I find it fascinating the JK Rowling is suing a guy to prevent publication of his encyclopedia of Harry Potter. Of course the suit is not about money as she has wealth far beyond what she could ever spend. Rather, the suit is more about her intellectual property and that she feels this person is in some way usurping 17 years of her hard work, original thought, and creativity. While I’m not some Harry Potter fanatic, I have read all the books and found them to be pretty engaging. I sympathize with Ms. Rowling because if I would have spent as many years of my life developing something that became so successful, I’d probably resent people trying to make a quick buck off my hard work too.
That being said, this is just what happens. Look at all the ancillary material that’s been written and manufactured based on the work of Tolkien or even the universes of Star Trek and Star Wars. Sometimes people see an opportunity to make a quick buck without doing much original work and they try to take it. Sometimes they are legitimate, intense fans and feel like they are really adding to the source material with their contributions. Regardless, when something makes as much money as is as wildly popular as Harry Potter, people are going to try to make their own cash off of it.
Appreciation for Ms. Rowling’s efforts aside, her creation is hardly novel. The story of a young person coming of age and fighting evil with his good friends is probably as old as human storytelling. Just looking at recent history, compare Harry Potter (HP) to the Star Wars sagas (SW) that predated Ms. Rowling’s books by quite a long time:
HP: a young protagonist (Harry Potter) with special powers battling an evil lord
SW: a young protagonist (Luke Skywalker) with special powers battling an evil lord
HP: a male and female friend to help in the battle (Ron & Hermione)
SW: a male and female friend to help in the battle (Han & Leia)
HP: a wise old mentor (Dumbledore)
SW: a wise old mentor (Obi-Wan)
HP: significant loss of said mentor (Dumbledore)
SW: significant loss of said mentor (Obi-Wan)
HP: an arch-nemesis with the title of Lord (Voldemort)
SW: an arch-nemesis with the title of Lord (Vader)
HP: a collection of evil henchmen (the Deatheaters)
SW: a collection of evil henchmen (the Sith and Imperial Stormtroopers)
HP: a collection of odd creatures, some friendly some not (giants, house elves, basilisks, etc.)
SW: a collection of odd creatures, some friendly some not (wookies, ewoks, tusken raiders, etc.)
HP: an overarching force for both good and evil (good vs. black magic)
SW: an overarching force for both good and evil (the regular Force vs. the Dark Side)
Add to these things the similarities in story lines, neologisms, and the creation of unique, repeated locales and I think you see where I’m going. There’s few unique stories to be told and one could certainly argue that a younger JK Rowling watched the Star Wars movies with the same fascination many of us had and later drew upon these stories for her our vision. Maybe she never saw Star Wars. Regardless, the point is that while I think it is really low for someone to simply try to make money off the Harry Potter brand name, to a certain extent Harry Potter tapped into a well that was primed by many stories that came before it and those stories helped Ms. Rowling to become an incredibly wealthy woman. I think as long as someone is treating her material with respect, she has to understand that people may not want the story to end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
In one way, I agree. Rowling must admit that much of her tale is built upon age-old myths. George Lucas has discussed "Star Wars" being built upon those very same myths.
That said, I don't think George Lucas would put up with anybody infringing on his copyrights. Take for instance his recent court case noted at this link...
http://www.theendoftheuniverse.ca/node/999
George Lucas is a ba-zillionaire, and yet he is pursuing a person that is making money off his characters. Why?
I doubt that it's for the money. Much like the Rowling case, I'm sure it has zero to do with cash.
What it has everything to do with is that he thought of that Star Wars story. Sure, it may be built upon those age-old myths, but it is his unique interpretation that made it a mega-franchise.
Same with Rowling. Any one person on Earth could have taken those same mythic characters and spun them into billions. She was the only one that made it happen in the unique spin she gave it.
Let's see the guys she is pursuing come up with a product based on mythic characters, and not JK Rowling's specific characters. It won't sell. Why? Because of all the work Rowling did.
It's her story. Period. Only she deserves to call the shots on how her characters are used to make money.
