Also with regards to copyright, the law gives a lot of leverage to the author with regards to permission (unlike trademark where a misstep can make you lose your rights). So JK can approve of one form of publication and disapprove of another form even if they’re similar. Also its selective enough such that even if there was a written letter stating JK is giving permission for the website, that permission does not transfer to the book. She can approve of one book and disapprove another.
In other words, copyright is all about very specific permission. If you don’t have permission then it has to fall under Fair Use or you can’t publish it.
chiara,
I think you need to read the Lexicon site a bit more closely. Yes, there is restated material there but there is also many, many essays giving analysis about that material, just as the rest of the companion books do when they quote her work. I recently read a two sided book right before DH came out about Snapes nature. It had whole paragraphs lifted from the previous 6 books. There is a readers guid for each book, and at current count 148 esseys spanning 7 years. That is more original material in commentary form than may companion books on the market right now.
I’ve talked to some people familiar to the case and they theorize that a sort of publicity stunt was involved here. The small publisher knew from the start that they would have to settle eventually and publish a watered down version of the book but they tried to blow it up initially to create publicity for the book. After all a small publisher doesn’t have the capacity to market the book the way it is marketed now.
But they may have pissed off JK and WB a little too much (especially after comparing the case to the bombings in Japan) and all indications show that the WB is going for a complete shutdown of the book.
siriusfan: The time line is confusing but the way I read it it is the declaration filed on Nov 6 (actually filed on Nov 5) and the deadline is that for the publisher response, ie. 15th November but of course I don’t speak legalize so I could be wrong.
The major factor why people close to the case think this is a publcity stunt is that, everyone in the publishing world, small or big, knows how JK and WB works with regards to books derived from Harry Potter. They send a C&D, they talk about it very quietly, they edit it and THEY ALLOW THEM TO PUBLISH IT.
Yessir, that’s why there are many books out there, because JK and WB are very lenient as long as you let them edit it so their rights are still completely protected. So RDR knew about it and they know that no matter how hard they push they eventually have to let WB and co. to edit the book.
So the question is why did RDR go through all this crap when they know they could have published this easily as long as they followed WB’s rules? Most think its to create publicity thus increasing sales. But the same people think they may have done it a bit too much.
Anyway this are all just speculation. But its hard to fathom the way RDR handled this case.
Myrth, one of the recent news posts suggested that none of the essays from the HP-Lexicon site would be in the book. It was just the hard facts.
Once again, if a companion book is a critique or analysis, then it is different from an encyclopedia. For instance, there are at least two books that compare virtue ethics and Harry Potter. Though parts of the HP text are used in the books, they are cited appropriately. The analysis (how philosophy related to HP)is the author’s unique work. It’s no different from writing a character analysis paper in Literature class.
The question I have, were other HP encyclopedias that were printed prior to the Deathly Hallows release sued for similar reasons. If they weren’t, why or why not.
I stand behind Rowling in this but it is also sad that Steve seems to have just been getting bad advice from RDR Books. From what I read, they publisher is not interested in what Rowling wants but rather to make a profit and sell those books to the “less fortunate”. This would make the Lexicon encyclopedia a bootleg. Not much different than the USA getting a pirated copy of the OOTP DVD. Bootlegs are illegal and no questions about it.
Now what I am really confused about is who wanted to negotiate with who first? I first heard about Rowling and WB initiated a negotiation but had not been successful and therefore, had to file the lawsuit. Now RDR is saying they have been trying to negotiate and Rowling is not responding. Would it be because it is too late for that now the lawsuit has been filed?
If Rowling wanted to settle this before without a suit, I think she would have wanted Steve to work with her. She praised his work on the site and even used it from time to time. It would make a lot of sense. It would have been great if Steve helped her our with her encyclopedia and he would have been able to help organize new details and backstories. If I were him, I’d go for working with Rowling! Wouldn’t it be awesome if only one fan knew everything else Rowling had created that didn’t make it into the books? That would be a tremendous honor. If that was the actual negotiation, he just kissed that honor goodbye. All that just to make a quick buck for something that has already been published online.
From what I understand, companion books that have already been published were all about essays predicting what would happen according to the authors. They do not state hard facts as much as the encyclopedia would. Someone mentioned Cliff’s Notes and I think the reason why were they never sued is because they were summarized versions of the very complex and lengthy books. It still is not the reading material itself and wasn’t covered with detailed facts and tidbits. I am guilty of using them as study guides in school but my lit teachers always found a way to find things that weren’t mentioned. Now the encyclopedia will be a play by play about every character and everything related in the HP world.
