In The News
JKR/WB Respond in Lexicon Suit
Companion BooksJKR and WB have filed a response to the latest filing by RDR Books in the ongoing lawsuit against the publishers of the intended book version of the Harry Potter Lexicon. There are decarations from: J.K. Rowling, author of HP; Cheryl Klein, senior editor at Scholastic Books; Prof. Landes from the University of Chicago; Suzanne Murphy from Scholastic; Emily Blumsack from O’Melveney & Meyers, and Jerri Johnson, Oxford professor, in addition to a main statement summarizing the response.
This is the last filing before a hearing on March 13 to determine if a preliminary injunction will be granted. After that there still may or may not be a trial to determine if infringement has taken place.
(While we wait for the documents to go up on Justia, we are hosting them on Leaky; you can right click any declaration-submitter’s name to download their declaration, and the main statement is linked below.)
The main statement says that JKR/WB has proved likelihood of success (if the judge thinks so too it will affect the case’s forward motion, if any) and that the proposed book copies an enormous amount of Harry Potter work verbatim. It also says the proposed book falls under a definition of derivative that RDR ignored in its assessment: that it is a “work based on one or more pre-existing works.” It says the book is “nothing more than a recast of Ms. Rowling’s original text,” which differentiates it from the Ty Beanie Baby book cited by RDR because that book contained “critical and evaluative” elements.
It also says the book has been called “supplementary” based solely on a “1966 academic lecture” discussing extending a 99-year-old act’s provisions for forewords, prefaces, prologues, epilogues and bibliographies.
The main complaint says that RDR cannot prove that it is likely to succeed on a fair use charge because it does not create “new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.” It also says that attempts to cast it as a “serious book” filled with “scholarly commentary and analysis is merely an attempt to excuse blatant infringement.” It says “alphabetizing” does not render a work transformative and that reorganizing work does not alone render a work in concert with fair use. (It cites Video Pipeline, Inc., vs. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., on this claim.) It also argues against the notion that the book is similar in its fair use characteristics to Google’s thumbnail image search engine (as maintained by RDR in the last filing) and says there is no original commentary or analysis or “anything else rising to the level of scholarship.” It says RDR’s expert also agrees, citing the filing that says that the book’s chief point is not literary analysis.
It counts 2,034 entries out of the book’s 2,437 entries that lift text directly from Harry Potter, and says the remainder “merely [add] adverbs such as ‘unfortunately,’ ‘sadly,’ or ‘possibly’ to descriptions.”
On the charge that RDR made that JKR/WB have selectively chosen material to support their claims, this complaint cites a court decision which says “no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.” It also says that despite Steve Vander Ark claiming he used reference works, none are cited in the book or mentioned in the bibliography, and some appear to be taken from sources “such as Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary without attribution.” It also says entries on Harry and Voldemort basically tell the entire plot of the Harry Potter series.
“While there are many non-infringing books about the Series, books such as the Book are few in number and have been pulled from distribution as a result of Plaintiffs’ efforts.” It says the book would be a “significant” threat to JKR’s market for her book, citing a court decision that said, “once purchased, the consumer is unlikely to purchase a second can opener.” It says the RDR marketing materials show that it is positioning the book as more comprehensive than others, and that publication would “signal that others may also free ride off Ms. Rowling’s works, flooding the market with copycat works.”
The following are summations of the included declarations:
J.K. Rowling’s declaration says that she:
1. ...is “deeply troubled” by the portrayal of her efforts to protect and preserve her copyrights, “and feel[s] betrayed by Steven Vander Ark, as a person who calls himself a fan.”
2. ...is “particularly concerned” about RDR’s insistence that her acceptance of free fan websites justifies efforts to publish the potential book. “Such a position penalizes copyright owners like me for encouraging and supporting the activities of their respective fan communities. If RDR’s position is accepted, it will undoubtedly have a significant, negative impact on the freedoms enjoyed by genuine fans on the internet. Authors everywhere will be forced to protect their creations much more rigorously, which could mean denying well-meaning fans permission to pursue legitimate creative activities.”
