Harry Potter storylines are gibberish, judge tells Rowling

[Wanderer]

I wouldn't call it gibberish, just full of incompetent adults who threw a kid to the wolves.

J. K. Rowling heard her work described as “gibberish” by a US judge yesterday at the end of a three-day trial into an unauthorised encyclopaedia of her Harry Potter novels.

Rowling has asked the federal court in New York to block publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a guide to the characters, places and spells in her novels, written by Steven Vander Ark, 50, a former school librarian.

District Judge Robert Patterson Jr said that he had read the first half of the first Harry Potter novel to his grandchildren, but found the “magical world hard to follow, filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish in any other context.

“I found it extremely complex,” he said, suggesting that a reference guide might be useful.

Rowling said she was “vehemently anti-censorship; and generally supportive of the right of other authors to write books about her novels”. But she said Vander Ark had “plundered” her prose and merely reprinted it in an A-to-Z format.

A decision in the case is not expected soon. It will be weeks before lawyers finish filing documents, and possibly longer before a verdict is given. Judge Patterson is deciding the case, rather than a jury.

[neoolong]

Now, the lexicon online might be what she claims. But, is the book the guy wants to publish the same thing only in book form? If it has more analysis, then I can see it not being a violation of copyright.

I find it kind of hard to believe that a publisher would go through the trouble of doing this without a pretty sure shot of it not being a violation. Besides, unless it pretty much is all direct pulls, doesn't this make any book that analyzes another work a violation of copyright?

Frankly, the fact that she was planning on making a guide herself kind of makes this suspect. Yeah, it's her baby, but still, if it's legal, it's legal.

[CmdrWilkens]

Now, the lexicon online might be what she claims. But, is the book the guy wants to publish the same thing only in book form? If it has more analysis, then I can see it not being a violation of copyright.

I find it kind of hard to believe that a publisher would go through the trouble of doing this without a pretty sure shot of it not being a violation. Besides, unless it pretty much is all direct pulls, doesn't this make any book that analyzes another work a violation of copyright?

Frankly, the fact that she was planning on making a guide herself kind of makes this suspect. Yeah, it's her baby, but still, if it's legal, it's legal.

Suppossedly the book contains a significant chunk of additional analysis and contribution from the site maintainer. The real question is how wholesale is the lifting from Rowling's work and even if it is heavy does the work still qualify as scholarly discourse which would be protected under Fair Use.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I find it kind of hard to believe that a publisher would go through the trouble of doing this without a pretty sure shot of it not being a violation. Besides, unless it pretty much is all direct pulls, doesn't this make any book that analyzes another work a violation of copyright?

Apparently the publisher for this included a clause in the contract that it (The publisher) would pay for any copyright legal fees, so the author can't really lose.

My opinion on this is rather with Roling, a lawsuit making this legal would force authors to crack down heavily on such fansites. Imagine if Saxton or Wong were to print the technical commentaries or the debate technology guides,, and were then forced to shut down the site. (Or with this case, forced to shut down the site anyway for using screenshots of SW, ST, without permission, or somesuch).

[Guardsman Bass]

Now, the lexicon online might be what she claims. But, is the book the guy wants to publish the same thing only in book form? If it has more analysis, then I can see it not being a violation of copyright.

I find it kind of hard to believe that a publisher would go through the trouble of doing this without a pretty sure shot of it not being a violation. Besides, unless it pretty much is all direct pulls, doesn't this make any book that analyzes another work a violation of copyright?

Frankly, the fact that she was planning on making a guide herself kind of makes this suspect. Yeah, it's her baby, but still, if it's legal, it's legal.

Suppossedly the book contains a significant chunk of additional analysis and contribution from the site maintainer. The real question is how wholesale is the lifting from Rowling's work and even if it is heavy does the work still qualify as scholarly discourse which would be protected under Fair Use.

Can she actually get away with this, though? I've seen plenty of "unauthorized guides" before, and they are basically the same type of thing as what the Lexicon is doing. All of them at least cite the original works, so I don't know what the problem is - surely they aren't claiming passages of her work as their own?

