Yuck! Could be worse!

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

> In message <news:qt2dnTIwgYQklRbanZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>
> Flame of the West <SPAM_ME_NOT_jsolinas.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> spoke these
> staves:
>>
>> Did y'all read about how JK Rowling is suing to prevent someone from
>> publishing a reference work about Harry Potter? Thank Eru that the
>> Tolkien estate never thought that way!
....
> I seem to recall a
> reference book (a detailed time-line, IIRC) that ran into trouble for
> being too derivative without adding own creative content and which was
> published without any agreement with the Estate.

I read of some threatened suit re: HP where that was exactly the situation
claimed - though I don know if this is the case that Flame is thinking of.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Flame of the West wrote:

> Did y'all read about how JK Rowling is suing to prevent someone from
> publishing a reference work about Harry Potter? Thank Eru that the
> Tolkien estate never thought that way!
>
> -- FotW
>
> Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.

What about this particular work rankled her? There has already been so
much third party Harry Potter material published, not to mention the
countless HP reference websites.


Zorag
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Zorag wrote:

> What about this particular work rankled her? There has already been so
> much third party Harry Potter material published, not to mention the
> countless HP reference websites.

She wants to do an encyclopedia herself; therefore, apparently, no one
else must be allowed to. What a piece of work she is.

http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AP/2007/11/01/4846662?extID=10051


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>> In message <news:qt2dnTIwgYQklRbanZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>
>> Flame of the West <SPAM_ME_NOT_jsolinas.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> spoke these
>> staves:
>>> Did y'all read about how JK Rowling is suing to prevent someone from
>>> publishing a reference work about Harry Potter? Thank Eru that the
>>> Tolkien estate never thought that way!
> ...
>> I seem to recall a
>> reference book (a detailed time-line, IIRC) that ran into trouble for
>> being too derivative without adding own creative content and which was
>> published without any agreement with the Estate.
>
> I read of some threatened suit re: HP where that was exactly the situation
> claimed - though I don know if this is the case that Flame is thinking of.

Here is one of many places where you can read more than you ever wanted
to know about it:

http://tinyurl.com/36luuf

It seems the trouble started when the small publisher which was doing
the book refused to show a copy to Warner Bros. to be checked for
infringement (Warner owns some of the trademark rights). I've
wondered whether the publisher (RDR Books) is simply inexperienced
with this type of IP issue, and turned it into a major problem by
stonewalling? But we don't really know all the facts as yet.
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

In message <news:RfSdnUVi-dtwgxHanZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com> Flame
of the West <SPAM_ME_NOT_jsolinas.RemoveThis@comcast.net> spoke these staves:
>

JK Rowling vs. the Harry Potter Lexicon . . . by proxies

>> What about this particular work rankled her? There has already
>> been so much third party Harry Potter material published, not to
>> mention the countless HP reference websites.

Apparently she makes a distinction between a fan-driven, non-profit
(though I do wonder about that) web-site and a published book. From a
moral point of view, I can agree with that distinction, and from a
legal point, I have no view

I obviously cannot know which parts of the on-line "Harry Potter
Lexicon" were intended to be part of the book, but if it were contain
only -- or predominantly -- the material from the encyclopedic parts,
then I think she may have a good moral position, since that material
is definitely /not/ critical in any way (it is just a reorganisation
of information lifted from the books, much like Foster's guide is for
LotR and Silm). Robert Foster's /Complete Guide to Middle-earth/ is
published with the permission of and in cooperation with the Tolkien
Estate, and hence there is no problem, but without that, I do think
it would be morally dubious.

> She wants to do an encyclopedia herself; therefore, apparently, no
> one else must be allowed to. What a piece of work she is.
>
> http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AP/2007/11/01/4846662?extID=10051

Just to add Rowling's own version:

<http://www.jkrowling.co.uk/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=103>

The main confrontation seems to be between Warner Bros. and RDR
Books, and I hesitate to believe in their statements since they are
also clearly directed towards a lawsuit.

Steve's statements on the HP-lexicon web site are, I think, kept
deliberately low-key, and are particularly uninformative about
specific content of the book, although he does state about the
Lexicon that 'Our work has nothing to do with fiction writing and is
only concerned with legitimate critical analysis and academic
considerations.' I'd agree that much of the work there is just that,
but I can't agree if it is applied alone to a simple (however time-
consuming) sorting and reorganisation of published material.

That said, I would be surprised if that was all that there was to the
book and the main question is the weighting of the various parts.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
- /Mort/ (Terry Pratchett)
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:28:02 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels RemoveThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>In message <news:qt2dnTIwgYQklRbanZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>
>Flame of the West <SPAM_ME_NOT_jsolinas RemoveThis @comcast.net> spoke these
>staves:
<snippo>
>I seem to recall a
>reference book (a detailed time-line, IIRC) that ran into trouble for
>being too derivative without adding own creative content and which was
>published without any agreement with the Estate.

