JK Rowling suing a fan-made website/book?

DanTMWTMP

Lifer
Oct 7, 2001
15,908
19
81
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBI...4/14/rowling.trial.ap/

...
In court papers, Vander Ark, 50, said he was a teacher and school librarian in Byron Center, Mich., before recently moving to London to begin a career as a writer.

He said he joined an adult online discussion group devoted to the Harry Potter books in 1999 before launching his own Web site as a hobby a year later. Since then, neither Rowling nor her publisher had ever complained about anything on it, he said.

In May 2004, he said, Rowling mentioned his Web site on her own, writing, "This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing). A Web site for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home."

The Web site attracts about 1.5 million page views per month and contributions from people all over the world, Vander Ark said.

He said he initially declined proposals to convert the Web site into an encyclopedia, in part because he believed until last August that in book form, it would represent a copyright violation.

After Rowling released the final chapter in the Harry Potter series that same month, Vander Ark was contacted by an RDR Books employee, who told him that publication of the lexicon would not violate copyright law, he said.

Still, to protect himself, Vander Ark said he insisted that RDR Books include a clause in his contract that the publisher would defend and pay any damages that might result from claims against him.

In his court statement, Vander Ark still sounds like a fan, saying the lexicon "enhances the pleasure of readers of the Potter novels, and deepens their appreciation of Ms. Rowling's achievement."

But the affection no longer seems a shared experience.

In court Friday, Hammer said Rowling's lawyers did not want Vander Ark in the courtroom while Rowling testified.

:roll:


Now, Orson Scott Card's awesome reply to the lawsuit:
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.c...ng_Lexicon_and_Oz.html <----excellent read.
http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html <---- just in case first link goes down.

...
Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress.

I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:

1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.

2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.

3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.

It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct ? but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.

What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don't wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it.

Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.
:Q :D
 

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
I dunno. I think that profiting off of Rowling's world by making an encyclopedia is a legitimate concern for the author. If it's non-profit, fair enough, but if you're making money off of collecting facts someone else came up with.. eh....

I'll have no sympathy if he loses.
 

DanTMWTMP

Lifer
Oct 7, 2001
15,908
19
81
Originally posted by: Enig101
I dunno. I think that profiting off of Rowling's world by making an encyclopedia is a legitimate concern for the author. If it's non-profit, fair enough, but if you're making money off of collecting facts someone else came up with.. eh....

I'll have no sympathy if he loses.

ya true. I think in this case though, the publisher should be the one to be sued since it appears that they are the ones who pitched the idea.
However,
There are several star wars/star trek/etc books, encyclopedias, artbooks, etc... I do fail to see how this encyclopedia is any different.
 

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
That Card guy is not very convincing. It's more of an opinion piece than a serious comment on the legal side of things. He doesn't seem to like JKR for whatever reason.

The only point he has that I noticed was that there are some other books which are related to the Potter universe. Dunno how those are related though. Those might have been given the OK because of some difference. I'm not going to look into it enough to find out though.
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
If you've actually read the details of the suit, it's not just because the "author" of the encyclopedia is using terms Rowling made up for the book, it's because he includes passages of the book that pertain to some of the descriptions.

Regardless, I whole-heartedly agree that he's taking her ideas and making a buck off of them. Having them for free on a website is one thing, trying to make money through a print version is wrong.

Aside from the fact that sales would tank, who wouldn't be a little upset if I made an encyclopedia of ATOT... about all of the funny terms and things that originated here (ie: SPIDER, oldmoboat's law...) and sold it for a profit? You'd all feel a little cheated.
 

Babbles

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2001
8,253
14
81
If I was to be in a position where somebody was going to make a profit off of my intellectual property, well I would be pretty pissed off to.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
he's taking an idea he had nothing to do with that's not in the public domain and making a profit on it without getting the OK from the copyright holders or book publishers.

I think JKR is perfectly justified in suing to prevent it.

OSC is kind of a douchebag, I wonder if he's just deeply offended over the fact that dumbledor is gay.... I forget which book it was that he went off on an anti-gay tirade, but I haven't read any of his books since.
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
If you want to see something else that screams "RIP OFF," read Neil Gaiman's intro for the first trade paperback of The Books Of Magic. If you changed the name of the character he describes and one or two minor details, it sounded a lot like the plot for the Harry Potter series. Boy wizard, dark scruffy hair and glasses even, living in the normal world, gets shipped off to a secret school for wizards. All done before Harry Potter.

Oh, and instead of Dumbledore, he has Merlin. :p
 

Soundmanred

Lifer
Oct 26, 2006
10,780
6
81
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
If you want to see something else that screams "RIP OFF," read Neil Gaiman's intro for the first trade paperback of The Books Of Magic. If you changed the name of the character he describes and one or two minor details, it sounded a lot like the plot for the Harry Potter series. Boy wizard, dark scruffy hair and glasses even, living in the normal world, gets shipped off to a secret school for wizards. All done before Harry Potter.

Oh, and instead of Dumbledore, he has Merlin. :p

Doesn't Gaiman just write graphic novels?
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Originally posted by: Soundmanred
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
If you want to see something else that screams "RIP OFF," read Neil Gaiman's intro for the first trade paperback of The Books Of Magic. If you changed the name of the character he describes and one or two minor details, it sounded a lot like the plot for the Harry Potter series. Boy wizard, dark scruffy hair and glasses even, living in the normal world, gets shipped off to a secret school for wizards. All done before Harry Potter.

