In the News

NY Judge Issues Restraining Order to Prevent Publication of Lexicon; JK Rowling Updates

Companion Books
Posted by: Melissa
November 09, 2007, 03:14 PM

As stated in a public document and now on JK Rowling’s Web site a judge has issued a restraining order against publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon.

This document, signed by Judge Robert Patterson in NY, denies RDR Books’ claim to delay the matter until January and grants a restraining order for JKR/WB to prevent the book from being published or licensed anywhere worldwide until February 6 2008, when the case for a preliminary injunction may be made. J.K. Rowling says in her “news” updates section, in an entry titled “Lexicon continued,” that this mean the book “cannot be completed, published or marketed until the court has had time to decide whether it would break the law if published in its present form.”

She goes on:

I take no pleasure in the fact that publication has been prevented for the present. On the contrary, I feel massively disappointed that this matter had to come to court at all. Despite repeated requests, the publishers have refused to even countenance making any changes to the book to ensure that it does not infringe my rights.

Unless their position changes, we will all return to court next year. Given my past good relations with the Lexicon fansite, I can only feel sad and disillusioned that this is where we have ended up.

Earlier today, RDR Books issued a press release that claimed that a judge “accepted an order proposed by RDR Books, agreeing to temporarily withhold publication of Steve Vander Ark’s Harry Potter Lexicon.” The release did not mention the restraining order. A motion to delay proceedings owing to RDR Books’ need to retain and familiarize a copyright lawyer with the case was denied.

RDR Books claims on its site that the delay was voluntary and perhaps even their idea, but that contradicts what has been put forth in legal documents as well as what JK Rowling has said has occurred. Also, a source has told TLC that it was Judge Patterson’s preference to restrain the case (and therefore publication) until February, not RDR’s.

The RDR statement says:

“It is our wish that Ms. Rowling join Mr. Vander Ark in his campaign for literary freedom and free expression by dropping her complaint against a book we are confident she would enjoy reading.”

Update: We have a copy of the judge’s letter (you can download it here, which will be available for download shortly. It says that the book has not been fully typeset for printing, that RDR has instructed its typesetters to cease operations, and that the book “cannot be printed and distributed to the public at this time.” The court orders that the book and all those associated with its publication cannot complete the book, typeset it, print it, distribute it, advertise it, promote it, sell it, license it, accept orders for it – not in the US or anywhere abroad. It also ordered RDR to take the book off Amazon, their own Web site, and any other means of “advertising, soliciting orders for, and distributing the book.” Also any money that RDR gets from activities related to the lawsuit shall be placed in escrow (holding, supposedly pending outcome of the suit). The order will remain until the court has ruled on JKR/WB’s filing for a preliminary injunction.

The preliminary injunction will be filed on January 7, 2008; RDR’s opposition will be due on January 22, 2008. The reply by JKR/WB is due on January 29. The preliminary injunction hearing will take place on Feb. 6, 2008 or “on such other date as the court directs.

Update 2: You can now download here JKR/WB’s lawyers’ response to RDR lawyers’ attempt to delay the case (a delay attempt that was denied by Judge Patterson after this letter was filed). The letter notes that although RDR is a small company with limited resources, “RDR faced no such obstacles in garnering significant and international attention for itself and its book. Indeed, upon information…RDR continues to trumpet its intention to publish its book.”

The letter also says “RDR has used this lawsuit as an opportunity to publicize the book and disparage my clients in the press,” and said the plaintiffs (JKR/WB) are eager for a ruling because it would only “perpetuate the cloud…and would most likely be perceived as some sort of vindication for RDR—which had been given every conceivable chance to resolve this matter amicably.”

JKR/WB also referred to the request for adjournment as 11th-hour, claiming RDR had since last week to request it, and claiming that if the schedule were delayed new facts would develop or facts would change JKR/WB’s briefs, which had been prepared for submission today.

You can download this letter here.

Update 3: WB has made a statement: “Although sad that this had to go to court, the judgement granting an order against RDR books is an important step in helping us to protect our intellectual property and at the same time, protect JK Rowling’s right to produce her own companion book to the Harry Potter series she created. Both Warner Bros. and JK Rowling are clear that this claim is a matter of infringement of copyright, not a matter of literary freedom.”

Update 4: There is another update on the Harry Potter Lexicon by Steve Vander Ark: “t’s very hard to know what to write. For one thing, everything I write these days — everything I’ve ever written or said, in fact — is being dissected and analyzed to make me sound like a fool or a liar or an arrogant jerk (as I’m sure this will be as well). People who know me and have talked with me know that this isn’t the case….To read some of what I’ve seen online, fans have decided that I am just trying to make huge amounts of money or that I have no respect for Jo. Some fans, along with WB, have speculated that I took the material they graciously allowed the Lexicon to use and slapped it into a book without permission. Some have jumped to the conclusion that I blatantly ignored demands that I not create a book from material on the Lexicon. That just isn’t who I am. I would never, never do something like that….One question that gets asked of me over and over is if I have ever met Jo or talked to her. The answer is no, I haven’t. I have always wished for that chance, but it’s never happened. There is a crazy part of me that believes that if she and I could just sit down and chat about this, we could get it all sorted out and put this miserable incident behind us….Maybe then all of us could put it behind us and just get back to enjoying Harry Potter together.”

You can read the full details of the suit here, along with JKR’s statements (or download the suit for yourself ) or read statements from TLC interviews WB and RDR here. A previous update is also here, and another one here.


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).

Previous Article | Next Article Browse all Recent Companion Books News

463 Comments

Mars

mollywobble: Yah, so the excuse that they can’t edit anymore goes out the window.

So again why are they still pursuing this?

Posted by Mars on November 09, 2007, 06:08 PM report to moderator
RJ

I don’t deny that RDR seems to have been pretty stupid over this whole lawsuit.