Besides, everything we do on a daily basis is built upon work that somebody else did before us. Every photo I take is derivative of a thousand others with a similar look and feel. Every piece of fiction I try to write smacks of "I may have seen this somewhere before." It's unavoidable.
J K Rowling doesn't need cash, but she should pursue every case like this in court. They are her goddamn characters.
Now, she could be all nice about it and just say, "Eh, fuck it. I'm not gonna get all crabby about it and just let it go." However, that would be getting her into a whole shit-storm with her giant legal team; something I'm sure that feeds into this whole story quite heavily.
You've gotta pick your battles. If somebody uses one of my photos without permission, it gets me a little irked. This has happened quite a few times. If they are using it in an unflattering way, I request they stop. I never ask for payment though, unless they are going to be making money directly from my image.
Again, I did the work. And, even if my work looks just like a thousand other images taken in the exact same location with the exact same lens, it's still MY work. And if somebody else is going to make money off of it, I'd better get my cut; not because I am greedy, but because I am proud of my creation and want constant approval of how it is shown to the world on a mass scale.
MBB - You're absolutely right. Every word of what you say is the truth and as you're more of an artist than I am, this issue hits even closer to home for you than me.
I'm not really sure what the point of my post was, to be honest. It wasn't really to attack Rowling because I completely understand why she's doing what she's doing. I guess it was mostly thinking out loud about these issues.
While you're point about Lucas is correct, he has licensed a ton of Star Wars shit. And let's be honest that not all of it enhances the Star Wars brand. He would argue it's about control of the characters he created and I think there's a lot of truth to that but I also think my post is as much about the fans, though I wasn't very eloquent in my writing.
I find these fans, the ones who really want to be part of the story to be interesting. Not people who go to Star Trek conventions but people like this guys who spent considerable time putting together a Harry Potter encyclopedia. Does he have the right to do that? Maybe not. After all, as you said, they're her characters. But when you create something that so strikes a cord in people that they want to be a part of it, I think that's an interesting dynamic. Maybe his encyclopedia somehow enhances the Harry Potter experience. I guess that's for JK to decide and I agree with her right to do so but once you release your baby to the public, it's almost like your inviting them to be a part of it.
Like your photos. You put them online at least partly because you want to share them with the public. Certainly people should ask your permission before using them, especially if they are using them commercially, but I'm just fascinated with the psychology of the person who might be so taken by one of your pictures that they really want to be involved with it in some organic way. That's a weird thing to deal with as an artist and I think that's what I was really getting at, though I think I came off sounding a little too harsh toward old JK.
No one owns the theme that Lucas and Rowling used to create their mythologies. There's not a huge difference between what they did and what Tolkien did, either. I think in some respects people who take those works and put forward some extension of them mean to honor the originators for having put forth this great effort. Of course they'll make a buck, but compiling an encyclopedia is really quite a task. And he's not writing a new story with characters that look like Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Malfoy. He's chronicling them. That's different. I think Rowling has a right to stop it but I don't think the person is really infringing on anything unless she holds the exclusive rights the Harry Potter "brand."
Maybe I'll ask Philip Pullman if I can write an unauthorized biography of Lyra Silvertongue nee Belacqua. The intrepid little thing is the first literary character I've seen in ages worth imitating.
Hmm...
I've recently been getting back into writing my animation. I've been working on it forever now, but it's easily the only thing I've ever written that I'm proud of.
I started it in 1996 and have labored over it, on and off, ever since. It's fairly unique in some ways, and completely "been there, done that" in others. Nonetheless, I'm pretty damn happy with it.
Those who have read the story tell me that if I finish it, I will make lots of money. They say it's unique.
Now, I can't imagine that my story will ever achieve "Harry Potter" status, but I am hopeful that it will sell. If it does, I could certainly hope to make some good money and, in turn, market the next books in the series; of which, I have a few in mind.
And so, if it took off and I had tons of money finally rolling in, I'm supposed to be flattered by somebody deciding to "chronicle" my characters? And, I'm supposed to be ok with them, in turn, making money from doing so?
Please. What a load of horse shit.
