He is removing JK Rowling's name off the books and reselling them. What is legal and illegal when it comes to copyright pertains to the story not the book itself. If one wanted to make sure their name or any other design of the book remained as published it may come to trademark rather than copyright. My bet would be on the publisher who spent thousands of dollars designing the cover. JK Rowling's stories inside the book are protected by her copyright. She may not be able to win a court case for the destruction and reselling of the the book but I'm betting her publisher would. This is not a person doing what he wants with the books after legal purchase but he's reselling for a profit after redesigning them. Basically he's become her publisher without publishing rights. I'm going to bet he's in legal hell when this reaches court, provided she sues.
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/harry-potter-book-artist-r...
Hugs Poeple
Barb
Life is meant to be lived, not worn until it's worn out.
Comments
Legal
It’s not illegal he isn’t selling derivatives of her work. It’s artistic expression as who cares what hurts JK Rowlings feelings she doesn’t have any, her heart is blacker than a black hole.
hugs :)
Michelle SidheElf Amaianna
Can you provide a non- Fox News source for the story?
Sorry, I'm just not willing to even give them the honor of web traffic.
Melanie E.
Here
Here
couldn't happen
to a nastier person!
Books get defaced all the time, who cares?
Madeline Anafrid Bell
Maybe Not Copyright Enfringement
The arguments about copyright may be esoteric. However Canada provably has a version of the Fair Trading Act, which prohibits creating confusion in the marketplace.
At a time when I could barely afford it, I paid an advertising agency $20,000 to create a name and distinctive logo for my business.
Three years later I became aware that someone in my home state had merely copied my logo and name and was competing with me.
When I went to my lawyer, who I paid $3,000 to copyright and trademark the name and logo I found out that he had misplaced the paperwork and it hadn't been done.
I used the Fair Trade Practices Act in my state to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Contrary to the story arc in Coming to America, naming your restaurant with golden arches and McDowell's isn't a legal aegis.
It would appear artistic license would fail if profits became a provable motive.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Thank You
Jill, you and I don't agree on most things but I'm seeing you are keeping an open mind on many different subjects. There are many who are trans but not as ultra conservative as myself. Returned from the court house and the lawyer's office a few minutes ago. Received more than my fair share of compliments. Didn't even raise any eyebrows when I stopped in the wholesale plb shop to pick up glue and cleaner. Maybe I'm not doing too bad in the female persona. I hope it doesn't influence my opinion or others when they make the comment there is only male and female and no crossover or in between. Gov Stitt, bless his black heart, is allowed an opinion on those like myself as is Ms. Rowling and so many others. Gov Stitt, gov Abbott and so many others have a position to do more than hurt us with words. It also amounts to physical and legal abuse. Most won't understand the old saying, "She got her tit caught in the wringer." I wish for Stitt, Abbott, and many others to get something caught in the wringer for what they have done. Ms Rowling, I have no tiff with. In fact I admire the woman for her imagination in story telling and her marketing skills. Opinions and words I may not agree with but differences is what made and keeps the world changing.
Hugs Jill
Barb
If we spend all our time hating, the world is always going to look dark. I'm not crazy about eighty to ninety mph winds nor the tornadoes promised each year. Gotta love Oklahoma sunrises and sunsets. I'll accept what I don't like for what follows. Love you God. Please love me back.
Oklahoma born and raised cowgirl
Not a copyright issue, but there are other problems
I am not a lawyer, but I don't see a "copyright" issue as the 'artist' isn't making new copies of the books. The artist buys legal copies of the books replaces the covers, then resells them.
There are at least two other things, however, that might land the artist in legal hot water.
1. On the "copyright page" of some books you will find the the following, or a similar paragraph:
"This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not [...] be [...] re-sold [...] in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published [...]"
2. On the "copyright page" of some books there is a moral rights claim. I found this one in a novel published in the UK:
"The right of [Author's Name] to be identified as the Author of the Work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988"
The "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988" will, of course, be a law of the UK parliament.
