Neil Gaiman gives his opinion in regards to fair use and the J. K. Rowling copyright law suit. He indicates that he’s all in favour of fair use, with the lawsuit covering a very grey area of the law. He cannot imagine himself being involved in a similar situation.
Fair Use and other things – Neil Gaiman: Lots of emails from people asking me to comment on the JK Rowling/ Steve Vander Ark copyright case. My main reaction is, having read as much as I can about it, given the copyright grey zone it seems to exist in, is a “Well, if it was me, I’d probably be flattered”, but that obviously isn’t how J.K. Rowling feels. I can’t imagine myself trying to stop any of the unauthorised books that have come out about me or about things I’ve created over the years, and where possible I’ve tried to help, and even when I haven’t liked them I’ve shrugged and let it go
Given the messy area that “fair use” exists in in copyright law I can understand the judge not wanting to rule, and assume that whatever he says the case will head off to the court of appeal.
My heart is on the side of the people doing the unauthorised books, probably because the first two books I did were unauthorised, and one of them, Ghastly Beyond Belief, would have been incredibly vulnerable had anyone wanted to sue Kim Newman and me on the grounds that what we did, in a book of quotations that people might not have wanted to find themselves in, went beyond Fair Use. (Which, I was told by my UK publishers, has now, as a concept, vanished from UK copyright law, although a moment’s Google seemed to disprove this.)
#30–master–heh, heh.
As obvious as everything is, should be easy to provide a sentence or two as I did.
An example sentence (but in fact the answer) is provided at Post #8.
Maybe the medium of “comic books” has much to say about this “stand-off?”
To all who have posted negatively, please educate me. What does Gaiman have to contribute?
bobbo#21
As an successful published author, HIS OPINION!!!! That’s all!!
#22–Mikey==and what was his opinion?
The reason that I guess Neil is brought into this, especially in the case of JK Rowling is because there’s a, uh, “striking” similarity between a character of his creation in a comic called BOOKS OF MAGIC he did back in the late 80′s that has a very striking similarity to one Harry Potter. Or, vice versa I should say.
That’s what I’d assume anyways.
#24–Humphrey==excellent, thank you. That does tell us all why his opinion is relevant, and why he was thankful.
Thanks for sharing your expertise.
Gee, only took 24 posts. Higher caliber of nubs here.
Allow me to explain why I am interested in what Neil Gaiman has to say on the issue. Gaiman and Rowling both have written successful fantasy books and have devoted followings. Rowling is suing one of her own fans over what many would consider a gray area in copyright law – just read some news articles on the subject and you will find legal experts on both sides of the case. Many fans of Rowling are upset that she would pursue this line of action while others have sided against Steve Vander Ark – even those who have appreciated his web site. Thus, there is a bit of a divide on the subject specifically but also in the general sense as court cases in the U.S. can set a precedent that applies to others. Thus, people are interested in how other authors might respond in the same situation. That is why Gaiman was asked by his fans to comment. Gasparrini was kind enough to post this here probably because he knew that many folks would be interested. Bobbo, I think your initial question was asked poorly; your bank robber comment implied that Gaiman was definitely in the wrong for publishing some unauthorized books early in his career. But the whole reason this news story is interesting is because it is unclear.
#26–airphloo==I agree. It was just the first analogy that came to mind. But credit the analogy to Gaiman when he says in the posted article: “My heart is on the side of the people doing the unauthorised books, probably because the first two books I did were unauthorised, and one of them, Ghastly Beyond Belief, would have been incredibly vulnerable had anyone wanted to sue Kim Newman and me on the grounds that what we did,”
So, whether what he did was legal or not, he evidences a concern of guilt==as might a bank robber.
Now, Humphrey above says vice versa on the infringement issue which I take to mean maybe JK Rowling stole the Harry Potter character from him? And if so, he would feel flattered. Just the opposite of a bank robber.
What is fair to think is based on what facts you have to work with.
Another excellent contribution. The picture is getting filled in.
thank you.
I write myself and have been trying to follow this as best as I can since I first heard of it. From what I understand this Vander Ark chap actually started up his encyclopaedia online in the form of a wiki some time back, and then went on to produce the book.
Now, suiing your fans, especially the ones who through their own actions help to construct portals which the fanbase as a whole can congregate just doesn’t make much sense to me. The book itself will, so far as I can see only help to increase sales of the Harry Potter series, so it’s not as though Rowling will even loose money. So her actions are to me utterly baffling.
Maybe it’s the principle of not asking first, or maybe Rowling really is that tight for cash but I can’t see this one ending well in terms of PR and general good will if this continues.
Perhaps a percentage of the profits will be offered and all will be fixed, certainly I’m none too chuffed at the idea of either precedent resulting as a result of this court case.
Personally I’d be thrilled that someone had taken the time to put together such a work based on my own imaginings. Then again I’d hope they would have the good grace to ask first, perhaps even allow a little collaboration in such an endeavour, time will tell on that one though I suspect heh.
#28–leander==if the work is different enough or fair use enough to NOT be appropriating the work of JK Rowling, then Vander Ark can do as HE wishes.
If the work is an appropriation of JK Rowlings work, then SHE has the right to do as she wishes. Doesn’t matter what she wants to do with it–its HERS.
I don’t think the question is that hard to determine. Look at the reference book. Could it be written or make any sense without Harry Potter series? If not, then it is an appropriation of JK Rowlings work–unless it has a fair use exception==as in making a comment about it in passing.
Now, almost by definition, a whole book on nothing but Harry Potter seems like appropiration to me. The fact that it had been in some form on the internet is irrelevant. The fact that you or I or Gaiman would be flattered is also irrelevant.
Like her own baby, Rowling controls the fate of her creation.
As I understand Fair Use, their are exceptions made for things like education. As I understand it, this book is a pure encyclopaedia, so *should* fall under that category. If this had been some kind of HP spin off or similar I could see and understand the reasoning behind the suit. But it isn’t.
But as stated, regardless of the outcome, I can see there being serious repercussions as a result of this going to trial. Copyright, especially in literature is a minefield, both in the US and in the UK; cases like these only serve to make the situation worse.
Yes, it’s her baby and as I said, I fully understand her desire to protect her work, just as I do mine. But there are larger issues then grey areas of copyright to consider here: Spanking your biggest fans in loud and public ways tends to make you look bad, just ask Metalica how well they’ve been doing since calling their fanbase a bunch of thieves. If she carrys on, even if she is within her rights legally she could well end up right along side Lars on the high ground of Nowheresville, Yorks.
I may be wrong but i do believe that Gaimen was also involved in a lawsuit with Todd McFarlane involving copywrite issues.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane
This is a link to the lawsuit