MyLeaky Login

Join the largest Harry Potter Social Network on the Web! | FAQ

In the News

WB and JKR File Full Request for Injunction of Harry Potter Lexicon (Part 1)

Companion Books
Posted by: Melissa
January 16, 2008, 10:36 AM

Warner Bros. and J.K. Rowling's legal team has filed its full complaint against RDR Books, the publishing company that is attempting to produce a printed, commercial version of The Harry Potter Lexicon, in an ongoing effort to get an injunction permanently halting the book's publication. There are more than 1,100 pages in this complaint, to which RDR has three weeks to reply.

As this is a huge number of pages and of information, this post will highlight new or important information, and as we read the documents more thoroughly, we will add more and attempt to answer questions.

The complaint says that:

1. The book "compiles and repackages Ms. Rowlnig's fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight, or criticism. Defendant's attempt to cloak the Infringing Book in the mantle of scholarship is merely a ruse designed to circumvent Plaintiffs' rights in order to make a quick buck."

2. The cover of the book (which was originally free of disclaimer but later edited to include the word "Unofficial" and a disclaimer) has been designed to mislead users; the complaint also includes a survey from an independent research consultant which concludes that 38 percent of people thought the book gave a false impression of endorsement by J.K. Rowling (and 55 percent did so without any other mitigating factors rendering their answer unusable; one such factor was thinking that J.K. Rowling actually wrote the book, or that the Lexicon Web site was a place to buy Harry Potter books).

3. The Lexicon book would be "in direct contravention" to J.K. Rowling's plans on her own encyclopedia for charity. RDR and Steve Vander Ark were aware of J.K. Rowling's intentions and that this book would be a violation of her rights. It says Steve Vander Ark's letter requesting employment on the official encyclopedia was sent in July 2007, and "after his services were declined, Mr. Vander Ark then set out to have materials from his own Lexicon Website turned into a book in competition with Ms. Rowling's planned book...knowing full well that Ms. Rowling would not even be finished with her book tour following the July release of the final Harry Potter book - much less able to start on her next companion guide - Mr. Vander Ark sought to finalize and release his Infringing Book almost immediately following that July release."

4. JKR/WB attempted to circumvent a lawsuit.

5. That RDR Books' main excuse for its conduct is that it is a print version of the Lexicon Web site; the complaint then cites a technology authority at WB's law firm who claims to have downloaded the entire Lexicon - "more than 891,851 individual data files totaling approximately 50 gigabytes of data" - requiring a dedicated computer working for more than 120 hours. "To print out the entire content of the Lexicon Website would take a similar amount of time, if not more, and considerable effort, if not more, because we used professional equipment...in other words, a reader cannot easily print out the Web site and read it like a book."

6. That there is a difference between allowing fan sites copyright latitude to discuss Harry Potter and "allowing a single fan site owner and his publisher to commercially exploit the Harry Potter books in contravention of Ms. Rowling's wishes and rights and to the detriment of other Harry Potter fan sites."

7. The Lexicon book (the complaint includes pages from it) contains "lengthy plot summaries, spoilers, and detailed descriptions of characters...synopses of the major plots and story lines of the Harry Potter books, descriptions of the history and personalities of nearly all of the Harry Potter characters, and detailed catalogues of the fictional creatures and magical elements that constitute the "heart" of the Harry Potter books."

8. That RDR's attempt to pass the book off as scholarship is "a sham," and that the Lexicon book is "not a reference book or a scholarly critique, merely a mass-market work that lifts whole chunks of Ms. Rowling's texts and orders them alphabetically, in effect 'rearranging the furniture' that Ms. Rowling created while lacking any orginality or invention.' "

9. A rule against JKR/WB would harm the fan community by "necessitating more monitoring and restriction of fan activity by copyright owners afraid of compromising their rights against infringers."

10. RDR's "bad faith" actions (ignoring cease-and-desist letters, responding by claiming copyright on the Harry Potter timeline, and offering rights to the book to German and Taiwanese publishers while asking for more time to respond to WB because of a family emergency) is cause for injunctive relief.

11. That Steve Vander Ark claimed "in a 'smoking gun' e-mail that it would be 'illegal' to sell such a work without Ms. Rowling's permission and that she had reserved her right in the Series."