I have no idea whether or not Canada, or any other country, has similar provisions in their legal code. You would have to consult a lawyer in that jurisdiction for reliable advice.
Then you would have to establish whether or not the 'artist' has a legal right to 'freedom of speech' to do this as a protest, and whether or not that can be used to over-ride the author's and publisher's 'rights' if they have any.
So, I would predict that the publisher of the books in Canada will be in court in the near future asking for a court order to ban the re-binding practice. Whether the court issues the order, whether the artist chooses to argue the case in court, and what might be decided in the end, I have no idea.
Lindsay
German law
In Germany copyright law covers two aspects:
Usage rights are transferable and exhaustable. Thus after selling the physical incarnation of the book there no impediments on reselling, burning or doing anything else to it through this avenue.
But … the author has an unalienable right to be identified as the author of the work and may specify how they have to be attributed. This way JKR may insist on her name being on the cover, the dustcover and certain pages inside the book – excatly the pages that get removed or modified by the rebinder.
So, under German law, this way of rebinding may be illegal (JKR would have to assert her rights explicitly) and thus any sale of the modified work to anybody located in Germany might be illegal. The rebound books would probably be seized by customs and then destroyed.
European law
European courts have sometimes found that a creator has moral rights to how their creation is presented, even when these rights are not asserted in a copyright notice. This could complicate but not necessarily clarify the legal status of distribution of the altered books.
Personally, as an author, this behavior would annoy me but not to the point I would pursue anyone in court over it.
As a publisher, I would likely shrug, but point out that removing the covers is hardly consequential; people rebind books all the time (there is a rebinding shop about ten miles from me) and selling of rebound works is not considered re-publishing. The cover, while an artistic creation, does not belong to the author, usually but to whoever actually created it. And it is a marketing creation, not an authorial one.
Removing title and indicia pages is a bit more problematic because that's where copyright notices are included, and if distribution of rebound books is republication, then this is a clear violation of the PUBLISHER'S rights and maybe the AUTHOR'S. Because NOT protesting such behavior could lead to muddying the copyright terms.
But JK Rowling's expressed views that transgender women do not have and should not have the rights of genetic women are odious. So, I could care less but probably won't make the effort.
I tried to read the Harry Potter books before they became famous (I owned a bookstore and read almost everything in the SF&F genres that came out.) I got about 60 pages into the first book and decided that it was basically warmed-over fantasy ideas having already had better treatment from better writers and never finished the book. The newer ideas she added later were therefore missed by me and I consider it a small loss. But I did enjoy almost all of the movies.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Let's boil this down.
Let's boil this down.
1) Is the product purchased _in full_ by the artist? Yes. This makes it their personal property, and in the US, at least, you can do whatever you want to what you purchase.
2) Is the text being modified in such a way to attempt to steal credit from the author, or claim ownership by this artist? No. The artist is simply removing non-content pages.
3) Is the artist claiming authorship? No.
This is the publishing equivalent of buying an automobile, removing the badges and identifiers, and painting it a different colour than you can get from a stealership - then reselling it for a profit.
If this is not allowed, then things like "Pimp My Ride" are illegal as well.
In this case, it doesn't damage JKR's trademarks, nor does it affect her copyrights. (It might if the artist stamped 'THE NON-TRANS HATING VERSION' across the front)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
I hope this artist...
has plenty of money to burn since the artist must be selling the books at a loss.
Seriously who in their right mind would pay MORE for a used book than they can buy a new copy for?
AS for removing JK Rollings name from the book, isn't it also located on the beginning pages? And removing it from that location or removing that page would be modifying the manuscript and Illegal.
I doubt Rollings sues as this smells more like a publicity stunt to sell more books.
As for her opinion on LGBTQ, everyone has the right to have an opinion. Just because theirs doesn't agree with yours or mine only means they have a different opinion. We need to remember that tolerance works both ways.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Again - they paid full price
Again - they paid full price for the book. If they wanted to _then_ remove every other page, and call it the "artist-name expurgated version", they can. As long as they're not printing their own copies to sell, not claiming it as their own work, and buying full print copies, they're likely covered.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
hmmm...so if someone takes one of your stories
hmmm...so if someone takes one of your stories and "epurgates" the author line and then sells it without a "by" line,
everything's okay?
