Well WB’s lawyers definitely have a copy now. They are already using it as evidence. And the way I see it, WB’s lawyers are very, very good. RDR still hasn’t responded yet although they have up to Nov. 15 to do so.
I’m quite certain RDR is desperately scrambling to negotiate a settlement. I’m still of the opinion that all RDR wanted was the publicity and then settle to generate more sales (I mean they’re in a frigging serious case, why blab as much as they’ve been doing in their website [it can be used against them] unless they were shooting to settle all along). But it seems WB is not giving them an inch.
just wondering is what Mrs.Lovegood is saying true? that MuggleNet is also publishing an encyclopedia book? and that thing about Cliff’s Notes, is that also true?
i mean MuggleNet and everyone else pretty much used the Lexicon, so isnt that kind of stupid if MuggleNet is allowed to publish Lexicon stuff but Lexicon isnt allowed to publish the same stuff? im confused? why r they picking on Steve if everyone else is doing the same thing?
They make it sound so heroic of them to offer to “settle this case to Ms. Rowling’s satisfaction and publish the book.”
This whole thing is JK Rowling refusing to let them publish the book! Way to go, RDR, trying to settle the case to JK Rowling’s satisfaction…
If SV wants to publish the Lexicon he should be working with JK not doing it independently. HP is her world not his and JK is right to sue IMO.
@ Myrth: 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.
Firstly, the Lexicon staff have stated, and I quote, “that there will be no essays in the book at all.” Perhaps they’re reassurances, freely given to their partner site, are just for show? As for the publishers, well, judging by the ludicrous things they’ve already stated on their website, I’ve no doubt as to their integrity [and glaring lack thereof].
Can you, as a friendly visitor to the Lexicon, unequivocally state that 75-90% of the Lexicon’s content is complete, unique, original commentary/analysis derived SOLELY from Steve/Lexicon staff? [Keep in mind that the 1000+ paged site has been pared down into a 412 page book.] Fact is that 75-90% of the content is derived SOLELY from Jo’s work, re-structured and in many instances, slavishly copied ‘verbatim’.
What IS on the site--BARRING FAN ESSAYS—is a re-ordered list of known facts to the fictional Potterverse: books 1-7, 2 companion books, the Black genealogy that was auctioned for charity, Jo’s website, interviews/web chats, HP films. Simple reorganization of copyrighted and trademarked material, without authentic/original contextual analysis, does not constitute ‘fair use’ of said copyrighted material.
For the Lexicon book to be a ‘scholarly work’ as alleged by RDR, for it to qualify as ‘fair use’ of copyrighted material in a ‘derivative’ work, it must contain a SUBSTANTIAL amount of original content and ensure that it uses the barest minimum of copyrighted material.
I’ve enjoyed the Lexicon, I STILL enjoy it. It’s an excellent online resource and I don’t believe anyone is saying it’s not. However, the legal issue is ‘copyright infringement’.
Copyright says who owns the intellectual property [J.K. Rowling]; the owner has say in what format the copyrighted material is distributed into [books/audio books, films, toys, games, cards, posters, etc…], and who has the right to distribute the copyrighted material, i.e. who is licenced by the owner to use their property [WB, Scholastic, Bloomsbury, etc…]. Copyright provides legal remedies for those who infringe on the intellectual property rights of others.
JK or WB is most definitely not picking on Steve. It was Steve or RDR that didn’t want to play with the rules. WB has said (and everyone in the publishing community knows this) that they always talk to people first, negotiate a way to make sure the book doesn’t infringe and then allow them to publish the book. They are very, very lenient but very smart in protecting their rights. They only sue as a very last resort.
It was RDR who ignored WB, until they were forced to sue them. The UK book was slated to publish Nov. 5 and they only sued at Oct 31. The sequence of dates alone tell you that they tried everything possible to talk to RDR first before suing.
Siriusfan: My confusion is because the document telling RDR what they had to submit (7 exhibit C) wasn’t filed until 5th November giving them (under your hypothesis) 1 day to assemble all the evidence requested including the book and deliver it, which seems unlikely. Though actually re-reading 3 it sounds like the request was sent to RDR on 2nd, so you could be right and the copy for the court was just filed later. Mars: There is no evidence from the book in the court documents so far, the exhibits 7 A 1-3 are clearly printed from the Lexicon website.
anne: If SV wants to publish the Lexicon he should be working with JK not doing it independently
One of the earliest stories on this was that Steve had approached JK and asked if she wanted to collaborate. She said no and really, he just should’ve dropped it all right there. Not gone ahead with his own venture when he knew it was illegal
@mollywobble: “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.”
Based on the “no longer available” or “out of stock indefinitely” tags on most if not all of those early encyclopedias, my guess is that, just as Mars said, WB allowed an edited version to be published ONCE.
