Bloody JK Rowling

POSTED BY: wytchcroft
UPDATED: Saturday, May 17, 2008 06:58
VIEWED: 5397
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

BORIS

Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:15 AM

I've just been thinking of an alternate response...It would be really wrong of JK to sue, if she saw the marketing potential of what the guy was doing, and then decided to do her own version, after having had access to his hard work and seemingly encouraged it...I don't know her or her intentions, but considering: the "borrowings" in her books; the utter bleghness of the last three( all the kids at work agree with me, It's not just my opinion); and her aggressive marketing strategies so far; it would not surprise me if this was the case. I'll be interested to see what comes out of the court case.

TRISTANPERRY

Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:48 PM

It's a trick section of the law, although for the most part companies/writers aren't too concerned about breaches of Intellectual Policy as long as it promotes their own creations (thus earning them money in the longer run through increased fan bases).

However having a book published, entirely for profit, without asking for any permission, is quite different.

BIGGESTDAMNHERO

Friday, April 25, 2008 12:24 AM

So what. She came from nothing made tons of cash, no some lowlife wants to cash in on her creation. Good for her. What if you were in her shoes? No different than musicians wanting to keep their songs from internet thieves. Authors can sue over plagiarism all the time. So get over it. Would Joss sit by if somebody recreated Firefly, but changed for example the name of the ship? Bet ya he wouldn't. He's a thief, or at the least a opportunist.

"And I'm thinking you weren't
burdened with an overabundance of
schooling"

BORIS

Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:50 AM

From what I've been reading, there's a good chance JK's the thief here..kind of. even though the original concept was hers and she owns it, she did encourage the guy's website, and was aware of his intention to create the encyclopaedia...interesting how she only got shirty about it when it was nearly time to publish. interesting too how she had said she wouldn't write anymore Harry potter books, and now says she intends on producing her own encyclopaedia, and other related books...I respect her right to make money off her own idea, but not at the expense of hard work penned by others with her insincere "I'll see how good your take on my idea is and then take ownership" encouragement. And what was that whole Dumbledore is Gay thing, if not a marketing ploy? kudos to her for rising from poverty, but I think she's too greedy now. Joss Whedon has not complained about the novelisations and other publications about his creations. aLSO there have been some quite blatant Buffy ripoffs that have been televised, and I haven't heard him complain so your argument on that point is kind of nullified. Jk is a master opportunist, she should teach classes in it...being a chronically cynical individual I would not be at all surprised if the story of her rise from the ashes, turns out to be a fabrication, or an exageration of the truth.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by boris:
From what I've been reading, there's a good chance JK's the thief here..kind of. even though the original concept was hers and she owns it, she did encourage the guy's website, and was aware of his intention to create the encyclopaedia...interesting how she only got shirty about it when it was nearly time to publish. interesting too how she had said she wouldn't write anymore Harry potter books, and now says she intends on producing her own encyclopaedia, and other related books...I respect her right to make money off her own idea, but not at the expense of hard work penned by others with her insincere "I'll see how good your take on my idea is and then take ownership" encouragement. And what was that whole Dumbledore is Gay thing, if not a marketing ploy? kudos to her for rising from poverty, but I think she's too greedy now. Joss Whedon has not complained about the novelisations and other publications about his creations. aLSO there have been some quite blatant Buffy ripoffs that have been televised, and I haven't heard him complain so your argument on that point is kind of nullified. Jk is a master opportunist, she should teach classes in it...being a chronically cynical individual I would not be at all surprised if the story of her rise from the ashes, turns out to be a fabrication, or an exageration of the truth.

If it's based on her work, it's a derivative work. The original copyright owner owns all derivative works under copyright law.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PHOENIXROSE

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wytchcroft:
nope, they weren't. edited by jane espenson et al but no - the books have COMPLETELY UNAUTHORISED in big friendly letters on the cover.

*looks at her copy of Finding Serenity* Um, no, sorry, but it doesn't.
I have had books titled 'The unofficial/unauthorized' something or other, usually for X-files. However, there was never an 'Unofficial episode guide to the X-files' or unofficial novels, because those were put out officially. And I noticed as the years went on that there were fewer and fewer of those kinds of things, so I doubt taking umbrage to unauthorized companion books is without precedent.
Personally, I'd like to know what she has to say about the world she created. Most fans of anything have some very differing ideas on how things should be, and I just prefer canon. Fan ideas can run rampant online, but I don't want to pay for them too terribly badly. I mean, I doubt anyone would want to pay to read what I think about the Harry Potter universe, even if a few people did find it interesting. There's fanfic everywhere, there's discussion everywhere, and so long as they're not getting paid for it, there's no foul. You're saying you're concerned that fansites will be shut down over this? No, they won't, because members don't have to pay for those.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

BORIS

Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:50 AM

I agree with that...Legally she does own all links to her work...but she should give credit to anyone she encouraged (or didn't discourage)to develop her concepts further. She didn't stop the guy from writing the thing, she just doesn't want him to publish it, so she can do her own. I'm not so sure she would have created her own encyclopaedia if someone else hadn't developed it to a point where it looked like it was going to take off. I would like to find out the whole story in this situation just to see who's right and who's wrong, and whether there is a compromise required.

PHOENIXROSE

Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by boris:
(or didn't discourage)

Lack of 'no' doesn't mean 'yes' in this or anything else.
I'm quite sure she was planning an encyclopedia before someone 'proved' it was a paying proposition, too. Number one, she had already written two 'reference' books for the series: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them as well as Quiditch Through the Ages, and she was saying years ago that she was thinking of doing an encyclopedia of Harry Potter to tie up all the threads she didn't get a chance to address throughout the books. When HBP came out and everyone was lamenting that there would be only one more book, she pretty much said 'fear not, more Harry is coming, not in an eighth novel, but in an encyclopedia which will give details and backstory to anyone interested.'
Number two, correct me if I'm wrong, but anything connected to Harry Potter is a paying proposition by default. It wasn't something she'd have to wait and see on.

You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

PREV PAGE 1 2