Comments on: WB Lawyer Says Spoilers Illegal

By: odessa steps magazine

odessa steps magazine — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:38:33 +0000

For some reason, this reminds me of the whole Comicology/Kingdom Come mess. That has always spooked me about the Starman stuff I want to publish.

By: David Oakes

David Oakes — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:25:47 +0000

“I just can’t see supporting WB & Rowling in this case.”

What if we take the Prosecution’s claims at face value as well, and that “original content” ammounts to only 10% of the work? That would seem against the spirit of “Fair Use”, that you should be allowed to use a sufficient portion to make your point, but no more.

And while there will probably be a time where the Internet is seen as “real” as paper publishing, we aren’t there yet. It is possible – if not reasonable – to dissmiss a web document as “merely” a fan site, where as a book is a different story. (Not to mention that the way copyright law is phrased, a for-profit publication *is* a different level of challenge to your copyright.)

I don;t think we have heard the real story, from either side. But I find the web’s absolutist defense of “Fair Use” to be as chilling to creative thought as “Disney can own your copyright unless you say no”. (Which is really just the same thing, now that I compare them. If Disney is the height of EVIL for using your work after making a good faith effort to determine rights, why does an individual get a pass even after the author as specifically asked them not to?)

By: Johanna

Johanna — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:33:02 +0000

According to the defense, there is original content, and if Rowling hated it so much, she should never have recognized it with an “award” when it was a website. I just can’t see supporting WB & Rowling in this case.

By: Andre

Andre — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:26:21 +0000

I dunno, an “encyclopedia” that apparently uses exact metaphors, verbs and phrases [based on testimony I've read at Leaky Cauldron and Mugglement] is kind of sketchy. No critical analysis, no original content, just random stuff pretty much copied and pasted in alphabetical order with no permission from JK Rowling. Added tackiness since JK was planning on doing an encyclopedia herself soon, with the funds going to charity [vs. the funds going to some scummy guy's bank book]

Rowling has often supported things like scholarly article collections of her works, overlooked unofficial biographies or books about general fantasy that also cover her works, but those usually aren’t just a carry-on to her work. She’s let a fair amount of stuff go on, and doesn’t seem to have an issue with fan websites, but this particular work was purely for profit and stepped across the line a little too much. I’m kind of surprised that people attack her so much for protecting her work. Is it because she’s too rich/popular/a women? If it were some little creator doing so with the help of the comics legal defense fund, I don’t think we’d see these words….

I’m also kind of boggled by how people say “she’s suing some kid” when the kid in question is a 50 year old, who having worked in a library, probably knew quite well what he was doing in terms of copyright violation.

Most writers/artists can’t afford to sue people who abuse their copyrights, so I can’t blame JK for taking an axe to it all if she has the money/backing to do so.

By: thekamisama

thekamisama — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:52:38 +0000

I always wondered if Warner never making a big stink over her obvious lifting of Neil Gaiman’s Tim Hunter creation was because of all these IP deals they have with Rowling? It certainly makes it appear lucrative for them to overlook.
It is somewhat bonechilling to see this case even get this far. If Rowling and WB win, you could easily see this as a precedent to shutting down various fanzines, price guides, or any other unauthorized reference. How long before they will be going after Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guides or Overstreet’s Price Guide?