In The News
J.K. Rowling Updates "Companion Books" Article; RDR Books Responds
Companion BooksAs reported yesterday, WB and JKR filed suit yesterday over The Harry Potter Lexicon's intent to publish an encyclopedia. The action went hand-in-hand with a statement JKR had made on her Web site about not supporting unofficial companion books because they take away from the proposed book she will be writing for charity. Today she has updated that news posting:
"As is now widely known, a complaint has been filed in the name of Warner Bros and myself against the publisher of a proposed Lexicon, written by Steven VanderArk. This decision was reached, on my part, with immense sadness and disappointment, and only because direct appeals for a reasonable solution failed. I never dreamed, in the light of our previous good relations – including giving the Lexicon a Fansite Award - that this situation would ever arise.
From what I understand, the proposed book is not criticism or review of Harry Potter's world, which would be entirely legitimate – neither I nor anybody connected with Harry Potter has ever tried to prevent such works being published. It is, we believe, a print version of the website, except now the information that was freely available to everybody is to become a commercial enterprise.
It is not reasonable, or legal, for anybody, fan or otherwise, to take an author's hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain. However much an individual claims to love somebody else's work, it does not become theirs to sell."
UPDATE: RDR has now updated their website with a lengthy response, and has changed the title of their response page to read "Purveyors of quality literature (and the 1st Amendment) since 1983," a title that does not include the parenthetical elsewhere on the site. The article does not address RDR's alleged failure to reply to cease and desist letters or provide a review copy, and claims that the book is being published in part to "make its information available to underprivileged children and those in impoverished nations, who may have no access to computers or to the World Wide Web." It also claims the action began after RDR Books sought a cease-and-desist order for the timeline, which is disputed in the complaint filed in Manhattan federal court (which claims the first letter came weeks earlier). It also claims the attempt to stop publishing is an attempt to squelch the press and is a first amendment issue. Excerpts of the statement are as follows:
Does the Lexicon appear to have Ms. Rowling's blessing?
"No, the Lexicon makes it perfectly clear that this unique reference resource is in no way endorsed by Ms. Rowling or Warner Bros. ... It is an original book with a vast array of independently written scholarly articles.
Why did Warner Bros. and Ms. Rowling target the Lexicon when dozens of other similar reader's companions are on the market?
"At the moment, books published by Penguin (The Idiot's Guide), Mugglenet.com, Sparknotes, Broadway, Hampton Roads, Ulysses Press and many other publishers are in print around the world. At least 46 such books are presently available in bookstores and libraries....
The action against The Harry Potter Lexicon was commenced soon after we contacted Warner Bros. requesting fair compensation for their unauthorized use Mr. Vander Ark's copyrighted material on millions of DVDs. The court filing was followed within less than two hours by vast, carefully orchestrated international publicity campaign designed to impugn the reputations of Mr. Vander Ark and RDR Books."
Is this a First Amendment issue?
Yes. What's at stake here is the determination of Warner Bros. (which owns trademarks, not copyrights, on Harry Potter characters' names and place names) to limit freedom of the press. This entertainment conglomerate wants to stop books before they are published, which threatens our First Amendment rights. If they were able to stop this independent critical work, publishers and writers everywhere would find it more difficult to publish important books that benefit all of us. The chilling effect of this lawsuit is its attempt to add harsh new limitations to the principle that, in the immortal words of A. J. Leibling, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." When a person writes a book and publishes it, that book is subject to general analysis and criticism by the public. In the same sense that J. K. Rowling reviews a Jessica Mitford book in a London paper, critics like Mr. Vander Ark provide literary analysis and comment about Ms. Rowling's books.
Has Steve Vander Ark or RDR Books discussed the print publication of the Lexicon with J.K. Rowling?
>> No. We have been unable to contact her. Although Ms. Rowling has been named as a party to the lawsuit, the only discussion we have been able to have about the book has been in the form of threatening letters and abusive telephone calls from Warner Bros. staff attorneys and the New York office of a large international law firm that also purports to represent Warner Bros.
We continue to keep all lines of communication open at our end in the hope that we can resolve this matter so that readers of all ages can benefit from the scholarship of Mr. Vander Ark and other librarians and professors."
Thanks to Harry Latino for the heads-up.
Details of the lawsuit, as obtained by TLC, are below:
-The suit says any money award given to JKR or WB as a result of this suit will be donated to charity.
-It claims Steve Vander Ark made claims to rights in the Harry Potter series and threatened to sue WB.