IIRC, the later posts from the author indicated that he had reached
agreement with the Estate by the simple, lawyer-recommended, expedient
of adding more and more original content until they could no longer
claim that he was engaging in plagiarism.
--
"A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature,
but contrary to what we know as nature."
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Paul S. Person wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:28:02 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
> <Troels.DeleteThis@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In message <news:qt2dnTIwgYQklRbanZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>
>> Flame of the West <SPAM_ME_NOT_jsolinas.DeleteThis@comcast.net> spoke these
>> staves:
> <snippo>
>> I seem to recall a
>> reference book (a detailed time-line, IIRC) that ran into trouble for
>> being too derivative without adding own creative content and which was
>> published without any agreement with the Estate.
>
> IIRC, the later posts from the author indicated that he had reached
> agreement with the Estate by the simple, lawyer-recommended, expedient
> of adding more and more original content until they could no longer
> claim that he was engaging in plagiarism.

That was Mike Perry. He mentioned the episode in a comment on an
article about the Lexicon lawsuit, here:

http://tinyurl.com/23c7du
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Zorag wrote:

> Flame of the West wrote:
>
>> Did y'all read about how JK Rowling is suing to prevent someone from
>> publishing a reference work about Harry Potter? Thank Eru that the
>> Tolkien estate never thought that way!
>>
> What about this particular work rankled her? There has already been so
> much third party Harry Potter material published, not to mention the
> countless HP reference websites.

And she's said she's OK with it as long as it's non-commercial.
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Flame of the West wrote:

> Zorag wrote:
>
>> What about this particular work rankled her? There has already been so
>> much third party Harry Potter material published, not to mention the
>> countless HP reference websites.
>
> She wants to do an encyclopedia herself; therefore, apparently, no one
> else must be allowed to. What a piece of work she is.
>
> http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AP/2007/11/01/4846662?extID=10051

My god! You mean _she_ wants to be the one to profit from her own
imagination. The evil witch...
--
derek
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

> In message <news:RfSdnUVi-dtwgxHanZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com> Flame
> of the West <SPAM_ME_NOT_jsolinas DeleteThis @comcast.net> spoke these staves:
>
> JK Rowling vs. the Harry Potter Lexicon . . . by proxies
>
>>> What about this particular work rankled her? There has already
>>> been so much third party Harry Potter material published, not to
>>> mention the countless HP reference websites.
>
> Apparently she makes a distinction between a fan-driven, non-profit
> (though I do wonder about that) web-site and a published book. From a
> moral point of view, I can agree with that distinction, and from a
> legal point, I have no view

Regarding the non-profit aspect: The HP Lexicon webpage has Google Ads,
so they presumably make money from people reading their work (a
different mechanism from how people make money from a book, but making
money nonetheless). Of course, I have no idea how much they bring in
from such advertising. Does this pass JKR's approval? Maybe they are
only permitted to bring in enough to cover the costs associated with
maintaining the webpage (but then, does JKR audit them)?

> I obviously cannot know which parts of the on-line "Harry Potter
> Lexicon" were intended to be part of the book, but if it were contain
> only -- or predominantly -- the material from the encyclopedic parts,
> then I think she may have a good moral position, since that material
> is definitely /not/ critical in any way (it is just a reorganisation
> of information lifted from the books, much like Foster's guide is for
> LotR and Silm). Robert Foster's /Complete Guide to Middle-earth/ is
> published with the permission of and in cooperation with the Tolkien
> Estate, and hence there is no problem, but without that, I do think
> it would be morally dubious.

This reasoning is sensible. Generally, does a third party work need
permission from Rowling, or are critical works exempt from this but all
other works about the universe need permission? It seems like there is
a lot of third party Harry Potter material available, although I pay
little attention to most of it so my perceptions may be wrong.

>> She wants to do an encyclopedia herself; therefore, apparently, no
>> one else must be allowed to. What a piece of work she is.

I wonder if an unofficial Harry Potter lexicon work would affect the
potential readership for an official encyclopedia penned by Rowling
herself? I imagine that people are so hungry for any additional writing
by Rowling that they will snap up whatever she offers regardless of the
competition. And how much more money does she really need (unless this
is one of her planned charity works, but still...)? I do understand the
moral objections, and I do think an author should have fairly tight
control over their universe, but I also think that Rowling should let a
work like this proceed (at least, I have found the Harry Potter Lexicon
to be one of the more helpful Harry Potter websites, so a book from them
sounds like something I might want).


Zorag
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Flame of the West wrote:
>
>> Zorag wrote:
>>
>>> What about this particular work rankled her? There has already been so
>>> much third party Harry Potter material published, not to mention the
>>> countless HP reference websites.
>> She wants to do an encyclopedia herself; therefore, apparently, no one
>> else must be allowed to. What a piece of work she is.
>>
>> http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AP/2007/11/01/4846662?extID=10051
>
> My god! You mean _she_ wants to be the one to profit from her own
> imagination. The evil witch...