12. Allowing RDR to proceed would effectively 'scoop' J.K. Rowling on a work she intends to publish herself, as well as deny her the "exclusive right to be the first to create a definitive encyclopedia of the Series, as well as the right to exercise quality control over derivative works based on the Series. Moreover, when Ms. Rowling publishes her own guide she might find herself in the absurd position of defending a claim that she infringed RDR's copyright in its unauthorized derivative work based on her creation. Nor is this possibility remote: RDR has already written to WB claiming infringement of a timeline based on the Series and posted on the Website."

13. There would be a 'societal' cost to allowing publication as it would open doors to similar unauthorized works, make it unclear to official licensees who had the right to grant rights, and confusing customers about what "goods are authorized, and diluting the goodwill Plaintiffs have built up in the Series through their policing and quality control."

The remainder of the complaint consists of many more declarations and pieces of evidence. Significant portions of J.K. Rowling's declaration (dated January 15, London) read:

"To this day, I care deeply about how the characters and story lines are presented and what type of derivative works I license based on the Harry Potter books. I require that all licensed materials, such as the films based on the books, be of the highest quality. I also limit Harry Potter merchandising in an effort to maintain quality controls. In other words, I am careful about the way the Harry Potter books are presented to the world. I believe I owe that much to the millions of Harry Potter fans who have grown to love the books and to trust in the quality of the products associated with them.

"I am extremely appreciative of the support both I and the Harry Potter books have received from the fan community. I enjoy and encourage the free flow of ideas, creativity, commentary, and discussion of the Harry Potter books, including on free-of-charge fan websites, even if it has meant allowing these fan sites to reference copyrighted Harry Potter materials or to create derivative works such as fan fiction or art. I express my appreciation for fan sites and the fan community by, among other things, bestowing a 'fan site award' on one or more of the Harry Potter fan sites each year. In June of 2004, I granted just such a fan site award to the Harry Potter Lexicon fan site partly because of the free and open nature of the site. That being said, I never intended for this award or my encouragement and support of the fan community to be taken by anyone as an authorization for them to create and sell an infringing Harry Potter book (or any other materials) for their own financial gain.

"I have chosen not to license a Harry Potter companion book similar to RDR Books' proposed "lexicon" because I intend to write my own. In addition to the two companion books I have already written -- Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through the Ages (the "Companion Books") -- I have stated on my web site, in numerous interviews in the press and elsewhere that I intend to publish a definitive guide to all of the creatures, characters, places, and other elements that comprise the Harry Potter world. Just as I did with the first two companion books, I will donate royalties from such a companion book to charity.

"Moreover, I have made and kept notes in connection with each of the Harry Potter books, which I have recently begun to augment with additional materials that I intend to include in my own companion guide. In addition, I am aware that both my British and American publishers, Bloomsbury and Scholastic respectively, have each compiled and indexed the material from the previous Harry Potter books and that these materials would be made available to me if I chose to use them.

"The seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series was only released less than six months ago on July 21, 2007. I was touring in support of the book, most recently in the United States and Canada, until December, 2007, after which, I took a much-needed break.

"I was thus sad and disappointed to learn while in the midst of touring in support of the last Harry Potter book that RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark planned to release a Harry Potter "lexicon" directly contrary to my wishes. I understand that the prposed book is neither commentary nor criticism of the Harry Potter series -- either of which would be entirely legitimate -- but instead lists in alphabetical order the various fictional characters and things in the Harry Potter universe. It is as if I have been 'scooped' before I even had the chance to wind up the book tour for the final Harry Potter installment, much less to write and publish my own Harry Potter guide.

"Even worse, RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark apparently are attempting to justify publication of the 'lexicon' based on the past praise I had given to the Harry Potter Lexicon fan site. As I have already explained, I have always supposed Harry Potter fans, even if it has meant allowing fan websites to reference copyrighted Harry Potter materials, but have drawn the line at selling such materials for commercial gain. By threatening to publish and sell the unauthorized 'lexicon,' RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark have crossed that line.

"It is incomprehensible to me that this 'lexicon' should be allowed to be published simply because I encourage and support fan websites or because Mr. Vander Ark was able to finish his 'lexicon' while I was still touring in support of the last Harry Potter book. My fear is that if the 'lexicon' is published, authors like myself will be forced to restrict the use of their materials on fan websites or risk losing their right to restrict other unauthorized uses of those materials. Such a result benefits no one and hurts the fan community most of all.

