Stephenie Meyer’s Claim Supported: AKA Copyright 101

First let us start out by saying that we are completely biased here. We have been online as a Stephenie Meyer fansite since March 2006. And because of our relationship built over three years with Stephenie Meyer, we have no reason to doubt her word. So when the story first broke today on TMZ, we decided to do several things:

1. We looked at the version of the book in question that is available online
2. We asked Little Brown the publishing company for an official response
3. We started to research Ms. Scott herself

So we wrote up our preliminary findings here. Now what we found particularly interesting is that the attorney involved then decided to give a follow up to MTV. That’s right, MTV.  It’s a unique tactic first TMZ now MTV. Could it be that he has something for initials, or is it possibly that those sites generally have a target audience that mirrors the demographic Ms. Scott’s novel and career are directed towards? Oh heck, maybe it’s just sheer coincidence.
As many of you know, much of Breaking Dawn came from Stephenie’s first sequel she wrote to Twilight called Forever Dawn. In fact, Alphie got to read this book back in February of 2006 and stands by what Stephenie says on her website.

The basic story [between Forever Dawn and Breaking Dawn] is the same. Bella and Edward get married and go to Isle Esme for their honeymoon. Bella gets pregnant with Renesmee. The birth just about kills Bella, but Edward makes her a vampire in time. Jacob imprints on Renesmee. Alice has a vision of the Volturi coming to destroy the Cullens with the “immortal child” as their excuse. Alice bails. Bella’s shielding abilities turn the tide in the Cullen’s favor, along with Alice bringing home another half-vampire to prove that Nessie isn’t a danger.”

We decided to do some more research. We wanted to see for ourselves when Ms. Scott actually copyrighted her book.  Well we got a whole lot more than we bargained for. We not only looked up Ms. Scott, but Stephenie Meyer as well. We were after the date that Twilight was copyrighted. Little did we know that not only was Twilight copyrighted, but so is Forever Dawn. This was news to us.

The following information is readily viewable to anyone doing a simple site search at the copyright office. If anyone had thought to try this a year ago they would have had a hell of a spoiler in the name of the Application Title. additionally Stephenie has stated in various interviews and as  reflected in her “craptstic covers” that she originally toyed around with publishing under a pen name that included her maiden name of Morgan. You can see that name reflected in the registration as well.

Link here

Forever dawn.

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TXu001163060 / 2004-01-05
Application Title: Renesmee.
Title: Forever dawn.
Description: 241 p.
Copyright Claimant: Stephenie Morgan Meyer (Morgan Meyer)
Date of Creation: 2003
Rights and Permissions: Rights & permissions info. on original appl. in C.O.
Names: Meyer, Stephenie Morgan
Meyer, Morgan


Now when one looks up Ms. Scott’s work what is discovered is that nothing was legally filed until AFTER, Breaking Dawn was published. Now the work itself (though not filed for copyright) was online starting in 2006 which is a full two years after Stephenie Meyer filed her Forever Dawn manuscript:

Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0006874176 / 2008-09-19
Application Title: The Nocturne.
Title: The Nocturne.
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Copyright Claimant: Jordan Scott.
Date of Creation: 2003
Date of Publication: 2006-07-05
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Jordan S Scott, 1988- ; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: Entire text, editing, orginal work.
ISBN: 100977799697
Names: Scott, Jordan S, 1988-
Scott, Jordan


So all in all, given the above easily accessible information, we are satisfied with Stephenie Meyer’s version of events.

Comments

  1. nice research!

  2. Wow, this Jordan Scots chick really doesn’t understand… how hard the twilight fans will go if she actually keeps going on with this. She’s going to recieve so much hate mail and all the twilight fans hating her if she causes more problems. I read on MTV.com that she was trying to have Breaking Dawn not become a movie- wow- she doesn’t know what’s in store for her if she makes that happen. Twilight fans are going to go crazy!

  3. Katie Bell says:

    hey everyone – i tried google-ing this Scott person and pretty much 75% of the links i got, when i clicked on them, they were encrypted pages that my computer safety software told me not to look at because they were dangerous.
    has anyone else tried to look her up and gotten this? it’s weird. i hadn’t heard about her until now.