Personally, I don't see what the major deal is about. It's not like she had a problem with the Lexicon when it was just a compilation of web articles and a quote engine - she complimented it herself. Does she seriously think that people would actually buy this instead of an actual guide by the author? If anything, I'd buy both, or not the Lexicon (particularly when it's online for free.).

[neoolong]

Apparently the publisher for this included a clause in the contract that it (The publisher) would pay for any copyright legal fees, so the author can't really lose.

See, that's why made it odd for me. From what I read, the author was unsure of the legality of this for particularly the exact charge that is being stated. The clause was added at his request, even though the publisher assured him that it was kosher.

Shouldn't the publisher have had lawyers review this before it went to trial?

My opinion on this is rather with Roling, a lawsuit making this legal would force authors to crack down heavily on such fansites. Imagine if Saxton or Wong were to print the technical commentaries or the debate technology guides,, and were then forced to shut down the site. (Or with this case, forced to shut down the site anyway for using screenshots of SW, ST, without permission, or somesuch).

Well, I'd say there's a difference if you're printing it out and selling it for profit.

[Johonebesus]

Well, I'd say there's a difference if you're printing it out and selling it for profit.

Copyright isn't about preventing you from profiting from another's work, but about protecting the author's ability to profit. Theoretically, people could use your source instead of buying legal sources, even if only for reference, which cuts into the author's income. Whether or not you actually profit from it is mostly irrelevant.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well, I'd say there's a difference if you're printing it out and selling it for profit.

Copyright isn't about preventing you from profiting from another's work, but about protecting the author's ability to profit. Theoretically, people could use your source instead of buying legal sources, even if only for reference, which cuts into the author's income. Whether or not you actually profit from it is mostly irrelevant.

Except that scholarly discourse is still covered under "Fair Use" wherby anyone has the right to selectively reproduce another person's copyrighted material if the intention is to use the material as a starting point for analysis or further revelation. Just as Mike's work here is protected under that statute, we use SW and ST extensively but regardless of whether there is any profit involved the intention is to use them as tools for debate and analysis which is perfectly okay even if Mike were to make money. Its much the same as how comedians are free to copy material wholesale if the principal intention is for satire even commercial satire.

[Metatwaddle]

Now, the lexicon online might be what she claims. But, is the book the guy wants to publish the same thing only in book form? If it has more analysis, then I can see it not being a violation of copyright.

I find it kind of hard to believe that a publisher would go through the trouble of doing this without a pretty sure shot of it not being a violation. Besides, unless it pretty much is all direct pulls, doesn't this make any book that analyzes another work a violation of copyright?

Frankly, the fact that she was planning on making a guide herself kind of makes this suspect. Yeah, it's her baby, but still, if it's legal, it's legal.

Suppossedly the book contains a significant chunk of additional analysis and contribution from the site maintainer. The real question is how wholesale is the lifting from Rowling's work and even if it is heavy does the work still qualify as scholarly discourse which would be protected under Fair Use.

The lawyers from Scholastic have a pie chart, actually, which says that 91% of the Lexicon is just lifting and paraphrasing from the Harry Potter books. The much-touted "essays" only comprise between 3% and 4%. I don't know of any additional essays to appear in the book, but I'd be interested to hear about them if anyone has a source. Link to pie chart (it's on page 11)

Neoolong: You'd be surprised. RDR Books is a tiny little publishing house; when the whole thing began, they didn't even have a copyright lawyer, and they had to enlist the help of the cousin of someone at RDR, who was a lawyer but not a copyright lawyer. RDR didn't know the first thing about copyright law. Since then, a group of Fair Use lawyers at Stanford has picked up the case.

I suspect that the reason other publishers didn't pick up the book is because they actually had copyright lawyers that told them, "Uh, no, this is a bad fucking idea." The Harry Potter Lexicon would have sold a lot of copies if it had been published without problems. A Harry Potter encyclopedia as comprehensive as the Lexicon, already well-known in the Harry Potter fan base, a site that had the endorsement of Rowling herself? That would have sold plenty of copies for a major publisher to pick it up.

[Gil Hamilton]

It also probably comes down to the fact that Rowling is also publishing an encyclopaedia of her own in the near future. I imagine she would want hers to be the definitive one.