If anyone wants a full detailed explaination as to why this is an illegal attempt on Ark’s behalf, go check out praetorianguard’s blog on the subject: http://praetorianguard.livejournal.com/270707.html

It’s a very good read and explains the legality issues.

Other than that, I support any artist, film-makers or author’s right to protect their work, REGARDLESS of how much money they have in the bank! Stop being to fickle, people, you just come off envious and shallow.

To Melissa and the rest of Leaky’s staff: Thank you for bringing us these facts in a professional, objective manner. We’re very lucky to have a source of real journalism from people who know so much about the books, the author, and the fandom.

I was especially pleased to see your statement that the opinions expressed in this piece “do not constitute The Leaky Cauldron’s opinion or claim (of which it has none).”

Kimberly, no apologies for my calling it what the local university calls it… I just called it the new name out of habit and then wanted to explain it was really the same thing.

Thanks to those who posted the blogs. I have to say, I disagree with the first attorney, or at least if I was a juror listening to his argument, he wouldn’t convince me. Whether or not the profits for Jo’s compendium/encyclopedia goes to charity, or just her royalties, is completely irrelevant. If she was keeping all the money, it would still be a case of possible copyright infringement.

Also, if it is true that it was due to be published on November 28, it is complete BS that they don’t have a copy to give to the attorney’s for WB and JK Rowling.

Those of you who have written essays for the Lexicon need to take some sort of web “snapshot” if possible – to show whether or not there is something that stated if you submit your essay that you give permission for it to be published on paper.

I agree with those who say that all this sad business might force JKR distance herself from her fans. She used to do these cute things, like comment on fandom, give fansites awards, freely talk to her fans. Well, I suspect now she is getting some sobering legal advice – not to do it anymore. Some other writers, like Terry Pratchett, admit to be very careful as to how they interact with their fans – precisely because of possible copyright issues and lawsuits involving former devoted fans…

Interesting article and detailed comments in the Wall Street Journal’s Law blog:

http://tinyurl.com/yslawd

An interesting bit of info – I searched “Harry Potter reference” and other related searches – and this is what I got. I have a sneaking suspiccion that the Lexicon is no different from some of these books – maybe more complete. How are all these books different from SVA’s?

The Unofficial Harry Potter Encyclopedia: Harry Potter A – Z by Kristina Benson (Paperback – Jul 7, 2007)

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the World of Harry Potter (Complete Idiot’s Guide to) by Tere Stouffer (Paperback – Oct 2, 2007)

Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter (Analysis of Book 5) by Galadriel Waters, E. L. Fossa, Astre Mithrandir, and E.L. Fossa (Paperback – Jul 8, 2005)

Fact, Fiction, and Folklore in Harry Potter’s World: An Unofficial Guide by George W. Beahm, Tim Kirk, and Britton McDaniel (Paperback – Jun 30, 2005)

The Sorcerer’s Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek (Paperback – Aug 10, 2004

Muggles and Magic: An Unofficial Guide to J.k. Rowling and the Harry Potter Phenomenon by George W. Beahm and Tim Kirk (Paperback – April 11, 2007)

The Pottersaurus: 1,500 Words Harry Potter Readers Need to Know by Eric D. Randall (Paperback – April 26, 2007)

Mugglenet.Com’s What Will Happen in Harry Potter 7: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Falls in Love and How Will the Adventure Finally End by Ben Schoen, Emerson Spartz, Andy Gordon, and Gretchen Stull (Paperback – Nov 20, 2006)

The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter: A Treasury of Myths, Legends, and Fascinating Facts by David Colbert (Paperback - May 4, 2004)

The Definitive Harry Potter Guide Book Series: The Prisoner of Azkaban by Marie Lesoway (Spiral-bound – 2001)

The Definitive Harry Potter Guide Book Series: The Philosophers Stone by Marie Lesoway (Spiral-bound – 2001)

An Unofficial Muggle’s Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring the Harry Potter Universe by Fionna Boyle (Paperback – Sep 1, 2004)

A Muggles Guide To The Wizarding World: Exploring The Harry Potter Universe: Fionna Boyle Paperback, 2004

Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter: Astre Mithrandir, Galadriel Waters Paperback, 2003

Mapping the World of Harry Potter: Mercedes Lackey Paperback, 2006

The Plot Thickens… Harry Potter Investigated By Fans For Fans: Galadriel Waters Paperback, 2004

The Harry Potter Companion: Acascias Riphouse Paperback, 2004

A Detective’s Analysis of Harry Potter and the Mysteries Within: Mary C. Baumann Hardcover, 2004

I wish people would stop assuming that because people have money, they are greedy. We really have no idea what JKR does with her fortune, we are not her accountants. Occasionally we hear about her giving to charities, but this does not neccessarily mean that she does not give money to charity that we do not know about. I mean come on, the woman started her own charitable organization, I find it hard to believe that she does not contribute money to that organization rather frequently.

Some are also claiming that the Lexicon book would not take away proceeds from Rowling’s book. Their evidence: I would buy both. I’m sure most die-hard fans would by both, but the problem is that most fans are not die-hard fans. Most fans have never ventured onto the internet HP world and would not know that there are two encyclopedias: the Lexicon’s and Jo’s future encyclopedia. So let me set up a situation: A standard Harry Potter fan (one who has read at least most of the books at least once, but doesn’t know a thing about online Harry Potter news and fandom) walks into a bookstore and sees “Harry Potter Lexicon.” For whatever reason, they buy it. Two or three years later they walk into the bookstore again and see “Harry Potter Encyclopedia.” Because they don’t go online and get all the good information they probably won’t realize that there is a difference between these two books. They’ll think, why in the world should I buy another encyclopedia, especially since they probably hardly ever even used the first one they bought.

This is one of the comments in the wall street journal’s blog link that someone posted on page 4. I thought it was an interesting read.

“Ah, the deja vu! Looking over Rowling’s complain to the court, I had a delightful flashback to days not so long ago when, defending myself in Seattle federal court, I took on what must be the second wealthiest literary property in the English-speaking world, that of J. R. R. Tolkien. Now there’s a remarkably similar case coming from what must be the wealthiest literary property on the planet.

There are the same nasty attacks, alleging illicit motivations on the part of defendants that the Rowling’s lawyers have no way of knowing. Consider them lies, because that’s what they were in my case. You should also consider flipping the allegations of greed around. Never, when lawyers are involved, neglect their enormous desire to bill as many hours as possible to a deep-pocketed client. There’s undoubtedly more greed per square inch in the Times Square offices of O’Melveny & Myers than there is at all of Michigan-based RDR Books (a company whose list of titles demonstrates a love of good literature)–much less the original source of the book at the fan website of hp-lexicon.org.

You can also see hints of that billable-hours greed in the rather pitiful attempt one of the Rowling’s lawyer makes to describe her books. A lover of great literature he is not: “Over the course of these seven books, Harry learns many new things, makes new friends, travels, and has many adventures.” That’s how a fifth-grader writes a book report. In this case that fifth-grader, now grown old and cranky, was billing Rowling perhaps $500/hour. That sort of pay will make almost anyone think they’re a literary genius.

Fortunately, in law, money doesn’t always win. The Tolkien estate must have spent close to a quarter of a million dollars trying to stop my book-length Lord of the Rings chronology, Untangling Tolkien. I spent some $4,000 to utterly vanquish them. Just before a judge would have responded to concurrent motions for summary judgment, they bailed out, offering in a letter to settle for a “few changes.” Three months later the judge changed their “little hope” to “no hope” by dismissing their lawsuit “with prejudice.” You can find my book on Amazon and traces of my fair use arguments to the court in the last chapter.

Lawyers can be strange. In the Rowlings complaint, there’s an attempt to put the billionaire Rowlings into the role of a struggling writer for whom every penny counts. Only a lawyer with a large, six-figure income would try to portray her as a victim, particularly since her stated rationale is nothing more than a monopolistic desire prevent any competition to an encyclopedia she wants to write. A good defense lawyer could make mincemeat of her claims there. Numerous copyright disputes have made it clear that no author, fictional or non-fictional, can silence critics. The public interest in that is so great, that in the Beannie Babies case a few years back, it cast aside a visual copyright to any commercial use of pictures of the collectable doll.

The biggest weakness in the RDR Book lawsuit may be that their book is too nice with her corpus. It should take a critical look at where her plot is weak and her characters unconvincing. My Tolkien chronology did that. His time line was remarkably accurate, but I do point out the few places he got it wrong. In the eyes of a court, an author (or in my case, Tolkien’s son Christopher), can’t be trusted to do that. And what matters with something as trite as collectable dolls, certainly matters for one of the bestselling books on the planet.

RDR Books also has one marvelous advantage that I didn’t have, the fact that much of their book has apparently been posted for years on a fan website with Rowlings and her lawyers doing nothing about it. Given the modest profit margins of most small publishers and the little or nothing that the contributors to this book will be getting, the “commercial” portion of copyright fair use will carry little weight before a fair court. By not enforcing her claims with websites, she’s virtually conceded them for a book. The downside of that is when lawyers see that, they’ll get nasty with fan websites. But then intellectual property lawyers are always getting into nasty little snits, all the more so when their cases are weak.

And that brings up Rowling’s primary advantage. The case has been filed in SDNY-the Southern District of New York, because there the court, operating cheek-and-jowl with powerful NYC publishers, is notoriously tilted in favor of rich copyright holders. It’s the intellectual property equivalent of lawsuits filed against giant corporations in obscure Marshall, Texas.

You see that bias in how Manhattan IP lawyers often act before judges. My opponent was so used to differential-to-plaintiffs SDNY judges, he blundered badly before the Ninth Circuit judge in my case. I still smile when I recall his attempt to tell the judge how she ought to rule in one of our disputes. He was on the phone from Manhattan. I was a few feet away from the judge and could sense her growing impatience. Needless to say, I won.

In my case, virtually all the decisions my opponents were citing came from a few 1998 rulings in the SDNY, decisions that have been soundly criticized in law journals and that, fortunately for me, do not bind a Ninth Circuit court. In the almost a decade since those decisions, no other circuit has bought the Second Circuit’s rather extreme claims about the reach of a fictional copyright (i.e. banning unauthorized reader’s guides). One Midwest court even dismissed the Second Court’s argument as “frivolous,” which indeed it was.

The one good thing about this dispute is that it may force the Second Circuit to recant its 1998 blunder. I had the counsel for a university press tell me that, since those rulings, his press has avoid publishing anything about popular, contemporary fiction. That’s precisely the “chilling effect” the fair use provisions of copyright law are intended to prevent.

–Michael W. Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien

P.S. I assert no copyright to these remarks, so Harry Potter websites are free to post what I’ve written here online. And if Steve Vander Ark would contact me through my website, InklingBooks.com, I’d be happy to offer him advice as someone who’s been through what he’s been through.”

Comment by Michael W. Perry – November 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Some more legalese (copyright issues only):

http://www.mayitpleasethecourt.com/ journal.asp?blogid=1667

Chthonia – if I didn’t know better, I’d think you’re Steve himself … :) Chris – LOL, indeed! Very refreshing …

For the rest – beyond all the Legalese, I simply still do not understand how SVA could do this to Jo – and us – after it had obviously become clear very quickly that she didn’t think it was a good idea.

As has been said before, THAT would have been the point to drop it.

Ah – it appears the Lexicon troops are out in force. But really – that Michael W. Perry comment backfires badly: what a self-righteous creep!

He’s not arguing the merits of his work at all, only how he won against a big literary estate. His entire rant is completely beside the point: it does not matter how “big” his opponent is, how much money JKR has and SVA does not have, whether or not RDR has a love of literature (!). Copyright is necessary precisely because of people like him, who have no scruples whatsoever to profit from others’ work.

And he may have some experience with such a court case – and hence certainly isn’t exactly unbiased – but he’s doing precisely what he accuses WB of: making “nasty attacks, alleging illicit motivations”. Pathetic. Not enough talent to come up with anything worthwhile of his own and just seeking to cash in on others’.

Finally – his presumption is breathtaking: “I assert no copyright to these remarks, so Harry Potter websites are free to post what I’ve written here online.” LOL. Goodness knows, we wouldn’t want to miss that.

Just for the records: I am nobody’s “trooper” and I don’t post on behalf of the Lexicon.

Though, I think the Lexicon is impressive. Some years ago, I spent many hours on the site – with the time-lines, later on with the maps, and, above all, with the linguistic references, e.g. to strictly British language use. This is such a help for non-anglophones who read and re-read the original version of the Potter books; it helped me to understand what JKR has written. I abhorred most of the Lexcion’s artwork; anyway, I considered the Lexicon as much more interesting than the fan-sites and forums (sorry, just being honest and just being too old for unbiased fandom).

It takes two to tango, as they say. I do legal work (and I run a writer’s blog under Creative Commons; when referring to others’ work, which I frequently do, I must be constantly aware of copyright issues). The lawsuit upset me because I tend to be partisan in ‘Goliath vs David’ cases. And a small publishing house in Michigan is David, compared to Goliath WB. One of the basic principles of fair trial is: ‘Et altera pars audietur’.

Well, tomorrow is Monday; another working week begins, so I won’t be able to post any more. I say goodbye to you all, best wishes.

Thank you for continuing to cover this story in detail and giving both sides an opportunity to share. I have always thought Melissa et al. were great and I am even more impressed. It’s great to have a journalist at the helm of a site like this! I am also very impressed since I am imagine this is a difficult situation given your relationship with Steve and Jo.

You know, I have given this a lot more thought, and I am about to risk alienating many fans who insist on defending WB and the WB Lawyers, who I feel are the real culprits here. Could anyone be deluded enough to really believe that WB is opperating on good faith here? If so, I have a lake in the middle of Arizona I’d like to sell you. Have people forgotten that WB in 2001, prior to the release of the first film, shot out a number of ceast and desist letters to a number of HP fan sites? If I recall, wasn’t their knee-jerk rationalization was that the fan sites might deminish the value of the franchise? I have to admit, if the issue has to do with the book being a ‘reference based book’, plenty of other published books about Potter have reference materials. Why the sudden change? The WB Lawyers are not above stretching the truth and paint a bleak picture fro the personal aims. For instance, Steve’s previous comment that’s quoted in the brief about protecting his own intellectual propperty. I remember that post from the Lexicon’s comment and it was in reference to someone else, who runs another HP fan site, who was copying his writing, claiming it as their own and profiting from it, which triggered legal action by Steve’s lawyers. Do I agree that Steve should have handled this matter differently and distanced himself from RDR? yes I do. Do I trust the WB lawyers? No I don’t. That’s based on their corporate track record. The last point is my concern and I am aware that it might be sacrilegious to many fans to say this. Yet perhaps JK Rowling learn a lesson and take a page out of George Lucas. Lucas used to have the good will of his fan base until he squandered it. Joanne needs to not assume the fan base will not walk away if there’s a continual stream of controversy. All phenomenon’s have their cycles, people drift away and loose interest. While I admit there will always be the loyal fan’s. Joanne should not take for granted this juggernaut will remain this way forever. Based on what I’ve observed concerning pop culture, all phenomenons loose steam sooner or later. That’s just reality folks. Bottom line, I’m not willing to put blind faith in the corporate lawyers.

Sadly, from RDR’s terrible defense and from it’s own description of the lexicon book, I can see that JKR has every legal right to sue. It is copyright infringement, and it is entirely based off her work.

My question is: Why can’t she just let him publish anyway?

The idea that Steve’s book would take money away from hers is laughable. Nobody HP obsessed enough to buy the lexicon would NOT buy JKR’s own encyclopedia. Likewise, the argument that his book would take away money from charity is unfair. If JKR’s so worried about the charity, why doesn’t she just let Steve publish his book, and donate some extra money herself? After all, she can surely afford it. Steve worked incredibly hard on his lexicon, and, while he has no legal right to sell it, I think he has done enough work as a dedicated fan that JKR should simply let him. She’s got nothing to lose, and suing him for doing something that does not detract from (In fact, I’d certainly say it adds to) her or her work in any way is unnecessarily heartless.

If I was an author, and somebody put that much work into my fictional universe, I’d be thrilled.