    • Yeah,I looked her up,too !When I google-d her,like 45% of the links ‘werent available’,because of my safety software.Hm.I thpught there was something wrong with my computer,so its good to know there are also others .:)

  4. This really just goes to show that you can (attempt to) sue anyone for absolutely anything. Ridiculous.

  5. Scott isn’t even worth talking about anymore. What a worthless attention seeker.

  6. Did anyone notice that within the book where the about the author section is this Scott person was below the age of 18 at the time of publication. Are minors even allowed to hold a copyright below the age of 18? The copyright was filed under her name, and not her parents.

    ~Brandon
    Game Director, Twilight The Video Game

  7. Thank you for providing us with this information Lex.

  8. Thanks so much for doing this Lexicon!

  9. JUST ANOTHER JACKA$$ TRYING TO MAKE SOME MONEY ON THE STEPHANIE MEYER FRANCHISE…. MONEY HUNGRY SPINELESS JERKS.

  10. BUT, I don’t think you just have to consider official, registered copyright here. Any intellectual property that is put down on paper is under a special copyright that doesn’t need to be filed by an office. This intellectual property guarantees that your original creation is protected regardless of whether it’s published or not.

    I’m definitely NOT trying to take Scott’s side. (AT ALL. I think her claim is completely ridiculous.) But maybe that’s the angle she’s going for. *eye roll* Even so, she would have to prove she wrote it before 2003. And EVEN THEN, the works are so entirely dissimilar that it’s a pointless discussion anyway.

    • Twilight_News says:

      I agree with you as to protection of IP.

      The point we were making was one of reasonable public access. If the item wasn’t available in a public forum until 2006, than it would be impossible for it to have been copied by an item that was filed in 2004 which contains the entire plot line and a good chunk of the same dialogue that appears in Breaking Dawn.

      The only way we can see this as being possible is by hijacking the Tardis and doing some time travel.

  11. Wow…what some people to do to make themselves known! How low can one get?

  12. twilightfan1515 says:

    DON’T MESS WITH STEPHENIE PPL.
    THIS SCOTT LADY IS JUST JEALOUS.
    STEPHENIE ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Rachel M. says:

    Wait, are people STILL trying to say that Stephenie Meyer stole their ideas? Really?

    I actually find this quite amusing, especially since this lady seems to underestimate the power of obsessive Twilighters. If she keeps this up, she’ll have a few billion angry Twilight fans after her…and their makeshift lawyers. :)

  14. Has anyone gone to Scott’s site and read her book? I’m just curious to see how “similar” the two are. I feel as though this is just a MAJOR publicity stunt to get people to read her book, since she doensn’t want monitary compensation… What a lazy and pathetic way to make a name for yourself. Im guessing that once this is put to rest, she won’t have much credibility in the publishing world and will even have a harder time getting readers for the rest of her series, if she actually continues with it. This could turn out to be a career killer for Ms. Scott!
    I’m also curious what the media sites will be saying tomorrow and if they will have done their homework like the lex has!

    • Twilight_News says:

      We did prior to writing this post and in our subjective, non-legally trained view, from what we could see, we feel calling them similar is a big stretch.

      It would be like saying Jayne Eyre was a plagiarized version of Pride and Prejudice because both have arrogant, brooding, wealthy, male characters who fall in love with a heroine who at first dislikes them. It just doesn’t work that way.

  15. When I first read the story about the plagerism my first reaction was… ugh trying to get publicity for their OWN book… and that totally seems to be what they are doing… Never doubted Stephenie and I find this other author incredibly sad

  16. yeah this lady just wanted her book to be advertised. Oh well great detective work and thank you for proving mrs. meyer’s honesty and integrity that we all know was there all along. Now ms. scott can just go whine about it now.

  17. Okay I got to page 190 of the Nocturne, I see nothing that is the same so far, but it’s getting late so I will have to continue with the reading tomorrow, but I just do not see it. But I did notice that the demon in his dream has the same name and description as in another book I have read; The Mortal Instruments by Cassandra Clare. Stephenie Meyer recommended them on her website a while back so I read them and loved them.

    It just makes me wonder who actually is getting ideas from other books??? huhum…cough,cough anyone?????

  18. Saraness says:

    I think there all wrong!!! Infact they all plagerised my book! xD Jk. Ugh. I can’t stand this.

