In The News
J.K. Rowling and WB File Suit Over Unofficial Encyclopedia
Companion BooksReuters is reporting that author J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros., makers of the Harry Potter films, filed suit (update: details of suit are now below) today against a forthcoming unofficial encyclopedia book based on the Harry Potter series. Reuters reports the book, "The Harry Potter Lexicon," due to be released by RDR Books on Nov. 28 in the United States, had "inappropriately referenced Rowling's fictional characters and universe."
The suit names the site owner, Steve Vander Ark, and several defendants, and is seeking "damages for copyright federal trademark infringement and any profits to be gained from the book."
The suit, according to the article, states:
"The infringing book is particularly troubling as it is in direct contravention to Ms. Rowling's repeatedly stated intention to publish her own companion books to the series and donate proceeds of such books to charity."
The suit was filed today in federal court in Manhattan, NY.
USA Today contains further information including a comment from RDR books publisher Roger Rappaport, who said the book was a "critical reference work" and "dismissed any notion that it could compete with any official encyclopedia written by Rowling." He also said that Vander Ark "cannot understand why she wouldn't be supportive now.'
The article also says the suit "doesn't seek action against the Web version of the Lexicon, but criticizes it for numerous sections that it said 'regurgitate Ms. Rowling's original creative expression with minimal additional commentary.'"
CNN Money says that the suit claims, "Warner Bros. and Rowling's representatives have been " rebuffed and treated rudely" in their attempts to engage in a dialogue with RDR Books...For example, while claiming not to have the ability or time to respond to plaintiffs' multiple 'cease and desist' letters because of a family tragedy, defendant instead was hawking foreign publishing rights to the infringing book in Germany,' the lawsuit said."
TLC has also obtained a copy of the complaint, which further contains the following:
-The suit says any money award will be donated to charity.
-It seeks to halt publication and recoup whatever profits are made by the book or costs incurred by the suit.
-The suit says four letters to RDR Books (detailed below) regarding the issue before it went to a lawsuit.
-That RDR Books has refused to hand over a pre-publication copy of the books for review.
-It names RDR Books and 10 DOES - unidentified entities/people - who can be named later.
-In response to contact from JKR's lawyers, RDR Books sent its own "cease and desist" letter to Warner Bros. regarding a timeline on the Harry Potter DVDs they claim infringes the Lexicon's copyright, which the suit says is "a complete fabrication apparently intended to deflect Plaintiffs' complaints - but which merely serves to highlight hypocritical nature of Defendant's conduct."
Excerpts from suit:
-"Plaintiffs did everything they could prior to filing this lawsuit to engage in a substantive dialogue with Defendant only to be rebuffed and treated rudely. For example, while claiming not to have the ability or time to respond to Plaintiffs' multiple 'cease and desist' letters because of a family tragedy, Defendant instead was hawking foreign publishing rights to the Infringing Book in Germany. Moreover, Defendant had the audacity to accuse Warner Bros. of violating the purported copyrights of the Infringing Book's author in a timeline based on the Harry Potter Books - a complete fabrication apparently intended to deflect Plaintiffs' complaints -- but which merely serves to highlight the hypocritical nature of Defendant's conduct."
-The suit says that there is a "big difference between the innumerable Harry Potter fan sites' latitude to discuss the Harry Potter Works in the context of free, ephemeral websites ad unilaterally repackaging those sites for sale in an effort to cash in monetarily on Ms. Rowling's creative works in contravention of her wishes and rights."
-JKR has been "careful not to license" other "tie-in or companion books" which merely "regurgitate her creative expression without adding valuable analysis or scholarly commentary...in part, because...she has authored and published her own Companion Books and intends to create additional companion books."
-JKR's agency, Christopher Little, heard about the book from an online listing on Publisher's Marketplace. The book and its disclaimer-less title led JKR and her agency to contact the author.
