Interesting dilemma

[thatwasjen]

Author J.K. Rowling is suing the publisher of an encyclopedia based on her blockbuster "Harry Potter" series of children's books. She says she had planned her own reference guide cataloguing the characters and events in the series

Comments

[animadversio]

Rowling originally thought the HPLexicon site was awesome back in the day, going so far as to tell fans to check it out. She knew then that it was making money off her copyright. That fact will come out in court, for sure, as it was being covered by the press when the lawsuit first hit the news

[thatwasjen]

Yeah, fanfic makes me break out in hives.

(Sanctioned, licensed "derivative works" are different from fanfic. In this case, I guess the HPLexicon folks should have gotten advance permission from her or her lawyer, but -- oops.)

[dawntreader90]

i dislike reading fanfic, even fanfic that has been sanctioned by the author. i will read spin-off tales or backstory type stories written by the original author and that's as far as i go. to me, the original author is the only person who truly know what the character is feeling and thinking, and where they intended for them to go.

anyone else is only speculating. ... usually badly. *grin*

[starcat_jewel]

There's also a gay-lit book for which the back-cover blurb starts, "In 1957, 17-year-old Harry Potter moves to New York City..."

I was browsing thru a bookstore with a gay friend, and he found it and showed it to me. We both nearly died laughing.

[dawntreader90]

i guess i didn't realize that the lexicon was a money-making venture. is it just from advertisers? or was it a subscription site? i don't think they should be able to print a book though. not without her permission or without giving HER the royalties and monies. they wouldn't be able to write jack without her works in the first place.

however, now for her to come back and say she wants to write one is a little suspect, because if everyone is already using the Lexicon website, how is she going to top it? how will she avoid using IT as a resource to HER OWN works? otherwise, she better reinvent the wheel so to speak, and make sure not one iota of her work looks like the existing Lexicon.

at this point, i think it would be best that she collaborate with the site owner/creator and both authors could make money from the same venture. it's the only fair way.

[acroyear70]

how will she avoid using IT as a resource to HER OWN works? otherwise, she better reinvent the wheel so to speak, and make sure not one iota of her work looks like the existing Lexicon.This is actually at the heart of the issue

[anjabeth]

Brushing aside the fanfic issue (some of which is remarkable good, IMHO), I believe the HP lexicon will not run afoul of US Copyright laws because it is not a work that uses her characters or other intellectual property, but is instead a guide to her characters and intellectual property. For the same reasons that Cliff's Notes, or "The Unofficial guide to XXXXX", or even the encyclopedia aren't violating anyone's copyrights, the lexicon wouldn't be, either. And it really has not much to do with profit, since the copyright laws speak more to the point of who has the right to publish a given work or create derivative works from it. If Steve Vander Ark has done all of the research in reading her novels and creating a cross-reference work detailing the characters, places, events, and their interrelations, then that is really his work, and RDR books should be allowed to publish it. If he had written a new novel using her characters, then it's really not entirely his work, because he doesn't have the rights to use those characters. It'

[thatwasjen]

Oh, interesting point. Does Cliffs Notes have to get the permission of living authors (or recently dead authors' estates)? Does it matter that those involve analysis, where as a simple gazetteer is barely more than a list?

I wonder about the encyclopedia. It seems like a unique case, more like a news report where copyright law doesn't have jurisdiction.

the fanfic issue (some of which is remarkable good, IMHO)
Yes, and some non-copyright-infringing work is remarkably bad.

[rsteachout]

I don't think the lexicon is violating any copyright, any more than Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw are violating the states' or federal government's copyright when they publish laws, regs, and cases: the copyright L/N & Westlaw have is for the head notes, classifications, cataloging, etc. which provide the added value, not for the text of the law and cases. The lexicon is basically doing the same thing. If the lexicon violates copyright, then Westlaw better call its lawyers.

[thatwasjen]

But aren't laws, regs, and cases public domain by definition? I'm not sure it's quite parallel -- although I do see the parallel regarding the cataloging of information rather than interpretation.

[rsteachout]

Not really. The copyright is held by the state, and it determines by who and how the information may be published. Often, the state itself is the publisher; all of Idaho's statute books carry a copyright warning. But states also award those rights to others. For example, Lexis-Nexis lost the contract to be the primary publisher of the DC Code to Westlaw in print and onthe web. They still have the right to include the DC Code in the giant legal database, but they are no longer the ones maintaining the info on the web, or publishing the hardcopy.