Snapped Shot

Always Watching the All-Seeing Eye

 

Copyright or Censorship?

By captainfish · Saturday, April 19. 2008 12:45
While proclaiming to be "vehemently anti-censorship", author J.K. Rowling is claiming to have suffered the indignity of being "plundered".

...at the end of a three-day trial into an unauthorised encyclopaedia of her Harry Potter novels.

Rowling has asked the federal court in New York to block publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a guide to the characters, places and spells in her novels, written by Steven Vander Ark, 50, a former school librarian. Rowling said she was “vehemently anti-censorship; and generally supportive of the right of other authors to write books about her novels”. But she said Vander Ark had “plundered” her prose and merely reprinted it in an A-to-Z format.


ummm.. ok? Would this then mean that the "Dummies for.." books are also "plundering" the works of others. Seems to me that Rowling is pushing for censorship here more than anything else.

What do you think? (and, this does go beyond whether or not her books are worthy of reading or not)

[Update]: It would seem that Helen Popkin over at MSNBC's "Netiquette" also has taken issue with J.K. Rowling's attacks on Vander Ark in an articled title "Harry Potter and the Copyright Quandary". This is a great read.
· permalink · Comments (11) · Trackbacks (0)
 
Snap.com Popups

If they're driving you crazy, please click here to disable them on this website.




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments [RSS]
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Here is what a handful of random people think about this article. But first, the fine print:
The opinions expressed here, even where approved for display, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website, the management, or any other entity or organization, with the exception of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy. Those opinions we represent in style, yo. Please keep the language in these comments clean, as this is intended to be a family-friendly, work-friendly website. Comments not compliant with this policy will be edited for content where necessary. Abusive or otherwise illegal comments will be reported to the proper authorities, up to and including the aforementioned Vast Zionist Conspiracy. The Management cannot and will not be held responsible for commenters making a spectacle of themselves, even if The Management are the said commenters in question. In other words, don't take yourself so seriously, folks. We're all here to discuss the news, and more importantly, to have fun. Now go get yourself into some OCD treatment program—you obviously need it if you actually read all of this mess.

Cletus on 2008-04-19 12:58 #1
*about 7 years ago I was a fiend for Harry Potter. They are some pretty entertaining books.

Still though, this shit doesn't warrent court. I hear the poor guy cried during the proceedings. I doubt he's even trying to make money off her intellectual property; he probably is just a diehard HP fan. I'm going to send Rowling a letter to tell her to stop being a bitch
Reply  
DMartyr on 2008-04-19 19:00 #2
*I gotta comment on this. I love Harry Potter, but I don't like JK Rowling. She is a manipulator and only cares about her bottom line.

First, JK Rowling said this about HP Lexicon website at her website: "This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than going into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing). A website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home."

Now, she's complaining because she decided after book seven she might like to write an HP encyclopedia, and a Lexicon book would take away from her sales. Suddenly, HP Lexicon is 'plundering' her work? Its the same content as on the website!

(I'm still pissed off about 'Order of the Phoenix". Remember how, in the weeks before its release, she told her woeful tale of crying uncontrollably because she had killed off a major character? So what happens in the book? Every other chapter a major character either comes close to death or appears to be dead. The whole bloody thing was a marketing ploy!)
Reply  
captainfish on 2008-04-19 19:28 #3
*I hope she goes down in flames.

For one, to kill off Dumbeldore... he's a huge wizard and he gets killed off by a low-level magician? How could he have died when the kids were able to defend themselves from him and the others?

Besides, if she is so anal about people writing books about her books, then why is she so silent about the movies? The last few movies have SUCKED!!! From the Goblet of Fire on.. movies sucked more so than the earlier ones.

A 2 hour movie when a 3 hour or longer would have been more proper. They cut so much out that the movies were nonsensical.

And yes, Order of Phoenix was just as much a hack job as Goblet was.
Reply  
Bookworm on 2008-04-19 19:30 #4
*Rowling is right to protect her property rights. She labored over those books for years, they're wonderful books, and the marketplace rewarded her (really well). If she's right that this guy, rather than creating something new, simply copied her books with ideas arranged in alphabetical order, then he simply stole. In that case, she's not advocating censorship; she's protecting her intellectual property.
Reply  
captainfish on 2008-04-19 19:37 #5
*Well, I don't know how he is creating his book. I don't think it has been produced yet. I don't know. But, if he is "citing" things out of a series of books, condensing them to be just an encyclopedia, then how is that infringement?

Think of the Lord of Rings encyclopedias. Again, think of the "dummies for.." books. They condense and reference the primary source books.

I am not arguing pro or con, but if this guy is found to be infringing, then wouldn't all the things I just noted be infringing as well?

If I were to create a book on the life and times of Stephen King's characters, who have lived in Maine, and the abnormal things that have happened to them, would that be infringing?

Thanks for keeping us on our toes Bookworm.
Reply  
Elliott on 2008-04-19 23:20 #6
*She's a marketing genius that found a way to abuse the world with books written for 2nd graders that adults, for some reason, like. I wouldn't call her a great author, but a great manipulator for sure.

That aside, if she wins this and then writes her own then I'll just be reaffirmed that she is, in fact, a literary whore. Sure she's right to protect her intellectual property, but if this man took the effort to cataloged her characters and spells, it seems like it would then be an original work. Especially if he wrote the descriptions himself. It'd be like suing a reviewer for copyright infringement just because they talked about your book.
Reply  
DMartyr on 2008-04-20 08:42 #7
*HP Lexicon has been around for years. The site not only lists people, places, and things from the books, but it also explores the backgrounds of such. JKR used existing lore and folktales in her books. She's even swiped a few items from other books like Grimm Fairy Tales. The HP world is not all the creation of JKR.

Plus, JKR intentionally links each HP book with the other books in the series, including the companion books. Its like a grand intellectual puzzle. HP Lexicon helps connect those pieces, which sometimes can offer new clues to the backgrounds of beloved characters or magical items.

As far as I know, the HP Lexicon book will be essentially the same as the HP Lexicon website as far as content.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, JKR praised the HP Lexicon website - even giving it a fan site award - on her official website, http://origin.jkrowling.com (click the little paperclip and then locate HP Lexicon on the trophy). Now she claims the site is a bogus rip-off? BS. She's just pissed HP Lexicon beat her to the idea of publishing an HP encyclopedia.

And now she has the audacity to try and raise the ire of fans by whining she may never be able to write another HP book because she is just so traumatized by someone else writing a reference guide...

I would never buy another JKR book.
Reply  
captainfish on 2008-04-20 13:58 #8
*Thank you oh wise one.
Did not realize that the book has been out for a while and, in a way, has been praised.

This makes it all the worse for her position, it would seem.
Reply  
Cletus on 2008-04-20 14:01 #9
*I used to go on the lexicon site all the time, and it WAS something new. It had all kinds of theories over things that weren't covered in the book, and while it did take lots of info directly from the books it was the first place to group it all together, organized and coherently.

The bitch has billions and billions of dollars, and I bet you she had no plans on writing her own lexicon until she heard someone else is. Bitch just wants money.
Reply  
DMartyr on 2008-04-20 14:24 #10
*Captain, the book hasn't been out, but the website has. I believe the book is intended to be similar to the website.
Reply  
floophy on 2008-04-21 16:08 #11
*ha- ha! They're even making computer games out of this now! http://www.fyrebug.com/?p=5476 J.K. Rowling VS Steven Vander Ark tennis
Reply  

Add Comment

HTML-Tags will be converted to Entities.
Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
BBCode format allowed
Gravatar/MyBlogLog/Favatar/Pavatar author images supported.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA