“The question of authorship arises here as well: Steve Vander Ark has said the Lexicon was “created, edited, written and maintained primarily by one person, me,” and the book has listed only one author; however an e-mail from Roger Rapoport says the book was the result of 20 academic scholars and reference experts’ work.”
Wow, SVA’s sounding more and more like another Cassie Edwards.
Gilyweed you’re right: for me it will take even less than 3 years. (I hope it will come out with the last film :) ). Anyway, that’s not the point, for me, omikse! Let’s pretend for a moment that the Lexicon book comes out: not everyone who buys it will buy also The Scottish Book, even if it comes out 5, 10, 20 yrs later. If you are an hardcore fan you will probably buy both, or just JK’s, but the majority of the Harry Potter readers are not hardcore fans, and they will probably buy the first that is published and not the second, because: who would buy twice the same book (or two books which are slightly different)?
The serious thing here is that, as Morton and others said before, if SVA wins, JK will probably have to pay him the publishing rights when she publishes the Scottish Book, and that’s absolutely nonsense and disgusting, and if I were him I would be very ashamed of myself…
Well done, Melissa!
Re. – “This timeline, like all the material on the 1,000-plus-page Harry Potter Lexicon, is the original work of Mr. Vander Ark”—Correct me if I’m wrong, but is Ark claiming copyright to his Lexicon book, and all the HP material in it, before the book has been published, while the legitimacy of his book, not to mention who the HP material belongs to, is being decided in a lawsuit? Rather presumptuous of Ark, is it not?”
Just a point of clarification, which I think I mentioned yesterday in my first post opposite Part 1 of the summary. You can claim copyright on your accumulation and ordering of someone else’s material in the sense that the others’ material in YOUR format is what you own. The original material is ALWAYS the creator’s property unless they have legally signed ownership over to another party. And by the way, you STILL have to get the original owners’ permission BEFORE you use their material.
Also, WB does have standing in this case, because they DO own parts of the HP world. For example, JKR never developed the trademarks or other indicia that WB uses (although you’d better believe that WB and JKR negotiated the rights because the intellectual property, on which the trademarks and indicia were based, was JKR’s!).
In all of these situations, it really is the case that if you negotiate first, reach agreement next, and THEN proceed, things go smoothly (usually). But if you proceed first and THEN try and either cover up or backtrack a negotiation, well … you see the result.
Now, my attempt at making sense of the “definition and etymology” statement:
The definitions of the words that have been posted are correct, but in my opinion, the point of the statement was that since the HPL book does not provide a statement of what structure they used, or what method of determining definitions or word origins and so on they were following, and BECAUSE the way it appears in the book is in fact not some new formula of advanced methodology, there is no advancement of the field of knowledge and no original contribution, even including HOW the information was compiled. In other words, there is absolutely nothing original in the book, not even the compilaton methods used.
And please note, it is ONLY the book that is at issue. The website, aside from being freely available and therefore not affecting revenue streams, DOES contain some original thinking and commentary. Nobody is claiming otherwise. It is only the book.
You know, I have to say that I feel sorry for both SVA AND JKR, because this whole situation is probably one that neither party WANTS to be embroiled in. But I feel sorrier for we who are witnessing it and having our world a little more tarnished, when the Books and others’ efforts were so directed at showing that the world CAN be a better place if only there were more understanding and love in it.
M.
“Yeah. But would it be okay if that’s 10 years?”….she is in no hurry to get it done.”
Ok, I missed that line when I was rereading the transcript, but I remember listening to that particular Pottercast and the whole mention of “ten years” by everybody was said in jest. Sure she isn’t in any hurry, but the ten years thing came across to me as a joke. I could be wrong, but that is the way it sounded to me.
How depressing. What a shame, that it has to come to this. I feel bad for both Mr. Vander Ark as well as Ms. Rowling.
It makes me so sad to see all this going on. The Lexicon is a totally excellent resource, and I know I use it a few times a week when I need to remember something quick.