"Contrary to assertions made by RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark, there is an enormous difference between enjoying the free Harry Potter Lexicon fan site and allowing a book to be sold that directly competes with future Harry Potter works that I intend to author. Moreover, the website differs significantly from RDR Books' proposed book. The website, to which I gave a fan site award, features exciting graphics, user forums, and critical essays, whereas the proposed book simply repackages story lines and characters from the Harry Potter series in an alphabetical A-Z listing. Also, as I mentioned, the website is free whereas RDR Books plans to sell the book fro $24.95. Lastly, the 'lexicon' does not measure up to the standards that I have set for licensing derivative works. In short, I would never have approved of this 'lexicon.'

"To add insult to injury, I have learned that RDR Books intends to market the 'lexicon' in a way that suggests that I have endorsed it when, in fact, the opposite is true. The back cover of the proposed book contains a large and prominent quote by me that makes it look like I am endorsing the book. In fact, the quote was taken without my permission from a fan award I gave the Harry Potter Lexicon fan site in 2004, which as I explained above, is different in style, purpose and commercialism from the proposed book. Given the similarity between the names of both the website and the 'lexicon,' the book gives the false impression that I have approved of it and suggests to my fans that I am encouraging them to buy the book, when I am not.

"I feel as though my name and my works have been hijacked, against my wishes, for the personal gain and profit of others and diverted from the charities that I intended to benefit. Accordingly, I respectfully ask this Court to stop publication of RDR's Books' 'lexicon' and send a message to other would-be infringers that they may not capitalize on the fame and success of the Harry potter franchise in the future."

---

The text of the e-mail string between Steve Vander Ark and the Christopher Little Agency requesting employment on the official encyclopedia is included in the document. The first few emails request a meeting during Vander Ark's July appearance at Sectus, which were declined. Emma requested questions be sent through via e-mail, and Vander Ark sent the following response:

"Hello, Emma:

"Basically, the question is a personal one. I would like to be moving to London soon, but one of the things holding me back is that I don't have a job there. I have registered with TeachLondon and have been pursuing a few other possibilities, but I'm a school reference librarian and TeachLondon and other such services are primarily looking for classroom teachers. I am a US citizen and need to have a job lined up in order to get a work permit.

"I have no idea what Rowling is planning now that the novels are finished, but if she is thinking of working on an encyclopedia or other references to the series, I would be a good candidate for work as an editor, given my work on the Lexicon. I had hoped to meet with you simply to give you a note to pass along to Rowling making the enquiry.

"I said that I have other people to talk to. Actually,that's one person: Fiddy. I have her email address and can send a note her way. I thought it would be best, however, to send this through Christopher Little since you're her literary agents and would be directly involved with a project like this.

"Please give me your honest opinion on this. I am 49 years old and have proved myself to be a lot more than just some teenaged fan with a website. If you think this idea has some potential, let me know how you think I should proceed. If you think I'm wasting my time, I would appreciate your being honest with me on that as well.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this.

Steve"

The response, from Ms. Schlesinger:

"Dear Steve:

"Thanks for this.

"Whilst we appreciate your very clear continued interest in Harry Potter, should Jo decide to work on an encyclopedia or other Harry Potter companion book, she will definitely not be looking to collaborate with anyone, so we regret that we can't offer you an anchor to move over here. For the record, we have confirmed this with Fiddy, so no need for you to write directly. Thank you however for sending via us.

"All the best for your future plans.

"Best wishes

"Emma."

Steve's response:

"I really appreciate the quick reply. I wasn't really thinking of collaborating, just working somewhere in the organization, but I do understand what you mean. I wouldn't have contacted Fiddy about this once you had said it wouldn't work, but thanks for mentioning it to her. You never know what might come up."

--------------

There are also declarations from fans Matt Lawlis and Jessica Lares, stating that they e-mailed Vander Ark and Melissa Anelli (the writer of this post and webmaster of the Leaky Cauldron) saying that he should publish the Lexicon and he demurred, stating:

"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 a 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."

[It should be noted that while the two fans state that I was on this e-mail, the listed recipients do not include e-mail addresses I've ever used, and I have not been able to locate this file in my records; probably just a little mixup.]

-----

Other declarations include ones from:

Jeremy N. Williams (Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) - attesting to the various registered copyrights and trademarks of Harry Potter.

