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.


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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

  4. 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.

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

  6. So, if this Scott girl really thinks the books are that similar, wouldn’t Steph technically actually have a case against her? I read the comparison and I didn’t really see the similarity–nothing word for word and only the more generic parts have anything in common (hey–flowers at a wedding and a pregnant woman who feels sick…who’d of thought that could happen to two characters?! ::sacasm::

  7. This has GOT to be so frustrating for Stephenie Meyer. I would be freaking out. Spread the word that this is bogus & not to by this chick…Jordan Scott’s, cr*p

  8. Isabella says:

    and this, is why you were named the best Twilight fansite… 🙂

  9. such a cheap publicity and marketing strategy for that Ms. Scott. I mean, obviously she want to ride with the success of the Twilight Saga. She claims that both books are the same so that people will get curious, readers would start purchasing the book, and see if there’s similarity. then that’s it, she will get profit out of cheap and stupid advertising. A lot of these happened and i think nothing had ever proved to be true.

    i love Stephenie’s books and I believe in her. She’s an amazing writer eventhough a lot says negative things about the Twilight Saga.

    and twilight lexicon, thanks for posting and clearing that up. =]

  10. ***Contains SPOILERS from The Nocturne***

    You can read Jordan Scott’s book on Google Books

    I scanned through the whole thing and found the parts they are claiming to be similar; they are two COMPLETELY different stories. I don’t even know why Jordan Scott is attempting this legal action; I don’t think they will have any problem making Breaking Dawn into a movie. You can’t even compare the books except to say they are both fantasy. Different settings, different characters, different country and time period, different everything basically. The only other similarities are that two of the characters get married and are in love, they have a baby (who is apparently supposed to be evil or something like that), and there is a vampire but not even close to the vampires in the Twilight Saga. Everything besides these extremely broad similarities, in Scott’s book, is incomparable to Stephenie Meyer’s books and writing style. Also, Scott’s book is the first one in a trilogy she is writing.

    *Spoilers* Don’t read this is you plan to read Scott’s book and don’t want to know what happens.

    The forbidden love similarity they claim is different as well. The forbidden love in twilight is between human and vampire, how it’s unnatural. The forbidden love in Scott’s book is that the main character who is a sorcerer at first brings a girl back to life that has already died from drowning in a well; he just knows he’s in love with her and that he has to save her. So he does CPR basically but with some deep power he didn’t know he had and ta-da she’s alive again. All the people in the town think he’s a freak, and the girl’s family doesn’t want anything to do with him. So the forbidden love is that people think he’s using witchcraft so she’s not allowed to go near him. But eventually he flees town so he won’t be put to death, and she runs away and they get married. Only later does he become a vampire, something to do with a poison his mother drank when she was pregnant with him and tried to kill herself. This is set back around the Dark Ages/Medieval era.

    In the beginning when he is the sorcerer he practices magic and uses a wand to bring spirits up, as you can tell there are many MANY differences. I don’t have anything against Scott except that her claim is irrational. She’s an intelligent person, graduated high school at 14 and went to Harvard at 17. She’s 21 now and also sings in a band; she goes to UCLA for film and theatre and is still writing the other two books in her trilogy. You would wonder why someone who appears to be very smart would make such a dumb move; maybe she thinks that any publicity is good publicity.

  11. So ridonkulous! I’m 110% Team Stephenie Morgan Meyer!!! I support her and believe in her 100%! Cheap PR stunt to get the knock-off book noticed. Oh well, it’s not like I’m going to pick up a copy EVER! TL did an amazing job researching the facts… kudos to you guys!

  12. what a wanker! who is she to doubt stephenie meyer of copyright issues! id like to copyright her ass! ugh that vampire hating cheater skating wanker!!

  13. Adrianne21 says:

    Hey guys!!! this Lady, I’m not going to say her name, cuz that’s obviously what she wants, is amazing, how low can she go to ruined (or try to) someone else’s carrer to raise hers, so sad, I think we have to stop talikng about herr cuz then we will be playing her game… she just wants attention for her and her stupid lame unknown book…Stephenie know we stand by her, and support her no matter what!!!! team jacob by the way!!!! xoxo…

  14. That’s a slap in Ms. Scott’s face don’t you think?

  15. thank GOD! I was starting to get ready to send flar guns after this Scott thing….Stephenie is in the clear! YEAH!

  16. I never doubted Meyer for a second. I even googled it and i found something on yahoo answers bout the summary and i don’t see how they alike in any way. i bet the book sucks and Jordan Scott is just trying to get publicity to get published. WELL RUINING A FAMOUS AUTHOR WITH BILLIONS OF FANS DOESN’T HELP. she’s just gonna get hate comments

  17. CULLEN KID says:


  18. CULLEN KID says:


  19. I think that the author was just looking for attention.

  20. i saw this on abc news the other day, and it was reported in the times newspaper, so it’s obviously being taken seriously.

    i haven’t read scotts book, and i haven’t read the original ‘forever dawn’, so i really can’t comment on it.

    but it does seem to be going ahead, and scotts lawyers seem pretty determined.

    i shall follow with interest.

  21. TWIgirl4ever says:

    Thats just sad Ms.Scott has to make up a story just to get attention.

  22. Mark my words. I bet Jordan Scott is just trying to claim copyright infringement on Breaking Dawn because she’s upset that Stephenie’s making millions off of Breaking Dawn; while Jordan’s book was barely even heard of. When I saw this story on TMZ, I was mad that someone would try to ruin the Twilight Saga with something that proposterous. How could Stephenie not win the case in court?! Those books may have some minor things alike, but not COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. My thanks to the twilight lexicon website. 😀

  23. seriously? You guys would support someone who believes that all colors except white will be angels, while the rest of us will be renegade angels?

    And what of prop 8?

    So, you guys are telling me its ok to like something, no matter how bad the person who presents it to you is?

    Why don’t all of you pick up Mein kampf, and get a jump on it then. I’m also confident that you’ll be picking up one of adolf hitlers paintings, just because he has “nifty colors.”

  24. What you think about news – GOPers Hold ‘Prayercast’ to Ask God to Stop Health Reform ?
    Wanna hear your opinion

  25. Your blog post is well written and informative

  26. I dispise problems if a blog writer blogposts completely new content just to develop cleaner subject material. I’m keen on simply interersting articles by way of principal, special data.


  1. […] os livros (que vocês podem ler, em inglês, aqui). E numa tentativa de esclarecer os fatos, o site Twilight Lexicon decidiu fazer uma pesquisa mais detalhada sobre as […]

  2. […] an array of reasons why the case won’t hold water (not the least of which is that Ms. Meyer wrote and filed for the copyright of Forever Dawn, the original sequel to Twilight, before…), but I’d like to take a moment and focus on the simple fact that proving copyright infringement […]

  3. […] Lex simplesmente desvendou definitivamente a história do plágio de Breaking Dawn. Bem, desvendou para quem já estava determinado a […]

  4. […] as to how (aside from the obvious fact that the texts bore little resemblance to each other) that this was impossible based on copyright dates and other […]

  5. […] as to how (aside from the obvious fact that the texts bore little resemblance to each other) that this was impossible based on copyright dates and other […]

  6. […] EDIT: Our awesome friends over at the Twilight Lexicon have foiled the unjustly lawsuit by some interesting digging and research. Check out their post explaining why this claim is false here. […]

Leave a Comment