Today, TLC spoke to Diane Nelson, President of Warner Premiere, Warner Bros., who takes care of global brand management for HP, and Richard Harris, spokesperson for RDR Books, regarding the recently filed lawsuit against the publication of an unofficial Harry Potter encyclopedia, aiming to answer fan questions and clear up some confusion. A summation of each discussion is below. Please be reminded that no part of these discussions constitutes a legal answer to any of the claims made in the suit, or has legally binding implications. Also, the opinions and claims in each portion are owed to the agency discussed and do not constitute The Leaky Cauldron’s opinion or claim (of which it has none).
Warner Bros.
The original contact came about because the agencies became aware, in early September, that the Harry Potter Lexicon was slated to be published.
WB says they made numerous efforts to work with the publishing house, asking after the manuscript and offering to help make sure the book did not infringe and could be published without complaint, and all efforts were rebuffed.
The letter claiming rights on the DVD timeline was sent to the CEO of WB and seemed to them like an effort to take attention away from the cease and desist claims. The cease and desist letters constituted an attempt to open a dialogue.
The company claims they registered surprise at the letters from RDR, repeating that the Lexicon site is terrific, but that the proposed book fundamentally infringes J.K. Rowling’s rights.
WB claims to spend hundreds of hours vetting dozens of these types of books each year, and only goes to court (as in the case of Tanya Grotter) when the authors are not willing to make the necessary modifications.
It’s incumbent upon WB to act to protect J.K. Rowling’s rights in order to retain the rights; failure to act may in some (or future) situations be seen as giving up of rights. WB feels it has worked with fans in many ways, by providing elements and materials to allow them to continue in a manner that isn’t commercial. It granted Steve Vander Ark and the Lexicon the rights to use some of its art non-commercially, back in 2001.
According to WB, J.K. Rowling doesn’t have a problem with people publishing or commercially gaining from commentary or analysis, but reconfiguration of her work doesn’t apply.
The British publisher of the Lexicon book is cooperating with WB’s requests and engaging in a dialogue, but it isn’t the case in the U.S.
WB doesn’t feel this is an issue of first amendment rights, and that there are unequivocally no rights owed to the Lexicon for a timeline deriving from the rights of others.
There is no intention to have this suit apply to other fan endeavors such as web sites, wizard rock, etc.
RDR Books
All the following information is according to the RDR spokesperson, Richard Harris, and may be amended upon further discussions with the company.
RDR claims that Steve Vander Ark originally contacted J.K. Rowling, they think “via letters…over a period of months,” to ask to work with her to create an encyclopedic resource, and was rebuffed, which is when he sought out a publisher for the Lexicon. He made no further contact to the J.K. Rowling camp.
Roger Rapoport, the president of the company, was not in Germany selling rights to the book when the suit says he ways, says Mr. Harris. He was with his wife and brother-in-law, the latter of whom died of cancer at that time, and was the reason for which Mr. Rapoport asked for a good faith delay in answering the suit. [The suit claims that Mr. Rapoport was working on selling the rights to the book in Germany at this time, not that he was physically there.]
The book, according to RDR, is “a lexicon or reader’s guide. We’re not calling it an encyclopedia. [J.K. Rowling’s objection is that specifically we were calling it an encyclopedia.]”
[The suit does not claim that a name change will solve the issue or purport that the book was called an encyclopedia.]
The book contains critical analysis from “Steven Vander Ark and his staff.” When asked what he meant by critical analysis Mr. Harris said, “You can go to the site and read the articles. I’m not going to itemize them for you.” Questioned further he said “the book was typeset directly from the site,” and that it was word-for-word taken from the web site. (The RDR Web site now says “The entire book is drawn verbatim from the material that presently appears on Steve Vander Ark’s website.”)
RDR claims the book is not an infringement because “it’s a critical and educational review,” and, “we are not simply rearranging information.” Mr. Harris said a large portion of the book was “probably” typeset from the lexicon directly, though had “no idea” what proportion of the book is essays as compared to a catalogue of info. (However, there have been statements by Lexicon staff quoting Steve, that state there will be no essays in the book. Some essay authors are stating publicly that they have not been approached for permission.)
