Discuss: When Fans Go Too Far

our schools have been teaching our kids that they're each beautiful and unique snowflakes, the gooey centers of their own little universes, why wouldn't they feel entitled?

Reply

I totally 0wn my avatar :D I took that picture of Alicia the other day, she is excellent to work with, and very photogenic.

I've been following the Harry Potter suit by listening to Mugglecast, and I feel like J.K. is completely right to sue the guy. It's one thing to make a book that is completely theorizing stuff about the HP world. It's another to publish a word for word book that the original author is attempting to publish herself. It's even worse to not back down to WARNER BROTHERS. This guy is insane to think he will ever win a case against them.

I really think that the internet should be a safe place to reuse things you like though. I don't mean scan pages of HP books and post them online. I mean, you should at least be free to post a picture of the Harry Potter logo without it being a problem. You're promoting the brand, not trying to make money off of it (Like this guy obviously is). In print form though, I don't think any kind of plagiarism is acceptable.

Reply

It's her creation, she can do whatever she wants with it. If it was me I would write a one paragraph wrap up to the series explaining that it was all a dream just to piss everyone off then enjoy spending my millions of dollars around the globe for the rest of my life. If she wants a monopoly over a creation that came from her imagination, then more power to her. Sure fans pay her bills, but that does not give them the right to profit off of her creation without her approval.

Reply

I completely agree, it's absurd to say that she's creating a monopoly over her work, I say she should be able to do whatever she likes with her work and her ideas. It's not like she's preventing another's theoretical ideas on Harry Potter from being published, it's an assemblage of her ideas and her stories being published. If she wants to create an encyclopedia or pay someone else to, then great, but to say she should have no control over her stories is unfair and unjustified.

Reply

It doesn't matter, she's wrong.

This isn't an adaptation of her work, it's a REFERENCE guide. No different than the countless guides for The Bible, Lord of the Rings, the works of Faulkner, Hemingway, Joyce, etc., etc..

Fair use is pretty explicit that such companion pieces are allowed. She's skewing it to sound like they're adapting her work, but in fact it's useless without the source material (the Potter books). This isn't a shift to another medium, or a reworking of her characters.

I'm not a lawyer, but from everything I've seen, she doesn't have much of a legal leg to stand on here. There's nothing preventing her from releasing her own competing guide. Stick the world "Official" on it and her name, and it will outsell the other easily.

Plus, the guide in question is being published in response to fan demand according to the Lexicon's founder. He had never thought there'd be a market for a printed version since it's available online, but the readers kept asking. All Rowling will accomplish here is making it even more popular through the free publicity.

Reply

I think Rowling is correct in this case. There is an enormous difference between a reference covering the writings of an author who is still living and a reference to the Bible, or Shakespeare, which are now in the public domain. And Tolkein is a poor choice of example, as the Tolkien Family Trust does indeed protect those copyrights zealously, and an unauthorized reference to Tolkien's works would be shut down just like this work may be.

Regarding the Bible, while the actual concept is in the public domain, individual publishing houses hold copyright to their translations/versions, which is why any time you see someone quote the New International Version, it must be credited.

I think that there is a huge lack of respect for creativity out there. We need to remember that truly creative people should be rewarded financially when they create things we love and use. Perhaps people assume that being fans gives them ownership over the creations, characters and stories they love, rather than ownership over one single copy of a particular book that they love?

Reply

In fact, whether or not the author is still living is entirely irrelevant. Even if it were illegal to create reference guides under copyright law, it wouldn't matter whether or not the author was living. All that would matter is whether the work was still under copyright, and that doesn't matter anyway because it's fair use. You can copyright how you express yourself, but you can't copyright facts. A reference book of this sort is entirely legal. The fact that the Tolkien Family Trust frightens people with baseless lawsuits (and if they try to sue people out of publishing reference works, they are) just goes to show that if you have enough money you can frighten people with lawyers.

Read this: http://www.free-culture.cc/

Reply

@ Ed:

I've not raised my kid to be a passionless, mindless drone. I've also not raised him to be a thief, either.

Mr. Vander Ark's book is comprised of 2437 glossary-type entries. Out of those, 403 of them, equal to 16% do not quote verbatim or plagi-phrased text. In this book, 84% of entries compile verbatim or plagi-phrased text copyrighted to Rowling and trademarked to Warner Brothers.

There are legitimate reference guides out there, yes. Those that exist are either licensed and authorized by the author/copyright holder OR they are 'unauthorized' reference guides which meet the standards of the 'Fair Use' rules OR are subtantially transformative in nature, i.e. parody, satire, scholarship.

