Fans are scary. I'd know, since I've had a couple and I would do any number of unnatural acts to have more.

Anyways, Fans are scary, Particulary the yaoi girls. Authors have three options when dealing with them: Courtship, Indifference or Abuse (Neon Genesis!). But when you've got to sue them, you've gone to far.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/enterta ... etail.html

Rowling fails.

WTF!

Everyone does that for Tolkien books, and the Tolkien Estate doesn't care! Look at that book of One Ring.net's essays! It was unofficial!

Isn't this covered under fair use? Or isn't this fair (or at least close enough to unfair for Rowling's legal monkeys to sue)?

Wah.

I read that somewhere last night. I had click the back button. It wasn't that great of a news source. I tried to deny it to myself. "No, no, impossible..."

There's been other stuff published for HP. Like there was Emerson's book full of predictions of what was to come HP7.

But can somebody explain:

wrote:Rowling said that if the Lexicon is published, other authors will have to protect their work more vigorously against Internet material that's based on that work.

to me cuz I thought the problem was the fact that the guy was going to publish it OFFline?

And she used to compliment that site too. She called it her "natural home." Or maybe that was the Leaky Cauldron. But still, it's this part that still keeping me shocked on the whole thing.

First there's HBP and DH, and now this? Can my childhood be more further fragmented?

*Goes back into denial phase.*

after spending a while reading over the debates, i'm going to have to disagree with you, Post. reasons to follow.

wrote:Isn't this covered under fair use? Or isn't this fair (or at least close enough to unfair for Rowling's legal monkeys to sue)?

from what i understand, it's basically the lexicon itself, a derivative piece of work organised and presented in an unoriginal fashion. it's not covered under fair use because it doesn't contain any original content, such as the essays on lexicon (as a lot of them were contributed by others) and sometimes quotes verbatim from the book, which is not transformative, and which violates copyright.

wrote:There's been other stuff published for HP. Like there was Emerson's book full of predictions of what was to come HP7.

covered under fair use because it contained analytical, original content such as theories. i'm personally a fan of david colbert's magical worlds of harry potter, which got through because it involves original thought/research such as mythology related to names and characters in the books, etc

Mwamba wrote: can someone explain:

wrote:Rowling said that if the Lexicon is published, other authors will have to protect their work more vigorously against Internet material that's based on that work.

to me cuz I thought the problem was the fact that the guy was going to publish it OFFline?

basically, if RDR books wins due to the argument that it was allowed to exist on the net, therefore it should be allowed to be published... well, in future authors may go to extents as banning fansites, fanfiction, fanart, etc, to protect copyright, because it sets a precedent for future lawsuits. some authors like Anne Rice aren't as generous toward fanfiction as JKR is. if RDR and Steve Vander Ark (SVA) win, authors will be more cautious. there's a large chance everyone will have to say byebye to fanfics, or any other type of material that could be seen to violate copyright.

wrote:And she used to compliment that site too. She called it her "natural home." Or maybe that was the Leaky Cauldron. But still, it's this part that still keeping me ]shocked on the whole thing.

yes, she praised it, but that doesn't give SVA the right to turn it into his next meal ticket. after putting in all that effort of creating a universe, i'd be pretty angry if someone alphabetized it, slapped a cover on it and tried to sell it!

plus, i've read a letter from SVA (can't remember who to), that further convinces me that what he is doing is wrong.

example 1:

wrote:The book is not simply a cut and paste of the Lexicon website. The entries on the website provide much more detailed and complete information than the entries in the book.

free version = more detailed. book version = less detailed, costs $25. to me it sounds an awful lot like a rip-off for consumers.

example 2:

wrote:Part of the problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the part of many that Rowling has the right to completely control anything written about the Harry Potter world.

this part gets me so angry. of course she does! she's the one that wrote about the universe! why shouldn't she be able to control it?

example 2:

wrote:You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others. We always try to do that in a legal and respectful way.

living off the work of others. does that sound like something an honest person would do? it is not legal nor respectful if you have asked for permission and been denied, then continue to do it anyway.

entire letter:

wrote:'The book is not simply a cut and paste of the Lexicon website. The entries on the website provide much more detailed and complete information than the entries in the book. We took the information on the site and did a lot of editing, condensing, and in some cases complete rewriting. We avoided direct quotations whenever we could and clearly cited any quotations that we kept in. In the case of entries from Rowling's own "encyclopedia"-style books, we intentionally left a lot out and urged readers in the introduction to the book to go buy her books for the complete information. A large portion of the Lexicon book text is available online as part of the filings from Warner Bros last week if you'd like to see what the final result looks like. • While I was working on the Lexicon book, I received assurances from several copyright and intellectual property experts that the book we were creating was legal. Part of the problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the part of many that Rowling has the right to completely control anything written about the Harry Potter world. That's quite a huge power grab on her part and from everything I can tell, not legal. You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others. We always try to do that in a legal and respectful way. However, if Rowling manages to extend her reach that far into our subculture, she will choke us off very quickly. And if she doesn't, what's to stop the next person from taking this legal precedent to even more dangerous places?'

las two sentences = oh, teh oppression.

source: http://news.ansible.co.uk/a247.html. of particular interest is the statistics.

it feels weird supporting the big corporation over the little guy, but from what i can tell both morally and legally, what SVA and RDR books are doing, is wrong.

You can never ban anything on the internet, as coporations have learned to their woe.

Immitation is flattery. HP Lovecraft's decendants, Tolkien's decendants, The guy who wrote Conan, Joss Whedon, hell even George Lucas can sue their fans all over their place. But they don't. See, after a point you don't own a creative universe after you're done with it. See any old movie. It's too early for that to happen to Potter, yes... but I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just saying it's a lack of graceful ageing.