Posted by RJ on November 09, 2007, 06:09 PM report to moderator
NotTheHBP

wow, it is hard to keep up with postings, they are happening so fast.

RJ, cliff notes does not infringe upon jk rowlings fully within the international law legal ownership of the events within her boooks because cliff notes with fully knowledgeable of copyright laws and works under fair use laws. when they feel there is a chance that to properly do the cliff notes, they will contact the publisher sometimes to get permission to go beyond fair use laws to properly summeries the book.

Posted by NotTheHBP on November 09, 2007, 06:09 PM report to moderator
RJ

NottheHBP: the key word is “sometimes” they contact the publishers. You are allowed to summarize books events without contacting the publishers.

Posted by RJ on November 09, 2007, 06:12 PM report to moderator
NotTheHBP

to a point. Fair Use laws do not give you unlimited free reign to do whatever you want with other peoples property. accordingg to RDR, the book is a print off version of the lexicon that was allowed to remain because it was a free non for profit resource for fans. given its current state, it has already been shown that it would not qualify under free use beause 80-90% of the material is taken directly from the books without anylasis and commentary.

Posted by NotTheHBP on November 09, 2007, 06:15 PM report to moderator
Melissa

A note – to Melissa, if you see this: (“I miss Melvin” too, btw) You really should have all “sources” in news stories identified by name.

And, RJ, in a perfect world, I would. We never use an unnamed source unless it’s necessary. You really should show me your journalism creds before giving me lessons in Journo 101. :) Thanks.

Posted by Melissa on November 09, 2007, 06:15 PM report to moderator
,

RJ, you should also consider the fact that many of the books in cliffnotes are by authors long dead. There is a rule that after 75 years of an author’s death, everything is up for grabs. So they don’t need to ask anyone’s permission to do that… And for the still living authors, the publishing house is smart enough to ask first. There are a lot of important books that aren’t in cliffnotes because the author said no.

RDR has stepped over the line. JK has probably the best lawyers on her side, if she didn’t have a case, I think SHE would know.

RDR and Steve are going against her wishes, really, RJ, you don’t need to know more than that if you are a fan.

Posted by , on November 09, 2007, 06:16 PM report to moderator
mollywobble

Like NotTheHBP says, Cliffnotes and Sparknotes seeks permission first if they are worried. If you can go back and read the very first news post on leaky about this case, WB claims that Steve never asked permission to publish the Lexicon in printed form.

Posted by mollywobble on November 09, 2007, 06:16 PM report to moderator
,

Melissa, I’ve been a fan of pottercast and this web site since I discovered it a few years ago. I want to say, (even though I rarely post), I think you are doing a stellar job.

Good luck with your book. I look forward to reading it!

Posted by , on November 09, 2007, 06:17 PM report to moderator
RJ

Sorry, Melissa. Not a Journo student – but I stand corrected. Hope that “source” isn’t too scared of crazy fans.

Posted by RJ on November 09, 2007, 06:17 PM report to moderator
RJ

I know about the dead author +50/75/100 years copyright laws. However, plenty of books about living authors’s books can and have been written without editing from the author.

Posted by RJ on November 09, 2007, 06:20 PM report to moderator
Mars

Well to summarize it up in lay man’s terms:

1.) RDR wanted an extension before the preliminary injunction because they claim they are poor and cant afford a lawyer that can answer fast. In return they will voluntarily freeze their publication.

2.) The judge wanted to give RDR the time they asked for but at the same time he didn’t want the freeze to be voluntary (I’m guessing the judge doesn’t trust RDR he he ). So in compromise both parties agreed to allow the judge to move the date of the preliminary injunction at the same time an order to restrain any and all activities related to publishing the book including advertising.

3.) I guess that’s it lol

Posted by Mars on November 09, 2007, 06:20 PM report to moderator
RJ

And tho I’m a fan, I think it’s important that RDR be allowed to do whatever is within the law.

Posted by RJ on November 09, 2007, 06:22 PM report to moderator
NotTheHBP

its a matter that if you havent done your homework, dont state things as facts. it should be noted that you dont have to be a lawyer to understand RDR is made mistake after mistake after mistake in this matter, and they have said alot of things that go against the judicial rules to try to give themselves a better image. they are spinning in ways that can be considered perjury, and if the judge decides to persue that, RDR is in huge trouble. however, people need to remeber that the books that have been published are not the same as the lexicon book. those books were not found to infringe upon copyright becaue a great deal of them were written within fair use laws, or the authors openly worked with WB/JKR to ensure that the books were acceptable.

most every one of those books are also purely commentary and critical anaylasis. encylopedias dont all under that, as they are a regurgitating of facts. RDR has mishandled this and they are the reason for this lawsuit, that they refused to work with the owners of the copyrights at hand.

Posted by NotTheHBP on November 09, 2007, 06:23 PM report to moderator
totoum

“However, plenty of books about living authors’s books can and have been written without editing from the author.”

maybe because the author didn’t mind?So he didn’t use his rights even if he could have?

just a wild guess

Posted by totoum on November 09, 2007, 06:25 PM report to moderator
PotterCast Interviews Jo Rowling! Click here to Listen! Join us at LeakyCon 2009! Learn more today! The Books Everything...Half-Blood Prince...and the rest of the HP Films Learn to knit your own 'Weasley Sweater'. Learn to brew your own 'Butterbeer'. Find out how at Leaky Crafts!

Scribbulus Essay Project

Issue 25 - Dec. 2008

Scribbulus is THE place for Leaky Cauldron readers to submit their essays and opinion pieces!
See more over at Scribbulus!
Cast spells and chat with your friends at the Chamber of Chat!

Hosted by Idologic Inc.