have to throw out my "classic movie" coffee table books (which are filled with pics from influential movies), quit visiting the excellent fan-made game guides and game plot analysis at Gamefaqs, and give up discussing the TV show "Carnivale" with fellow enthusiasts on message boards. All of these books/sites exhaustively reference characters and plot lines within the original works. None of them has resulted in a diminishing my interest in the original IP, or diverting my dollars away from the owners of said IP.[/QUOTE]
As for the coffee table books, you cannot just take a picture from a movie without permission, so those are perfectly fine(because permission has been given). Fan-made game guides are not usually for sale and those are used for a purpose of helping someone through a game, not necessarily provide an insight into the characters(though to be honest, I do not necessarily read the types of guides you are referring to, so we could be talking apples/oranges here). As for discussion boards, they are merely a conversation between people, the same as an actual discussion(but with rickrolling), so I don't see this as a problem. I really just have a problem with people making money off of someone else's characters/story ideas. My opinions seem to differ greatly from others on this board, but I feel that if I came up with an original character and world, I would want to protect it from others tainting the image that I want to portray. Just my opinion.
Frankly, your vision of expansive IP protection is rather scary. Under it I would have to throw out my "classic movie" coffee table books (which are filled with pics from influential movies), quit visiting the excellent fan-made game guides and game plot analysis at Gamefaqs, and give up discussing the TV show "Carnivale" with fellow enthusiasts on message boards. All of these books/sites exhaustively reference characters and plot lines within the original works. None of them has resulted in a diminishing my interest in the original IP, or diverting my dollars away from the owners of said IP.[/QUOTE]
As for the coffee table books, you cannot just take a picture from a movie without permission, so those are perfectly fine(because permission has been given). Fan-made game guides are not usually for sale and those are used for a purpose of helping someone through a game, not necessarily provide an insight into the characters(though to be honest, I do not necessarily read the types of guides you are referring to, so we could be talking apples/oranges here). As for discussion boards, they are merely a conversation between people, the same as an actual discussion(but with rickrolling), so I don't see this as a problem. I really just have a problem with people making money off of someone else's characters/story ideas. My opinions seem to differ greatly from others on this board, but I feel that if I came up with an original character and world, I would want to protect it from others tainting the image that I want to portray. Just my opinion.
S
strongpimphand
Guest
woman could suckle on my left testicle if that makes her feel better....
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='hufferstl']As for the coffee table books, you cannot just take a picture from a movie without permission, so those are perfectly fine(because permission has been given). Fan-made game guides are not usually for sale and those are used for a purpose of helping someone through a game, not necessarily provide an insight into the characters(though to be honest, I do not necessarily read the types of guides you are referring to, so we could be talking apples/oranges here). As for discussion boards, they are merely a conversation between people, the same as an actual discussion(but with rickrolling), so I don't see this as a problem. I really just have a problem with people making money off of someone else's characters/story ideas. My opinions seem to differ greatly from others on this board, but I feel that if I came up with an original character and world, I would want to protect it from others tainting the image that I want to portray. Just my opinion.[/quote]
Gamefaqs does pay people to write guides for the games, and the site collects revenue from ads. IGN operates similarly.
Also - pick up any Gamefaqs guide and read it - the author usually stakes a claim to the guide and the hard work he put in creating it, adding that it can't be duplicated on other sites without his permission.
I don't believe all of the pics in my books are used with permission. Wikipedia certainly doesn't receive written consent for the use of a majority of it's pictures, it uses movie posters and stills in it's entries with the following boilerplate fair use disclaimer:
Gamefaqs does pay people to write guides for the games, and the site collects revenue from ads. IGN operates similarly.
Also - pick up any Gamefaqs guide and read it - the author usually stakes a claim to the guide and the hard work he put in creating it, adding that it can't be duplicated on other sites without his permission.
I don't believe all of the pics in my books are used with permission. Wikipedia certainly doesn't receive written consent for the use of a majority of it's pictures, it uses movie posters and stills in it's entries with the following boilerplate fair use disclaimer:
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Gamefaqs does not pay people unless there's a FAQ Bounty or the FAQ wins an award for FAQ of the Month, etc.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Gamefaqs does not pay people unless there's a FAQ Bounty or the FAQ wins an award for FAQ of the Month, etc.[/quote]
Yeah - back in the day they used to pay upwards of 100-200 dollars to write a guide, ppl basically do it out of love for the game today.
Still, Gamefaqs is basically making money (from ads) off of game guides, plot summaries, and encyclopedias (I consider a bestiary/item guide/locations summary to be an encyclopedia). It's pretty similar to what's being proposed here in concept.
Yeah - back in the day they used to pay upwards of 100-200 dollars to write a guide, ppl basically do it out of love for the game today.
Still, Gamefaqs is basically making money (from ads) off of game guides, plot summaries, and encyclopedias (I consider a bestiary/item guide/locations summary to be an encyclopedia). It's pretty similar to what's being proposed here in concept.
bread's done