RDR claims not to have given JKR’s people a copy of the book because “we don’t have a copy to give them…because the book hasn’t been published yet.” Asked why they didn’t hand over a manuscript, Mr. Harris said, “how would it benefit us in any way? This is the result of a barrage of letters from their lawyers in the last two months. Late i the game they came forward and wanted to see the manuscript, after they’ve been threatening to sue us and everything. How is it going to help us in any way to show them the manuscript except to provide them with more information. At this stage are they going to say, ‘Oh, we’re sorry?’ and go away? I don’t think so.”
The publisher claims WB has been “threatening and abusive” since the beginning, and claims RDR would have been happy to discuss the book with them at any point.
RH: They received lots of response. We repeatedly told them yeah, give us a call, give Roger a call, and he will talk to you about it. TLC: That’s not what they put forth in their legal document. RH: [laughs] I know that’s not what they put forth in their legal document. Well aware of it. TLC: Then I want to make this clear because it’s serious: You’re saying that they bore false witness in that document. RH: We’ll answer that in our answer.
RDR Books admits that letters began in early September but claims that the original letters to come did not mention Warner Bros. Warner Bros. has told TLC that all letters clearly stated WB as a party.
RDR claims to have made an attempt to settle the matter quickly, and was rebuffed (WB has yet to respond to this claim).
Further questioned about whether the timeline of communications in the lawsuit is, therefore, correct, Mr. Harris said he did not have an answer.
RDR claims there are many factual errors in the suit but declined to discuss them individually before the case is answered legally.
It’s RDR’s position that the Lexicon did not need permission to do work on the book.
Disclaimer: These interviews do not constitute legally binding arguments.
The Harry Potter Lexicon has posted a statement on its “What’s New” page:
Dear Friends,
I would like to thank each and every one of you for your support in recent days. Everyone here at the Lexicon, all volunteers, regrets the unpleasantness. We have always been interested in working with the publishers of the novels to satisfy their concerns, interests and needs and we certainly do not plan nor have we ever planned to publish anything which competes with Ms. Rowling’s fine literary capabilities. Our work has nothing to do with fiction writing and is only concerned with legitimate critical analysis and academic considerations. It has been widely approved and employed by Ms. Rowling herself.
My book was started in response to many, many people who talked to me and asked if there could be a print version of the Lexicon, not in some sort of attempt to profit off of fans. Because the material for the book was not only accepted but praised and used frequently by every entity concerned with creating the Harry Potter books, games, and films, I would never have thought that a print version could be judged differently.
I sincerely hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and ask for you patience and understanding during that process.
Steve
Steve Vander Ark
The Harry Potter Lexicon
The Harry Potter Lexicon is a partner site to the Leaky Cauldron.
Firstly, I would like to jump on the bandwagon and again thank Leaky for their integrity in reporting on this issue…
I am really quite surprised that there is any argument at all about whether or not the book violates copyright laws. I am certainly no lawyer, but I understand how WB and Jo feel that the precedent needs to be set, however unfortunate the circumstances. From what I have heard (and I’ve only read about this on Leaky), the whole thing sounds rather sketchy. If they had nothing to hide, I don’t understand why they did not send a manuscript.
And about the best I can say for SVA is that I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he got horrible legal advice. (The lawyers must have been worse than the publishers…) Even if that is true, I have a hard time believing that he did not realize that such a book would be a violation of copyright laws. Someone posted that he has a M.L.S.? I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I have a graduate degree in an arts-related discipline and rules about citing, quoting, plagiarizing, etc. were definitely beat into our heads. I was even advised not to quote a source in my thesis (it was an obscure German periodical from the 1820’s) because of an issue with reference information, and no one was going to get upset about copyright laws for that… And, even if this whole thing did stem from naivete on SVA’s part, I think he will still be held partially responsible. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, though I am certainly of the opinion that it is the publishers who are the biggest problem in the equation.
“And about the best I can say for SVA is that I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he got horrible legal advice.”
No kidding. Whoever his lawyers are, they did a terrible job vetting this publisher. And whoever told him that copying the site over into a book wouldn’t infringe on copyrights should have their heads examined. It’s just a lousy situation all around.
Well said, chiara! I agree with everything you’ve said there!
Again, thanks to Leaky for taking the time to contact the parties involved and report back to us.