Another situation of which I am personally aware is the vast difference between the original Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter (Analysis of Books 1-4) and the two follow up guides to books 5 and 6, all by Galadriel Waters. The original took each book chapter by chapter with summaries of the events interspersed with comments and clues. There were no summaries in the last two books. Instead, brief quotes were given with possible interpretations of what they might mean. A friend who was part of the New Clues project indicated that the original provided too much information specifically about the plots and the format had to be changed so that “Analysis” was the focus.
I believe Mars is correct in his comments about WB and other companion books, “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.” RDR refused to follow the rules.
Ahh oh well, I thought it came from the book. I guess WB has no choice but to use the Lexicon website as evidence.
yes Mars I understand that, but i also understand that Steve is being almost picked on. i just found out that MuggleNet is also publishing an encyclopedia. I went to Amazong and found about 5 other books that are termed ‘encyclopedia’ but unfortunately none of these are really rightly called this because they are incomplete. every single one of them. Steve’s site is fairly complete. there is NOTHING about HP in this world that ISNT on Steve’s site. so if he would be allowed to publish that, then theres nothing else left for Jo and the rest to publish. I guess u could say Steve’s going for the big apple and no body likes it bc that means others cant have a bite. i understand this is Jo’s world and she has every right to it. but this is kind of making me wonder if this has anything at all to do with copyright stuff. it seems more about what i said earlier. i did support Jo originally but upon discovering that there are a good 2 dozen other books out there calling themselves encyclopedias meanwhile carrying less than satisfactory content, i think Steve’s case is being treated differently. and the presence of companion books has nothing to do with Jo’s humanity or lack thereof. they kind of come with the package.
Roonwit: I agree that the timing on the court’s docket appears a little backward, and I also agree with your point that the document requests were sent to RDR on 11/2. The requests are dated 11/2 (see the last page, next to the signature line), and therefore were likely sent to RDR that day, possibly even by e-mail, considering the timing of this whole case. I believe they were filed on 11/5, not as an indication that that is the date they were sent to RDR, but because they were attached as an exhibit to a declaration, and 11/5 is the date that that declaration was filed. Luckily things should be a little more straightforward, at least in terms of court papers being filed, as this moves forward.
Please, not the ‘they’re picking on poor, beleaguered house-elf Steve’ argument. [Yes, someone actually compared Steve to a house-elf and JK/WB as the evil abusive masters on another TLC comment board!]
The point, HPFanatic, is that despite the enormous amount of Potter information appearing on the Lexicon website, the website doesn’t OWN copyrights to Jo’s work, therefore the Lexicon legally cannot sell it. I’m amazed at how many comments are from people who don’t understand that fact.
If I allowed you to borrow my car, it doesn’t mean that simply because you’ve been driving about town, with my permission, that you suddenly have the right to sell it and pocket the proceeds. As the owner, only I have that right.
As for the Mugglenet Encyclopedia, they [like the Lexicon] received a cease/desist letter and apparently have complied with it; just as they complied with a c/d from WB when they formerly sold unlicensed Mugglenet T-shirts.
Hi, roonwit. At Justia.com there is a facsimile version of the federal court’s electronic docket for this case: http://news.justia.com/cases/20070525245370/ (I believe all federal courts are now on an electronic system, which is pretty slick when it comes to researching high-profile cases like this, because you can get .pdf files for almost everything that has been filed in the case). One would assume (and hope) that future filings will be posted at that link, so we can continue to follow what is happening.
The word “response” can refer to several different things. I believe what is going on is that the “response” to the production requests (that is, the book and a few other things) were ordered to be produced on (or before…you can always respond early!) November 6 (the first “ORDERED” on page 2 of that 11/2 court order). I haven’t read all of the court papers posted yet, but my guess is that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys told the court on 11/2 that they needed to see those documents before they could finalize their motion for preliminary injunction.
The second “ORDERED” on the 11/2 order sets up a briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs’ “proposed motion for preliminary injunction.” In other words, this order was entered before that motion was actually filed, likely due to the tight timing here (the publication date is fast approaching). The Plaintiffs were given only a few day to actually file that motion (which is due today), but you’ll notice that it is a couple of days after RDR was supposed to turn over a copy of the book, etc. The word “response” that you see under this second “ORDERED” refers to RDR’s brief (a “response brief”) in response to that motion. That brief is due on (or before) November 15. If RDR does file such a brief, the order allows the Plaintiffs, if they choose, to file yet another brief (the “reply brief”) that will “reply” to what RDR says in its response (hence the requirement for overnight delivery; the tight turn-around on these briefs doesn’t allow enough time for delivery by mail, and you really can’t file a response or a reply to something you haven’t had a chance to read).
Usually when a motion is filed, the opponent is given leave to file a “response,” and the party who filed the motion is given leave to file a “reply.” It’s sort of like a tennis match/ping-pong game with the back and forth. Again, assuming that RDR does file a response and the Plaintiffs file a reply, and that Justia.com continues to follow this case, those court papers should be available at that site shortly after they’ve been filed. Hope that helps.