Pre-lawsuit timeline, as detailed by the complaint:
September 12: The Christopher Little Agency e-mailed Steve Vander Ark with a copy cc'd to RDR books, containing a reminder of JKR's plans to write a future book and a statement that JKR did not wish to grant rights to any third party. "Appealing to Mr. Vander Ark as a friend and supporter of Ms. Rowling and the Harry Potter books, Ms. Rowling's agent asked Mr. Vander Ark to forgo publication of the Infringing Book." The email went unresponded for six days.
September 18: JKR and WB's lawyer forwarded a letter to RDR Books and Steve Vander Ark via e-mail, notifying them that the book would be infringing copyrights and citing precedent (Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd, and Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publishing Group; the first regarding a book of Twin Peaks plot summaries and the second a book of Trivia about the Seinfeld series). The letter requested the publication cease, in the U.S. and to all foreign publishers, and asked for a list of those entities so that JKR's lawyers could contact them directly.
September 18: Steve Vander Ark responded to JKR's agent by e-mail saying he had "been asked to leave all correspondence in this matter to others."
September 19: RDR Books replied, saying, "[i]t is our intention to thoroughly study the various issues you have raised and discuss them with our legal advisers."
October 3: JKR and WB counsel wrote again, "after waiting another two weeks and receiving no substantive response...emphasizing their clients' concerns and the impending publication date." Roger Rapoport, president of RDR Books, requested more time due to a death in the family, which was given by JKR and WB's counsel.
October 11: JKR and WB counsel discovered that in the time period in which he had requested for a "good faith" delay to deal with a death in the family, he had sent a "cease and desist" letter to WB regarding "a timeline appearing on some of the Harry Potter DVDs [that] infringed the Lexicon Website. Warner Bros. responded that it would look into the matter more fully. In the meantime Warner Bros. asked for a copy of the"print version" of the Lexicon Website referred to by RDR Books in order to aid in its evaluation of the claims. RDR Books summarily dismissed Warner Bros. reasonable request," the suit claims, "stating rudely: 'If you do not know how to print that material [from the Lexicon Website] please ask one of your people to show you how.' "
October 19: JKR and WB counsel wrote a third letter; RDR responded again that they would reply after looking into allegations.
October 23: Christopher Little Agency learns that RDR had recently offered the publishing rights for the book in Germany to Random House and in Taiwan to Crown Publishing. "Plaintiffs grew increasingly concerned during the course of these events because it appeared that RDR Books was duplicitously stalling its response to Plaintiffs' concerns in order to surreptitiously promote the Infringing Book in advance of the rapidly-approaching publication date."
October 24: JKR and WB counsel wrote a fourth letter to RDR Books, "expressing their grave concerns about RDR Books' recent behavior and asking for confirmation that RDR Books would not publish the Infringing Book until it attempted to resolve this matter in good faith." The lawyers also repeated their request for a copy of the book. They also set a deadline for response of Oct. 29.
October 24: RDR Books responded that the "Plaintiffs' 'unwarranted' objections were not appreciated," and that the book was a "print version of the Lexicon Website, which was allegedly permitted by Ms. Rowling, and that there were allegedly other Harry Potter guides similar to the Infringing Book on the market." The suit says in response, "While Ms. Rowling has permitted some fan sites certain latitude to make use of the material in her books, these sites are generally free to the public and exist to enable fans to communicate, rather than to permit someone to turn a quick and easy profit based on her own creativity. Ms. Rowling never gave anyone permission to publish a 400-page Harry Potter Lexicon."
October 31: Suit filed. "It is apparent that RDR Books has no intention of working with Plaintiffs to resolve this matter amicably. Plaintiffs therefore have no choice but to file this lawsuit."
The suit also states that JKR and WB are concerned not only because they claim the book infringes and it conflicts with her own plans but because "RDR Books has confirmed...that it cannot be trusted with one of the most beloved children's book series in history."
The suit also quotes a statement made by Steve Vander Ark on his site, that says, "...I don't give permission for people to just copy my work for their own use. Not only is that illegal, since everything in the Lexicon is copyrighted, it's also just plain wrong. Hey, I did all the work,I put in all the time, it's my skill and talent in this area which allowed the Lexicon to come into being. No one else has the right to use my work." The suit says, "this is exactly what Defendant is attempting to do here in connection with Ms. Rowling's work.