My reaction to this article (sorry if it’s very, very long): For all the people who keep saying that they would buy both the books and that JKR is just money-grubbing, even if it is for charity – the article specifically states that if WB does not protect JKR’s rights to these characters, it could be seen as giving up the rights. So whether she would mind having the Lexicon published or not, she can’t legally allow it without there being a chance she would give up the rights to her characters, etc.
To valuereflection: Just because the British publisher is “engaging in a dialogue” with WB, does not mean they have given a copy of the manuscript to WB.
On the timeline suit: Yes, it sucks that WB may have taken the timeline that was effectively a lot of time and work for Steve to make. However, Steve still doesn’t have the right to that timeline, because it is composed of information that is copyrighted to JK Rowling, and it was not endorsed by her when he made it. Fair or not, that’s the law.
I find the first paragraph of RDR’s statement to be somewhat alarming. Steve asked Jo if she wanted to go together on an encyclopedia. She didn’t reply. So he decided to publish his, which is pretty clearly a copyright violation, with “no futher contact” to Jo or her representatives. HOW was that a good idea?
I find it funny that there have to be small interjections of the facts – the bits in square brackets – throughout RDR’s statement. It really doesn’t reflect well on their accuracy.
Then in the next two paragraphs, Mr. Harris says first that the book is typset directly from the site, and then that it is “probably” typeset from the site. Also, it’s totally unacceptable that he doesn’t know how much of the book is essays vs. potential-copyright-violation.
Quote: “How is it going to help us in any way to show them the manuscript except to provide them with more information. At this stage are they going to say, ‘Oh, we’re sorry?’ and go away? I don’t think so.””
Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what they’re saying. Repeatedly.
This whole thing reminds me of the old quote that says there are three sides to every story; yours, mine, and what really happened. We clearly do not have all the facts here, and we certainly will not find out by listening to the lawyers for either side. I strongly suspect that in the end, this will end up being very minor, and we will be saying, “wait, you wanted to go to court for THAT?”
What concerns me about publishing these “interviews” is that it’s clear that the interview with WB is biased in their favor. For example, the word “claims” is only used once (in regard to the timeline) in the “interview” with WB while the word is used repeatedly in the interview with RDR. For example, in the WB “interview” Leaky writes: “The company registered surprise” not, the “The company claims to have registered surprise.” Leaky takes that as fact, while it uses the word “claims” over and over again in their “interview” with RDR.
I could go on doing the analysis but it’s clear that Leaky is siding with WB – and who can blame you? They are your pipeline to insider info and if you tick them off – well, we can imagine what affect that will have your relationship with WB.
My advice in all of this is for the Leaky Cauldron to issue a blackout on the story (as you did on HP spoilers”) until it’s settled. I say that as a friend of Leaky for many, many years.
zr
Posted by ZoeRose on November 03, 2007 @ 11:42 AM
You are kidding, right? You don’t need to “claim” that you felt something – the company would be the first hand source to say that they were surprised. The WB side of the article is peppered with “According to” and “says” type of language. WB also only stated things that have already been confirmed – Richard Harris (hee, hee!) stated clearly that there were letters from JKR, etc., so Leaky authors don’t need to state that WB claimed to send cease and desist letters.
This is NOT my area of expertise at all, but as a former low-level legal secretary, a cease and desist letter would absolutely be necessary, and responding to it WOULD open up the dialogue that RH claims they wanted. Also, how could they “discuss” the book with WB and JKR if they won’t give either one a copy?
Also, its a critical review??? Yet still named “Lexicon”???? Heavens, perhaps they all need to get something known as a “thesaurus” or a “dictionary” – as a “lexicon” does not mean a written critical review!!!!
groovyyaya: Thank you. ZoeRose, there are many more disclaimers, “said”s, “according to”s, “claims” and other reminders that these views do not represent Leaky’s (despite the big sentence at the top that says nothing in the article represents Leaky’s view – and the one at the bottom too), than is ever usually necessary in a news article.
Chthonia : “Heck, I think it’s a crying shame that the publishers didn’t employ the Lexicon years ago to proof-read the books; they might have saved themselves some howlers if they had.” LOL ! How I agree with you, as an “obsessionnal” reader of the books!
Thanks Valuereflexion for the infos about the English to be (or not to be!) publication. More news tomorrow, then.