Jeri Johnson (Senior Tutor / Academic Dean of, and Ashby Fellow and Lecturer in English, at Exeter College, University of Oxford)

Suzanne Murphy (Vice President, Publisher, Trade Publishing and Marketing, Scholastic, Inc.) - Who speaks to the differences between the Lexicon book and web site, and the standards set for publication of Harry Potter materials

Dale Cendali (partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP law firm) - giving a full record of the correspondence between the firm and RDR Books once the book had been discovered

Cheryl Klein (Senior Editor and Continuity Editor on Harry Potter for Scholastic, Inc.) - giving evidence of the publishers' own index of canon information that it uses when editing

Neil Blair (Attorney and Junior Partner, Christopher Little Literary Agency) - chronicling his initial efforts to cease publication of the book

William Landes (Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School)

Myron J. Heifgott (Consultant in survey research) - who performed a survey indicating that between 38 and 55 percent of people would assume a Lexicon book was falsely encouraged by JK Rowling.

Sarah Odedina (Children's List Publisher, Bloomsbury Publishing, PLC) - giving evidence of the publishers' own index of canon information that it uses when editing

Diana Birchall (Story Analyst for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) - indicating after a review of the Lexicon book that the book reorganizes and restates the Harry Potter story, without analysis or comment, or placing the series in any social context. It also says the book "makes use of extensive paraphrasing that is alarmingly similar to the original Harry Potter text" and that many entries "quote verbatim lengthy portions of the Harry Potter books."

Melanie Bradley (counsel at O'Melveny & Myers LLP) - documenting her review of the web site and subsequent findings, including several instances where Steve Vander Ark asks others not to reappropriate his work

Emily Blumsack (Associate, O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

----

There is much more on this to come as we read and absorb it all. Stay tuned.

Previous Article | Next Article Browse all Recent Companion Books News

157 Comments

Jeff

HAHA, there’s already a book out there in Brazil…

Vander Ark claims to not be some “teenaged fan” but he’s acting like someone turned him down for the dance, and is now stealing his lunch money..

It’s JK ROWLING’S BOOK! If you wanna get revenge on someone, pick someone with less money, less power, and A LOT less support. Vander Ark deserves whatever he gets, stick to the ”.org” part of your life, buddy.

Posted by Jeff on January 16, 2008, 05:48 PM report to moderator
Mrs. de Mimsy-Porpington

“stick to the ”.org” part of your life, buddy”

I wish this didn’t make me laugh out loud, but it does. Dang. I need to check my sense of humor. (hoot!- not to be confused with w00t!, because I am not that savvy).

Posted by Mrs. de Mimsy-Porpington on January 16, 2008, 05:59 PM report to moderator
Amy S

Thanks so much for this post, Melissa.

Posted by Amy S on January 16, 2008, 06:02 PM report to moderator
DaisyRenee

Arithmancer asked a question about WB claiming that the Lexicon is not a reference book. I think the basis for that claim is that most reference books you would find in a library are composed of factual information. These would be books like the WorldBook encylopedias, the Guinness Book of World Records, directories of governement employees, and auto repair manuals.

The Lexicon book would fall more along the lines of Spark Notes, Cliff’s Notes, or other literary reading guides. Those books do require permission from the original copyright holder to publish their character lists and plot summaries. The Lexicon Book would be much thicker and more comprehensive than most of these guides are, but copyright-wise, more is actually worse. The more you use from the original source material, the less likely the work will be considered a fair use.

Posted by DaisyRenee on January 16, 2008, 06:02 PM report to moderator
Errol

This is such an impressive article. I can’t believe how well the job was done of condensing 1,100 pages into a succinct summary. That must have been some hard work, and I really appreciate it . Thank you.

Posted by Errol on January 16, 2008, 06:02 PM report to moderator
Esile

Big cheer for Melissa and the Leaky crew! It’s says a lot that you guys can remain neutral on this very difficult situation. Personally I reckon that Steve should back up..Really hope they can work this out, it such a shameful situation!

Posted by Esile on January 16, 2008, 06:39 PM report to moderator
siriusfan

I have not yet had time to read this entire post, or the comments. I thought I’d share the following article, however:

http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/

This was written by a law professor, and although it takes sides, it does set forth some of the legal concepts underlying the dispute. As in any litigation, it is always best for non-parties to stay as neutral as possible…almost everything filed with the court is advocacy, that is, the attorneys urging their client’s position. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but it is their view on the facts and the law. There is so much that we don’t know, and even reviewing the court filings, which is about all we, as the public, get to see, doesn’t necessarily mean we are getting the full story.

Posted by siriusfan on January 16, 2008, 06:46 PM report to moderator
KB Prez

The last resort of people unable to defend their position is mudslinging. I’m not surprised by some of the comments on this board today. Goodness knows, JKR has been trashed on Leaky’s boards many times before. And now, Melissa has the honor of being attacked by the flame-throwers. This stuff is REALLY DESPERATE.

