What is Rowling worth? Like most things to do with dough there is what you are told and then there’s the truth. Rumour has it that she earns 100 million quid every eight months. Whatever the actual figure you can take it that a lorryload of fivers is delivered to her door every month. That being the case why didn’t she settle with the family of the late Adrian Jacobs, whose work she stole, when she had the chance, before the whole shamozzle got out of hand? It is said Neil Gaiman who supplied the mere physical attributes of the hero and nothing else was paid a figure of 10 million quid. He denies it of course. Hard to prove one way or another but Rowling and her boys seem to be able to prove anything. How wonderful it must be to be able to lay claim to absolute truth on anything and have nearly everybody believe you too. The pope doesn’t get that! Idiots believe them too which is rather depressing we have to say. Jacobs’ case is “unsubstantiated, unfounded and untrue,” they tell you. We are in the land of heroic couplets with this sort of drivel. Rowling’s lawyers, Blair/Schillings, wrote the script. Bloomsbury came out with exact same cant when they were asked for a comment in the WTW London High Court case. Clever boys?

Adrian Jacobs’ family may even get a hearing if the Home Office doesn’t get in on the act and remind the judge that he is in bat for England as well as the law… and her image abroad… and all that. Students of the Widgery trial, that is now proven to be a sham after the recent apology by England for Bloody Sunday, will know what we mean.  What would the neighbours think if the canonized Rowling had feet of clay after all?

If we take leave to examine these words one by one we can see they amount to so much hot air, and we, The Bogside Artists, have heard them before and from the same source.

“UNSUBSTANTIATED”:  Means “unsupported”, “unverified”, “not factually proven.” (Encarta)
The Willy the Wizard people claim otherwise and have set up the actual writ they served on Scholastic Inc, New York for all to read. You can access it here;

http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/harry-potter-willy-wizard.html

Seems to be a lot of substantiation there if you ask us!

“UNFOUNDED”:  Means  “Not supported by evidence”, “not established” (Encarta). More of the same don’t you think? Were it established it would be all over wouldn’t it? It seems clear that the Willy the Wizard people are seeking to establish their claims and will hopefully get their chance to do so in a court of law. This is begging the question isn’t it?  Begging the question means assuming  as already proven what you have set out to prove. People do that… lawyers mostly.

“UNTRUE”: A tricky one this. What is truth asked pilot of its Personification? He got no reply. In law you have to prove something to be true on the basis of evidence. Fair enough, even if many things are true for which there is no evidence and can be no evidence. This is also begging the question since if the claims were proven to be true there would be no ‘claims’ as such since the truth would already have been substantiated, proven and true.

What we are doing here is called thinking for oneself incidentally, a preoccupation much frowned upon by Harry Potter fans and fast becoming as obsolete as harpsichord recitals. Our conclusion? Rowling’s lawyers need a new script, one not designed to convince the gullible they have mastery of words and their usages when it is patently clear they do not. All three words amount to the same thing…  simply “unproven”. Proving is exactly what the WTW are trying to do and what Rowling’s wordsmiths are trying to prevent.

We are also totally convinced that the claims of made by the Willy the Wizard team are verifiably true. That means that Rowling and Little are lying in their teeth and this in turn raises the question… why didn’t they settle much earlier on when they had the chance? Then they would have had only us to deal with. And who is going to listen to us whistling in the dark when the very mountains tremble at the sound of Schillings and Blair? The answer to that is quite simple too. They are arrogant and stupid little people who have a blind faith in their ability to con whoever they want, whenever they want, however they want, as they have been doing for years.

We take this opportunity to make it public that our hat is in the arena with Willy the Wizard and its much sinned-against author Adrian Jacobs because we KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt these men are telling the truth. We say this because we KNOW the true source of the story. As artists standing for freedom of expression we have no option but to tell the truth as it is known to us.  Not to do so is to lie by omission.

van Meegeren forgery

genuine Hals

In Defense of Copyright in a Thieving World.

Thanks to; http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/methods.html

Han van Meegeren (1889 – 1947 ), born Henricus Antonius van Meegeren, was a Dutch painter and portraitist and a failed artist of the realist school.

“With his artistic career fading van Meegeren turned to forgery along with his friend Theo van Wijngaarden. Together they teamed up to create a number of forgeries. Han was a gifted copyist and Theo stumbled upon a way to mix gum in the paint to soften it when the alcohol test was used to test a painting.

They cooked up a painting by  (Frans) Hals, “Laughing Cavalier”. Van Meegeren then picked out de Groot to authenticate the painting because he had painted the forgery in a way that would appeal to him. They had a third party to present the painting and de Groot pronounced it to be a fine Hals. They then knocked off a few more forgeries and the money was rolling in.

‘The Laughing Cavalier’ was just about to be sold at auction for the second time when Dr. Bredius saw it and condemned the painting. He pointed out all the stylistic errors. But de Groot stuck by his opinions. A committee of scholars was gathered to study the painting and they all agreed it was a fake. Poor de Groot quietly bought back the painting and the reasons never became public knowledge. Van Meegeren split ways with his cohort and vowed to never be caught again.

In 1932 disgusted by his treatment by the Dutch art critics, whom he believed to be incapable of appreciating his genius, he left Holland. He wanted to prove that the critics were prejudiced and ignorant. His plan, to paint a single picture that the world would accept as a Vermeer.