To think that the Lexicon book would hurt the profits of Jo’s encyclopedia is ridiculous, because what Harry Potter fan would pick the Lexicon book over the Scottish book? But then on the other hand, a Lexicon book is TOTALLY USELESS anyway because you can pretty much have the book for free on the website.
I think both arguments are rather silly. But, I guess I side with Jo on this one. As much as I love the Lexicon, just give it up Steve. The world just doesn’t need a lexicon book.
Isn’t it interesting that SVA tries to claim copyright infringement for the HP Timeline and then apparently infringes on JKR’s copyrights with the contract to publish the Lexicon.
OK I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate here, I’m honestly curious and I hope someone can help me out. This has been a fabulous discussion of comments so far, and I haven’t read every single one, so I apologize if this has been (specifically) addressed previously. Steve has mentioned that he has done extensive lexicons and encyclopedias on other subjects before, such as Star Trek and Hogan’s Heroes. He published a Star Trek lexicon and has sold all the copies made. What’s to keep the estate of Gene Roddenberry (sp) or the producers of Hogan’s Heroes from taking legal action in those cases? Or is there a difference between television and the written word? Thanks, sorry for the dumb question!
Morton K., thanks for weighing in with your thoughts on Johnson’s cryptic “logic of definition or etymology” comment!
Of course I realize that the suit is targeting the book and not the website. And I think they have very good justification for doing so. I just disagree with the complaint’s tacit implication that the NON-creative NON-original parts of the website (i.e., the parts of the website were dumped into the book) have no value to Potter fans other than “entertainment.” Frankly, I have little use for the Lexicon’s original, creative content - the essays and fan art and whatnot. The parts of the Lexicon I find most valuable are exactly the parts that got dumped into the book; and I use them as a reference tool, not as a derivative source of entertainment. As others have mentioned, reading through the Lexicon from start to finish is pretty dull-almost like reading a dictionary.
Darn those strikeouts! I keep forgetting. Please read behind the lines!
Melissa, Thank you for all your dedication and hard work. That goes to the rest of TLC staff also. I feel so sorry for the other Floo sites to hear that SVA was attempting to receive profit from these sites that promoted this illegal book. Not that you guys would do such a thing and permote something that would hurt JKR. It is a sad situation all around. I liked using Lexicon to find info when I was in need. I think I’ll go else where from now on.
On a brighter note. I can’t wait to read your book!
Thank you all again for creating a wonderful source of wonder and information.
Men of a certain age seem to come undone. And their undoing is accelerated if fame, fortune and flocks of adoring female fans are involved.
Dear fab4mom, who is to say that Paramount didn’t object to Steve’s Star Trek encyclopedia? Most Cease & Desist letters don’t make front page news.
In my opinion, the Lexicon book can be considered as a derivative book from the original Harry Potter. That is to say it is protected by the copyright law provided that it is published under the permission of the original author, which means Jo. I mean it is worth being respected too as a book alone, not a book of theft as some of you keep saying.
Admitedly, anyone of us (to be precisely, must be ones with particular virtues such as well-organized, systematic and detailed mind, and patience as well) can creat something similar to Steve’s. But his was the first and a well-done one, so please kindly don’t lower its real value. (but i have to say i was rather disappointed seeing the pdf version Melissa gave us, it was totally far less amazing than what they have on their website).
That’s for the book itself. Regarding Steve’s (or his chosen publisher?) action, Steve was obviously wrong when he didn’t get any permission but proceeding with the publication. (I wish Jo gave or would give her permission. But if she won’t, it’s ok to me.)
One more thing I would like to add is I don’t feel it’s wrong at all if Steve published the book for money, however little or big money. It’s only wrong if the existence of his book affects the profit of the future Scottish book which is for charity, about which I still doubt.
well I hope JK does do it well within 10 years, though I’d obviously also be happy with a gradual release of a 10 volume encyclopedia, each taking a year!