The stories that spring from creative minds are the equivalent of the hours put in by the non-creative, business-minded types. I cannot imagine any one business-minded person I know being just dandy with any other person chronicling their work and, in turn, making money off of it. It wouldn't happen. They'd be sued, and rightfully so.
The problem is that people don't see JK Rowling sitting alone and struggling to write. They think it just "happened." She sat down, scribbled some stuff based on other stuff, and "Poof!" She had a blockbuster.
This type of thinking really puts creative-type work on a level below "real work." Again, nobody I know would stand for somebody coming in to their job, chronicling everything they do, and then making money off of their hard work.
But most non-creative people see creativity as non-work; something almost fun. That's bull. If you're trying to do it for a living, you're decidedly behind the eight ball. You struggle your whole life to have somebody "like" your ideas enough to pay you. It takes fucking forever, regardless of your hard work and good intentions.
And so, when somebody "chronicles" what amounts to your life's works and dreams, it is definitely insulting and definitely wrong. Nobody but the people that own the copyright should be getting any piece of the pie.
Those people - the ones that will make a quick buck off the true artists that labored for years on an idea - are scum. They are neither business-types, nor creative-types. They are just leeches, sucking the blood off the good ones.
There are lots of people who go on to chronicle all kinds of literary characters and never get paid a dime for it until they get their first tenured teaching job. They're called scholars. I suspect that if you don't care to have them write about your novel, they'll find something else to focus on very quickly.
I work for and with creative people on a daily basis. I also help people who don't consider themselves to be "creative" by some standards to see the places in which their creativity dwells. You don't have to write a symphony or be the next Joshua Bell or have a published poem to be declared an artist. As my friend Ipsissimus, a writer, said quite accurately, real artists don't necessarily write or paint or compose to get noticed and paid, they do it because there is just nothing else they want to do more. That's different from longing for the public to turn you into a commodity as an expression of their approval of your work.
Mando - This isn't about anything scholarly. This guy is MAKING MONEY off of Harry Potter by USING THE CHARACTERS in a book HE PUT TOGETHER.
Taking a good hard look at something for the sake of study is one thing. However, taking a contemporary story and putting the characters into your own book in order to make money is quite another.
The best test - This guy could "chronicle" these characters he didn't create in a book that he will make ZERO money off of. Will he do it? Um, no.
Or, he could write a scholarly study on the archetypes that Don mentions. Will he do that? No again.
Why? Because he WANTS TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF CHARACTERS HE DIDN'T INVENT. Pretending this guy is taking a scholarly approach in an attempt to justify his illegal actions is odd and mind-boggling.
Perhaps more bothersome is your discussion of creativity and your deep understanding of the process.
"I work for and with creative people on a daily basis." That's good. It probably enriches your life. However, it says nothing as to your understanding of what it is truly like to try to do something creative for a living.
I've been attempting this for 25 years and can tell you it is damn difficult - unless somebody buys your story, or your art, etc.
"...real artists don't necessarily write or paint or compose to get noticed and paid, they do it because there is just nothing else they want to do more." Are you serious??? Are you actually helping me understand what "real artists" are all about.
Only somebody that is doing something non-creative for a living could say something so banal to someone who is. Do you honestly think for a minute that I have spent 25 years doing this stuff because I long for money? It would have been far easier to get a job in the business world. I'd have a home and money in the bank right now.
I chose the creative route and have stuck with it specifically because I have no choice as an artist. I must create. It's what I do. It's who I am.
"That's different from longing for the public to turn you into a commodity as an expression of their approval of your work." Again, this is irrelevant to the subject at hand. We get this. All CREATIVE people understand this concept.
However, all creative people - the ones struggling to stay true to that impulse all their lives - also understand how difficult it is to MAKE A LIVING doing so. We don't do our art to make money. We do it because it's all we want to do - it's who we are. But after 25 years of being poor in the process, I would welcome money as part of the deal. Having money would allow me to follow my art full time.
Your academic discussion of this subject matter is an aside that skirts the real issue - this guy will be making money off of a story he didn't write. And until you spend years of your life creating something, you'll never understand.
You were right about one thing though... People are stupid.