Without a review copy, JKR and WB's lawyers have been told the book will be a "print version" of the Lexicon, which they maintain means it will surely infringe on JKR's copyright. It mentions the maps and passages of the books that the Lexicon has on its site, as well as lists and facts, class schedules, potion ingredients and wizarding histories. "The Lexicon Website also slavishly copies lyrics to entire songs, lifts long passages directly from the Harry Potter Books, and transcribes magic spells word-for-word. In addition to copying the fictional facts and language of the books, the Lexicon Website also contains numerous infringing photos taken from Warner Bros. copyrighted Harry Potter films."
It also cites the "lengthy plot summaries and detailed descriptions" of characters.
"These descriptions, character details and plot points comprise stories created and owned by Ms. Rowling, who has the sole right to control their distribution and who did not give permission to the Defendant to publish a book that stands to make millions of dollars off the back of Ms. Rowling's creativity."
The suit also maintains that the book will be marketed to mislead consumers, because it does not have a disclaimer in its title or subtitle and is referred to as 'the most complete and amazing reference to the magical world of Harry Potter,' which the suit claims "gives the false and misleading impression that the book is an official Harry Potter book and that Ms. Rowling or Warner Bros. has authorized it or is associated it with it in any way."
The suit claims seven counts:
-Copyright Infringement
-Federal Trademark Infringement
-Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin
-False Advertising
-Deceptive Trade Practices
-Unfair Competition
-Declaratory Judgment Regarding Copyright Infringement
The suit asks for the court to find that:
-RDR Books has infringed copyright and trademarks and used a misleading book cover, design and advertising materials to "falsely designate the origin of the Infringing Book, falsely advertise the Infringing Book, and unfairly compete with Plaintiffs."
-RDR Books and defendants have engaged in deceptive trade practices
-The "Hogwarts Time Line" in the DVD does not infringe the Defendant's copyrights
-There is a substantial likelihood that defendants will continue to infringe unless halted permanently
The suit also asks for:
- a permanent injunction against the Defendant and associated entities from selling or distributing works derived or copied from Harry Potter
- an order instructing a recall of the book
- a judgment for damages and profits
There has not yet been a reaction filed by RDR Books or any other defendant.
The Christopher Little Agency has also answered some questions for Leaky in response to what has been mentioned in comments:
-The difference between the book and the Lexicon web site is that "the website is free for all fans but the book is to be sold," and "other free web sites are fine so long as the material is appropriate."
-Regarding whether the Lexicon has rights due to JKR's use of it in the past, the "Lexicon has no rights in Harry Potter."
-They can't comment on whether it would have really overlapped with J.K. Rowling's intended because they haven't seen the book, and this was why they wanted to review it.
The Harry Potter Lexicon is a partner site to The Leaky Cauldron.
Interested in Companion Books?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
Shame on you JK Rowling. The Lexicon has done nothing but support your series and help it become the pop culture phenomenon it is today.
I will never spend another penny on anything JKR is involved in.
Loopy, I agree. The Big Name Fans have all been very quiet. Last I checked, the lawsuit was not even mentioned on Mugglenet.
Although I’m not quite sure about WB’s and JKR’s people’s reasoning, I agree with many people who have already posted comments in that this is, after all, Jo’s creation, and we must respect her wishes, no matter what they may be. I also think she has been extremly generous in allowing, and praising, so many in depth fan sites, something which many so successful authors would not tolerate. These sites post her material on a daily bases, and she has said very little of it. My heart goes out to the defendants in this case, they are real HP fans after all, but my loyalties lie with the writer of these brilliant books. A very conflicted issue.
I’m siding with Jo on this one (and I almost never side with copyright holders when it comes to fanworks). As far as I can tell, all the Lexicon book will be is a printed version of the website. All the website is is an itemized summary of information about the HP universe as revealed in the books. This isn’t opinion or scholarly commentary, it’s paraphrase. Secondly, no doubt Jo’s encyclopedia will rehash the info from the books as well as adding new stuff, so the Lexicon’s book will quickly become redundant and obsolete once her encyclopedia is published anyway.
