(Post a new comment)

	white_serpent 2008-04-16 09:44 pm UTC (link)
	PraetorianGuard's latest analysis is interesting. (ETA4, I think.) The problem with defining consequences for fandom is that it isn't the actual "yes you can publish" or "no you can't" that matters-- it's the written decision in all its detail. (Reply to this)(Thread)

charmian
2008-04-17 12:08 am UTC (link)

http://community.livejournal.com/fandom_lawyers/62759.html?style=mine#cutid1

This is quite interesting. To this person, apparently it's a toss-up

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/16/potter-case-ip-lawyer-calls-it-a-toss-up/?mod=WSJBlog#comment-187192

Anyway, one of the parts examines the nature of the copyrighted work. The more creative the copyrighted work is, the less likely a fair-use argument is going to apply. The less creative a work is — like if the work is a news article or something that relies on a lot of facts — the more likely a fair-use argument is supposed to apply.

!!!!! Wow! I never heard about THIS aspect in fandom discussions.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/16/notes-from-the-potter-trial-after-a-partial-settlement-the-defense-digs-in/?mod=WSJBlog

Apparently they're tabling the trademark and unfair competition stuff, leaving just the copyright.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	meril 2008-04-17 02:50 am UTC (link)
	Is there something about Harry Potter that makes people go all stupid when they discuss it? Never mind, we know there is. In any case, from reading about the actual trial, it seems like both sides are doing a really good job of irritating the hell out of the presiding judge. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	white_serpent 2008-04-17 06:57 am UTC (link)
	In any case, from reading about the actual trial, it seems like both sides are doing a really good job of irritating the hell out of the presiding judge. Well, seeing as that's also a defining characteristic of the fandom... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	charmian 2008-04-17 08:00 am UTC (link)
	...You need to even ask this after all of this time? I'm not surprised that the judge is annoyed by the fair use people, as they're trying to force a judgement on a veeeeery thorny legal issue, but I guess it's more surprising that JKR's expensive, pro litigators are... (Reply to this)(Parent)

kill_the_spare
2008-04-17 07:15 am UTC (link)

I'm rooting for SVA. Not because I believe in the merits of his case or because I have any sympathy for him personally, but simply because I am so bored of hearing about this case. I have no idea what is inspiring so much rabid outrage (not to mention breathless recountings of every tissue JKR uses to wipe away her tears) ... like you, I could not be more apathetic about the whole thing.

The self-righteousness on both sides is really tiresome (since I'm no fan of the Stanford anti-copyright brigade, either).

Plus, SVA gave JKR writer's block, which can only be a good thing in my book. >:D

The only aspect of all this I find remotely interesting is SVA's girlfriend -- what happened? Why did she delete her LJ and cancel Sectus? I'm curious to know what the backstory is.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

charmian
2008-04-17 08:02 am UTC (link)

!!! We should form a NEW FACTION of people who are bored by the case. I'm not one of those people who are "oh, JKR doesn't deserve copyright, because she is rich," but I do have to think that if she put out an official encyclopedia, she wouldn't be THAT harmed by the obviously unofficial one. I guess I see so many people writing unofficial books it never seemed like a huge infraction, although I have no idea whether it is or is not fair use.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	meril 2008-04-17 08:06 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, the part that we're apparently not allowed to talk about on F_W? Come on, if people want a fannish gossip blog, the one thing restricting its utility is the fact that it's absolutely gutless about gossip. (I think I've been reading too many Gawker Media blogs lately. This is bad for the Meril.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kill_the_spare 2008-04-17 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	Can people talk about it elsewhere? I haven't been keeping up with the FW threads, but is this information ANYWHERE? I'm really curious! (Reply to this)(Parent)

white_serpent
2008-04-17 10:24 pm UTC (link)

I believe she deleted her livejournal and cancelled Sectus due to stress and not having enough time to work on it. She also said she couldn't find someone willing to take Sectus on.

The main reason she's not talked about on f_w is because of the viciousness of the attacks on her as a "tart" and "homewrecker." The screened posts contained quotes of the same vitriol and another talked about her conference-organizing skills and included her real name. That turns into a particular problem here because we actually know that she was fired from her job after a newspaper article talked about her, Harry Potter, and slash, using her real name.

She's basically trying to remove herself from this discussion, and, therefore, we're trying to respect that.

On the case...
I've looked through most of the articles again and what Rowling is actually quoted/described as saying.

I've concluded that the trial may legally be over copyright infringement, but the actual issue at hand here is plagiarism. Rowling keeps talking about plagiarism (see her press statement after testifying), she's upset about the lack of quotation marks, they're complaining about citations, the examples of text are focused on unacceptable paraphrase, SVA is being asked why he doesn't write things in his own words, they're asking why he doesn't understand since he clearly didn't want his own stuff copied, etc.

SVA's response has been, essentially, that he couldn't possibly use his own words because he wanted to be accurate, he didn't use quotation marks because he rephrased it a little, and he didn't have citations because it's obviously from the Harry Potter novels, so he doesn't need to cite where, for his own stuff-- he's refusing to see the parallel.

The supposed "olive branch" statement essentially says, "Do your book; just write your own damned entries and stop copying my prose." They've settled all of the rest of the issues, and she can't sue for plagiarism, because it's not against the law. So, they're throwing all of the objections they can against the book.

I actually think, at this point, that if SVA rewrote the book to use mostly his own words and used quotation marks where he copies Rowling's prose, they'd let the book go through, even without essays, added analysis, improved quality, etc.

Since I do think it's actually about plagiarism, I'm interested in SVA winning for the portions of the timeline that are original, but settling to rewrite the book to contain his own descriptive language. I don't think this is a likely outcome at this point. Considering that, I'd rather have Rowling win because I hate plagiarism, and I'm not impressed with SVA's excuses for it. Basically, I'd hate to see plagiarism ruled to be fair use.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kill_the_spare
2008-04-18 01:45 am UTC (link)

Thanks for filling me in -- I was wondering what had happened. Sounds like a bad situation all round ... I find it weird that everyone is mocking her and SVA for trying to look like Harry and Ginny, when JKR is the one who has said that her husband looks like Harry Potter. :/ The rabid JKR fan worship is rather offputting ...

As for the rest of it -- you're completely right. The emotions around this case are so bizarrely high, though, that it's hard for me to even get into the details at this point. Apologies! ♥

(Reply to this)(Parent)

charmian
2008-04-18 10:05 am UTC (link)

Hmmm, re: JKR on plagiarism. This is a very interesting point that I haven't seen foregrounded. XD It would be cool if someone in the media were to pick up on this. However... plagiarism is not really against the law, though? I'd also hate to see the law specifically endorse it, but on the other hand, I think plagiarism should be dealt with socially, and *seriously,* so the law doesn't need to be involved.

(Reply to this)(Parent)