It never ceases to amaze me what posts will stir people's emotions. I've written posts on this blog that were really personal or that I thought truly tried to analyze some issue in a meaningful way but elicited no response. I consider this post a "throwaway" but it got people talking. There's a lesson in this for me, though I can't quite put my finger on it. This is why I like blogging though.
I've got something for you to put your finger on.
True, Don. The things of which we are most fiercely protective will always be those things that draw the greatest fire.
Boring, I'll bet your MacArthur Fellowship letter is in the mail.
Oh, and, you're right. I have no experience that compares to your long-term relationship with a single unfinished ouvre. All of my little unremarkable creative endeavors -- my recitals, my kids, my occasional musical adventure, my work in support of The Great Creative Achievers of Our Time -- pale in comparison to laboring intensively with complete focus to bring forth something that might still go unappreciated. I'm trying really hard to feel diminished by your comments, but doggone it, I just don't. They just make me appreciate even more deeply the amazing creative folks I've had the pleasure to encounter through the years of my unremarkable daily grind, from Yo-Yo Ma to Wole Soyinka to Esa-Pekka Salonen and so many remarkable others, all of whom had such generous spirits that I almost forgot how little I was.
May the wind be at your back, your fingers be swift, and your editor patient, talented, dedicated, honest, and gracious in all other things that will help you to be successful.
Mando - To anybody else viewing this exchange, it isn't obvious how absolutely cutting and damn hurtful you can be with your comments. A few weeks ago I decided not to take it from you any longer. So, I'm not.
You said, "Oh, and, you're right. I have no experience that compares to your long-term relationship with a single unfinished ouvre."
Nice.
That is supposed to make me feel bad on several levels, not the least of which is you mention that I have a "single" work of creativity, and it is "unfinished."
Hmm. Well, thanks for trying to cut at me that deeply; especially after I shared a very personal story with you. I could take this into territory that would cut at you just as easily. Mentions of all sorts of things that you feel insecure about. I won't do it though because I don't have some odd need to hurt your feelings when you challenge me.
Because you are absolutely glossing over the things I have done creatively, and attempting to make it seem I don't have any real connection to the life of creativity, I'll spell it out.
1) I've been shooting film since the second grade. I shot my first little film when I was in fourth grade.
2) My parents busted their asses to get me into one of the best film and writing schools in the country. I wrote, shot and edited like a crazy man - all while practically broke - just to keep the creativity alive.
3) I worked for 4 years on my first film. I went heavily into debt. Dr Don can testify as to just how difficult it was, and how I had to hang in there the entire time - losing friends, going broke and becoming physically sick to keep the creative endeavor alive. During that time, I had to endure a constant struggle to raise the funds through methods that were unique and humiliating. I nearly died, but I kept going because I believed in my story and its characters.
4) Screenplays - I've written a few, the most important of which is the one you throw out as my single creative work. I've been working on it for 10 years. It's my best writing ever and I am damn proud of it. It's also an incredibly difficult story to write because of the unique structure it makes use of. When it is finished, it will sell. Period.
5) "Ashes and Atoms." My documentary. I wrote, shot, directed, produced, edited, and did all the graphics on this two-hour documentary for three years. I got paid my salary but did well over 2,000 hours of unpaid work to see it done correctly. I worked 70 hour weeks for months on end. During the last 6 weeks, I didn't have one single day off and slept in the edit suite. This story was only told because I busted my ass to find the creative storyline hidden in the reality of the past. I had to travel all over the country, but I finally found it. I nearly lost my job because I wouldn't settle for less.
6) Flickr - I have made it a point to shoot photos and get better at photography. I've pushed myself to learn studio lighting recently and am better for it, even though it cost me a lot of money I don't have. I also started a local group of 250 people to help them all have a creative outlet together. For 23 months in a row now, I have coordinated the monthly show and organized over 20 other events. It's all for free, and a lot of damn work. It's damn tiring but I do it for the creative thrill - no money, just the thrill. It's exhausting but worth it.