I’m very disappointed in this decision by J.K. I would have thought she had greater respect for her fans.
Amy S: check Mugglenet again. They were just a little bit later then TLC.
What in the blazes is Rowling thinking???? You mean to tell me that no one else can write an encyclopedia on the Harry Potter series but her? Why is she needed to compile the info that’s already known? Answer – she isn’t. Her planned book is supposed to include more information that has never been made public. That is fundamentally a diferent book.
Unauthorized overviews of series are nothing new. They are done all the time. The suit screams ‘control freak’ and doens’t seem at all like Jo. I suspect someone is influencing her to go through with this flimsy, baseless, waste of time.
I for one will buy the lexicon the book the second it hits shelves. I’ll be doing the same for Mrs. Rowling’s, if she ever writes it.
Wow, I am really shocked. Her books and the movies are protected by Copyright and unless he had permission to use those things, he can’t publish it, and frankly writing something that JKR has said was going to write is just wrong.
I thought that anyone who would know better it would have been Steve.
Wow.
bthomas, are you kidding me? Someone is trying to make money off of Jo’s work, she’s not attacking her fans. If read the article it even says that she asked them to stop printing but they refused…
“Shame on you JK Rowling. The Lexicon has done nothing but support your series and help it become the pop culture phenomenon it is today.
I will never spend another penny on anything JKR is involved in.”
I sometimes feel like banging my head against the wall as people just don’t care about the facts or think before they act. Why do you want to hate her so much and yet visit this site? :) She is not suing the Lexicon. She and WB are suing RDR Books and Steve, because they are going to publish this book, even though Rowling has asked them not to. And she has every right to do that.
Just imagine if it would be your ‘invention’ that’s been taking by someone else who goes off making money over you back. You invented it, your proud of something, you made it all by yourself. I think one should be able to decide what others can do with it.
Boy… I’m torn. This is a tough call. I understand about the Lexicon using actual copyrighted text and/or characters in a book being bad but it would seem like it would be as bad on their website as a book.
I guess the points I don’t understand are A. Why would Steve bother with a book when he posts the information for free and why would anyone buy what is on the Lexicon site for free? B. Why Jo would think this will interfere with her (hopefully) much more in depth Encyclopedia when the information is already on the Lexicon site for free? C. Why hasn’t Jo sued the website? Intellectual property does NOT mean only what is printed on paper. Copyright infringement extends to websites. It seems a free website so filled with excellent information would cut into charity earnings a lot quicker than a book that could have nothing more than what they already have online. I love the Lexicon, but I wouldn’t buy the book because the info is free. (Why buy the cow….)
Leaky, Lexicon and JKRowling.com are the only 3 Potter websites I recommend to people. This is a sad day.
The difference between opinion and a legal precedent is that the former has no validity in court, however well informed or well intentioned; the latter is what the sitting judge will determine damages and set awards.
This is, from the lawyers’ point of view, a LEGAL matter, not one of fan opinion.
From a legal point of view, the matter at hand is clear-cut: This is a matter of what’s called “derivative use.” It means that the copyright holder - in this case, Joanne Rowling - can mine her own work to construct quizbooks, puzzle books, and encyclopedias.
In the matter of derivative use, the key criterion is whether or not an unofficial/unauthorized book merely REARRANGES the existing text to recast a “new book.”
When viewed in that light, Mr. Vander Ark’s book fares poor legally because it is 100% (judging from the his website) based on what’s in Rowling’s books.
Mr. Vander Ark’s proposed book is not commentary; it’s not opinion; it’s a re-edited edition of what Rowling has carefully chronicled in her book.
The legal precedent for this was when a publisher issued an unauthorized “Seinfeld” quiz book. The court decided that there was nothing original added, that it was all repurposed, and that everything had been drawn from the television series. Therefore, as all the material was derivative use, the unauthorized book was held legally accountable for damages.
Give Rowling and her lawyers a little credit: They don’t sue capriciously; they sue when they feel they have no other choice in protecting their rights.