I vote no.
charlie.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/missing-without-a-trace-cha...
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/832524
If someone takes the story -
If someone takes the story - that is, they do not purchase it - and then sells it as their own, no.
If someone _buys_ a copy of your story, deletes a line, and sells it to you _without keeping a copy and clearly letting you know that it was deleted_, then sure.
I don't know what's so hard for people to understand. The artist is NOT stealing anything. The artist is _paying for the book_.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Gotta agree with Biblio on this.
They're not actually denying the original author profit from the sale of the book, as they're buying the copies they then re-sell themselves. Whether they modify the book after purchasing it is inconsequential, as they've already paid the license for that copy of the book to the copyright holder.
Now, if the books' rightsholders wanted to suspend that persons franchise to purchase books from them, that's something they could do. But it doesn't sound like what's going down here is anything against the law. A bit shady morally, perhaps, but not illegal or outside the scope of the real and implied licenses typically associated with distribution of materials like books/films/music/etc.
Melanie E.
It depends on where the events occurred.
In this particular case, per the Fox news story, the 'artist' lives in Toronto, Canada. I am assuming that s/he bought the copies of the books in a Toronto bookstore, did the re-binding work in Toronto, sold them on the internet, and sent them off to any purchasers from hir home in Toronto.
If the buying, altering, and selling were done in Canada, then the legality of these actions would have to be addressed by a Canadian court, with reference to Canadian laws and legal precedents. What is legal or not legal in a similar case that might occur in the US, or the UK, or in any other country might be interesting to discuss, but is not relevant to the case at hand.
If the artist had gone to Buffalo, New York, (a 60 to 90 minute drive from Toronto, depending on the weather and the traffic) and bought, modified, and sold the books in the USA, then the US laws and legal precedents would apply, and the Canadian laws would be irrelevant.
So, are there differences between Canadian, American, British and other countries' intellectual property laws? Of course there are. So, it may well be that these actions are legal in the US and illegal in Canada. Or vice versa. Or legal in both countries or in neither country.
---------------
Totally separate from the question of "legality" is each of our personal opinions on whether the actions are 'proper' or 'fair' or 'should be made legal or illegal if they aren't already'.
My own opinion is that authors should have the right to see their name on each and every copy of the book that they wrote, when that book is sold or **re-sold**. But I also think that this "right of attribution" can be trumped by "freedom of speech" if removing the author's name is a deliberate act of protest, as it is said to be in this case.
I'm sure virtually every person reading this thread will have his or her own opinion on the matter, and many or most will disagree with me. So be it. If you want to post your own opinions, please feel free, but I will not be debating these values here.
Differences in copyright law are a fair point to bring up.
And as for the last half...
I definitely don't agree with someone doing this. IMO it would be a far more effective maneuver to write a self-referential parody of the series and sell that: clearer in legal terms in almost all jurisdictions, no money goes to Rowling, and you can make far greater a statement.
As for the author's rights... I'm strongly of the opinion that while an author owns their work, there are certain things they sacrifice when they offer that work for distribution, up to and including the right to object to an individual altering their personal copy of it. Taking that risk is a part of the exchange of goods and services we make in modern markets, and denying others the right to modify something they've purchased, even if they intend to sell it after, would have a huge affect on all kinds of other markets than just books.
I can sell a CD without the case. I can sell a movie without the box. I can buy a laptop, change out the parts in it, and sell it to someone else. I can do all of this because I'm not selling the original creative or copyrighted work, but a personalized legally licensed reproduction of it. If I were to forego the legal licensing of the original product, that would make a difference, but -- at least in the US -- there is an assumed transferrence of rights tied to the exchange of a legally distributed copy of media that, as far as I'm aware, is not contingent on maintaining any individual quality of the media contained therein.
