JK Rowling Wrongly Claims Harry Potter

JK Rowling -- author of the Harry Potter books -- is trying to quash competition and publication of analysis in the form of an encyclopedia dedicated to divining meaning in the series.

Rowling feels Potter belongs to her and not the world. She is wrong.

We argue the Potter phenomenon has become more than its pages in the hand and greater than its volumes in print.

Potter is now part of the cultural meme of the world and Rowling should encourage more books and articles, not less, to help provide even more enlightenment to the literacy and the learning of her series fans. Her duty is to encourage conversation, not stamp it out with legal action.

When Rowling cries in court and tries to kill the publication of analytical Potter books instead of championing the work in the marketplace, she not only wounds her brand, but she lessens her greatness as an author in the mistaken and selfish effort to control the minutiae of a culture of believing she invented, but beautifully, no longer owns.

Stealing Student Content

The University of Iowa's famous Writing Program is under fire from its graduate students -- and the creative world at large -- for its new "Open Access" philosophy of publishing creative works of its students on the internet to be found and indexed by Google and other search engines.

That attack on the creative spark is not going over well in the creative community because no publisher would want to buy a book if it was already "published" for free on the internet.

This leads to a larger question: Who owns the Copyright? The student? Or the university?

Some universities outright claim at least co-ownership -- if not full ownership -- of anything created under their program mandate.

Few students understand that, by participating in a graduate program, they are forgiving any claims to Copyright ownership in order to be accepted into -- and sustained by -- their university program of study.

That student acquiescence of Copyright is automatic and invisible -- even if the student pays his or her own way in the program.

Many university film programs have always claimed Copyright from their students because, they argue, without their support and inspiration, the film would never have been produced and that makes the university at least a co-author in the creation of the work.

Every graduate student must begin to ask about Copyright ownership of their work before they accept any offer for advanced study.

Smart universities will use the Copyright card as an enticement -- "You create it, you own it!" That philosophy will entice excellent graduate students into their programs.

When a university guarantees its students full ownership of their creations, everyone wins because the original inspiration is legally protected from institutional thievery and future legal dismay.

Publication and Copyright Ownership

Few university faculty realize when they submit a paper for publication they are giving away their right to their Copyright.

Faculty members will submit research papers to the repository often unaware that they have signed away the rights to their work to a journal publisher, Ms. Davis said. “They are stunned that they have not retained the copyrights,” she said. “They’re vehemently adamant” that they still have rights to the work.

In our experience, few authors value their Copyright, and even fewer publishers respect an author's claim to want to own the Copyright from page one publication of their work.

As the original creator of the work, the Author, by default, owns the Copyright in full and cannot lose Copyright unless and until that right is explicitly released verbally, or by agreeing to a publication policy, or by acquiescing that right in writing.

Beware of what you say and what you sign!

Google and Fair Use

If you buy a book, do you own that book or have you only rented the content in that book?

Under the current Copyright law, you may loan that book and share that book, but you may not copy the book and give those copies to your friends or sell those copies to your enemies.

The current Google project to digitize university libraries is a concern in that many of the works Google are scanning are still in the public domain. This is not only a violation of Copyright, but we believe it is also re-publication of a pre-existing, protected, work.

We are concerned how some university libraries are giving their books to Google to be scanned using the Fair Use doctrine as their excuse for not breaking the book's inherent Copyright.

That thinking stretches much too far the idea of Fair Use -- you can't copy and index and "serve" the contents of an entire book to the world and not infringe upon the original, incorruptible, Copyright.

Does Copyright Matter?

With the advent of online publication, does Copyright matter any longer?

With RSS feeds spewing new content into the world directly every day can a person claim Copyright to their original material if they are unable to enforce their right and prosecute infringement?

If you give your work away for free, can you still own it if others take your work, revitalize it, repackage it, and use it to create profit?

How can we begin to protect our Copyrighted work if there are no longer firewalls and safety implements to shield the work from thieves?