3. ...thinks that “99%” of fans are acting in good faith, and “as I have excellent relations with many members of the fan community, I find it devastating to contemplate the possibility of such a severe alteration of author-fan relations. I continue to believe that the online fandom has been a wonderful experience for thousands of people, myself included; that it has become, not only an enormous global book club, but engendered an explosion of creativity and communication rooted in a world we would all like to inhabit.”
4. ...reiterates her statement that she has said she plans to publish a definitive Potter guide, and her intentions to donate the proceeds to charity. She says the Bloomsbury version of the Potter guide has already been given to her, and that she has begun “assembling and organizing” materials. “Naturally this means that my encyclopedia will contain all information in the published books. To suggest that I would omit from my encyclopedia the information already made available in the novels, can only spring from a willful misinterpretation of a selective quotation. I fully intend to write this encyclopedia, however..I am not prepared to commit to another deadline [and] do not believe I should be forced to make such a commitment or run the risk of losing the right to create my own encyclopedia on an exclusive basis. I thought that this was part of what my rights were as an author and copyright holder. I also feel strongly that RDR is attempting to interfere with my creative process by repeatedly arguing that a timeline for publication of my Harry Potter encyclopedia is necessary in order to prove that I mean to publish one at all. I am not a person to make statements lightly, particularly when it comes to statements that ultimately will set expectations for my fans.”
5. ...is disheartened by Steve Vander Ark’s actions despite long-time knowledge of her intention to write this encyclopedia, and responds to RDR’s request for her to prove her intention by citing her seven published novels and two published charity books, and says that she does not think any “reasonable person would question my good faith in this regard.”
6. ... feels the premise that fans will buy both encyclopedias is “presumptuous and insensitive,” owing the first to an assumption that everyone would want to have two encyclopedias and the second to assuming they could afford both. ”..it is obvious to me that many people do not have money to buy every book that appeals to them.”
7. ...says RDR has misquoted her or taken statements out of context. She refers to the joking comment on PotterCast about taking “ten years” to do the Harry Potter encyclopedia as misrepresentive and “inappropriately cut off at a selective moment…the very next thing i said in that interview is that I wanted to give people everything in the companion guide and do ‘the absolute definitive guide.’”
8. ... says that when she awarded the Lexicon the Fan Site Award she never thought it would be used by Steve Vander Ark to “attempt to legitimize an attempt to profit financially form my work. At that time I believed him to be…a true enthusiast who simply wished to share his enjoyment of Harry Potter with others.” She says the oft-quoted citation in which she used an Internet cafe to check a fact rather than purchasing a copy of her own books is representative of “its only value to me” being “that it was occasionally more convenient to access, in a situation where I was likely to be recognized in public, than it would have been to walk into a bookstore and purchase” Harry Potter. She also says she has never indicated that any FSA winner is a “favorite” and never intended for the award to be taken by “anyone as an authorization for them to create and sell [an] infringing Harry Potter book for profit.”
9. ...feels “intensely protective” of the world she created and of the fans who have bought “my books in such huge numbers. I feel that I have a duty to these readers to ensure, as far as possible, that Harry Potter does not become associated with substandard versions, whether in the world of film or in any other medium. I believe that RDR’s book constitutes a Harry Potter ‘rip off’ of the type I have spent years trying to prevent and that both I, as the creator of this world, and fans of Harry Potter, would b e exploited by its publication.”
10. ...feels frustrated that a “former fan” has tried to “co-opt my work for financial gain. The Harry Potter books are full of moral choices and ethical dilemmas, and, ironically, Mr. Vander Ark’s actions tend to demonstrate that he is woefully unfit to represent himself as either a ‘fan of’ or ‘expert on’ books whose spirits he seems entirely to have missed.”
Cheryl Klein’s declaration: The declaration from Cheryl Klein addresses the RDR submission of a note she had written to Steve Vander Ark in 2005, complimenting his work, after the publication of Half-Blood Prince. It points out that Steve Vander Ark once said to Ms. Klein that one of the purposes of the Lexicon was to dissuade people from publishing unofficial encyclopedias, in deference to rights J.K. Rowling has reserved.
The declaration says, “It is my practice to foster good relations with the Harry Potter fan community…it was in this vein that I wrote the note…as a friendly gesture of good will…At no time did I ever say anything to Mr. Vander Ark to suggest that it would be acceptable for him to publish a Harry Potter encyclopedia.”