I doubt that the sites will be closed down. None of them are really making a profit. I am a web owner myself and even though advertisements pay, it’s a very small amount that would put in a buck or two to maintain the domain. These fan sites are maintained by fans that want to share their talents and love for HP. They put in their hard work and effort into this without making money off them. Now if the Lexicon feels the site shouldn’t be up because of the suit, that is Steve’s decision. No one forced him or any HP fan pages to make a site. JK Rowling appreciates the fan sites so much but once they want to make a profit off them, that’s where the line is drawn.
Thanks TLC for giving great updates on this. I feel very passionately about how unfair it is for JK Rowling getting so much backlash from people after the whole Dumbledore thing and now this lawsuit. I really hope a friendly settlement would be made and maybe like I hope, Steve would end up working with JK Rowling instead.
@ Myrth: I think you need to read the Lexicon site a bit more closely. Yes, there is restated material there but there is also many, many essays giving analysis about that material, just as the rest of the companion books do when they quote her work.
Those essays are substantially FAN submitted and are original works, works that are NOT copyrighted to the Lexicon even though they have appeared on that site.
Please also note, from a TLC report linked below, those essay writers were 1.) not contacted by the Lexicon with a request to use their material, and 2.) the Lexicon staff have stated that those essays will NOT be part of the Lexicon book:
http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/5/harry-potter-lexicon-responds-to-suit
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.
There are in fact compilations books before (in fact there are two books with A-Z of Harry Potter in their title) and almost all are contacted and edited by WB’s legal department. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a whole department dedicated to that.
The things they are very adamant about from what I hear are trademarks (which includes cover design and font), the word Unofficial and disclaimers. Once you let them edit it, they allow you to publish it without being sued.
Which is why RDR’s moves in this whole case are fishy at best. They know, every decent publisher knows, how Harry Potter’s legal team operates. So why did they do the crap that they did?
As I said one of the theories is that its a publicity stunt. Generate some news, then eventually settle. Either that or there’s some sort of blind pride involved or something.
Leaky, thanks again for your professionalism. I know that I can come here to get the full story. Thanks for that.
I find it odd that RDR wont say what their suggested “compromise” was. Based on some of the stuff we’ve read here about how they respond to questions (like telling the WB to ask their technical support if they cant print the site), they dont seem like the most professional or cooperative outfit. Something tells me their idea of compromise is “we’ll print the books as is, with all that copyright infringement, and you just forget about suing us”. LOL. Anyway… I hope this works out for the best, tho I’m not sure how it will. JKR/WB seem to be fully in the right here. Unfortunately, SVA (and RDR) seem to feel he has some sort of entitlement: that since he created the online Lexicon, he’s entitled to publish and make money off of it. Sad.
Avalon and SeriousKrack: Well put!
To Myrth:
I beg to differ. Those other books are usually analysis based. They discuss canon, but they also analyse what it means, what it could mean for future books, it’s symbolism, it’s place in myth and history, etc. It’s not just “here are the facts from the book”, it includes original creative content. That’s where the Lexicon book has gone wrong: it’s just canon facts, presented in the Lexicons format. That makes all the difference.
And as for those essays on the Lexicon, that is a very cloudy area, I think. Originally, they implied that those essays may be part of the published work. Then, there seemed to be questions from people who wrote those essays that they were not asked for permission to pushlish them in Steve’s book. Then RDR backed off and said there were no essays in the book (again, more fishy info from them). So, it seems that any potential new material (that STILL didnt belong to Steve) has been ruled out from being in the book.
@ Beth: Then RDR backed off and said there were no essays in the book (again, more fishy info from them). So, it seems that any potential new material (that STILL didnt belong to Steve) has been ruled out from being in the book.
The sheer hypocrisy of violating Jo’s copyrights because she complimented the site and ‘therefore may have unintentionally surrendered her rights’ and the appearance of the fact that copyrights of the fan owned essays ARE being protected, is galling to me.
Either allowing to use material [Jo’s or fan submitted] with ‘feedback’ releases copyright to ‘fair use’ or it doesn’t. RDR can’t have it both ways!!!!