This isn't about profit, fanboi: she says the proceeds from her proposed
work would go to charity. The point is how pathetic she is that she
feels threatened by some Internet fans. Apparently she thinks no one
will buy her encylopedia if the Lexicon people write one first. Do I
really need to explain to you how ridiculous that is? Contrast that
with the Tolkien estate, which lets whackjobs like David Day publish
their imaginings with impunity.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

"Troels Forchhammer" <Troels DeleteThis @ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9A26876EEAAB7T.Forch@147.243.37.18...

[snip]

> I obviously cannot know which parts of the on-line "Harry Potter
> Lexicon" were intended to be part of the book, but if it were contain
> only -- or predominantly -- the material from the encyclopedic parts,
> then I think she may have a good moral position, since that material
> is definitely /not/ critical in any way (it is just a reorganisation
> of information lifted from the books, much like Foster's guide is for
> LotR and Silm). Robert Foster's /Complete Guide to Middle-earth/ is
> published with the permission of and in cooperation with the Tolkien
> Estate, and hence there is no problem, but without that, I do think
> it would be morally dubious.

In fact, Christopher Tolkien has acknowledged how helpful Foster's guide has
been to him on many occasions when he's been preparing his father's writings
for publication.

Öjevind
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse! 

In message <news:478D5153.4080603@gmail.com>
Zorag <mr.zorag DeleteThis @gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> Apparently she makes a distinction between a fan-driven,
>> non-profit (though I do wonder about that) web-site and a
>> published book.
[...]
>
> Regarding the non-profit aspect: The HP Lexicon webpage has Google
> Ads,
[...]
> Does this pass JKR's approval?

I don't actually know, but I /suspect/ that the main issue is that
those using the site don't have to pay for it. This of course raises
another interesting question: if Steve were to publish the book payed
by advertisements and give it out to interested users, would that be
OK for Rowling?

<snip>

> This reasoning is sensible. Generally, does a third party work
> need permission from Rowling, or are critical works exempt from
> this but all other works about the universe need permission?

I don't know if it is possible to set up hard-and-fast limits -- I
would say that it is the mix of 'reorganisation' to 'new critical
work' that is the critical issue.

An example: The Harry Potter Lexicon has the following entry:

Jenkins, Joey:
Beater for the Chudley Cannons. His image hit a Bludger
toward a Ballycastle Bats Chaser in a moving picture in
the book Flying with the Cannons (GF2).

This information is cleaned from the following two passages from
chapter 22 (and not chapter 2 as stated in the lexicon) of /Harry
Potter and the Goblet of Fire/:

'It's Christmas, Hermione,' said Harry lazily; he was
rereading /Flying with the Cannons/ for the tenth time in
an armchair near the fire.
[...]
'Like what?' Harry said, as he watched Joey Jenkins of
the Cannons belt a Bludger towards a Ballycastle Bats
Chaser.
GF, p. 342, Bloomsbury, 7th imprint 2000, chapter 22 'The Unexpected
Task'

The point here is that the HP Lexicon doesn't add anything new or
even anything of their own (except for one of their very rare
reference errors). Entries of this sort -- even when combining and
condensing information from several books -- is essentially a
reorganisation of Rowling's material (however staggering and
impressing the effort involved) and my understanding is that she
expects the book to be mostly of this kind.

Regarding my own moral view (I have no idea to what degree that may
coincide with the legal view) is that this is the only kind of
material that should give any problems if published without
permission. My impression (though I haven't been following this issue
in details) is that Rowling's view is pretty close to mine, with the
added freedom that you're allowed to publish the result of your
effort on the web as long you don't take money from those benefiting
from it.

It is worth mentioning that RDR books and Steve Vander Ark insist
that the planned Potter Lexicon book is /not/ merely a reorganisation
of material.

> It seems like there is a lot of third party Harry Potter material
> available, although I pay little attention to most of it so my
> perceptions may be wrong.

I certainly haven't seen everything, but that which I have seen
usually does add something new. In a case such as the above it might
be very limited, but then the usual third party books wouldn't
mention Joey at all -- they'd mention someone like Rubeus Hagrid and
start explaining the etymology of his name, the alchemical meanings
of his association with the colour red, lecture about traditional
folklore about half-giants or whatever might be the agenda of the
author. The purpose of mentioning the character would not be simply
to list the information available about him in the book, but to
analyze the character -- very often based on some kind of pet theory
about how to understand the entire Potter series

>>> She wants to do an encyclopedia herself; therefore, apparently,
>>> no one else must be allowed to. What a piece of work she is.
>
> I wonder if an unofficial Harry Potter lexicon work would affect
> the potential readership for an official encyclopedia penned by
> Rowling herself?

Since Rowling claims to plan to add new material in her encyclopedia,
I would expect that its sales wouldn't be affected at all.

If she hadn't planned to add new stuff, thereby extending the canon,
I would guess that most fans would have preferred Steve's version,
which is likely to be better organised, clearer and to not
significantly contradict itself or the books -- all of which I'll
expect of Rowling's work.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.

"What're quantum mechanics?"
"I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
- /Eric/ (Terry Pratchett)
 >> Stay informed about: Yuck! Could be worse!