Harry Potter dtories gibberish, Judge tells Rowling.

[Lonestar]

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.

[EPW]

magical world hard to follow, filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish in any other context."

I feel the same about the bible

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Re: Harry Potter dtories gibberish, Judge tells Rowling.

I found it extremely complex

.......seriously? The first half of the first book?

[chequita guevara]

I doubt she has much of a case.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by EPW


I feel the same about the bible

[Tuberski]

Thread title gibberish....

ACK!

[Lancer]

If he thinks THAT is gibberish he's obviously never been to Poly.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I doubt she has much of a case.

Copyright laws uphold the original creator's right to create derivatives of their work. This means that anybody who creates an unauthorized derivative work will infringe and may be required to stop publication or otherwise pay damages. (17 USC §103) I'd say if you've written a "guide" to her work, it might just possibly be an original work, but you'd have to look at the substance of the material to be sure.

If it's basically a rehash, then it's derivative. Even if it has a fair bit of original additions, it could still be derivative (the keystone case for this involved an unsolicited movie script for the "Rocky" movie franchise, which featured recognizable characters even though the plot was different - the court held that Rocky's writers prevailed, not the newcomer).

If it performed a reviewer's or a critic's function, it could be exempt, but it doesn't sound like it does that.

[Kuciwalker]

If it performed a reviewer's or a critic's function, it could be exempt, but it doesn't sound like it does that.

If it did that, it would still be under the copyright, but a fair use. (That might have been what you were trying to say.)

edit: in the US

[MarkG]

one would think that Rowling would be satisfied with the amount of wealth she has from this gibberish

sounds like she is now spending her time suing people for any unauthorized use of (character not to be named for legal reasons)....

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

FWIW, this is what I dug up on the Web just now ...

Harry Potter case illustrates blurry line in copyright law

By DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press Writer

For a time, "Harry Potter" superfan Steven Vander Ark seemed to be living a geeky dream.

His Web site — an obsessive catalog of spells, characters and creatures in J.K. Rowling's novels — was a hit among fellow fanatics. He spoke at conventions. Journalists sought him out for interviews. He was a guest on NBC's "Today" show.

Better still, Rowling knew who he was. She gave his site, The Harry Potter Lexicon, an award and confessed that she occasionally used its online encyclopedia as a reference. Warner Bros. invited him onto the set of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." He even made it on to the DVD, appearing in a documentary included as a special feature.

But all that changed after a little-known publishing company, RDR Books, announced it would release a print version of the lexicon. The author and Warner Bros. sued, asking a judge to block publication on the grounds that it violated copyright law, and the case went to trial this week.

The dispute has thrust Vander Ark into the middle of a closely watched case that illustrates the muddled state of copyright law enforcement when it comes to the Web.

Computers have given just about everyone the ability to copy sections of books, movies or songs and whip them into something new that they can post on the Internet.

The Web is awash with fan-produced material that could be the subject of a copyright fight, from remixed pop songs, to new fiction based on existing characters from books and TV shows, to countless tribute videos cut together with clips from TV shows or films.

"There is almost a parallel universe," said Alan Behr, an intellectual property lawyer in New York. "On the Internet, people basically do things you would never do in print."

And, for the most part, Behr said, the big media companies that own the material being mashed up and manipulated let it slide. There are simply too many offenders to chase, he said.

Warner Bros. and Rowling took a different approach when they sued on Halloween last year. During a three-day trial that concluded Wednesday, Rowling savaged Vander Ark as a plagiarist and a thief, saying the lexicon ripped off too much material from her books. It all reduced Vander Ark to tears at one point during the trial.

It was a surprising departure for Rowling, who has encouraged so-called "fan fiction" and once said there is nothing wrong with people writing new stories for her characters, to share with friends.

The author and her lawyers said they were stirred to action by the proposal to move the Potter lexicon from the anything-goes Web, where it was available for free, into book form, where it would compete directly with a Potter encyclopedia that Rowling plans to write herself.

In short, by deciding to sell his material, Vander Ark was stepping across a line. He was no longer just an enthusiastic fan, but a professional and potential competitor — fair game for the lawyers.

The question now for the courts is whether the lexicon itself violates copyright law, and the decision may not be easy.

U.S. rules allow for the "fair use" of copyrighted material in unauthorized works, but there are limits. Journalists may quote from films and books when writing a review. Scholars can use excerpts from a novel while penning an author's biography.

Generally, the call on whether such uses are legal comes down to how much material was taken and how different the end product is from the original work.

Lawrence Pulgram, an intellectual property lawyer who represented Napster in a copyright fight with the rock band Metallica, said deciding where to draw the line is rarely easy.