7) I've worked on over 100 freelance jobs - independent films, commercials, music videos, industrials and more. Yeah, I got paid. However, I was getting paid to create something new that wasn't previously there. Many of these jobs were so low budget that you couldn't even call them "jobs." They were like freebies where you gave your life up for one to two months - all to follow the creative urge. No real money, a lot of exhaustion, but worth it for the creativity.
8) I'm currently about one year into writing a thriller screenplay. The outline is huge and spans from the 1850's to present day. It's a huge undertaking and one that I have spent much time working on. I do this in my free time on the weekends. You wouldn't know about this, because you fixate on my one, very personal, story that I was foolish enough to discuss with you.
There's more, but you get the point. You work around creative people and know them. I am one. I live the life. That's not bragging, it's just a fact. I wouldn't even discuss it here at such length, were it not for the absolutely nauseating and cuttingly cruel remarks you continue to make to me.
And I am not trying to diminish what you do creatively. Your love of music is incredible and your writing is really quite good. You definitely have the creative edge. But please, do not tell me that I have a "single" reason to assert that I might have a little more insight into this subject than you.
The fact remains, it's wrong to make money off of characters and stories that you don't have any connection with. It's wrong legally, and it's wrong ethically. It's just wrong.
Stay young, have fun and all that. My brain hurts.
Good lord, what are you trying to do, shame me into feeling badly after you torpedoed my comment on Don’s post, a comment that had nothing at all to do with you? Your feelings and opinion as a creative professional are valid but I doubt the same comment from a perfect stranger would have elicited the same response mine got from you.
Boring wrote, to me:
"Perhaps more bothersome is your discussion of creativity and your deep understanding of the process."
Sometimes I forget that my biting the hook is just the first act in a miserable and wasteful exchange. The entire point of that comment was to mock my intellect and point out just how little creative experience I have. So I allowed it. No, I haven’t spent 25 years working on a single ouvre. No, I haven’t spent four years sacrificing all else to do a documentary, one which I've seen. No, I’ve never slept in an editing suite, although I have slept in practice rooms and backstage a few times. And well hell, no, I didn’t know about a couple of items on the list – what am I, a mindreader? You tick off these items down a list to impress something upon us, and a bit like I’m a bad friend for having forgotten something I didn’t know. Could be because we haven’t talked in, oh, I dunno, a year and a half?
Whatever is going on there, I’m sorry. Regardless, I don’t and won't equate a creative life with a lifetime suffering. There is sacrifice, to be sure, but I thought the joy of creating something trumped all the other horrible things one goes through to get to that last note or final line. Otherwise, people would stop doing it.
As for the Rowling issue, Rowling had announced almost a year ago that she was planning to create a HP encyclopedia herself and donate the proceeds to charity. The book in the suit was planned as a printed version of a site to which Rowling herself gave a “fan site award” a few years ago. For centuries, scholars and laypeople have been creating companion books to works of literature without any of this legalmania. My guess is that greedy Warner Brothers, more than Ms. Rowling, is the driver behind this litigiousness. If someone wanted to write another encyclopedia about Chaucer’s travelers or Jane Austen’s women, I doubt anyone would give a shit.
Mando - I am certainly not trying to shame you. I have simply decided to answer your comments with the same tone you answer mine. No spite, just "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
"I don’t and won't equate a creative life with a lifetime suffering. There is sacrifice, to be sure, but I thought the joy of creating something trumped all the other horrible things one goes through to get to that last note or final line. Otherwise, people would stop doing it."
On that, we completely agree.
As for the Rowling issue, the only person that should ever make money off of a creative endeavor are the people that own the right to.
Period.
Actually, since I have nary a creative bone in my body, I don't feel I can comment on this with the passion of either of you. That being said, I think people would pay money to see the two of you debate this topic!
Who wants pie?
I'll take pie.
Cherry, thanks.
I have to tell you that I thought of this thread over the weekend. My daughter informed me that a "Chronicles of Narnia II" movie is coming out, and I found myself getting very riled up thinking that CS Lewis had been ripped off -- and he's dead! But evidently it's going to be based on Book 7, Prince Caspian. Still I wonder if Lewis' estate saw any of the revenue from the last Narnia, which was indeed quite a spectacle.
A la mode?
Post a Comment