-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.
rate this article
Interested in Companion Books?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
I’m going to add my voice to this topic and say that I’m behind JKR, but sad because she’s been forced to this position. I have enjoyed reading through the Lexicon and have found it to be a nice little site, a tribute to a fan’s love for a book and the world an author created. But, there’s a fine line between tribute and plagiarism. I don’t know if Steve crossed it on his own, or with some help from his lawyers and the publisher, but it was crossed. And, anyone who thinks that Jo is being too litigious, remember she’s protecting her work. How would you feel if it were you and you’d spent a decade of your life creating something out of nothing, and then have a host of people try to cash in on what you’d created.
Not to mention that Jo has had to deal with some pretty nasty people who don’t like her series, who’ve been mean and petty. They’ve tried to ban her books, they’ve accused her of being in it for the money, or practicing witchcraft, etc. They’ve said all sorts of mean things about her, her family and her work. She shouldn’t have to deal with someone who was supposed to be a fan who turned out to be just another person trying to make a buck off of her work. Shame on you Steve. I won’t be visiting the Lexicon ever again.
I’m with Jo. Steve was someone i always seen as a decent guy and i enjoyed listening to him on Pottercast when he did Cannon Conundrums but what he’s doing here is just wrong! He’s a complete hypocrite.
I cant believe some of these posts Im reading bashing Jo!!! How can you all sit there and say your a real fan and thinking rationally??? The only thing I hear when I read these posts are children screaming “We want more! We want more!” How much can this poor woman give us??? Honestly if she wanted to she could have just given us the 7 books said to hell with us and run off with her money. But no she stuck it out and gave us EVERY SINGLE LITTLE DETAIL WE’VE ASKED OF HER. Is that not enough? Are we asking her to use her works for our own advantages? To go against what states in the law as illegal and let us do it? Let someone else make money on all her hard earn 17 years worth of blood, sweat, and tears? Take away from charities that NEED the money? What are you going to ask for next????
Im surprised she even wants to write about the HP world anymore. I would be disgusted and say the money is not worth this abuse from people I dont even really know.
Re: publishing fanfics.
Isn’t there a rule about non-author written sequels, prequels and fictional companion books being written so many years after the original authors death? Hence the many Peter Pan and Jane Austen sequels out there?
This is just my curiousity right now, not related to Harry Potter or the Lexicon anymore.
“Steve’s book regurgitates the HP series. It gives the details of the characters and events that are written in the books already.”
True, but I don’t think ANYONE can argue that anyone will EVER think Steve created the Harry Potter charactors. Rowling is known for HP, shes a household name just as much as Harry himself. So I don’t think hes using her ideas to make money, if he were writing a fictional story about the charactors to publish, I could see the problem.
But this REFERENCE, this COMPILATION I think is compleatly different. He isn’t claiming its his own work, and I don’t think anyone of us could be foolish enough to think anyone will ever assume it is. Hes just organizing it, and I think that should be allowed. I think if I wanted to compile a book listing all the charactors in Lord of the Rings, providing information which quotes directly from the books, as long as I reference the books, and do not attempt change, develop, or add to the charactors, I think that should be alowed.
Again, I think Steve put a lot of work into the lexicon, probably giving the Potterverse more thought and more organization then JKR ever did herself, and I think he should be allowed to profit from the work if he so chooses.
I’m all for Jo. I never thought Steve would do something like this, but he IS the owner and is responsible for the encyclopedia. Think about it, about all Jo’s given us.. she’s been more than lenient. I don’t understand why he would want to make a book out of the Lexicon. I’m not saying I know the entire story. I’m just saying.
Thank you Leaky and Jo’s team for getting that information to us! This is much easier to understand.
Was this tiny little publisher the only one that Steve could get to buy his book? I visited their website and they’re certainly no great shakes. I have to wonder if larger publishers turned the book down because of the copyright issue.
There’s a rebuttal statement on the RDR website, but frankly most of their arguments don’t hold water. There is one point, I believe, that WB should clarify. Which lawsuit came first? Steve’s against WB or WB against Steve?
As I’ve said before, WB can go hang and I had faith that Jo would not let me down. I consider Jo and WB two very separate and distinct intities. Jo was instrumental in getting my dyslexic son to become a voracious reader. WB hasn’t done anything except change the books that have so inspired my son.