Leaky is THE ONLY media outlet doing such extensive reporting on this lawsuit. Whatever one may think of the suit’s merits, Leaky deserves much applause for giving us THE FACTS about this case.

THANKS Melissa!!!!

Posted by KB Prez on January 16, 2008, 06:55 PM report to moderator
mollywobble

You’re right siriusfan. RDR will have a chance to respond, and we’ll see what they have to say in a few weeks.

Posted by mollywobble on January 16, 2008, 07:09 PM report to moderator
M  Jones

Melissa

I hope you are not directly caught up in this squirmish. When the lawyers become involved, there is only one winner. Anyway -good luck and keep up the good work.

Posted by M Jones on January 16, 2008, 07:17 PM report to moderator
Morton K

I work for a Canadian, Not-For-Profit company that publishes books, guides and so on. IMHO, the issue here, if I equate it to our own, is, indeed, money, and it is indeed a question of fair use. It delves deeeply into copyright law. Although copyright laws in Canada, the US, the UK and elsewhere have certain differences, essentially the principles are the same.

First, copyright is not only on the content, but also on the format for delivery, by which I mean the appearance. If the document in question is not only the actual words (or most of them, especially those made up or only significant because they appear in the original), but uses other indicia, there is a strong case for infringement. And the real issue about money is the revenue/profit generation aspect. We have no problem with people using our copyrighted material for reference purpose, training, or educational reasons, as long as they ask for our permission and acknowlege the source. However, if they intend to make money from it, even if they ask, we want either a cut, because it eats into our potential revenue, or we simply do not give permission. If they do it without asking permission, they are infringing. (This is, in essence, the point of the suit regarding on-line free sites vs. selling a book of the site – there is no incremental cost to go online to the site, and avail oneself of the content. Interestingly, if Lexcon had been a pay-site to begin with, this whoe issue would have arisen earlier).

The trouble with the law is that there are no hard and fast rules on how much of the original needs to be included before it becomes infringement – 10%, 20%? So each case ends up being decided individually, taking into consideration other factors, such as recognition of the material, or, alternatively, the opportunity to misrecognize it (the survey you reported on is a case in point – a very large number of respondents would misidentify this as a JKR work, or at least assume that she endorsed it).

An interesting point in all of this is that, for example, we use other people’s copyrighted material in some of our published documents – ALWAYS with permission! – but we actually copyright the final product as ours. This is because we have permission and because the ouput is instantly recognizable as one of our documents. If anybody infringes on the document, we have to ensure that it was OUR version of previously copyrighted material that they infringed, not the originator’s. And this is less of a problem if we are using the other material as a source of commentary that adds to the understanding of the original material as opposed to a codification in some artificially determined order of the material itself.

The Mugglenet book, which I’ve read, quotes from HP Canon, but uses the quotes as the base from which to make comments or predictions or ask questions. The Lexicon book is alleged not to add value of understanding to the content, only to order it in some potentially logical way. I read the law professor’s article that has been referenced here, and am at a loss as to how he can say that taking a paragraph from the original book and condensing it into a single sentence without changing the meaning is NOT an abridgement. Whether anyone would read the Lexicon instead of the books is not an issue, and in fact reinforces the difference between say a Cole’s Notes, which one DOES read instead of the original in many instances. But don’t forget that Cole’s Notes also adds commentary and explanation that enhances the understanding of the reader, AND they get permission from the copyright holders. And NONE of this talks about issues ofpublic domain and how public that really is!!! And by the way, I used the word “Canon” above – the very existence of that term in the HP/JKR context implies that not just the books, but the notes, scribblings, indexes and so on that are produced by JKR and/or with her permission hold special status and any unauthorized use is fraught with peril!!

See how complex this gets? I am just lad to be able to follow along, learn something in the process, and hope that whatever the resolution, everybody learns something in the end.

Melissa? Thank you, and yes, you don’t need our defensive skills, but do accept our kudos and thanks.

And everybody? Sorry for the length and any typos or other editorial issues… I’ve never responded to something I know a little about about like this before, so I guess I had a lot to say! lol

Posted by Morton K on January 16, 2008, 07:19 PM report to moderator
performingmonkey

Despite the hundreds of pages of legal documentation, or whatever, it takes to deal with this, it’s really very simple to understand why the Lexicon book shouldn’t be published, where RDR Books is going wrong and why Jo and WB are 100% right in contesting the publishing of the book.