  19. Jessica G. says:

    how can that be possible?! because in Eclipse Stephanie wrote that Bella and Edward were going to be married and that Bella wanted to have make love with him so those CANNOT count as a similarities! And neither can the fact that Bella feels herself dying when she becomes a vampire, but HELLO!? her heart stops beating of course in any story you would descrobe that! that whole situation is jacked up, Stephanie Meyer would never, ever do anything like that! cant the copyright people trace down from freakin Scott’s website if Stephanie ever accessed it? i truly DO NOT believe Stephanie Meyer would EVER do anything so terrible. Thanks for the truth Lexicon!

  20. You guys should be lawyers.

    Good thing you guys did this before it gets too big and everyone starts badmouthing Breaking Dawn.

  21. OMG! How can Jordan accuse STEPHENIE MEYER of plagarizing breaking dawn? Stephenie would NEVER do such a thing. she rox too much! and besides Twilight Lexicon has more than enough proof that Stephenie is innocent. Before I sign off, Go STEPHENIE!

    lovelovelove,
    - S -

  22. note worthy says:

    I went to http://www.jordanscott.com and it says that The Nocturne was rereleased on August 2,2009 and sold out by August 4,2009. Her sole mission was to get sales and she accomplished it. Great job defending your authoress you guys are very loyal.

    • I believe that it was available as an eCopy for kindle, therefore it is purely subjective as to sold out status. A paper release would have shown in other locations, even if for just a moment, and it takes a bit longer than a day to do or schedule a print run. Unless they only printed five copies, and those were bought by mommy, daddy, grandma, grandpa and her lawyer?

  23. wow this girl is going to look so dumb soon especially the attorney! Thanks for posting!

  24. Omg! Thanks god that Steph wasn’t done for copyright.
    *wipes forehead*
    Thanks guys!

  25. I think that Jordan Scott wants is to take the advantage of the popularity of Twilight series from Stephenie Meyer for gaining her own profit and become known by the public.

    Imagine, once people are curious how much simliarity between The Nocturne and Breaking Dawn, people would go to Jordan Scott’s websites to check and perhaps buy her The Nocturne to read. That might be her purpose!

    If you guys support Stephenie Meyer, stop buying and reading The Nocturne, stop going to Jordan Scott’s website, don’t let her get what she wants!

    • so I totally checked out her book and its completely free online on google and another site..so other than people wanting to rip out their own eyes from reading the tripe she calls a novel she gets nothing from it other than flames. Because seriously all copyright B.S. aside her book is really really poorly written and I’m thinking wasn’t edited at all.

  26. also, that would have made Scott 14 or 15 when she wrote the nocturne (if she was born in 88 and claims it was written in 03)… highly unlikely that stephanie would have plagarized from a young teenager!! Not to say teenagers can’t write great books but the odds are heavily against a 15 year old in this case.

    so unfortunate people have to behave this way.

  27. I either posted a reply to this in the wrong place last night, I am blind this morning and can’t find it, or I was considered a “troll.”

    Let me assure you that those who may have seen my message last night I am not a troll.

    I was amused that the person who says on her site that the book is sold out, but you can get the book at major retailers and view it online.

    You CAN NOT purchase it at major retailers (can’t find it at Books a Million or Barnes and Noble). The one place I did find it the entire book was available to read online without purchase. Whoever this person is, she’s got some serious problems. I read a few lines of it here and there, and I wasn’t impressed. Who knows what her motives are. I find it seriously weird that it’s taken this long for her to decide that Stephenie Meyer has “stolen” her ideas. Or whatever she’s actually claiming.

    I am currently reading Breaking Dawn, and had taken a break because school started back (I teach 2nd grade). All this has made me want to do it hurry up and pick Breaking Dawn back up – not read the other one.

  28. GuyZ you are amaZing, thankZ so much for theZe info

  29. birdiecanfly says:

    Great article. Congratulations on a job well done.
    But…
    while I realize that most people here have read or re-read the Twilight series, there may be a small contingent that hasn’t. Some may be reading the books as the movies come out. Should there be a ‘spoiler’ warning at the top of this article?
    Just a thought.

  30. Twilight Tabby says:

    Thanks so much for having the info to help all of us know the truth so fast. I just saw it on the Channel 3 Philly news this AM and was like WTF? I knew it couldnt be true but seriously wanted to know what was going on. Thanks for making it known that Scott is looking for something that doesnt belong to her. I just dont get people these days… friggin sue happy I tell ya!! But thank you thank you thank you!! Oh and I LOVE YOUR SITE!!