A well respected lawyer (G.A. Boon) was hired to present the painting  (‘Supper at Emmaus by Vermeer’) to Dr. Bredius. He was to tell Bredius that he was representing a well known family from Italy who needed the money. As soon as Bredius saw the painting he proclaimed it to be the greatest masterpiece of Vermeer. However….  it was quickly recognized as a fake by a number of French experts. Word never got out because everyone thought it was too ridiculous to mention.”  (emphasis ours ). 

What that last sentence  really means of course is that a lot of people, self-styled art  ’experts’, cultural critics, ‘know-alls’, journalists etc would have got to look real dumb. This is to be avoided at all costs especially in England who prides herself on having educated the rest of the world. We would all be muck savages had it not been for England and India would neve have discovered trains.

Next in line Mr Frans Hals.

Hals perfected his style via much labour and heartache and suffered the ridicule of the ‘experts’ of his day. After a stint in the local insane asylum he died an old man, poor, broken, and surviving on a state pension. His genius was recognized belatedly and inspired many artists subsequently from  Manet to Sargent who acknowledged their debt to the great man because…. they had professional integrity.

Frans Hals (c. 1580 – 26 August 1666) was a Dutch Golden Age painter especially famous for portraiture. He is notable for his loose painterly brushwork, and helped introduce this lively style of painting into Dutch art. Hals was also instrumental in the evolution of 17th century group portraiture. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_Hals#Painting_technique

Van Meegeren found Hals a snitch to copy as his style was simple, spontaneous and relied on only a few colours. You can hardly tell the difference can you? Many people couldn’t and, as for those who could…..well, as above, “word never got out because everyone thought it was too ridiculous to mention”.  His motive for success at any cost could hardly have been clearer had he been a failed writer in search of a good book to rip off.  And so,  we come to Christopher Little and J.K. Rowling.

If Van Meegeren were alive today and assuming he was not in prison he would be illustrating the covers for the Harry Potter series… in someone else’s style, of course. Like the author herself he would be encouraged to use his own name or, at any rate, a more digestible version of it, and like her, have apologists to argue “precedents”, in defense of his crime. But the truth is always the truth however we dress it up… or wherever we bury it. How long will it be before some intrepid journalist plucks up courage to bring it to light despite the shame that will befall his colleagues and the threats facing his editor from Rowling’s legal ruffians? How long before a disgruntled Rowling ‘loyalist’, paid or unpaid, breaks ranks and confesses all? It is surely only a matter of time as van Meegeren himself realised long before he was nabbed. The sooner the better, say we who have been drawing attention to this issue for years and have well documented our reasons for doing so at http://www.travelswithlipo.com

On the Immorality of Plagiarism

First of all, there is a simple point to be cleared up before any reasonable discussion on the topic can take place. The culprit, when he/she is not citing ‘precedents’ for their crime, try to exonerate themselves by pleading that they didn’t steal, merely ‘borrowed’. “I didn’t steal m’lud, I only borrowed,” is the sort of statement that gets you laughed out of court and into jail which is why no thief with an IQ of more than three would offer it in his defence. Incredibly though, you will find respected journalists offering it up in defence of the plagiarist. The more highly regarded the thief the more they rally to their defence, pleading that ‘borrowing’ is not theft.

In literature people do borrow, often unconsciously, and cannot help themselves. But if the writer catches himself on in time he is usually quite happy to acknowledge his source or he will surrender his project instantly if the borrowing has any significance and he has enough integrity not to want to put his name to something that wasn’t his in the first place . In any case, he is likely to be honest with himself, and with you.

The plagiarist however is a different animal. He steals consciously. And because he steals consciously he will never acknowledge his source. That is the difference and it is an important one.

The plagiarist will do anything rather than acknowledge his source because he knows, once he does so, he is instantly unmasked as a thief, a liar and a fraud. He spends his days therefore ducking and diving, hiding away, in order to avoid scrutiny. When he speaks in public he recites from pre-prepared answers. If he must be asked questions he demands to know what they are beforehand and the same applies to any footage shot of him for general distribution. He never confesses his crime either. He has ALWAYS to be found out and the more people he has to help him remain under cover the more difficult that is.

In days of yore many English dungeons could boast what they proudly called an “oubliette”. It comes from the French word “oublier” meaning “to forget”. Robin Hood was supposedly held in one before he was freed by his comrades. This contraption - sprung fully formed no doubt from the inventor’s brain – was basically a hole in the ground. The pit was shaped like a bottle with just room enough for the wretched victim to stand up in. You were lowered into the hole via the neck and the lid fixed on. Your captors then pissed off and forgot that you ever existed. There you remained, in cold endless night, until you went mad with grief and terror and eventually died of starvation. People who didn’t like you would say you “deserved” it.

A ‘successful’ plagiarist does something like this to his fellow man. The differences are that the victim gets to eat and walk around, and to lead what passes for a normal life; indeed you cannot ever tell he is in a pit at all,  if you do not hear his moans, because the oubliette he has been flung into and in which he dwells is his own soul, the soul that he once believed was his and now belongs to his tormentors. Now you know. And when next you hear the word ‘plagiarism’ you may move away fromt the conception of it as a game on a par with scrabble and think of it as it really is – a crime against all of us, because it is essentially a very serious crime against human rights and human freedom.