"Fair use is the most erratically applied doctrine in copyright," he said.

Works like Vander Ark's lexicon fall into one of the tougher categories. It takes the form of an A-to-Z list of the hundreds of characters and place names from her books, followed by brief entries summarizing how they fit into the plot. There is also information on the origin of some of her characters in mythology and folklore.

Rowling and her legal team acknowledged that readers' guides like the lexicon are, in fact, allowed under the law, but made the case that Vander Ark simply took too much material.

U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson Jr. indicated that the case could go either way and encouraged both sides to settle. He suggested that a creative negotiation might produce a book that both sides could live with.

Rowling said during her testimony that Vander Ark could still do his book, as long as he changed it to take less of her material.

"I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide. Never ever," she said, before asking the judge again to block it in its current form.

RDR Books Publisher Roger Rapoport said he was open to the idea of revisions but said that neither Warner Bros. or Rowling have indicated a willingness to compromise.

He also questioned whether there was a danger in granting artists too much control over books about them. Should an author, he asked, be able to kill any unauthorized biography, simply because they don't like it?

"We would have to get approval before we could write or publish on people's work. They would control critical commentary on their work, at any time, whether it is our kind of book or an Associated Press article," Rapoport said. "It would create total chaos in the area of critical commentary. Frankly, I don't think that would be good for anyone, even the authors themselves."

Patterson is not expected to make a decision in the case for at least a month.

**whistles** Whoa! Rowling brought Vander Ark to tears, eh? Told him that, after all the years of work he put into showing his devotion to the universe she created, he was nothing more than ...

... a plagiarist and a thief, saying the lexicon ripped off too much material from her books.

That's pretty harsh, given the previously cordial relationship she had with him. I wonder if this will spark something of an online backlash against Rowling?

Gatekeeper

[MarkG]

apparently Vander Ark also wrote a Star Trek TNG encyclopaedia without any legal issues. something to base his case on?

[MarkG]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/19/harrypotter.harrypotter

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that Warner Bros has been involved in a pettily protectionist copyright case. Do let's recall that brilliant letter Groucho Marx penned to the studio - makers of Casablanca - after he received an "ominous legal document" warning the Marxes off calling their movie A Night in Casablanca. "I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers," he deadpanned. "I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo ... What about Warner Brothers? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you ..."

The case was eventually dropped. And it came to pass that moviegoers were indeed perfectly able to distinguish between Ingrid and Harpo - just as one suspects Harry Potter fans will be able to distinguish between JK Rowling's work and that of Mr Vander Ark

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not surprised you find that complaint amusing. It's completely idiotic.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by MarkG
apparently Vander Ark also wrote a Star Trek TNG encyclopaedia without any legal issues. something to base his case on?

This is not about doing an encyclopedia per se, it's about the nature of the content. From what I understand some analysis was done on the Harry Potter Lexicon (by Rowling's side, to be fair) and something like 91% of the content is a direct quote taken straight from Rowling's work, with not even as much as quotation marks to indicate this -- all those quotes are effectively presented as original work. It's up to the courts to decide if Vander Ark's work violates US copyright or not, but I think it's fair to say Rowling isn't entirely wrong to have an issue with this...

I've read all 7 Harry Potter books as well as both HP charity books, and I've browsed through/referenced the Lexicon on a few occasions (call me a nerd). I enjoyed all of this, but I have to agree that while the Lexicon is a very impressive piece of work as a fan creation and a useful reference guide, if you view it as a 'professional' publication meant for commercial distribution it's plagiarist and amateurish as hell (the 91% figure doesn't seem far-fetched to me).

Regarding the crying, it's always fun to take stuff out of context. Vander Ark shed some tears over the question whether he still considered himself to be part of the Harry Potter fan community (there was a big blow up in said community over this lawsuit), not over Rowling calling him a plagiarist or anything like that. At the same time, Rowling herself also welled up, over the question of what HP meant to her personally. They apparently had themselves a good-old cry-fest in that court room

In case anyone is really interested in this, the latest episode of PotterCast, a Harry Potter podcast that Steve Vander Ark used to be a part of (before this lawsuit), discussed this trial in detail, and they were actually there. While by no means impartial (the guys behind this have a good personal relationship with JK Rowling and as said Steve Vander Ark used to be part of the show), but as usual their reporting is far better than anything I've seen from the mainstream press, including the articles posted here. If you don't enjoy PolyCast odds are you'll find PotterCast hard to swallow as well But their reporting of this issue is IMO more than worthwhile if you're willing to spare an hour to listen to a discussion on this topic.