Plagiarism can be copyright infringement, copyright infringement can be plagiarism, but they aren't the exact same thing.
Now, if Rowling is claiming that the paraphrasing that Vander Ark did is not sufficient change from what she wrote, then you are looking at plagiarism. For instance, if I say that in J.R.R. Tolkein's Hobbit Biblo Baggins' house had a door that was green, and round, and his house was a very comfortable hole... that's NOT plagiarizing Tolkein. But if I excerpt the description in the Red Book of Westmarch: http://www.geocities.com/redbookofwestmarch/hobbit.htm without giving them credit, I'm plagiarizing them.
Plagiarism doesn't take into account the fair use tests, including whether someone is making money, either. So if the book is plagiarism, and it's just the website in print form, then Rowling completely failed to complain about the plagiarism in the website and in fact praised it. Vander Ark saying "don't repost this without permission" doesn't turn it into plagiarism either. Fair use doesn't apply to plagiarism, just copyright.
Plagiarism is when someone uses my material without using quotes and/or giving me credit in their handout, and it can also be copyright infringement; copyright infringement can happen if they copy my material and give me credit but don't ask my permission. The twits at the Ascension Research Center who copied my entire article on Jadwiga and gave me credit, violated my copyright but didn't plagiarize me.
Rowling is a) playing for sympathy "I don't know if I'd have the strength to go on" and b) muddling plagiarism and copyright.
There's several issues here:
Plagiarism: a) is the book the same as the website? b) If the book is the same as the website, and Rowling claims this is plagiarism, why did she not complain before?
Copyright infringement: c) Does the book and/or the website pass the 4 part fair use test? There are two points: - does the fact that it is a for-profit operation make or break the test? - and does it fail point 4, that is, whether it will affect the market for the Rowling works and or a prospective encyclopedia by Rowling? (Rowling's neurotic attitude doesn't come into it here, only the market matters.)
Re: Plagiarism vs. copyright infringement
Now, if Rowling is claiming that the paraphrasing that Vander Ark did is not sufficient change from what she wrote, then you are looking at plagiarism.
For instance, if I say that in J.R.R. Tolkein's Hobbit Biblo Baggins' house had a door that was green, and round, and his house was a very comfortable hole...
that's NOT plagiarizing Tolkein.
But if I excerpt the description in the Red Book of Westmarch:
http://www.geocities.com/redbookofwestmarch/hobbit.htm
without giving them credit, I'm plagiarizing them.
Plagiarism doesn't take into account the fair use tests, including whether someone is making money, either. So if the book is plagiarism, and it's just the website in print form, then Rowling completely failed to complain about the plagiarism in the website and in fact praised it. Vander Ark saying "don't repost this without permission" doesn't turn it into plagiarism either. Fair use doesn't apply to plagiarism, just copyright.
Plagiarism is when someone uses my material without using quotes and/or giving me credit in their handout, and it can also be copyright infringement; copyright infringement can happen if they copy my material and give me credit but don't ask my permission. The twits at the Ascension Research Center who copied my entire article on Jadwiga and gave me credit, violated my copyright but didn't plagiarize me.
Rowling is a) playing for sympathy "I don't know if I'd have the strength to go on" and b) muddling plagiarism and copyright.
There's several issues here:
Plagiarism:
a) is the book the same as the website?
b) If the book is the same as the website, and Rowling claims this is plagiarism, why did she not complain before?
Copyright infringement:
c) Does the book and/or the website pass the 4 part fair use test? There are two points:
- does the fact that it is a for-profit operation make or break the test?
- and does it fail point 4, that is, whether it will affect the market for the Rowling works and or a prospective encyclopedia by Rowling? (Rowling's neurotic attitude doesn't come into it here, only the market matters.)