Rowling, bitch?

[baavgai]

I don't expect artists, or anyone who amuses me for that matter, to have any real moral fiber. In fact, some of the best writers in history were assholes. Their books are still good.

Seems that JK doesn't like when a fan site tries to market it's collection of fanish musings. She may not like it, but it's legal with a ton of precedent; suing just seems crass.

It makes me sad.

Comments

[loosecanon.livejournal.com]

I knew about this one, it's not as awful on her part as it sounds. The book contains only thoughts she originally expressed, in her own words, not commentary or speculation.
It's pretty much an encyclopaedia, a re-ordering of her own words and work.
Rowling and co are planning their own version.


by the way, we have a comp problem and when I try to call you, I get a pharmacy at a hospital. Please phone back.

[tashadandelion.livejournal.com]

I'm on Rowling's side. I hope you don't mind my direct disagreement as stated below...

From that article: "The plaintiffs are under the apparent conviction that the material on the web site is fine, but that when put into a book, it becomes a copyright violation. Much of this has to do with money."

At the risk of juvenile presentation, DUH. That's a large part of copyright -- monetary protection (the rest of it being intellectual/creative property protection). This is why non-paying fanfic sites go largely undisturbed by the original owners of the universes these writers borrow -- money isn't changing hands. If anything, the fannish sites increase profit to the originators (who deserve it). As soon as money is involved, it behooves the borrower to either get permission/make a royalty arrangement or take their chances legally.

I am all for creative extrapolation based on original works. What I'm NOT for is the monetary gain on the part of those derivative creators without getting permission from or giving a cut to the originator. I fail to see how not doing so is, in fact, "fair use". (Yes, I'm familiar with the current interpretation of it, at least as done in American courts. The lexicon book utterly fails to meet the criteria, IMO.)

There is zero shame in Rowlings choice of allowing the not-for-profit website to exist but choosing to pursue the monetary side of copyright law when the owner of that site got greedy about it. Did he, in fact, formally ask her permission to publish his book? Because if he did and she said NO, or if he didn't at all, then the law is squarely on her side.

I don't mind people who use my work in not-for-profit ways, but I find it exceedingly crass when they use it for profit without offering me a cut and the right of refusal. Their work would not exist if not for the original work. The derivative creators owe deference to the originator, both in giving credit and in monetary compensation if their derivative work only exists because of the original work's existence.

No matter how inconsistent Rowling's choices are in pursuing copyright infringers, she still has the right and the precedent to do so, as she pleases. I would hope every artist and writer on the planet would have that right, no matter how many times in the past they haven't actively pursued infringers. The burden of due-diligence IMO is on the infringer, not the infringee.

The state of copyright law in the courts these days is far from settled. There is plenty of precedence on all sides of the issue, and it's a crap-shoot how any individual case will go.

[baavgai.livejournal.com]

It quite depends on the extent to which her work is used. I'm finding a lot of conflicting information in that regard. If a large amount is lifted whole cloth, then I'm on her side. If it's just a play on her material, with a reasonable amount of original content, then I think she's SOL.

I'm hoping I'll have to agree with you, in the end.