Oh, and instead of Dumbledore, he has Merlin. :p

Doesn't Gaiman just write graphic novels?

He made his name writing comics, Sandman in particular. Books of Magic was written around the same time. (1989)
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Soundmanred
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
If you want to see something else that screams "RIP OFF," read Neil Gaiman's intro for the first trade paperback of The Books Of Magic. If you changed the name of the character he describes and one or two minor details, it sounded a lot like the plot for the Harry Potter series. Boy wizard, dark scruffy hair and glasses even, living in the normal world, gets shipped off to a secret school for wizards. All done before Harry Potter.

Oh, and instead of Dumbledore, he has Merlin. :p

Doesn't Gaiman just write graphic novels?

He made his name writing comics, Sandman in particular. Books of Magic was written around the same time. (1989)

Sandman is good. weird but good.
 

Codewiz

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2002
5,758
0
76
Too Funny, Rowling stole the whole plot of Ender's Game. So Orson Card should sue her and take all the harry potter money from her.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Too Funny, Rowling stole the whole plot of Ender's Game. So Orson Card should sue her and take all the harry potter money from her.

really, Harry Potter commits genocide?

I must have missed that one.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Too Funny, Rowling stole the whole plot of Ender's Game. So Orson Card should sue her and take all the harry potter money from her.

really, Harry Potter commits genocide?

I must have missed that one.

"A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world."
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
you could take the game out of Harry Potter and not fundamentally alter the storyline; couldn't do the same with Ender's Game.

"kid growing up with a sucky home life doing something special with cool friends" is pretty much the plot of every kid book ever.
 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,877
1
0
Originally posted by: Injury
Aside from the fact that sales would tank, who wouldn't be a little upset if I made an encyclopedia of ATOT... about all of the funny terms and things that originated here (ie: SPIDER, oldmoboat's law...) and sold it for a profit? You'd all feel a little cheated.

Luckily the law isn't based just on how people "feel".
 

Injury

Lifer
Jul 19, 2004
13,066
2
81
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Too Funny, Rowling stole the whole plot of Ender's Game. So Orson Card should sue her and take all the harry potter money from her.

really, Harry Potter commits genocide?

I must have missed that one.

"A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world."

I can think of about a dozen movies that could fit that description and a few dozen more with some minor edits. This description has generalized the plot enough that it's not hard to think that one is a direct ripoff.

Despite any of this, Harry Potter is a complete literary work in itself and the "author" of the encyclopedia is taking EXACT passages of the books, EXACT character names, EXACT places, EXACT everything and making a profit from it. Without "Ender's Game" being written, Harry Potter makes complete perfect sense and is affected in no way at all. Without Harry Potter being written, an encyclopedia on Harry Potter is going to line the shelves of dollar stores around the world.
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
23
81
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
Originally posted by: Enig101
I dunno. I think that profiting off of Rowling's world by making an encyclopedia is a legitimate concern for the author. If it's non-profit, fair enough, but if you're making money off of collecting facts someone else came up with.. eh....

I'll have no sympathy if he loses.

ya true. I think in this case though, the publisher should be the one to be sued since it appears that they are the ones who pitched the idea.
However,
There are several star wars/star trek/etc books, encyclopedias, artbooks, etc... I do fail to see how this encyclopedia is any different.

They probably got permission to sell, whereas this ah heck did not. His site was strictly non profit prior correct?
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
The only reason this lawsuit came to pass (old news by the way), is because Rowling decided to make her own Lexicon (presumably because there was interest in this one already). This person had a web version of the Lexicon up for a couple years now, and Rowling actually APPROVED of it. The only difference with the print version is that there is cash involved.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
he's taking an idea he had nothing to do with that's not in the public domain and making a profit on it without getting the OK from the copyright holders or book publishers.

I think JKR is perfectly justified in suing to prevent it.

OSC is kind of a douchebag, I wonder if he's just deeply offended over the fact that dumbledor is gay.... I forget which book it was that he went off on an anti-gay tirade, but I haven't read any of his books since.

OSC is pointing out that Rowlings is a hypocrite. He makes several points showing where Rowlings clearly took others ideas and used them as her own. He is proving a point in that all she cares about is money. She claimed "emotional distress", which is total bullshit. Is it distressing that someone is selling something that might actually increase sales of your own books?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: loki8481
he's taking an idea he had nothing to do with that's not in the public domain and making a profit on it without getting the OK from the copyright holders or book publishers.

I think JKR is perfectly justified in suing to prevent it.

OSC is kind of a douchebag, I wonder if he's just deeply offended over the fact that dumbledor is gay.... I forget which book it was that he went off on an anti-gay tirade, but I haven't read any of his books since.

OSC is pointing out that Rowlings is a hypocrite. He makes several points showing where Rowlings clearly took others ideas and used them as her own. He is proving a point in that all she cares about is money. She claimed "emotional distress", which is total bullshit. Is it distressing that someone is selling something that might actually increase sales of your own books?


i don't fault her for wanting more money for her "work" (wich could be debated. there seems to be enough proof out that she stole a lot of the ideas from other writers). but when she started sueing kids for having fan sites and fan fiction i kinda lost interest in her as a person.