Her declaration goes on to say that “to the contrary,” Steve Vander Ark made clear to Ms. Klein that his understanding was that J.K. Rowling had reserved the rights to produce her own encyclopedia. The documents cite an e-mail from August 3, 2006, in which he apologized for a comment he had made at a fan event (the conference Lumos 2006, which Cheryl Klein attended in an unofficial capacity) and said that “one of the purposes of the Lexicon was to dissuade other people from writing a Harry Potter encyclopedia in light of Ms. Rowlnig’s intentions.”
The documents quote the email’s postscript, which says, “PS It might interest you to know that George Beahm [a third party author] commented that he had originally intended to write an encyclopedia of Harry Potter (which Jo has specifically reserved for herself, I understand) but seeing the Lexicon convinced him not to bother. I want you to know that one of the express purposes of the Lexicon is to dissuade people from that sort of thing, so I was particularly happy to hear him say that.”
Emily Blumsack’s declaration (and her exhibits)
Emily Blumsack, a lawyer for JKR/WB, assesses each of the books that RDR claims is similar enough to the proposed Lexicon book to indicate that permission to publish such books has already been granted. She also monitored fan activity and noted several statements made by Steve Vander Ark and others. She notes that:
RDR recognized in a previous email that there was no clear competitor or book like the proposed Lexicon in print, and that every other book on the subject was out of date, which speaks against the RDR claim that there are other books like the Lexicon’s on the market.
RDR recognizes the advantage of being first to publish and advised Steve Vander Ark not to publish book seven contents on his Web site to avoid that content being co-opted by MuggleNet, who was considering publishing an encyclopedia at the time (they stopped when they received a cease-and-desist from the Christopher Little Agency). The email from RDR to Steve Vander Ark said, “Remember, Mugglenet would love to see your book 7 material on the web. I would appreciate it if you would not put the book seven updates on your website until after your book has been out for awhile. Sound like a good idea?”
The declaration says that, “upon learning that the competing book was no longer slated for publication…Mr. Vander Ark has since started updating the Lexicon website with this material.”
She cites two public statements Steve Vander Ark made on this issue on a public discussion list, one saying that he would go forward with an encyclopedia if JKR decided not to, and that without JKR’s permission “I won’t publish…in any form except online. [Ms. Rowling is] entitled to that market, not me and not [another author.]
She also mentions that RDR recognizes that Steve Vander Ark’s persona presents potential harm to JKR’s encyclopedia, by quoting an email from RDR that calls Steve Vander Ark a “rock star” and “Elvis like figure” at fan events. She says also that “Mr. Vander Ark continues to work at remaining well known in the Harry Potter fan community, despite this lawsuit. He has even planned to take a prominent role in these kinds of events through the upcoming year, for example, by featuring as a Harry Potter expert on a tour of Potter-related locations throughout England scheduled for this summer. (This cites that tour as “The Ultimate Tour with Steve Vander Ark,” an HP Fan Trips tour – that title was very recently changed to omit Steve Vander Ark’s name.)
“In fact, the very same day that Plaintiffs filed…Mr. Vander Ark was speaking in Manhattan at an event sponsored by the New York Public Library entitled, ‘Meet Steve Vander Ark, Author of the Harry Potter Lexicon.’”
Ms. Blumsack also notes that 40 percent of the material in the book was written by other members of the staff or guest contributors and volunteers, then quotes two LeakyLounge members (dresdenfiles.fan and cbm) who publicly stated that while they contributed to the Lexicon they had no knowledge that they were contributing to a for-profit book.
She then cites an example of Steve Vander Ark having “sicced” his lawyer on someone who had “written a book which he wants to sell” based on his Web site, Accio Quote and Jo’s web site. The statement said, “I’m sorry but that’s where I draw the line. I will not stand for someone stealing my material and using it to scam fans out of money…I don’t like doing things like this. But this leech is not a true fan.” Ms. Blumsack says this is exactly what Steve Vander Ark is trying to do.
Ms. Blumsack also says that she found no proof to Steve Vander Ark’s claims that he attempted to set up a meeting about his book between himself and the Christopher Little Literary Agency, noting that the emails between Steve Vander Ark and Emma Schlesinger did not mention his intent to publish.
