cbm, in Commonwealth countries, there's a parliamentary privilege that exempts Members of Parliament from libel laws, if it is said only in the House. So an MP can say nasty things about a bank or a union or a journalist, and the member's free speech would be protected. However, the moment the member stepped out of the House, he or she could be sued if he or she repeated these nasty things. There's something similar afoot in lawsuits. Members for the Plaintiffs or the Defendants can make statements to the press that may be misleading or overly optimistic, but once they're before the judge the rules of evidence must be strictly adhered to. That's why, of course, we've all been so interested in what wasn't said in court. Unfortunately, the media haven't picked up on that because it requires factchecking that goes beyond asking if one said this or that; the reporter actually has to compare and contrast statements.
QUOTE(wondering @ May 20 2008, 01:15 PM)
It's ironic. We're talking about a writer who was once a media darling because her success followed a down-on-her-luck, starving artist beginning. Now, she is being criticized by the same press for that same success.
Well, wondering, this isn't strictly true. The media often fake being fair and balanced by running contrarian stories. And so you get those stories about an anonymous friend squealing that JKR has had cosmetic surgery or she's bought a castle or she ripped off every other writer who has written about witches and wizards going to school. The NYTimes seemed to have established a tradition in which a big name author would write a scathing review of whatever new HP book came out explaining why JKR wasn't James Joyce or Roald Dahl or Ursula K LeGuin or Susan Cooper. (These reviews by famous writers often seemed put up jobs with very little substance and a great deal of sour grapes.)
QUOTE(kabbymoh @ May 20 2008, 01:55 PM)
The Trollope case, however, was slightly different. A few Bloomsbury authors, herself included among them, did complain that they felt underappreciated and overlooked (not in those words exactly) by the publisher. But I do not think it was meant the way the media interpreted or portrayed it (i.e. as a swipe against or a fallout with JKR). But, of course, complete truth and dry facts without a spin do not sell papers...
Sorry, kabbymoh, but can you name any other author besides Joanna Trollope? And even Trollope won't answer questions put to her about this. Of course, I suspect it has more to do with her editor and Bloomsbury co-founder, Liz Calder, stepping down. I shouldn't be surprised if this is more to do with Transworld's PR dept than with any authors' revolt.
QUOTE
DaisyRenee, (btw, great to see you!), I appreciate all of what you said but I do not believe there is enough concrete legislation to support this interpretation of copyright infringement. They might not be established "scientific facts" but they are still "facts about Harry Potter's world." If the interpretation was as clear-cut and universally acknowledged as you have summarized it above, then I don't think the judge would have encouraged them to settle. This is why if the judge makes a decision (either way) he will be setting a precedent.
Actually, the law is quite clear or concrete about the difference between real facts and fictional facts. And when it comes to the "facts about Harry Potter's world", the lexicon falls short. It doesn't, for instance, state how JKR's mythological figures compare with other mythological sources. Nor does it mention the real facts such as word count, number of chapters, or the length of time it took to write.
As has been pointed out by several lawyers on the LL, judges in civil suits routinely ask the parties to settle. Indeed, the judge's request did result in a partial settlement. But the matter of fair use remained unresolved. Actually, it won't be a precedent until it has been upheld by the appellate court. But I'm sure the judge, who seemed to like things clear, will be very careful in the wording of his judgement.
QUOTE
JKR might also succeed in getting him to remove all direct quotes. But I'm afraid much of the paraphrasing bit will have to stay. Because of the very nature of a "Lexicon," it is difficult to imagine creating such a book without paraphrasing the copyright owner. Lexicon-creating is a highly legitimate and long-standing academic exercise and I'm afraid that JKR's argument that she intended to write her own encyclopedia will be considered irrelevant to the case. The question is: Should Mr. Vander Ark (or anyone else) have the right to compile and catalogue literary "facts" (for want of a better word) about JKR's (or anybody else's) work, with or without the expressed permission of the author?
Ah, direct quotes? The judge asked about those, since SVA seems to have not put in many quotation marks when making direct quotes. And his paraphrasing tended to involve a lot of indirect quoting and summarizing.
Actually, the Defendant failed to establish that Lexicons are a legitimate academic exercise. And I use the word "legitimate" here literally. Prof Sorensen offered books on Milton and Shakespeare, who are not under copyright, but all the lexicon-like books for authors under copyright either had permission or were co-authored by the copyright holder. Therefore, is a lexicon about a copyrighted author a Derivative Work or is it Fair Use? That's the question.
And few members of the media have tried to explain this distinction. Instead they've bought into Stanford and RDR's line that JKR is trying to expand her rights to include scholarly criticism. And that's not true. I'm sure if I were to do an alphabetized version of kabbymoh's Prejudice, she'd be somewhat irked.
This post has been edited by davidenglish: May 20 2008, 10:40 AM
May 18 2008, 07:39 AM
