QUOTE* KioRustleweed
“Neptune, just because the book will make money, doesn’t mean he wrote simply because he wanted to make money.
Don’t confuse the two.”
Um, hello… Why else would he agree to sell the lexicon in book form when it’s already online FOR FREE if he didn’t want to make money from it.
“Um, hello… Why else would he agree to sell the lexicon in book form when it’s already online FOR FREE if he didn’t want to make money from it.”
Because he wanted to share his labor of love, his hard work for the fandom, in another medium.
If he really wanted to “Cash in” Steve would have skipped the FREE website part and just made the book.
Jane, No. You are wrong. JKR’s book will not be just “new stuff” and therefore “different than Steve’s”. It’s an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Everything is going be included in her edition. It’s going to be a comprehensive book, inclusive of everything we know (or Steve knows) and things we don’t. This is one of the main reasons why she wishes for their to be one book. Steve’s book would be redundant.
Neptune
Even if i’m behind JKR,the point people are trying to make is this:
they highly doubt that steve woke up one morning and thought “hey,i could make lots of money buy making a lexicon book” they believe that the more likely situation was a woke up one morning and thought “hey,i’d be really nice for fans to have the lexicon in printed format,like that they won’t need a computer to access it everytime they need it”
Of course,that doesn’t change the fact that despite his good intentions,what he’s doing is illigal.
I’m quoting this from Legal beagle over on the other comment board….
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’m surprised Steve would keep pushing the subject which is the way this sounds. I want to hear both sides of the story before I snap to any judgments.
I can see where the confusion started. As a couple others here noted, JKR is quite liberal when it comes to people using her literature to inspire art, music, fanfic and even other books; and even making money off of it. Steve’s book must really cross a line. It seems like the line here was that the HP books didn’t inspire the Lexicon book but were used to build every piece of it and the fact that JKR has said a few times that she’s going to publish something similar made the line a bit more clear.
The Lexicon is an awesome web site but maybe he should’ve just kept it on the web.
The encyclopedia about Pullman’s work costs $24.95. More quotage:
“I can’t recommend it too highly to the reader who’s found anything interesting or enjoyable in this story of mine. I know I’ve returned to it frequently during the writing of the book I’m doing now, and I know I’ll continue to do so.” —Philip Pullman
Sounds an awful lot like ”...I have been known to sneak into an internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop…etc…”
Mr. Pullman clearly knows the difference between a reference book done with intelligence, care, and love and a cheap cash cow. Mrs. Murray needs to listen to more librarians and teachers and fewer lawyers. She’s getting horrible advice that will affect the legacy of the Harry Potter series for years to come.
@Kelly, thank you. I did not realize the whole story earlier.
Whoknowswho, it depends on how you construct the reference book. If its primarily your own words, that’s one thing; if its primarily made up of another’s words (in this case, JKR’s), that does get into copyright issues.
freeluciusnow21, you have hit on an obvious solution, which would be to have the planned publication be co-authored, and bear JKR’s name as well. Rice got money from collaborating Ramsland. So, why not in this case, with JKR giving her share to charity if she wishes?
But, its now up to the contending legal teams to work out.
“Maybe someone can explain why it’s wrong to make money from making a reference book?”
It is only wrong if the referenced material therein has been lifted from someone else’s intellectual property, rather than information already within the public domain. JKR owns the world she created and no-one has the right to sell a version of that without her agreement.
It was very nice of Steve to compile Harry Potter facts into a free-to-use fan site we can all share and enjoy.
It is very ignorant of him and his publisher to think they can make money off of it.
They should have cooperated; it seems so far that Jo and her people were trying to be amiable. He might even had the book published after all, if it was deemed to not infringe.
It is an unfortunate turn of events, but it seems Steve brought it upon himself here. Now even if the book did reach the shelves, I don’t think it would do very well. I would say this is a rare exception to “there is no such thing as bad PR.”
freelucius21 said: “I still think that a fan has a right to an unofficial book. If they spent the time to go through the books maticulously, they deserve to have the guide and to publish it.”
What colour is the sky in your world? A fan has the RIGHT to publish an unofficial book. Wrong. Dead wrong. Just because someone “spends the time” to do something does NOT mean they DESERVE anything, let alone being paid. This reaks of entitlement, and it’s disgusting.
Furthermore, many people write original books and screenplays that are never published. Do they DESERVE to be paid for it just because they “spent the time”? What if the writing is horrible, should they still be paid even if the work is horrible?
Just because you “care” about something and spend time building it does not guarantee anything. Life does not work that way.
What I’m struggling to understand is a) Why the publishers didn’t make some adjustments to the book b) There have been other (worse) reference books out there, and they’ve gotten the okay, and if SVA would have altered the Lexicon, it would have been the same as the others, just better c)JKR’s encyclopedia is entirely different from a reference book, and I would get it for the new stuff, not the old info
I think Jo is instructing her lawyers to reveal all this information because she now realises the backlash against her. Many respected and long standing members of this fandom are now turning against her – I think what she has done is appalling. Why shouldn’t Steve make a little bit of money after all he has done for the fandom and Jo over all these years? Leaky makes money, so does MN. Why not the Lexicon?
Oh, I love coming to Leaky for thoughtful, rational conversation, where people weigh their words and can discuss any topic with open minds and logic.
For those who insist on bringing up the Dumbledore Revelation—look, we all suffered through about two weeks of that nastiness. This thread is about the sad situation surrounding the planned publication of a “lexicon”, exact contents not disclosed. Please discuss the Dumbledore stuff somewhere else, not here, and I promise not to pay the slightest attention to you.
For those getting into heated shouting matches, please stop. You are detracting from the conversation.
And to those trying to make sense out of the snippets of information about the planned publication of a ‘lexicon’ and the current legal situation, thank you for your calm, your patience, and your insights.