| 1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) |
|
Lexicon Steve Part II, Continue the discussion |
|
|
|
 Nov 5 2007, 02:40 PM
|
Waiting for Wednesdays
Posts: 8,604
Joined: 7:57am January 28, 2005
Location: Hiding from Hurricanes
|
Since the original discussion on the Encyclopedia has gotten to 50 pages I'm closing it and opening a fresh one. You'll find part one here.
Please remember our #1 rule is to be nice. Thank you in advance for the mature and well thought out discussion.
Doris
--------------------
avatar by The Rockin Leaky Staff Stand Fast with us on December Third!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2007, 02:44 PM
|
Leaky's Resident Weasley Expert
Posts: 2,381
Joined: 8:52pm March 1, 2005
Location: Ravenclaw Common Room attempting to ACCIO Jason Mraz.
|
DaisyRenee:
I didn't take it as snarky! To make it up to me though, if you are in fact riddled with guilt, you can always just read my fanfiction!
I'm kidding...
I don't think JKR would ever really "go after us" in any sense...but I don't trust WB. That's the point I'm making when I say I'm wary of what this could start.
I would use the term slippery slope again, but I dont' need to channel Rick Santorum today.
ETA:
I'm a jerk, this post is more apt for the Fandom Effect thread.
but My feelings on the legal aspect of things is JKR is within her rights to do whatever she pleases with her work, and Steve really has no choice but to adhere.
However, I feel for Steve. I think he's stuck between a rock and a deatheater.
This post has been edited by EruditeWitch: Nov 5 2007, 02:50 PM
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2007, 05:05 PM
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song
Posts: 6,306
Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005
Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag
|
For an ironic laugh, one might want to read the May 11, 2007 entry at HP Lexicon's What's New. SVA told his lawyer to issue a Cease & Desist letter.
The June 27, 2007 entry is very amusing as well. Apparently they've entered the text of Fantastic Beasts into their database, but they "have intentionally NOT included all information about each beast so that [their] site doesn't discourage anyone from buying the book itself."
Of course, what percentage of "all information" was left out is not mentioned. And that's the big factor in a copyright infringement suit.
I've taken my big, deep breath, but I still find SVA to be wearing a garlic-smelling turban and I can't help wondering what one will find under those wrappings.
--------------------
Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter,
Sweeter than spring-water,
"Gods, I am so happy!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2007, 05:19 PM
|
Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes' best customer
Posts: 1,045
Joined: 1:34pm January 29, 2005
|
I think a more accurate pie analogy would involve say...sharing a recipe for pie and having that recipe published in a cookbook without your consent. Although the HP series is too big to be just one recipe. Let's say it's a cookbook itself, full of recipes, and someone else comes along and takes those recipes, rearranges them, and publishes it as their own cookbook. Is that infringement? I don't know - there are a lot of awfully similar cookbooks out there.
What if the other person takes those recipes, includes a lot of notes about the origins of each dish and other uses for the same ingredients, and charts the evolution of each dish...would that constitute a new work, even though it is based on someone else's recipes? Again I don't know.
And I'm not asking anyone to tell me either, these are rhetorical questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2007, 05:30 PM
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary
Posts: 462
Joined: 11:20am November 27, 2005
Location: At my PC silly ;)
|
QUOTE(va32h @ Nov 5 2007, 10:19 PM)  I think a more accurate pie analogy would involve say...sharing a recipe for pie and having that recipe published in a cookbook without your consent. Although the HP series is too big to be just one recipe. Let's say it's a cookbook itself, full of recipes, and someone else comes along and takes those recipes, rearranges them, and publishes it as their own cookbook. Is that infringement? I don't know - there are a lot of awfully similar cookbooks out there.
What if the other person takes those recipes, includes a lot of notes about the origins of each dish and other uses for the same ingredients, and charts the evolution of each dish...would that constitute a new work, even though it is based on someone else's recipes? Again I don't know.
And I'm not asking anyone to tell me either, these are rhetorical questions.
Maybe, but I was going for a more metaphorical comparison than that more accurate one.