Myrth,
I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the Lexicon site, but I am sure that the vast majority of the essays on the Lexicon were not written by SVA. That being the case, he owns no more rights to them than he does to the actual HP books, and it would be a whole new copyright infringement if he published them. As far as the reader’s guides on the Lexicon, again I don’t claim to have read them all, because once upon a time I clicked on one, and found nothing but summary – no original material. Quoting, even lengthy quoting, within the context of a commentary or analysis is perfectly acceptable; we’ve all done it in papers for school, but it is cited appropriately, and the quoted material should not make up the body of the paper. And of course more leniency would be given to a high school student who is stil learning, versus an adult trying to publish a book for profit. I didn’t read the Snape book you mentioned, but I read about it. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the whole point of the book to examine the arguments for Snape being good versus evil? Quotes then would be used to prove each point. There is a huge difference between saying “X said this, which makes me think that Snape is good/bad/indifferent/whatever,” or even “X said this and I loved it/hated it/wanted to scream,” versus just saying “X said this.” As many others have pointed out, a Lexicon is by definition not a commentary or analysis.
Mars,
I totally agree with you as well. I can’t understand why they would not be willing to turn over manuscripts and work with WB and JKR. It seems to me that if you want to publish a book that involves someone else’s work, you ought to be prepared to jump through hoops to make all parties involved happy….
To all stating that no essays would be in the book. I would like to point out this Update notice:
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.
We have info from “some essay” writer that no essays would be in the book. This is hardly confirmation from RDR itself. Untill that is stated i will go by what is officialy stated which is that essays are a possibility. If they are included, I will stand by my statments that this is a viable book in the vein of companion books and clif notes. If there are no essays, then the legality changes dramaticaly, and it would no longer be a valid use of the material. I would urge however for you all to keep in mind the difference between a press release and “some essay writers” unvalidated statement.
I have spent alot of time on the Lexicon site and I can definatly state that it is a commentary and analysis site as well as informational.
@ Author By Night: RDR had no comment about WHAT the settlement was… to me, this sounds fishy. But the whole case has sounded fishy. Why couldn’t they have not sought publishing after JKR said “no”?
According to RDR Books statement on its site, it “has repeatedly offer to settle this case to Ms. Rowling’s satisfaction and publish the book.” It wants to end the lawsuit in a manner that allows them to still ‘publish’ the book.
@ anonymous: By not having objected to the Lexicon’s publishing of the material before, and even praising the site, she may not be able to stop it from being published again in another form.
Point in fact, JK/Publishers/WB HAVE objected to things/info listed on HP Lexicon before. They’ve sent cease/desist to them, most recently and notably over the RAB is Regulus page, where they quoted an ‘anonymous’ source for the info. They complied with the c/d request and by doing so they acknowledged Jo’s copyrights.
Taken along with the published email that allegedly came from Steve that acknowledges an HP Encyclopedia, like the book format of the Lexicon, would infringe Jo’s rights; taken also along with the undeniable fact that JK/Publishers/WB have launched many c/d’s off to infringers [both on the net and elsewhere] and when they failed to comply, launched lawsuits to protect copyrights to Harry Potter, frankly, the defense will have a hard time establishing that Jo relinquished her rights to Harry Potter in any format.
@ Mrs. Lovegood: How are they [other HP Guides] different from what Steve is creating? And, along with that, how about products like Cliff’s Notes, isn’t Steve’s book sort of a similar thing to that? I’ve never heard of Cliff’s Notes being illegal.
The guides are +75% original thought, analysis, essays. They use the smallest portion/snippets of HP canon to make a protracted statement/argument.
Steve’s on the other hand, simply recites known HP canon. It’s not critical analysis, original thoughts/essays. They also clearly state their unofficial/unauthorized versions and denote who are the owners of copyrighted material.
Have you ever read an article in an encyclopedia that quoted 90% of the original work? NO. That’s blatant infringement. The article must be unique/original commentary while containing some literal ‘key’ facts. Steve’s Lexicon, if you’ve read it, contains info directly derived from the books, and reworded it without no added analysis. Lexicon quoted tons of established HP facts on their site, but they forgot the critical analysis. RDR states the book is comprised ‘verbatim’ from the site, this means what we see in electronic form is what we’ll get in a book form.
As for ColesNotes/CliffNotes/SparkNotes, the Lexicon wouldn’t pass for any of them.
CliffNotes, ColesNotes, Sparknotes: each provides in-depth commentary, analysis and study guides for literature, poetry, history, film and philosophy.