Her last exhibit is an email exchange between Roger Rapoport and spokesperson Richard Harris (who told TLC in November that he was new to the publisher) dated late September 2007 (two weeks after the first cease-and-desist letter was sent), discussing the wording of the dislcaimer on the book to make it more clear that the book is not authorized or approved by J.K. Rowling. Mr. Harris said to Roger Rapoport, “Just because you say it’s a ‘critical reference work’ or covered by the fair use doctrine doesn’t mean it is. I think ‘reference work’ and ‘reader’s guide’ protect it as fully as possible.” It also mentions that the book, at that point, had not been fully submitted or typeset.
Suzanne Murphy’s declaration
Suzanne Murphy is a Vice President in publishing and marketing at Scholastic and speaks to RDR’s claim that a fan would buy both encyclopedias. She says that RDR “misunderstands the market” and says that while the core of fans “if they had the money” would purchase “everything Ms. Rowling writes,” the “general consumers may not feel the need to have two Harry Potter encyclopedias. For a significant segment of the general book consuming market, if they buy the Infringing Book, when presented with a later opportunity to purchase Ms. Rowling’s encyclopedia, they will decline as their perspective will be that they ‘already bought one.’ As a result, if the Infringing Book is allowed to be published it will usurp a key segment” of the market for JKR’s and the diminished sales “could not easily be quantified.”
She also notes that RDR “appears to have had some awareness” that the book would hurt the market for JKR’s book because exhibits have indicated that Steve Vander Ark “refrained from including the full list of entries from Ms. Rowling’s companion guide ‘Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them’ on his Lexicon website because ‘it would take away sales of the book.’” She further claims that RDR has tacitly agreed that there would be harm rendered to JKR’s market for her book because they say that the “harm” of not being first to publish an encyclopedia has already been done. She says they have taken the “very opposite position” concerning the Lexicon book as they have in the past: “Far from being just one of many, RDR claims in its marketing materials and emails that the Infringing Book is the first and only comprehensive guide to the Harry Potter world containing information from all seven Harry Potter books. In an email to a Canadian publisher…RDR stated ’...there is no other Harry Potter reference book hitting the market that is in any way similar to what we are doing. Other books look like the Idiot[s] Guide to Harry Potter are junk. Our book is written by 20 academic scholars and reference experts. This is the only complete reference work based on the number one Harry Potter website in the world…It is also the first complete reference book on the series.’”
Ms. Murphy says it is clear the books would be in competition and that “the ability to be first to publish the complete, definitive guide to Harry Potter” is “extremely valuable.”
She also addresses the books like the Lexicon book that RDR cited in its claim, noting that “many of these books are out of print; or either have been or will be removed from the market or significantly revised because of the enforcement efforts of Plaintiffs. Of the four remaining books, ‘The End of Harry Potter?,’ ‘Facts, Fiction and Folklore in Harry Potter’s World,’ ‘The Magical World of Harry Potter,’ and ‘An Unofficial Muggle’s Guide to the Wizarding World,’...none of these books cover all seven Harry Potter books and all of them are distinct from the Infringing Book because of their content, which includes essays, analysis, commentary and discussion. As a result, the existence of these books is irrelevant to the analysis as to whether or not there is a competitive advantage to being the first.”
She says the publication of the Lexicon book would “diminish the distinctiveness of Ms. Rowling’s work” because there is “a cachet of distinctiveness that comes from simply being first.”
She also says that the book has been claimed as one of scholarship but from her understanding, has been marketed to children’s bookstores and children’s book buyers at major retail chains. “A work of scholarship or reference more often than not would not be marketed to children’s book buyers nor would it appear in the children’s section of any bookstore.”
William Landes’ declaration:
William Landes is the Clifon R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School. His declaration addresses the potential market harm of the Lexicon book. It first reviews his previous declaration, which reviewed fair use and its potential for promoting or detracting from economic efficiency. It says the Lexicon book meets none of the conditions in which fair use promotes that efficiency, and points out that RDR has not “directly challenged the economic analysis of any of these issues presented in my prior declaration.” He also says there has been no challenge to the claim that protecting copyright encourages creation, or that allowing derivative works to be copyrighted would increase costs of creating or licensing work. It reminds that RDR claims the assertions of market harm are “unsupported.” The rest of the lengthy declaration says that the statements by RDR are “based on erroneous economic reasoning and are not supported by available data.”
