Comments on: NYT Fouls Up Fair Use

By: Info/Law » Rowling 1, Lexicon 0

Info/Law » Rowling 1, Lexicon 0 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:18:20 +0000

[...] Lexicon book. The decision is 68 pages long and is available courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. I thought Rowling would, and should, win, but I’m not impressed by the court’s reasoning, especially on the key question [...]

By: Derek Bambauer

Derek Bambauer — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:58:28 +0000

Thanks, all, for the great comments. I owe you more detailed responses, which you’ll get. But I tried to wrap some of this into my latest post:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/03/15/harry-potter-and-the-lexicon-of-fair-use/

Are any of you able to attend some of the trial? I think it’s going to be a great joust.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:33:23 +0000

Thank you for this piece. I too am a lawyer who, as a general proposition, appreciates both the NYT and the doctrine of fair use, but who believes the NYT really screwed the pooch on this one. I don’t see how RDR could possibly win this case given the existing state of the law. But even more importantly (at least from a journalistic standpoint) the NYT chose the wrong target. Instead of picking a fight with the tolerant Harry Potter franchise, the print media should devote their space to exposing TRUE abuses by copyright holders. In this spirit, I commend to everyone’s attention the New Yorker’s article on the James Joyce copyright saga, and William McGeveran’s subsequent comments on the same issues.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/06/19/060619fa_fact

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/03/25/joyce-fair-use-settlement-good-and-bad-news/

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:13:23 +0000

Oh wow – as both a lawyer and a journalist I’m glad you caught this major misstatement and am amazed that he got away with it – but then, it seems like many people only have a hazy idea about the actual legal boundaries of copyright and fair use, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised the editors let that one through.

I can’t imagine what RDR and SVA are thinking in pursuing this; from my own for-fun musing on the fair use standards in relation to this case, I don’t think he stands much chance of succeeding – and if he does, it seems to me that would cause a fairly major shift in the current standard. (Thank goodness Lawrence Lessig has shifted his focus to political corruption – I can only imagine how much more insane this circus would get if he decided to take a part in it.)

P.S. I found this blog post via Fandom_Wank (When you’re linked from FW, you KNOW you’ve arrived. Now I’m bookmarking your blog for future reading!

By: Cory Warren

Cory Warren — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:51:33 +0000

Exactly “A Foster”

copyright and fair use laws are meant to protect the copyright holder, and legitimate commentators. fair use grants the oppertunity for people to explore and discuss copyrighted material under protection of the law. however it has limitations ment to protect copyright holders.

RDR Books recently created their own organization called “right to write” which is one of many by that title. they have two missions statements accorrding to their mission statement announcement. the first one is to solicite money to pay their legal bills against jk rowling.

the second is to fight to protect the rights of writers and authors.

jk rowling is a writer and a author. steve vander ark is someone who copy and pasted a book together.

By: A Foster

A Foster — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:55:34 +0000

Thank you so much for understanding this. It seemed like everybody was so set on sticking up for the little guy that they didn’t realise that the little guy is incredibly wrong in this case.

By: Miss Jay

Miss Jay — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:37:17 +0000

Finally, someone besides FW is talking sense. RDR/SVA are absolutely not in the right here. I’m all for fair use, but this isn’t fair use at all. Good on JKR for defending her rights as an author and copyright holder; if it were me, I’d do the same.

By: Chelle

Chelle — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:41:27 +0000

I’d like to say something witty and bright that contributes in some way, but all that’s coming to mind is “I love this guy SO HARD right now!”

I’ve been following this case since Halloween in many different forums, legitimate news and otherwise, and when Fandom_Wank — point and laugh capitol of the internet — has better research and greater insight than the NYT, you know something is wrong.

Thank you for stepping up and saying so!

By: Cory Warren

Cory Warren — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:23:52 +0000

Thank you for going into more detail about this. Both as a Harry Potter fan, and as a writer who is working on the final edits on what he hopes to be his first published work, I have watched this case closely, because it impacts me as a fan of Rowlings literary creation, and as someone who wants to know how to protect his own literary creations, and what rights under the law as the originator and copyright holder for his creation that is maintained.

Looking at this case, what scares me most, expecially after reading through the attachments to the filings posted on justia for this case which included the near completely lexicon book as evidence, I feel worried that if RDR wins, it means my rights as the creators of my works may one day be infringed upon without any way for me to protect my creation. The lexicon book as filed in as evidence was simply a alphabetical rehashing of the harry potter novels, and the two existing companion books jo wrote to raise money for chairty.

I see two major problems here other then just that it is a rehashing of the seven harry potter books, but also, it is a rehashing of two books written specifically to raise money for charity. those being the boxed set of two hogwarts school books; quidditch throughout the ages, and fantastic beast and wear to find them. by publishing information taken from those two charity books, they are taking away money that would go to charity already, not just by what would be lossed when it comes time for jk rowling to release the authoratative difinitive encylopedia.

I am not trained in law, but I have tried hard to make as much sense as I can about what is going on with this case. Trying to put loyalty to the series aside, and think it through in as unbiased of a way as I can, how can a publisher without permission from the holders of the copyrights and intellectual property get away with just reorganizing copyrighted material without properly adding commentary and new insight?

I am very afraid that the ramafaction of a win in favor of RDR Books will have a disasterous effect, setting a new precedent for authors seeking to have a tighter control on fan activitys if this is what can happen.

I am all for fair use, because it gives the opertunity to open up new realms of discussion and thought on a subject by exploring it through a lense sepeorate from the view of the originators of the work disscussed. However it seems to me that how Fair Use is being used is very shaky and in danger of throwing the balance between what is the rights of the author and originator of a literary work, and the rights of those who wish to comment or paroody it. J.K. Rowling, who has been allowing with companion books of commentary, just wants to protect her rights from being seized and misused by others for profit. in her position, I would want to also.

By: Cara

Cara — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:24:32 +0000

Finally, someone who can shed some light on the subject regarding Nocera heavily pro-RDR opinion piece. People took what he said as ‘fact’ rather than the opinion it was, which upset a lot of fans. Loved the article, BTW.

Incidentally, the things that Steve Vander Ark derived his HP info from are quite extensive and it adds up to a pretty penny:

Books 1-7
2 Companion Books
JK Rowling’s Fansite
The Harry Potter Trading Cards
Harry Potter EA games [1-5]
Harry Potter films [1-5]
Harry Potter DVD inferviews [1-5]
Harry Potter Chocolate Frog Cards
The Black Family Tapestry, {sold at auction for charity and owned by actor Daniel Radcliffe; also appears in the 5th film to date and should make a reappearance in the 7th}
…and several others that I can’t recall off the top of my head.

I’m not sure what RDR and Vander Ark were thinking, other than seeing dollar signs.