It's a tricky deal, and one I think both a lot of folks and even professionals don't fully understand, because it's intentionally made convoluted. But think of it like this:
You buy a cheap reproduction of a painting at a discount store. You take it home, and you re-paint large parts of the image to make it your own. A friend likes it, and offers to buy it for more than you paid for it. That's fair, in my opinion.
*shrug*
Melanie E.
I think this action is
I think this action is counterproductive, because as long as he buys every copy he resells he financially supports J.K. Rowling.
The only way to financially hurt her would be to reduce her book sales.
In order to achieve that he could point out in a video that J.K. Rowling's stance on trans people is a violation of human rights.
How big of an effect that would have is hard to predict, I'll admit. But it's worth a try.
Symbolic
This is a symbolic gesture on the "artist's" part. There is no attempt to make a profit from the venture, that the overhead is higher than the return on sales is likely deliberate. By the same token the people buying these are also making a symbolic gesture. Heck, I'd buy a set but for two reasons: 1) No money, and 2) I HATE the stories. So no grand gesture from me! Just a single digit salute from the "artist" to the bigoted author.
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus.” - Turkish Proverb
Not modifying a vehicle
Comment was made this is the same as purchasing a vehicle, modifying, painting, etc. and selling it. Once upon a time every mfg had a design lock on what their cars looked like. Someone purchasing a Pinto and turning it into a Ford Cobra or visa versa would hardly worry FMCo.
Flom is not doing a one or two off but gone into advertising and producing his alteration of Rowling's literary works. Personally, I'd be ticked off if anyone was doing the same to my novels. Microsoft and other software designers cover this very thing. We may have purchased the software but the code is still theirs. If one must play around with it, do it privately or don't get caught.
Flom has become a publisher and hiding behind "artistic license" is really going to be a paper tiger defense if Rowling or her publisher takes aim at what he's doing.
Barb
Life is meant to be lived, not worn until it's worn out.
Oklahoma born and raised cowgirl
He's not really a publisher though.
If you're gonna use car mods, I'd say this isn't that dissimilar to the Shelby mods before they became official.
He's not a publisher, but a redistributor who puts in custom work between buying the initial product and selling it on.
That said, again, they DO have legal routes they could take to get him to stop that wouldn't even require them questioning the legality of what he's currently doing, in that they could file an order revoking his franchise to purchase their goods in the first place. It would be difficult to enforce, but if he were caught breaking it it'd be a lot more open-and-shut than pursuing action over what he's doing now.
Melanie E.
The Shelby mods were exactly
The Shelby mods were exactly what I was thinking of originally, but I doubted most people would be aware of them as a separate entity.
In fact, I had a customer whose entire business was predicated on getting trucks from the fleet "pool", modifying them as per the customer request, adding specialty business bodies, and then painting. The end result had _their_ manufacturing label on them. They started off as FORD F350, but they ended up as Manufacturing vehicles.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
It's probably completely legal.
The critical clue is in a sentence in the description. "Flom also offers a service where people can have their own copies re-bound."
1. Flom obtains a copy of the book, owned by the customer. Either the customer sends a copy of the book to Flom, or Flom, acting as an agent for the customer, buys an unaltered copy of the book. In either case, the owner of the book is Flom's customer.
2. Flom acting on the customer's orders can rip any pages the customer wishes out of the book. The customer owns the book, and can choose to desecrate it however he wishes. If a book owner chooses to write in the margins, they can do so. If they wish to underline phrases, they can do so. If they want to ink-over text or images, they can do so. If they wish to rip out pages, they can do so. It's the owner's book.
3. Flom, acting on the customer's orders rebinds the book as the customer specifies. As he is using a 'new black and gold cover' there are no issues with the artist's rights.
4. The ownership of the book remaining unchanged, From sends the book to the customer.
Each individual customer might be at risk, if they sold a rebound copy. However, I can make as many changes to a book I own as I like. (As my university textbooks show, if I pull them down from the shelves in my Library)
Found a non-Fox News article talking about this.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/14/harry-potter-books-jk...
A direct quote from the article:
Melanie E.