  31. Thank you :)

    And @ Katie Bell : Yeah,I looked her up,too !When I google-d her,like 45% of the links ‘werent available’,because of my safety software.Hm.I thpught there was something wrong with my computer,so its good to know there are also others .:)

  32. I found an article about this, and I just had to laugh.

    “As another instance of similarities, Williams pointed out that characters in both books call their wives ‘love.’”

    Wow. Wow. That’s crazy, husbands calling the love of their lives in a romance novel ‘love’?! That’s simply crazy that other people would write that. (note the sarcasm.)

    • Zookie Monster says:

      THAT’S WHAT I SAW! I was so like “WTF?!” Because obviously they’ve never read a romance novel before!

  33. I have never heared of Jordan Scott book and i went on line to look her up and there is not a thing on her or her book.

  34. Thanks for doing the research. I don’t doubt Stephenie (or you) at all. Why don’t news outlets do even the basic research anymore? Nice to know someone still has a brain ;)

  35. Hi there. For what its worth, the date of copyright registration actually does not determine who has the rights. If you take a look at the federal copyright act, your rights arise when your work (here the books) are fixed (i.e. written down). Authors register to get additional statutory rights, not the copyright itself. Reflecting these distinctions, both of these copyright records note a “creation” date in 2003, meaning that, assuming there was any copyright violation, these records alone wouldn’t answer the question of whose work came first.

    Personally, though I haven’t looked at Ms. Scott’s book, I doubt there’s any merit to her claim but, since you seemed interested in the copyright aspect, and I’m a fan of your site, I thought I’d share what I knew.

    • Twilight_News says:

      We hear what you are saying, but there is additional information in those records as well as Ms.Scott’s contentions in the filed paperwork.

      There is a difference between when something was created and when it was available to the public.

      According to the statements, Ms. Scott claims that her work was online starting in 2006. So unless Stephenie Meyer has ESP or is clairvoyant, should would have had a hard time copying anything the public at large had no access to.

  36. Awwhh thanks lexicon you guys really are twilight heroes but like everyone else i never doubted stephenie for a minute! Fan from the beginning and a fan for life!!

  37. Melissa the kellan fan says:

    You guys are awesome for figuring this all out! Ms. Scott just wanted to steal some of stephenie’s well- deserved thunder, and I’m glad that you guys helped stop that from happening. It’s a good thing that SM will always have a legion of powerful fans and fansites to back her up. If anyone wants to mess with Stephenie, they r gonna have to go thru all of us first!

  38. Well then, you need to remove all hyperlinks to this fraudster’s site (in your earlier posting about her) because by linking to her, you’re giving her more traffic and attention from Stephenie Meyer fans–which is probably exactly what she wants!

  39. i understand but see ms. scott is not accusing forever dawn but breaking dawn witch was made after ms. scotts book. so even though i highly dout stephanie’s book was palgerized, the fact that the story is the same in forever dawn and breaking dawn they are different books. if ms.scott put this offence on forever dawn there is clear eveidance that there is no plagizam, but breaking dawn is a diffent story. just saying the story is the same in both books, isn’t enough.

    • Twilight_News says:

      The fact is much of Forever Dawn reappears nearly word-for-word in Breaking Dawn. Additionally the cited similar elements are in both.

      Since Forever Dawn clearly came first, it doesn’t pan out on Scott’s side.

      Mind you that’s not even looking at the text of her novel itself which is in fact available online. The so called similarities are in our opinion a stretch.

  40. Um, did any of you guys notice that BOTH the Nocturne and Forever Dawn were created in 2003? Anyone?

    It’s completely possible for Meyer to simply have ripped off the Nocturne, since the Nocturne was available on the internet. Open your eyes, people, look at the similarities of the quotes, passages and content:
    http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/080 … gement.pdf

    I’ll be following this story. Looks like Meyer could be in trouble.

    • Twilight_News says:

      There is a difference between when something was created and when it was available to the public.

      According to the statements, Ms. Scott claims that her work was online starting in 2006. So unless Stephenie Meyer has ESP or is clairvoyant, should would have had a hard time copying anything the public at large had no access to.

    • Exactly, Twilight_News! It doesn’t matter if both books were “created” in 2003. What matters is if Stephenie had ACCESS to Ms. Scott’s work, prior to copyrighting Forever Dawn. Since Forever Dawn was copyrighted Jan 1, 2004, and Ms. Scott’s ebook was not published until July 2006, Ms. Scott would have to prove that Stephenie had access to all the passages in question in 2003.