Plus I'm not sure how copyright goes for recipes, I mean there’s the basic recipe which is far to widely used and no possible way of tracing it back to it's original creator. So that leaves the basic recipe in the public domain, it’s what ever you add to the pie that would make it your own recipe.
--------------------
It's a sad truth of life that at one time or another all good things must come to an end.
As written on a gravestone:
As you are so was I.
As I am so you will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2007, 05:40 PM
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary
Posts: 496
Joined: 12:29am February 9, 2006
Location: Stoatshead Hill
|
QUOTE(va32h @ Nov 5 2007, 05:19 PM) I think a more accurate pie analogy would involve say...sharing a recipe for pie and having that recipe published in a cookbook without your consent. Although the HP series is too big to be just one recipe. Let's say it's a cookbook itself, full of recipes, and someone else comes along and takes those recipes, rearranges them, and publishes it as their own cookbook. Is that infringement? I don't know - there are a lot of awfully similar cookbooks out there.
What if the other person takes those recipes, includes a lot of notes about the origins of each dish and other uses for the same ingredients, and charts the evolution of each dish...would that constitute a new work, even though it is based on someone else's recipes? Again I don't know.
And I'm not asking anyone to tell me either, these are rhetorical questions. Sorry, but I am going to answer. I do not find your analogy correct because in JKR's case, she also owns the names of the ingredients. A pie recipe would have flour, which can be used by everyone. A Harry Potter encyclopedia would have the name Neville Longbottom, and that name is owned by JKR. But the problem is not the one or two mentions of the things that JKR owns, it is that Steve has almost all of them in the Lexicon. So in this case it is not the recipe that is getting Steve in trouble, it is the ingredients.
We also have had a report on the qforquack blog of Steve writing in an E-mail I reported in the last thread that "Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world." If this is true, it means that Steve knew he wasn't just copying a few recipes. I wonder what changed his mind?
This post has been edited by cbm: Nov 5 2007, 05:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2007, 06:07 PM
|
Just Through the Brick Wall
Posts: 15
Joined: 8:54pm November 3, 2007
|
QUOTE(cbm @ Nov 5 2007, 02:40 PM) We also have had a report on the qforquack blog of Steve writing in an E-mail I reported in the last thread that " Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world." If this is true, it means that Steve knew he wasn't just copying a few recipes. I wonder what changed his mind?
I'm glad you posted a link to this. It puts Steve into a different perspective entirely. Add this to the fact that no one denies he asked JKR for permission and went ahead after she said no, I am not surprised he is in this harrowing position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 5 2007, 06:18 PM
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song
Posts: 6,306
Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005
Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag
|
That same email, which may or may not be legit, mentioned he wanted to petition Jo after the last book and propose cowriting the definitive encyclopedia. What we understand from the various parties involved is that she said NO. All I can think is that this was a terrible blow to his self-esteem. Everyone involved with him seems to like him and defer to his wisdom. That the very architect of the Potterverse was unmoved by his offer must have bruised his ego.
There's nothing very special about the Lexicon. It's a database. It's simple data entry. It could easily be replicated. SVA has brought some basic librarian cataloguing techniques to it and some webpage savvy to it and so it looks good. But the work involved does not require creative genius.
Every editor does this on a manuscript to create a uniform style and maintain continuity. Anybody can create their own DIY Lexicon. Just buy some coloured sticky notes. Then we designate several file folders: Characters, Places, Events, Magic, Beasts and Things, represented by Yellow, Blue, Green, Pink, Orange and Purple, respectively. Then it's just a matter of rereading the books and inserting the appropriate sticky note. Believe it or not --because nothing original is being created-- this process can move along at quite a rapid clip.
--------------------
Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter,
Sweeter than spring-water,
"Gods, I am so happy!"
|
|
|
|
  Similar Topics
 Similar Topics
|
Sorting is now open for our Prisoner of Azkaban reading groups! Click here to sort!
Shopping at The Cauldron Shop supports this forum!
|
mmmmmmmmmm delicious pie *drools*
