Harry Potter discussion forum for movies, books, and more! - The Leaky Lounge: WB/JKR vs RDR Part 15 - Harry Potter discussion forum for movies, books, and more! - The Leaky Lounge

RDR/SVA should count their lucky stars Mr Blair did discover the intent before sales began. At this point, IIRC, Ms Rowling and Warner Brothers are simply asking for a permanent injunction. Had the book gone to press and sale, there'd be real money involved. Real money means real damage, and the stakes would have gone up. I'll leave it to the attorneys here to discuss how high is high, and what is viable in the law for true economic damage.

Well, the Romance Writers of America held their annual conference recently and Nora Roberts led a panel discussion on Plagiarism. There's a report written by one of the other panel members here at Dear Author.

The difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism is made clear in the discussion. And there's some interesting information about computer software that can detect either.

Of course, infringement and plagiarism can overlap. Indeed, that was a strong point made by the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. By not putting in quotation marks but by using JKR's exact words, by denying that the HPL staff paraphrased and insisting they wrote every word, SVA essentially took credit for JKR's creative work.

Perhaps Prof Dan Royer should be asked to give a panel discussion on this topic when the fall term begins a GVSU. It would seem he's the man in charge of RDR's defence fund, The Right to Write. (The link is to the page showing who set up most of the fund's webpage.)

This post has been edited by davidenglish: 13 August 2008 - 12:44 AM

Thanks for the links, davidenglish. We've had several long exchanges in this thread about the similarities and differences between plagiarism and copyright infringement, and the Dear Author summary is one of the best explanations I've seen. The Lexicon book does seem to fit in that third category, a combination of plagiarism and infringement. However, I think I'd argue that the plagiarism in this case wasn't necessarily intentional or malicious. Steve was trying to create an atmosphere with his book that makes it feel as though the HP Universe is real, and that choice led to what I think he sees as some unavoidable overlap in words and phrases.

I'm thinking in school terms, because I work in a library with a high percentage of teenage customers, but when I think plagiarism I usually think of a person who doesn't know what to write, and so that person "borrows" a passage or more from someone else and hands it in under his or her own name, rather than the name of the person who actually wrote it. (Holy run-on sentence, Batman! Sorry about that, folks)

In the case of the Lexicon Book, though, Steve doesn't see it as plagiarism. His interviews and statements to the media are evidence of that. I think that because he had a purpose in mind, he believes that repeated incidents of uncredited copying are justified. I don't think he really intended to pass Jo's words off as his own, and he seems a little boggled at the idea that others made that assumption. In my opinion, it's really more a case of bad editing and inappropriate citation of paraphrase than straight off intentional plagiarism.

But anyway, it was nice to read a summary of plagiarism and copyright infringement that shows the two concepts as separate, but connected.

Just sticking my head in, guys. Has anything interesting happened?

No sign of a decision, if that is what you mean...

Other than that, there are a good many interesting people here. Just ask us

I think we'll be lucky to get a ruling in September.

Yeah, I'm not expecting the rulng anytime soon. Maybe we'll have a full year's worth of discussing.

I'm expecting a ruling as soon as the contract cancellation date hits. That was August 23, I believe- so 10 more days, potentially.

Meanwhile, to contribute to the conversation...



That's entirely possible. However, that doesn't make it not plagiarism if it is or justified if it isn't, regardless of what he believes. I don't think he realizes that.

Perhaps Prof Dan Royer should be asked to give a panel discussion on this topic when the fall term begins a GVSU. It would seem he's the man in charge of RDR's defence fund, The Right to Write. (The link is to the page showing who set up most of the fund's webpage.)

With so many students heading off to school soon, this issue becomes more important. I wonder if the good professors at GVSU would be tolerant of those who handed in "borrowed" material then claimed it was a ready reference. Ah, in my younger days I'd have launched the "Re-use and recycle" movement for all my papers. "I'm sorry prof, I had no other way to say it without using those authors' words. It's my first amendment right!" Whaddya think, DE? Would I get away with it?

This post has been edited by wondering: 14 August 2008 - 08:50 AM

Well, I've always maintained that SVA didn't mean to plagiarize, but to write as though the Potterverse is real (as JKR did in FB and QTTA). Quotation marks and explanations would have destroyed the "fourth wall" and thus much of the fun for him and his staff and volunteers. However, I remain convinced that he overstepped his rights in doing this for publication by using so many direct unattributed quotes and wonder why he either refused to accept this or deliberated courted [sic ] disaster against WB/JKR.

I'm impatient for the next installment, as are we all.