      And that’s not even taking into account that there really are NO striking similarities between the two books. None. Anyone who thinks that there are similarities between them clearly has not read many other books.

  41. There’s a thing called “poor man’s copyright” which basically states that the minute you put pen to paper so to speak it’s automatically copyrighted. You don’t have to register it.

    In this case it sounds like a woman being more nitpicky than most authors would be. There is no such thing as completely original out there. Just different spins on the same IDEA. If it was exactly alike there’d be a problem, if not, then there’s nothing Ms. Scott can do.

  42. tmz stands for thirty mile zone mtv stands for music tv

  43. tmz stands for thirty mile zone and mtv stands for music tv

  44. Kathryn G says:

    great job lexicon!!! trust me there would have been major backup to stephenie and a major riot against this crazy lady whos obviously jealous of stephenie’s success!

  45. yeah, did everyone see the link to the statement too?
    http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/TwilightInfringement.pdf

  46. Jennifer says:

    Bravo to you all for your hard work and research and for standing behind Stephenie. As a fan I am right there with you all. The first thought that came to mind when I read this is: How many people are going to run and and buy or borrow this Scott person’s book? I bet she sees an increase in sales all of a sudden. How perfect for her. I hate that someone is trying to cash in on Stepenie Meyer’s hard work. I have never even heard of that author or book and I have no intention of ever reading it.

  47. I heard this story and I’m going to have to side with Ms. Scott. As in Love with the Twilight Saga I am I’ve come to realize it’s all been copied one way or another. Stephanie took different parts of vampire series tweaked them and called them her own. The books I’m speaking of are Vampire Diaries, the Sookie Stackhouse novels and Night World, there could be more, but those are the ones I have read. I know I know you’ll bash me forever and I’ll probably get hate mail, but before you do put down the Kool Aid, pick up any of these books and find out the truth for yourselves.

    • Hey Jenna-
      You may want to take some of your own advice and do some research! Several times Stephenie has said that she was never into vampire lore, be it books, movies, tv shows…whatever. She didn’t really go near the stuff so she created her world of vampires on her own. So I find it hard to believe that she ripped them off. Now when writing in the fantasy genre, it isn’t uncommon to have characters who have similiar powers or traits; they are universal. I also would like to know if you have taken the time to read Ms. Scotts book? From what I can tell, and like the lexicon has said, her claim is completely unfounded. You can’t have copyright claims on things such as weddings, dangerous births and the name “love”. Otherwise she should be making a claim against every book published since hers that features one or all of these elements. This is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt from someone who wants to take the easy road to fame!

    • Ok I’ve read the books and the citation of the supposed infringement.(which I believe are a huge stretch, and I can’t see how they can be proven due to the fact that you could probably bring to light about 50 more books that have similar wording) I also have read a plethora of books and it seems that in one way or another contemporary writers pull from other writers. The sword of shannara read to me in the beginning as a terrible Tolkien rip off but as I read on I realized it was his own story and he had enough key elements different that it wasn’t infringement. Also if anything these books are more similar to classics from the 1800′s than anything else. Another point to be made is that when dealing with mythical creatures its impossible to not copy from someone. Generally its referred to as lore and its acceptable to borrow. If it wasn’t there would be lawsuits slapped down left and right.

  48. You guys should go as Stephanie Meyers lawyers! lol because that is a great argument…totally proves how bogus this lawsuit is.

  49. Nidhi M. says:

    I don’t understand. Just knowing about Forever Dawn is enough to make Scott’s claim completly false. And with it being so easy to find out about, why didn’t someone pick up on this – like Scott herself. Every Twilight fan knows about Forever Dawn.It seems pretty stupid for her to try and say she plagiarized THAT book, out of all four. Even if there is a similarity between the two, and that they were copyrighted in the same year, it has to be coincidental.There is no way Meyer could have accessed her book in order to steal ideas from it, seeing as it wasn’t even available until 3 years after she copyrighted it. And Stephenie had definitely written the book by then, as I recall her stating that she gave it to a friend as a gift.

    However, I don’t see how Scott could have stolen her idea either. I feel she just got lucky, and decided to take advantage of that to gain publicity.

  50. You guys are really the best!
    Thank you so much for having all this nonsense cleared up.
    You can always be relied upon.

Trackbacks

    Leave a Comment

    *