I’m TOTALLY with you, STEVE. Remember my words? Hugs from RITA and her mother
I do have to say that I’m with Jo on this… but I’m not going to be so quick to shun Steve Vander Ark. It really seems as if this was just an act of bad judgment on his part… he probably assumed that since so many other Harry Potter related books (primarily, Mugglenet’s book) have been published, his would be okay as well. And I don’t think that he wrote the book solely to make a profit, just as the Mugglenet crew didn’t write their book solely to make a profit. However, that still doesn’t make the book okay… and Steve’s publishing company definitely screwed up.
Ashes: “Hes just organizing it, and I think that should be allowed”
But it’s not allowed, legally, and he does cut-and-paste many phrases. The Lord of the Rings book (I think) has lost its copyright by now. Jo’s has not, and he’s overdoing the cut and paste. Yes, he’s spent a lot of work on it, yes, if he published it differently (with some changes) it would probably be legal, but the publishers have refused to discuss it.
Thanks, JKR, for your fantastic books – and thanks, Steve, for dedicating so much time to it – and I hope something can be worked out between them.
I dont think that Steve is doing it to make himself look like the guy who made HP but I do think that maybe he’s been bitter to the fact that the Lexicon is so much hard work and he gets no income from it.
“I think he should be allowed to profit from the work if he so chooses.”
The law says different. Otherwise anyone could nick stuff from anyone else and sell it on. But they can’t. As for not ‘using her ideas to make money’ of course he is.
Well done Rosa P and all of you who defend JO. I’m with you JKR! Jo’s Army, UNITE!
I am, of course, behind Jo on this one, but I feel bad for Steve. I’m sure he realises that he shouldn’t publish the book now, but it’s kind of out of his hands now. If he says anything, he could get sued by his publisher, and it’ll be a whole mess.
I have enjoyed this site and the lexicon site for a number of years now and it is with sadness that I now remove the lexicon from my favourites. It would sadden me further to have to remove TLC from my favourites. I hope that the editors will soon make their position on these recent events clear.
Thank you Mistral. It seems that now the series is over people resort to tabloid style hatred and stereotyping.
“Isn’t there a rule about non-author written sequels, prequels and fictional companion books being written so many years after the original authors death? Hence the many Peter Pan and Jane Austen sequels out there?”
I think it is 70 years after an author dies. It also depends on the type of work and when it was published, and what country.
Posted by marillawhite on November 01, 2007 @ 06:04 PM
Jo has allowed all sorts of analytical, speculative companion books and I have got a few of them and enjoyed reading them.But an encyclopaedia which takes her ideas and catalogues them is a different thing. Especially as she is planning do do the same thing herself. Permission needs to be sought and if not given then such a book cannot legally be published.
I think the problem arises from the fact that JKR had said that a HP encyclopedia was in the future. Her die hard fans knew this as did Mr VanderArk.
If she had never thought/mentioned it and SVA came up with the idea – no problem. SVA and RDR books start promoting a “HP encyclopedia”, shopping it to publishers in other countries, etc. Knowing what she had already planned.
If SVA had gone to JKR and asked, there probably would not be a problem, it may have been published, published abridged, or not at all.
It seems as though SVA went to RDR Books first. He may be in a contract with them that he cannot get out of, even though he might want to not publish the book or at the least work it out with JKR. RDR seems to be the one pushing forward with it now.
JKR and WB’s lawyers have been told the book will be a “print version” of the Lexicon. Which has chapters, quotes and illustrations directly from the HP series. Is this where the problem lies?
If SVA was just putting out a book of his own essays and drawings inspired by HP, I would back him completely, but there is so much of her original work on his site, I think there is much in the way of copyright infringement.
SVA does give WB the trademark mention at the bottom of every page, but nothing towards JKR’s copyright.
Hindsight being 20/20 he should have gone to JKR first.
I believe she is correct in trying to stop the publication. And hope it can be worked out peacefully.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
When do you think the trailer will be released?
- In front of "Get Smart"2104 (11%)
- In front of "Batman"5348 (30%)
- In front of "Hancock"991 (5%)
- In front of "Who cares, I'm just going to watch it online anyway"8798 (49%)
- I'll explain in the comments.577 (3%)
RJ, no, you cannot publish fanfics for profit. And yeah I think WB obviously copied the time line from the Lexicon but if you come down to it Steve does not own that timeline, and WB is being gracious in even letting him put it on the internet. The fact that he’s trying to bring that up in court is seriously making me LOL, it’s just going to make him look worse to the judge.