You CANNOT do what they’re trying to do without permission. Think of it like this, if a music producer does a remix of a band’s album, making dance versions, changing the track order and length etc., they can’t then sell this remix album commercially without the band/record company/publisher’s permission! The Lexicon book would be like a ‘remix’ of Jo’s books, and selling it is illegal without Jo and WB’s permission.

The fact that EVERYONE KNOWS Jo is doing the ‘Scottish book’ with proceeds going to charity just makes what the Lexicon is doing a whole lot worse. But even if she wasn’t doing her own book it still wouldn’t give them the right to do theirs and MAKE PROFIT FROM SOMETHING THEY BASICALLY STOLE.

Melissa’s book is different, she’s creating something completely new and she’s well within her rights to make profit from it. I hope her book goes really well, she deserves it as she’s so great!!

Posted by performingmonkey on January 16, 2008, 07:32 PM report to moderator
TRADEWIN3

Ms. Rowlings has every right to the books and copyrights. She had created it and she will protect it anyway she can.

Posted by TRADEWIN3 on January 16, 2008, 07:36 PM report to moderator
Morton K

I’ve seen a number of errors and typos in my post, so if anyone has an issue, sorry, I can try and correct it. I wanted to add a few things. First, my comment about using the “Canon” being fraught with peril was in the context of using it for profit without permission.

Second, you may have noticed that I have taken great pains to point out that even in situations where one might think permission is not necessary, it is best to get it anyway. That’s because of the possibility that others reading these things might assume that their own application or use of copyrighted material is equally exempt. Not so, so please be aware.

JKR has already said that she has no problem with fan sites, and even encourages them, and related things to flourish, as long as they are not revenue generating or profit making. It would be a shame to see such sites essentially whither away or be nipped in the bud, because of the fear that artists may have, that by being generous and allowing free use of their creations, they might be, inadvertently, giving up their rights to their own intellectual property. I’m not suggesting that all such sites should HAVE to get Jo’s permisson, nor, I believe, is she. But it mght be worth considering it from her pov.

And as a final point, I have to agree with those who have, correctly, I believe, recognized that this isn’t about SVA or JKR – it is about WB and SVA’s publisher. It is unfortunate, however, that having said that, we all tend to think of the individual as opposed to the corporate. Probably because we can focus on, villify or exalt an individual much more readily than a collective. Ah well… ain’t life just grand!!

Posted by Morton K on January 16, 2008, 07:41 PM report to moderator
AddyDog

In the case of some encyclopedias, whether of HP or other works, they might infringe, but it’s also a matter of the rights owner(s) discovering plans to publish the encyclopedia in question. The Lexicon book was discovered by chance, according to TLC’s early news reporting. So some encyclopedias out there may not be strictly legal, but the rights owners may have been unaware or unable, financially, to bring suit. And once something is published, it’s not easy to put it back in the bag.

Finally, many books calling themselves encyclopedias or A-Z guides actually contain commentary and discussion, which makes them fair use. If you are only paraphrasing and quoting from Harry Potter, as the Lexicon book does, according this TLC report, it is not fair use, it is copyright infringement.

Sadly, this isn’t about money or personality…it’s about intellectual property and Rowling and WB defending their rights. If a court decides the book is legal, and that opinion is upheld on appeal, then so be it. But even if they loose (I don’t think they will), Rowling and WB are taking legitimate, justified action.

Posted by AddyDog on January 16, 2008, 07:47 PM report to moderator
You must be logged in to MyLeaky to comment. Please click here to log in.
Why is Leaky YELLOW? Because Hufflepuff WON the House Cup! LeakyCon Live Album! The best wizard rock from LeakyCon on a two-disc set! Introducing MyLeaky! Your Harry Potter Social Network
PotterCast Interviews Jo Rowling! Click here to Listen! The Books Everything...Half-Blood Prince...and the rest of the HP Films

Guess That Book

"Crystal gazing is a particularly refined art... I do not expect any of you to See when first you peer into the Orb's infinite depths. We shall start by practicing relaxing the conscious mind an external eyes so as to clear the Inner Eye and the supercons

Cast spells and chat with your friends at the Chamber of Chat! Learn to knit your own 'Weasley Sweater'. Learn to brew your own 'Butterbeer'. Find out how at Leaky Crafts!

Scribbulus Essay Project

Issue 26 - Nov. 2009

Scribbulus is THE place for Leaky Cauldron readers to submit their essays and opinion pieces!
See more over at Scribbulus!

Introducing MyLeaky! Your Harry Potter Social Network Hosted by Idologic Inc.