And thanks again to The Leaky. For me, the only good point of these “case” is that, needing (from France) real and “objective” discussion about it, I am discovering the Leaky Comments, and fully appreciating.
Thanks for the thanks! I’m tickled that you read my comment! :)
I may be a former low-level legal secretary (only worked for the state… earned the title on the job, not through school) but I am also a former English teacher, and I have to say I thought your article was well written. If someone is assuming that one side has a stronger argument than the other, it isn’t because the writing on here is biased towards one side – it may be because the parties involved have a strong or weak argument, not because of poor reporting!
I spoke before as a former legal secretary, but now I’m putting on my former English teacher wizard hat… if it is true that this Steve fellow has a Library Science masters – well, I’m sorry… it is obvious that he did not take classes that covered copyright infringement, etc. As a former English and History teacher and someone who has contemplated getting a Master’s Degree in Library and Information Studies (the new term for Library Science), I was always VERY concerned about students crossing the lines of plagarism or copyright enfringement, and tried to impress the ideas of respecting someone’s work. Free speech is not a cut and dried matter. You may have the freedom to SAY something, but that does not automatically protect you from the consequences of your statements or actions.
Ultimately, my first reaction when reading the article was: Why would Ms. Rowling WANT to write her Encyclopedia with this Steve guy? Sure he was a good reader who remembered details from the books that he wrote down on a website, but ultimately the “canon” is in her head – and she has proven that she is a great, detailed writer who doesn’t need assistance. Now, I could imagine myself in her shoes – finished with the encyclopedia, wanting someone to read and proofread this work – and who better than some of the ultimate fans who have created some wonderful websites, etc.as well as the editors who have worked with her from the beginning? But, would I go to the “Lexicon” if I were her even if I had given them a fansite award? Nope… I’d probably go to Leaky and Muggle.net, as she has before for interviews, etc. Also, editing and proofreading are VERY different than co-writing or collaberation. I’ve edited plenty of legal papers – but I do not expect to have my name on them as one of the authors. In ANYTHING I edit, my role is to help the author be the best she or he can be in terms of clarity anc accuracy.
As I said the saddest part about RDR’s defense is that it forces Jo to be more careful with regards to praising fans and their website and interacting with them thus allowing them some sort of “celebrity” status. It affects the entire HP fandom.
I mean c’mon, I don’t care how organized Lexicon is, but who does he think he is that he could collaborate with J.K. with canon that is entirely her creation. That’s like saying you are entitled to cooperate with George Lucas just because you’re the biggest Star Wars geek! His head simply got too big.
groovyyaya, I’m sorry if Library Science isn’t correct. It is still called that at my University. I was actually scrolling through ready to write about the use of “claims” and “according tos” in much the same way that you did. So thanks :)
Also, that link to the attorney’s blog was quite interesting. I wish that guy could read more of the site and make further comment…but that is selfish and I know it.
"I've been telling Dumbledore from the start, he can be as high-minded as he likes, but you can bet old Karkaroff and Maxime won't be. They'll have told their champions everything they can. They want to win. They want to beat Dumbledore. They'd like to pr
Firstly, I would like to jump on the bandwagon and again thank Leaky for their integrity in reporting on this issue…
I am really quite surprised that there is any argument at all about whether or not the book violates copyright laws. I am certainly no lawyer, but I understand how WB and Jo feel that the precedent needs to be set, however unfortunate the circumstances. From what I have heard (and I’ve only read about this on Leaky), the whole thing sounds rather sketchy. If they had nothing to hide, I don’t understand why they did not send a manuscript.
And about the best I can say for SVA is that I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he got horrible legal advice. (The lawyers must have been worse than the publishers…) Even if that is true, I have a hard time believing that he did not realize that such a book would be a violation of copyright laws. Someone posted that he has a M.L.S.? I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I have a graduate degree in an arts-related discipline and rules about citing, quoting, plagiarizing, etc. were definitely beat into our heads. I was even advised not to quote a source in my thesis (it was an obscure German periodical from the 1820’s) because of an issue with reference information, and no one was going to get upset about copyright laws for that… And, even if this whole thing did stem from naivete on SVA’s part, I think he will still be held partially responsible. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, though I am certainly of the opinion that it is the publishers who are the biggest problem in the equation.