And those guys who don't even allow Fanfiction, they have my eternal contempt.

yes, i agree. it would be extremely difficult, but most authors would go to great measures to defend their copyright, in this case it's suing a former fan.

imitation may be flattery, but that still doesn't make it legal... those people may have reasons why they can't sue, for example i'm currently reading a post that suggests that works by Tolkien fans contain sufficient transformative material such as analysis, to pass by through fair use. plus, the fact that one copyright holder acts differently to another doesn't really relate to JK Rowling's case... whether or not they use their right, they still have it, and shouldn't be chastised for using it as JKR has been on some sites.

you may not own the universe in the sense that anyone is allowed to think what they want once it is released, but legally, it is still the intellectual property of the owner. i would be less than happy if someone repackaged my writing and tried to sell it. i don't see how defending her property makes JKR ungraceful, i would do the same if i were in her position. but i do apologise if it sounded like i was biting your head off, Post, i think i interpreted your post differently to the way you intended it.

EDIT: this is a link of interest that i found, it's a link to a PDF of the claims of RDR and SVA. justia.

It can't be done. The closest anyone has got to censoring the net are the Chinese. And their success is debatable.

The guy is expanding her universe. This has happened many times, there are hundreds of Wikis on the net. As I understand it, Rowling owns the characters, and any adaptation thereof... the Book is a fan made guide, she does not own discussion on her books. Relatively few people will buy it anyway.

The relationship between Fansites and Authors has always been legally unclear, but this is a first. Even if Rowling wins the case, she doesn't get any points for humility.

Fanfiction and creative expanding by non-creators is a critical step in evolution. Just look at Star Wars. Expanded Universe came up with so many things that were later seen in the movies, like Coruscant. Lovecraft and his fellows had a shared mythos wherein one person's stories were interconnected with another's.

This post probably looks puny compared to you other people's, but I reall y don't have timje. Sorry. I could really go on more.

I laughed at my mom because she's currently reading Jane Austen fanfiction published all "professional" about Mr. Darcy.

He's continuing with it? I heard she warned him about publishing sometime last year.

She probably making a big deal about it 'cos she wants to publish her own, not 'cos she's a copyright whore.

rubberchickenben wrote: I laughed at my mom because she's currently reading Jane Austen fanfiction published all "professional" about Mr. Darcy.

Typical Mother. Mine is like that too. :D

Post wrote: It can't be done. The closest anyone has got to censoring the net are the Chinese. And their success is debatable.

The guy is expanding her universe. This has happened many times, there are hundreds of Wikis on the net. As I understand it, Rowling owns the characters, and any adaptation thereof... the Book is a fan made guide, she does not own discussion on her books. Relatively few people will buy it anyway.

The relationship between Fansites and Authors has always been legally unclear, but this is a first. Even if Rowling wins the case, she doesn't get any points for humility.

cataloguing events, alphabetising them and publishing them is not expanding. she does not own discussion of her works, no, but the Lexicon book in question hardly, if at all, contains an acceptable percentage of discussion. the fact is that the work in question is derivative, meaning it is not transforming nor expanding, which is a violation of the copyright which she owns. i severely disagree that defending that ownership shows a lack of humility. Rowling is hardly doing the wrong thing here.

wrote:Fanfiction and creative expanding by non-creators is a critical step in evolution. Just look at Star Wars. Expanded Universe came up with so many things that were later seen in the movies, like Coruscant.

i profoundly agree. but what SVA is doing is not expansion. the essays written on Lexicon are discussion, and hence transformation/expansion. but the Lexicon book doesn't include this, it merely states what happened in the series. the site is useful to check up random facts, which does save time, but it does not really enchance understanding of the series.

wrote:He's continuing with it? I heard she warned him about publishing sometime last year.

i heard that, too. the fact that she could tell him to stop and he would go on and do it anyway, says a lot to me. it's definitely not going about things in a way that is respectful to the author.

wrote:She probably making a big deal about it 'cos she wants to publish her own, not 'cos she's a copyright whore.

if it's intentions that matter, SVA is hardly pure either. he claims to be doing this for the fans, yet there is already a free more detailed version available. what intention could he have other than monetary gain? if it's the fans that matter, why not continue to maintain the website? as for her own encyclopedia, i severely doubt any fan-written encyclopedia would be any competition, but that isn't what matters. it is a legal case, the law is what matters.

Wow.

This is the most detailed discussion I've seen in a long time.

I'm kind of on Rowling's side, kind of not. But I definitely don't agree with SVA.

An essay is not a adaptation. Many TV shows have academic books published on them, notably Firefly. The Book is not a work of fiction. It's a offline wiki with heavy doses of Fan Speculation. Plagarization? Hardly.

I do think Rowling is overstepping. Compare her to say, Stephen King.
http://www.mellowtiger.com/
Fan made story, It was available in Print, caused a furore in the fandom. The Author did not comment on it.

I don't think its plagiarism, but I think that JKR is sincere in what she says about why she doesn't want the book published and gives some good reasons why.

But obviously this has gone a bit far.

Though I think SVA is just in it for the money and I wish he would have just given it up.

I actually had to google more about this. Damn you people.

omg, check this out. If the author is legit, it makes Ark look a little hypocritical :lol:

Still on the anti-suing ship, however.

JK Quote: "It is not reasonable, or legal, for anybody, fan or otherwise, to take an author's hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain. However much an individual claims to love somebody else's work, it does not become theirs to sell."

Tell that to sparknotes.

A published wiki is still in legally murky waters. You can Parody, you can Deconstruct, you can Discuss. Let's see what the judge says.

Wow. If that is real...then I don't like him even more than before.

...And I still hate your sig, Ianna.

...And I hate yours and keeping mine the same to tick you off.