Harry Potter and the silly case of copyright

[ionaonie]

And yes, I can call it that. Even the judge seems to think this is all faintly ridiculous.

As I long suspected, I've fallen on the side of Steve Vander Ark and not JKR.

I really enjoyed this article in the Guardian, so here are some of my favourite bit...

"I believe the floodgates will open," she said this week, as though this sort of fan

Comments

[anjak_j]

I've been reading this with vague interest over at fandom-wank.

I think SVA has gotten a lot more support than JKR's side bargained for. Maybe because people are starting to see through her and become disenchanted with her two-faced bullshit. In one breath, she's saying she enjoys fanworks, and the next she's suing a fan for daring to publish and offshoot work. I hate to break it to her, there are already unofficial companions to the HP 'verse. I doubt there are many popular TV shows out there without unofficial 'guides'. What makes her so fucking special?

[ionaonie]

Fandom wank is where I've been reading a lot of it as well

[saffie_lew]

I think it's more a case of people making money from her work. She did't mind when it was just a website, or people writing fan fiction for fun, or the numerous unofficial books that have been published based on her work which include original material based on her work, such as essays. What I understand about this book is that it will basically be an encyclopedia of the Harry Potter world, something that JKR has mentioned doing herself sometime in the future. And just think of the number of people, publishers and things who will make money out of something based entirely? On her years of hard work.

[ionaonie]

I see the money thing, and appreciate that that is...uncomfortable...but

[tahariel]

I'm actually on JKR's side of this one, for the simple reason that she really has been screwed over by the content of this book, 90% of which is copied verbatim from her books. That's not fannish love, that's not making a helpful reference guide, that's being able to copy/paste, and to me she totally has the right to be hacked off.

All those other unofficial guides added things to her work, writing essays and analysis and discussing things, where the lexicon only alphabetises her work. It's one thing to do that for free on the net, but quite another to be making money off of it.

Fandom screams so loud every time a fan is found to have plagiarised another's work, and there isn't even any money involved then. Why should it be different for a published author?

[saffie_lew]

thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say but much more eloquent.

[tahariel]

Thanks :)

[ionaonie]

90% of which is copied verbatim from her booksBut, according to David Langford who has seen at least one proof, that isn't the case. According to him, the number of quotes used has been cut considerably from the online edition to the paper edition