On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:58:26 -0600 Shalanna  writes:
> Well, I think that's scary.

I dunno.
Put yourself in the Rowlings camp boots:

You pour yourself into a tale, and, yes, it hits the big time, but
there's a lot of investment gone into that, too.
Then someone up and essentially copies it. Can't even be bothered to move
the names further apart.
According to article #2: "Even a casual observer can't miss the
similarities."

I'm sorry. 
That's Wrong.

This doesn't mean that the mega corps are going to go after every fantasy
with a broomstick. 
But, geez.

Yes, *I* let a clear case of plagiarism slide once, because there was no
point to pursue it.

But it's not a case of whether or not there's "room" or
"money to spare"
--> "They're rich, they can afford it," what kind of argument is that?
Because they're phenomenally successful they sacrifice their rights? Did
you REALLY mean to imply that, Shal? Or were you venting at the speed of
keyboard and not really thinking it through?

There IS such a thing as legal copyright, and it's NOT a new concept, the
courts are pretty thoroughly established in the investigation and legal
repercussion of said are well understood. (As pointed out, suits the
other way, such as George Harrison's My Sweet Lord; and I understand
Speilberg & Lucas, for example, have dealt with several as well.... Good
Lord! Just review the Wright Brothers vs. Curtis and other aereoplane
manufacturers....)  There's no reinvention here. There's no new
precedence that I can see.
And that blade cuts both ways -- recall the Steven Ambrose debacle a
couple years ago.

The Grotter author appears to have gotten away with a crib in Russia
(perhaps Potter isn't copyrighted as carefully in the Russian Courts, or
the Russian Courts just aren't up to pursuing a civil case for Western
Interests right now -- and I don't mean that in a catty way; Russia has
enough problems of her own right now), but The Netherlands Courts, after
reviewing the merits of the case, found clear copyright infringement. The
authors of both articles I read today found copyright infringement. [I
don't read Russian or Dutch, nor have access to the Grotter text, so will
have take their word for it.]

Just because Harry Potter is SO #1 on the charts the NY Times made a new
chart does NOT mean that mega-entity is entitled to less protection under
the law, or owed less ethical consideration re: intellectual property.

Sure, the mega corporations Worry me. For good reasons, and for reasons I
have direct experience with (though, thankfully, not with their legal
departments). And, sure, there are times that they are overzealous in
their protection of intellectual property. [As intelligent writers,
however, it's pretty clear where "here there be minefields."]

This is hardly the end of days for fantasy.  We DID, after all, somehow
survive Tolkein. Potter is just the current really big footprint. 

There are plenty of tales left to be told. 

And, as writers with integrity, we should well know ourselves the
difference between lifting another's idea and maybe being nudged by it,
let alone fair use of established genre character types and formulae. 
The Grotter author apparently makes no pretense of the fact that he DID
base his story on The Philosopher's Stone -- and, I may have misread, but
HE (or his Council) rejected the "parody" defense that MIGHT have saved
his book. [Though there are well-understood bounds in that legal area,
too. The Mad Magazine & Saturday Night Live ilk aren't going to dry up
and blow away -- but then, they have legal departments that try to check
things BEFORE they commit to press runs.]

Besides, if you're really against it (in the blocked inspiration sense),
there's plenty in the public domain to put your brand on.

The Grotter author should have known better (and I suspect he might have
by his protestations as quoted in the articles -- but that is assumption
on my part).

Certainly every one here DOES know better. 

[Disclaimer: I, and the legal eagles for that matter, consider fanfic
another category entirely.]

I hardly see cause to panic.
(Indeed, I'm MORE worried about trends re: the public IGNORING copyright,
especially with the ease of internet cut & pasting, and certain
spectacular (and deeply disturbing) school cases of recent years.)

But that's my mileage.
And it's been fairly idiosyncratic in the past.

-B

====
Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint. --Mark
Twain 
====
[Courage is...] tasting the vegetable before making a face. --Bernard
Waber

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha