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.
Other new details are as follows: Following yesterday’s post which said there was a possibility that essays would be included in the Lexicon, several Lexicon essay writers have publicly said that they were not asked for permission to have their essay reprinted, and some essay writers have been assured by Lexicon staff that there will be no essays in the book at all. We have asked the publisher which is correct and will amend this post if we get an answer.
Update: RDR books answered our query with a lengthy statement that neither confirmed nor denied. We’ve asked for a more direct answer and have yet to receive one.
Update 2: TLC has received word via a reliable source that the initial email to Steve Vander Ark and RDR Books was phrased as an attempt to appeal to the Lexicon’s status as a site favored by J.K. Rowling. It also, according to the source, clearly named Warner Bros. as at stake and called Vander Ark a friend of the series and someone publishers/lawyers/agents were sure did not want to disrupt Rowling’s rights. RDR has called the email “threatening and abusive” and claimed that Warner Bros. only claimed rights after RDR sent them a letter regarding the timeline on the Harry Potter DVDs.
Also in the time since this issue began the book has risen from ranked lower than 230,000 in Amazon.co.uk books, to 7,034 as of this posting.
Update 3: A reader has commented that they ordered the book in the UK, which was slated to have a Nov. 5, 2007, publication date; the order was pushed back to January, 4, 2008, instead.
The Harry Potter Lexicon is a partner site to The Leaky Cauldron. The opinions and claims argued here do not constitute The Leaky Cauldron’s opinion or claim (of which it has none).
The William Patry blog was a good read. I have been of the opinion all along that the content of the Lexicon is the result of serious analysis and as such would have to be viewed as an academic work. I can see an argument that quoting large amounts of text (such as sorting hat songs) might constitute copyright infringement, but one thing of which I am certain … “analysis” does not require the injection of opinion to be legitimate analysis. And if the book is deemed to be analysis, then the cease and desist suit will have no teeth.
What I do find absurd is the notion that ANYTHING will harm the sales of an encyclopedia written by Jo herself. The only thing that could hurt those sales is if she never wrote and/or published it to begin with.
The Patry blog was uninformed and bent on making JKR evil because she actually makes money. Faulting her for whether or not she gives to charity – and ignoring that she IS giving to charity – is hardly showing you’re familiar enough with the facts of the case to make an accurate assessment. What a putz.
In the past year or two, I’d come to regard Steve very highly for his well-thought out opinions of Harry Potter and his work on both the Lexicon and on Pottercast. However, his actions as of late have really contradicted all that good will. It’s selfish, and he’s going against the very person who gave him that world in the first place. Reminds me of a bratty little kid who doesn’t like it when his parents say no. I, for one, hope that after all this is over, Steve isn’t invited back onto Pottercast, except for possibly an interview to discuss what happened (after all, if Laura Mallory can be on Pottercast, so can he). He clearly doesn’t hold Jo in the same regard as the Pottercast trio. And for any who disagree…this is a FAN site. We love JKR and the books. That’s what we do here.
“The Patry blog was uninformed and bent on making JKR evil because she actually makes money.”
Actually, the Patry blog never said anything about Jo making money. His comments about a profit being made would have been directed toward the publisher making a profit as Patry clearly states
“She doesn’t add, no doubt because it is not the case, that the profits will go to charity, only her royalties.”
How will Jo stand to make a dime if all of her royalties go to charity?
What I think is the truly salient point made in the Patry blog is that the contents of the Lexicon are the product of serious analysis. As such, there is significant “value added” and the work can not be considered solely “derivative.”
But regardless of those points, the notion that any third-party companion book will harm the sales of a book written by Jo herself, is insulting to anyone who happened to notice that the Harry Potter fan base made Deathly Hallows one of the best selling books in multiple countries – before it had even been printed. Does anyone honestly think that people wouldn’t buy Jo’s book if they already owned Steve’s?
The point, Mr. Blood, is that whether it would detract money or not is irrelevant. It’s JKR’s copyright, not Steve’s. she could be making all the money in teh world, or none, or it could stop ONE person from buying her book, or NO people from buying her book, and it does not change a thing.
If the emails contained on that blog are true and accurate, Steve should be ashamed of himself. The alleged email from Vander Ark to the former owner of ‘The Potter Prophet’:
Hello, Matt and Jessica:
As the editor of the Lexicon, I get email every so often from fans asking me to publish the Lexicon in book form, so I’ve dealt with this question before. Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that. Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world. And since we’re fans and supporters of Jo, we wouldn’t do anything that would violate her rights, even if we could get away with it. We wouldn’t get away with it, though, since Neil Blair, her solicitor, is very quick to defend his illustrious client in things like this.
So while it’s a smashing idea, it simply isn’t something that’s allowed at the moment. Believe me, when the series is finished, I plan to petition Jo to allow the Lexicon to work with her to create the ultimate Harry Potter encyclopedia. In the mean time, we’ll have to use the various online resources.
Something that I don’t think has been covered by the comments is this: Steve is essentially trying to make money for himself out of the Lexicon website by publishing it in book form; a lot of the site is organised the way it is because of contributions by us the site users. We have pointed out errors, suggested things that should be included, suggested re-formats of certain layouts and helped with the ‘Britspeak’ parts. So not only is he trying to make a fast buck from Jo’s original stories, but he’s also trying to make money from all our work as well.
In my opinion the only way to show that the whole thing is wrong is to vote with your feet. If you agree that he should not be doing this, do not buy this book, if it ever gets published that is. How dare he have the cheek to put a link to a pre-order section on something that may never be allowed to see the light of day anyway?! What a shame to see someone we’ve always respected act in this way.
Posted by karen (the one without the avatar!) on November 05, 2007, 07:05 AM
report to moderator
The Patry blog entry is a bit of a ‘false friend’ here – the writer freely admits that he knows little of the Lexicon’s content (either book or site.)
He also neglects the fact that one of the factors used in deciding whether fair use doctorine applies is whether the usage is for commercial purposes or non-profit educational value (the website conforms to the latter, the book clearly the former) Notice that the RDR statement certainly recognises this important facet of fair use law; hence their remarks about how the print version of the Lexicon will “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.” Others have already pointed out the problems in that statement; I don’t think they need repeating.
If those e-mails from that blog are accurate, then Steve knew that publishing the Lexicon was wrong, but he did it anyways.
Sounds to me like he got mad that JKR told him no, that she could write the encyclopedia on her own, and now he’s just out to publish his book out of spite. It would explain why he deliberately ignored four separate C&D letters, and why he’s trying to pass everything off as if fandom begged him to publish.
“Steve is essentially trying to make money for himself out of the Lexicon website by publishing it in book form; a lot of the site is organized the way it is because of contributions by us the site users.”
To be honest, I think this is a MUCH bigger issue than publishing an analysis of JKR’s creations within her books. My understanding (which is albeit limited) is that the HP Lexicon is the result a NUMEROUS contributors. If their work is being used for profit without permission, then the author and publisher should be slammed hard for plagiarism. But that is a separate issue from the law suit.
A couple points that have not yet been addressed to my satisfaction on this thread:
1. I am a historian, and have to say it’s true that some academic work is primarily the ordering and marshalling of all-ready-exisiting facts. That can be legitimate. HOWEVER, one of the key points in this case is not whether or not Steve’s work is good. It is that no one asked/assigned/”hired” him to do this work. I don’t think fans (even though I am one) count here, although many clearly appreciate his work. If JKR (as the creator) or WB (who has power because of owning the rights) didn’t hire him, how does he think that after the fact they will pay him for work they didn’t want to have done anyway?
2. Now to the work itself. I admit I’ve been an infrequent visitor to the Lexicon site. As much as I’ve liked Steve’s commentary on Pottercast, I haven’t liked reading the Lexicon, largely because it seems like boring reading. The example given by a poster earlier in this thread about Augusta Longbottom is a good example. The facts may all be there (in so far as we know them so far), but it’s dry as plain toast. None of the charm and wimsy of JKR’s writing is there. If her books had been like that they wouldn’t have had the appeal they do. It’s no surprise that JKR declined the offer to work together with Steve on the encyclopedia. Her encyclopedia will not only be full of known and previously un-known facts, but will also be written with her own panache, wit, and humor – the qualities we prize in the series and also in the two little reference books about Quiddich and “Fantastic Beasts.”
Pity Steve has been so very generous in sharing his opinions on publication with various people over the years. A cooking pot has never had its flames fanned so high.
Posted by erumpents for tea on November 05, 2007, 07:21 AM
report to moderator
"Well, I can certainly see why we're trying to keep them alive," said Malfoy sarcastically. "Who wouldn't want pets that can burn, sting, and bite all at once?"
The William Patry blog was a good read. I have been of the opinion all along that the content of the Lexicon is the result of serious analysis and as such would have to be viewed as an academic work. I can see an argument that quoting large amounts of text (such as sorting hat songs) might constitute copyright infringement, but one thing of which I am certain … “analysis” does not require the injection of opinion to be legitimate analysis. And if the book is deemed to be analysis, then the cease and desist suit will have no teeth.
What I do find absurd is the notion that ANYTHING will harm the sales of an encyclopedia written by Jo herself. The only thing that could hurt those sales is if she never wrote and/or published it to begin with.