J.K. Rowling and Copyright: A Librarian's Take

Apparently J.K. Rowling claims that fan-fiction, or compendium volumes are violating her copyright. Tim Wu has an excellent article here with all of the gory details, but I'm going to put my two cents in anyway.


Fan guides are a perfectly non-offensive (and, IMHO, non-copyright violating) pursuit. It's not a substitute for the actual books, and it's not an adaptation to a different media - it is, in fact, a completely new work. There are many examples of these - The Lord of the Rings has a number of intricately crafted fan guides. Even Diana Gabaldon's Outlander romance series has two companion guides (though Gabaldon is listed as the author). If Rowling wanted to ride the cash cow a little longer, she should have thought of this herself. Frankly, I am surprised she didn't, given how she wants total control over her characters, even once they've left her hands. When she announced that Dumbeldore is gay, she made it onto my "top Authors not to Like in person" list. Readers build their own sense of a character in the space where an author leaves out details. It's called engaging the imagination. Particularly for a set of children's/young adult books, there is no reason to dash these impressions that folks have developed through their reading (and often re-reading) a beloved favorite. Thank goodness they're reading at all!


Finally, you would think an author would be flattered that anyone cares to encyloped-ize (yep, just made that word up) their work. Looks like fame and fortune have given someone a big head.


This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me cranky. "Don't think that about my characters if I didn't write it!" "If there's to be an encyclopedia, I need to write it so you get it right, and don't have your imaginations running wild!" Humbug, I say.


And now I'm off to get some training on a few online survey tools. Back to the world of academic librarianship.

Comments

Elver said…
You can't copyright facts, so Rowling is very likely to lose the lawsuit simply because the work in question was a collection of facts, not fan-fiction.

Fan-fiction, however, is defined as derivative work and while the author of the fan-fiction piece owns the copyright of his/her work, the author of the original work (Rowling, in this case) has control over the publication rights of the derivative work.

The "Dumbledore is gay" thing didn't really bother me all that much since from what I've heard the guy's sexuality never even came up in the books. In that context it amounts to saying something like: "...and this character's small intestine is two inches longer than regular." To me it doesn't seem like a big issue.
1:15 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First Impressions & Customer Service Failures

We all know how important first impressions are, right? It's sort of like how Anne McCaffrey's dragons "impress" on new dragonriders-to-be. (Yes, I'm feeling nostalgic with a new herd of freshmen on campus.) First impressions are essential, particularly when you're talking about freshmen, wet behind the ears, completely disoriented and overwhelmed by being at a state school for their first college experience, and stressed out by trying to find their classrooms and last-minute add/drops on their schedule. I usually don't think of them this way, because I'm not a fundraiser or in the alumni office, but the University at large should also think about the fact that these are the kids we hope will call this university 'home' even after they leave. (That could be my small liberal arts college experience shining through, though.) If nothing else, due to UTC's abysmal retention rates, you'd think the entire university would be bending over back
Read more

On the Great Myth of the Librarian Grays

Lately, there's been a lot of discussion (and bitching) about the promised graying/retirement within the library profession that was supposed to open up endless job opportunities for new librarians. The LITA-L email list, a recent American Libraries article , and a post by Peter Brantley calling for an overthrow by the young'uns have all been pretty popular topics of late. January 15, 2004, Rachel Singer Gordon published a piece in Library Journal titled "NextGen: Get Over the "Graying" Profession Hype" . I say again: this was 2004. It would appear no one took the advice, given that today - despite very obvious evidence to the contrary, American Libraries just printed an ill-advised article on recruiting undergrads to the profession , citing the graying of the profession as a reason for folks to sign up for library work. Jessamyn West, in her recent post "show us the numbers re: new librarian jobs" , calls for more than the ever-present empty a
Read more

Jobseeker Tip 1: CV/Resume Objectives, And A Contest!

**This blog post is first in a series about job search advice as discussed by my happy band of fellow library hiring managers, and is not related to any particular individual applicant from actual past, current, or future searches. All objectives included below are largely fictional, and any resemblance they may bear to actual CV objectives is the fault of the CV writer** Let's talk about the "Objective" section on your CV or resume. (Or, I'll write, you read.) Delete it. No, really. It's a waste of precious page real estate, and while it offers you the opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot, it doesn't offer a similar-sized boon if you get it right. If you make it library-department and library type specific: "Objective: To obtain a technical services position in an academic library setting" you'll look like a fool if you forget to then tailor that line when you start applying for reference jobs and public library positions. (Don't laugh
Read more