Neil, Saturday 19 April 2008, 21:01 clock
"Fair Use" and other things
After the reading, I went with Bill Hader and Doug Jones food. Behind us is Saint Mark's Bookshop, which I mention only because it is my favorite book store in New York. The Fotogrfin was a young Japanese woman who had previously come to Bill over to tell him that she was a fan and ask for a quick picture of what it in my eyes more than any other New York qualified than we later Outside met again to make both the image of us as well as to give me back the phone afterwards. IWährend Passover and the Pope's visit, I am no longer in New York (which means that my chance to actually even "Good yontiff pontiff," (continuity note "Good day, Pope!" Where yontiff is Hebrew.) to say, from low back to be shrunk does not exist).
The event has a lot last night brought donations for the CBLDF, which is good. And we have won the Gordon Lee case, which is even better.
And I think it is high time that the link to the CBLDF to mention membership site, for those of you who would like to join or renew their membership must. here. ( www.cbldf.com sold brings you to the page where the memberships, signed prints and the rest.) (And do not forget that there Memberships are up to the highest level of ANGEL for $ 1,000 a year. )
And many new products, including this new T-shirt designs that I like quite well ...
...
many emails with questions regarding my thoughts on the JK Rowling / Steve Vander Ark copyright case. My basic reaction, based on what I have read, and the gray area in law, is "Well, would go if I'm around, I would feel probably flattered.", But this is obviously not how JK Rowling feels. I can not imagine trying to stop the unauthorized books that have appeared on me or about my work, and where it was possible, I tried to help, and even if I have the books did not like, I have shrugged his shoulders and let it go.
When you consider in what a spongy area surrounding the copyright of "Righteous Use exists ", I can understand that the judge will make no ruling, and I assume that, regardless of the outcome of the case is sure to appeal.
My heart lies with the people who make the unauthorized books , probably because my first two books were not authorized, and one of them, Ghastly Beyond Belief would have been incredibly vulnerable, if anybody has tried, Kim Newman and me to sue our work, by a book full of quotations of people who perhaps would not find in this book, and went far beyond the just Nutzuung. (What, as I told my British publisher, has disappeared as a concept of British copyright law, even if a little googling the can not confirm .)
Most comments in the network can be divided into two camps, depending on personality and opinions. As with most legal gray areas, not the last word is spoken, and even if the appellate court makes a decision, the final say in the matter not be discussed because "fair use" one of these things like pornography, we should know that we recognize consoles when we see it.
Also I am fascinated by the new rumor which have their origin in this thing - I have read today on the editorial page of The Guardian where someone began his comments by saying:
It is said that Neil Gaimen has been paid, so he is not Rowling criticized for a number of similarities to his work.
I thought "if that's true, I've not heard . As far as I know, the crazy Mugglefrau Nancy Stouffer is the only one who has ever said here:
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/author_stouffer032801.htm
WDC: I read somewhere that some details in Rowling's books as stolen ideas from the Sandman comics could be considered - I think that owls had news for magicians to give an example. When asked, the response from Neil Gaiman Sandmanautor So what? Storyteller always grab here and there on things when they write something new. Why bother you so much more than any other, what things maybe other works have been borrowed (and I say MAYBE)? Because you have so many examples? I've seen on your page and think this is mostly accidental or does not have enough substance to justify this Pahei, just as owls messengers for Gaiman rechtferigen would be to cry plagiarism.(This is the Nancy Stouffer whose case was rejected in court had to pay and 2 million in legal fees and a penalty of 50,000 dollars for "Submission of gefäkschten documents and false testimony." She lied frequently.)
Nancy Stouffer: In fact, Gaiman has certainly initially screamed plagiarism. Only when he had a movie contract, changed his comments. At first he was angry terrible.
In fact, I've then in 1998 said in the Dreaming site, existed long before this page, than all the nonsense started:
Thursday 19. March 1998 Neil
of Harry Potter and JK Rowling
by puck at 3:00 AM PST Journalist, The similarities between my Tim Hunter character and Harry Potter had seen, visited and wanted a story. And I think I disappointed him because I told him that I think most definitely NOT that Rowling had stolen from me, which I doubt she has ever read, udn that it would not matter to me if it had: I was not the first writer who has invented a young magician with potential, and Rowling was not the first to have one sent to school. It is not the ideas but at the things you make of it.
is genre fiction, such as Terry Pratchett once said, a colorful stew. It takes was out, things are done purely else. The stew on the boil.
(As I have told the Scottish journalist, is the only small inconvenience that can not be played in the planned Warner film about BOOKS OF MAGIC Tim Hunter more of a bespectacled 12 year old English child. But if the states in the Film world in mind I am pretty happy when he is not played by a muscular medium-old Austrian.)
I'm nciht sure how in the "Gaimanbeschuldigt Rowling of plagiarism." could turn. But I guess it sounds better than the truth.
The Stouffer was stuff from sites like these spun - Have
http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm
paid Warner Brothers Neil Gaiman, Worst Witch, and Melissa Joan Hart?
Warner owns the rights to Harry Potter. Later they have rights to Neil Gaiman's work, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and Vermaktungsrechte on "Worst Witch" bought. These were the three biggest threats to the brand. had
After Neil Gaiman Procedures launched, complaining of plagiarism, "Warner Brothers are interested in a Sandman film have shown ..." it says on Neil Gaiman's website. When it looked as if ABC fall "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" let Warner has they bought for a record price. How often is a series that settles soon, bought up by another channel, even at record levels? WERE Gaiman and the Harts, where Sbrina heard gagged? If you consider that I have neither the rights to Sandman
still have to
Books of Magic / Tim HunterSandman and Books of Magic Warner years before the publication of the first Harry Potter books were bought, which is not only amazingly poorly written lunatic conspiracy theory nonsense, but easily rebuttable sinister nonsense.
- both were commissioned and DC Comics, a Time Warner company owns the rights since the 80 - and I "have complained plagiarism" never sad exception of Nancy Stouffer, crazy idea, and that options for the filming of both
0 comments:
Post a Comment