This explains why two former encyclopedias - AN UNOFFICIAL MUGGLE’S GUIDE TO THE WIZARDING WORLD: EXPLORING THE HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE (ECW Press) and THE J.K. ROWLING ENCYCLOPEDIA by Connie Ann Kirk - are probably out of print: The amount of derived material exceeded what’s called “fair use,” which is the test as to whether or not a work is considered to be within the legal limits: “1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and sutstantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work [see www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html].
Rowling’s lawyers will likely cite that Vander Ark’s book (point 1) is for profit, (points 2 and 3) is principally or wholly derivative in content, and (point 4) will have a deleterious effect on the sale of Rowling’s own encyclopedia.
Of these points, in my considered opinion, only #4 will materially fail as fans of Rowling may buy an unofficial encyclopedia, but will buy the authorized book no matter what. The publication of an unofficial encyclopedia will not substantially hinder sales of the official one. In other words, some fans will likely by both, but no fan will buy the unofficial one in favor of the official one.
As for the proposed Mugglenet.com book (UNOFFICIAL HARRY POTTER COMPANION: THE ENCYCLOPEDIC GUIDE TO THE BOOKS, MOVIES AND MORE), it depends on how Mr. Spartz and Mr. Schoen handle the material: If it’s straightforward in encyclopedic format and uses the same material as Kirk’s J.K. ROWLING ENCYCLOPEDIA and Fionna Boyle’s UNOFFICIAL MUGGLE’S GUIDE TO THE WIZARDING WORLD, then it too may be on the lawyers’ radar. If, however, the text is not derivative, in terms of encyclopedia entries, and has original material (extensive commentary, contextual information) and stays away from a bare bones misappropriation of Rowling’s original texts, then it may (and I use that word guardly) escape the hangman’s noose.
Bottom line here, folks, it’s not about whether Mr. Vander Ark is a great asset to the Harry Potter community (legally, that’s a non-issue); doesn’t matter if Rowling uses his website for reference and has praised it (legally, both are non-issues); doesn’t matter if Rowling is a multi-millionaire (legally, a non-issue); and it doesn’t matter that Mr. Vander Ark has spent years researching Rowling’s universe. Doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is whether or not the book is substantially derived from Rowling’s texts.
That’s what the sitting judge will decide after examining the manuscript or finished book, and that judge will cite the aforementioned legal precedent regarding the Seinfeld quiz book.
Class is dismissed!
I don’t think there is anything wrong with this. It is one thing to have a website cataloging the info, but to sell it is wrong. JKR has the rights to the characters. It’s as simple as that. You aren’t allowed to use other peoples characters and ideas for profit unless they say you can. This one is pretty black and white kids.
Jo must feel so hurt to see someone like Steve Vander Ark, whom she praised so highly in the past, turning around and profiting off of her universe in such an obviously disrespectful way. I’d be angry too!
TLC and Mugglenet are both for-profit sites; they have advertising, they make money off of the HP universe. Mugglenet published their own book as well. What’s the difference?
The difference is that they’re showing ads like a billboard ona highway, not asking the fans to fork over money for access to JKR’s creations. Their product is their site, not the actual property of the books. That’s the difference. Profiting from purely placing JKR’s work between different covers, is hte difference. I wonder if this is why the Lexicon doesn’t have ads.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Moving the HBP film to July 2009 is:
- Completely unforgivable15 (46%)
- Annoying, but I'll get over it11 (34%)
- Not something I care about.1 (3%)
- Cool; who wants to go to the movies in the winter anyway?1 (3%)
- Awesome! I get to save $10 until next year.0 (0%)
- Awesome! I get to save $10 because now I'm skipping this movie!3 (9%)
- I've made a Facebook group, started a protest, called my local councilman, staged a sit-in, started a boycott, and organized a million-fan march because we won't stand for the - wait, what was this about again?1 (3%)
Derrick H., he’s publishing a book and trying to make a profit off of JKR’s work. That’s what’s wrong with it.
How would you feel if you created a book and world and someone tried to make a profit by publishing a book with your information in a different formate?