Counsel for the plaintiff eased into her presentation by introducing Ms. Joanne Rowling a.k.a J.K. Rowling, with a simple "state your name for the record" approach. Continuing with the simplistic theme, Ms. Dale Cendali (Rowling's Counsel) successfully portrayed Ms. Rowling as just another normal person and not a magical creature that some in the crowd thought her to be. Ms. Cendali played the crowd very well and eventually the craned necks stopped being craned and people returned to breathing normally. (Phew!) After having pacified the crowd with a shot of reality, Ms. Cendali asked a question to which Ms. Rowling became quiet and teary eyed. The moment was certainly heavy but seeing the entire courtroom being led in waves of emotions was quite the experience. Thankfully, Ms. Rowling is packed with a great sense of humour and fought back her tears saying "I can't cry, I am British!". (Laughter)
The question Ms. Cendali asked Ms. Rowling was a simple yet a poignant question - what does Harry Potter mean to you?
As the trial proceeded it became clear that the question was not just about the Harry Potter, but everybody's own Harry Potter. Would authors be willing to give up their life's worth of work to someone who got an "A for effort" as a fan site! (which is what Ms. Rowling gave to the author of the Lexicon website as the best fan site). Did someone say creativity? Yes. Thank god for the small things.
The trial started with counsel for either side providing their opening statements. One promising to prove copyright infringement and the other claiming fair use. Specifically the latter (defendants) mentioned usefulness, organization and a lack of bad faith because there is "no obligation to take permission to make fair use". Further, they added that the market for Harry Potter books would not be substituted by the Lexicon.
My question is - Does transformative work include unoriginal indexing of fictional facts?
Ms. Cendali using a plethora of evidence and by comparing text from the two works demonstrated that the work copied included original words and scenarios, which are fictional. Ms. Rowling stated a number of times to this, that these words "would have no existence outside my words." The Lexicon added little or nothing of value, no commentary or analysis to be transformative. Calling the Lexicon "dire" and "atrocious" Ms. Rowling pointed out that a few etymologies were even misleading. For instance a spell in her book called "Alohamora" comes from a west African language and means "favorable to thieves" and the Lexicon interpreted the origin to be from the Hawaiian Aloha. The evidence demonstrating her intent to write a companion book/encyclopedia since 1998 included a bible, list of beasts and characters, A-Z format and a confession that she would rather do "it properly" or not do it at all. However, with this competing book, she was forced to stall other work and concentrate on something she felt she owed to her fans, more than being truly passionate about writing it.
In toto, she claimed that the shoddy association with a book which added no informative value to her work and a blatant copy, if allowed would mean that creators would not be protected and this would be an "advantage to plagiarizers...to make the fast buck." Does the author become the plagiarizer of is own work?
Not to be outdone, the defense counsel aggressively questioned Ms. Rowling about her use of the online version of the Lexicon at one time for reference, her giving the website an award and for other books which her lawyers sent out cease and desist letters for stopping publication. His point was to demonstrate the usefulness of the Lexicon as a reference guide. Obvious Achievement - annoyed Judge Patterson with becoming repeatedly inaudible (kept moving away from the mike), annoyed the clerk because he asked questions and did not wait for a response from Ms. Rowling which required the drill of "Objection"-"Please let the witness respond." Ah...tiresome.
So at the end of the day I walked away asking myself that simple question - what does Harry Potter mean to each one of us as an author? Are we being arrogant in thinking that we should be the ones to solely exploit our creative work, especially since the exploitation does little more than rearrange our own sentences. Can we appreciate a "lazy"(as Ms. Rowling put it) effort to reproduce our work?
An index which is not original in its compilation or arrangement; content which is far from fact -
wonder why there has got to be a trial. But I hope to be surprised. More after today...
Other links:
No comments:
Post a Comment