Copywrong
J.K. Rowling is in New York this week, and we're a lot happier to have her here than we are to have Pope Palpatine en route.
Unfortunately, Jo is here to testify in a court case concerning a ripoff artist who's trying to profit off all her hard work on Harry Potter. This creature had a website which JKR approved of, something she now says she's bitterly unhappy about having done, and he and his cheap, crappy publisher thought they could make a few bucks by printing it up as "The Harry Potter Lexicon."
This is EXACTLY why I never gave anyone permission to do fannish ripoffs of my own Keltia stuff, and went after anyone who tried. Of course, Keltia and Harry Potter aren't remotely comparable in the success department, but the principle remains the same, and I'm very glad I held to mine.
Nobody has the right to take your creation and do whatever they please with it. Theft is theft. This guy claims he's just writing a concordance, just like all the Shakespeare ones you see around. Well, JKR says otherwise: in fact, she says that of over 2400 instances of Harry mention by this guy, over 2000 of them are directly plagiarized from her books.
She further deposes under oath that the commentary he boasts of is nonexistent and the scholarship is lousy. For ex: he attributes "Alohomora" to portmanteauing "aloha" and the Latin word "mora"; JKR says not so, it derives from a West African term to do with thievery or breaking and entering. And a bunch more stuff along those lines.
I find it difficult to believe that the defendant could have been so ingenuous as to think that taking great whacking chunks of JKR's work was "fair use." Last time I checked with a lawyer on fair use, I was told that it was all proportional: if a poem or letter, say, was 1000 words, maybe...MAYBE...you could get away with 100 words in your fair usage. Shorter stuff would militate smaller percentages.
I also find it interesting that the defendant's original contract with this publisher contained an arrangement that the publisher, who assured him it was all okay, would be responsible for the costs of any plagiarism lawsuits.
Anyway, both plaintiff and defendant have wept on the stand. For different reasons, of course. I just hope that the judge who's ruling on this---it's not a jury trial---will be receptive to the rights of a creator and rule in JKR's favor.
Any other outcome would only be worthy of He Who Must Not Be Named.
Unfortunately, Jo is here to testify in a court case concerning a ripoff artist who's trying to profit off all her hard work on Harry Potter. This creature had a website which JKR approved of, something she now says she's bitterly unhappy about having done, and he and his cheap, crappy publisher thought they could make a few bucks by printing it up as "The Harry Potter Lexicon."
This is EXACTLY why I never gave anyone permission to do fannish ripoffs of my own Keltia stuff, and went after anyone who tried. Of course, Keltia and Harry Potter aren't remotely comparable in the success department, but the principle remains the same, and I'm very glad I held to mine.
Nobody has the right to take your creation and do whatever they please with it. Theft is theft. This guy claims he's just writing a concordance, just like all the Shakespeare ones you see around. Well, JKR says otherwise: in fact, she says that of over 2400 instances of Harry mention by this guy, over 2000 of them are directly plagiarized from her books.
She further deposes under oath that the commentary he boasts of is nonexistent and the scholarship is lousy. For ex: he attributes "Alohomora" to portmanteauing "aloha" and the Latin word "mora"; JKR says not so, it derives from a West African term to do with thievery or breaking and entering. And a bunch more stuff along those lines.
I find it difficult to believe that the defendant could have been so ingenuous as to think that taking great whacking chunks of JKR's work was "fair use." Last time I checked with a lawyer on fair use, I was told that it was all proportional: if a poem or letter, say, was 1000 words, maybe...MAYBE...you could get away with 100 words in your fair usage. Shorter stuff would militate smaller percentages.
I also find it interesting that the defendant's original contract with this publisher contained an arrangement that the publisher, who assured him it was all okay, would be responsible for the costs of any plagiarism lawsuits.
Anyway, both plaintiff and defendant have wept on the stand. For different reasons, of course. I just hope that the judge who's ruling on this---it's not a jury trial---will be receptive to the rights of a creator and rule in JKR's favor.
Any other outcome would only be worthy of He Who Must Not Be Named.
posted by Patricia Kennealy Morrison | 11:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home