Though there is not a listing of specific percentage of copyrighted text allowed to be quoted under the law, the general rule is 'less is best'. This rule is attached to test #3 of Fair Use.

Generally speaking, most unauthorized derivative works take approximately 10% of copyrighted materials to reference or explore and then add an additional 90% of original analytical commentary.

SparkNotes, a transformative study guide, will take approximately 30-40% of copyrighted text for concise summary and analytical study. If a work is not in the public domain, SparkNotes will seek permiss of the copyright holder. If the rights holder agrees, SparkNotes is licensed to produce this work. If the rights holder declines, SparkNotes will not publish the proposed work, even though their work is substantively transformative and scholarly. They also place prominent disclaimers and warnings in regards to reproducing copyrighted texts.

The Lexicon book, however, uses 84% of material that is owned by someone else and claim's it to be uniquely their own. It did not declare it was unauthorized. It used false advertising to conflate the issue of the site and book. It used false endorsement in it's cover art, that of a 'fan site' award by Rowling, regarding solely the website, and placed it prominently on the cover so as to confuse the average consumer into thinking that Rowling also endorsed the book, which she vehemently opposes.

Apparently, for the past 8 years {according to documents submitted in the court briefs, all of which may be viewed at justia.com} Mr. Vander Ark has professed that such a book as the one he is attempting to publish would infringe Ms. Rowling's works and be illegal. He even went so far as to openly dissuade others from trying to publish their own derivative reference works. In addition to all of this, Mr. Vander Ark attempted to seek employment from Ms. Rowling, either to help her co-write her own Harry Potter Encyclopedia or just add in its editorial process. He was rebuffed. Then, and only then, did he attempt to publish in book format, contents from his fan site. Contents of which are copyrighted to Ms. Rowling and others.

Mr. Vander Ark's sycophantic behavior is disgusting and along the vomit enducing vein of: "Dear Mr. Lucas, George...can I call you George?

I just loved all of the movies and films and tv and merchandising. I'm completely versed in all levels of the StarWars universe and an 'Elvis-like' personality at many StarWars conventions. I'm truly you're biggest fan.

I'm intending to move into your area soon and was hoping that you would allow me to offer my services to you and help you write your next intended StarWars endeavor. I'm not some young whipper-snapper Johnny-come-lately. Indeed, I'm older and therefore more wiser than the yourger generation, and also quite well educated and believe my services are uniquely tailored to suit your creative need. Please, won't you consider a meeting with me? I'll be available at such & such time and date.

Eternally yours,
Biggest StarWars Fan Eva"

..........GACK!!!!!!!!!

The Lexicon book is not scholarly or not original thoughts, it's theft, pure and simple. If this is what you'd teach your kids, then shame on you.

Reply

Ugh. This is the most embarrassing thing ever to happen to the Harry Potter fandom. Most of us can see how wrong he is, and would never dream of doing anything like this, EVER. It's just that vocal, crazy minority...

Honestly, I almost want to email her and apologise. He's making us all look terrible. I hope he gets smacked down.

Reply

(If this comment has already been posted, I apologise.)

It's so unusual to see someone talking sense in this debate that I actually had to re-read the article to make sure I understood you. That being done however, I commend you on touching on the issue that many fans are really worried about - if RDR wins, what happens to us? Will other authors be forced to "shut down" online fandom? I'm sure people will still continue to write fic and draw fanart, but without the semi-legitimacy online fanwork has now, how many people who currently consider themselves "in fandom" will want to stay around?

RDR might be convinced that they're doing a service for fandom, but I highly doubt it. This has become about proving that they can stick it to The Man, and in the process, they've conveniently forgotten that this time, The Man is right.

Reply

Yes, well. I'd have to say that it's one thing to use 84% (!!!) copywrited work to create a free of charge, fan-run, non-profit online reference that is open to fandom.

It's entirely another to take that reference, strike a publishing deal for it, and sell it for PROFIT. The fan has then become a creator, and has ripped off 84% of their content from another creator.

Rowling is correct to sue.

As for avatars...I for one do not see how anybody can take ownership over those, other than free/non-profit recognition of whoever "designed" them. But no profit should be made, and sharing should always be allowed. The icons that are traded like fine art on livejournal are free, yet most users recognize the icon-making talents of the designers (and the wonderful-ness of the source material). Since icons are a celebration of fandom identities, it seems to work just fine as a free fandom economy.

Reply

With icons you're supposed to email and ask permission to use them. Icon creators are accessible in a way that writers and movie stars aren't.

Reply