Mr. Landes says it would harm J.K. Rowling’s book because:
-It has been emphasized in its marketing as being first
-It would reduce sales of her own book and therefore the donation to charities that would ensure, and would raise transaction costs for authors of derivative works
He mentions that for some, the Lexicon book would be their only purchase of a Harry Potter encyclopedia, and says the idea the official book would not be damaged because the same information is available on the Lexicon website because a website is impossible to give as a gift to a Harry Potter fan. “If the Lexicon were a perfect substitute for the [book] Lexicon, there would be no reason to incur the extra costs of publishing the book. Even if it is an imperfect substitute for the volume that Ms. Rowling expects to produce, the Lexicon would adversely affect demand for Ms. Rowling’s book.
He further cites potential harm by mentioning: 1. ...that Steve Vander Ark “has a prominent role in the Harry Potter community.” The declaration mentions an article that reports on people taking pictures of and asking autographs of Mr. Vander Ark, and cites a (2004 or early 2005) UrbanWire interview calling him an expert. He also mentions that Steve Vander Ark has spoken at conferences Nimbus 2003, Convention Alley 2004, Accio 2005, Lumos 2006, Patronus 2006, Sectus 2007 and Prophecy 2007.
2. ...that the mainstream media also consider him an authority, citing Mr. Vander Ark’s interview on an A&E television special called “Harry Potter: The Hidden Secrets,” which was later on the OOTP DVD version, relabeled as “The Hidden Secrets of Harry Potter.” It also mentions the New York Times, USA Today and the Today Show as having interviewed Mr. Vander Ark.
3. ...that the Lexicon web site “is one of the most popular Harry Potter fan sites.” Internet traffic, the declaration says, indicates the site gets over 92,000 unique visitors per month, “second only to MuggleNet.com among Harry Potter fan sites,” according to QuantCast.com. It notes that the JKR and WB sites get about 260,000 unique visitors per month.
4. ...that the Lexicon’s status as a member of the Floo Network, “linkage that provides Vander Ark a wide platform to market his book to its audience of Harry Potter fans.”
5. ...that the MuggleNet book is mentioned as an ancillary Harry Potter book that has achieved great commercial success; an article claimed the book sold 335,000 copies and was on the Children’s Paperback Bestsellers List for 20 weeks. He also mentions that the book was published by Ulysses Press, also an independent publisher like RDR, suggesting RDR’s previous lack of big titles would not preclude it from large commercial success with this book and therefore would pose potential harm.
6. ...that the other books are not “first movers” because the other books differ from the Lexicon’s. “Only one of these six volumes, ‘Field Guide to Harry Potter,’ was published after the seventh and last volume of the Harry Potter series was completed. However, according to Nielsen BookScan, the ‘Field Guide’ has sold only 201 units and thus cannot be considered to have usurped any first-mover advantage.” Of the other books, he says, one, David Langford’s “The End of Harry Potter?” is not marketed as an encyclopedia, and none of the remaining books were published after the series was completed. Also, none have been successful. “I understand that the defendant now acknowledges that the last three of these books have been withdrawn from the market, apparently at the request of the plaintiffs, due to concerns about copyright violation.” (Those “last three” are: “The JK Rowling Encyclopedia,” “A Muggle’s Guide to Exploring the Wizarding World,” and “Harry Potter A to Z: The Unofficial Harry Potter Encyclopedia.”)
Jerri Johnson’s Declaration
Jerri Johnson, from Exeter College at Oxford University, has submitted a second declaration refuting the claim that the book is scholarly or a research book, saying it does not meet the standards as set by the “Modern Language Association in the U.S. or the Research Assessment Exercise for Higher Education in the U.K.”
She points out that the opposing critic pointed to reference books on public domain works, like those of Shakespeare, and Tolkien or C.S. Lewis companion books that were written either by the author or with the author’s consent.
She says that much of the book’s content is lifted directly from the series and that evidence of etymological research are “sprinkled sporadically and rarely throughout the Lexicon and…reflect scant evidence of scholarship as, among other things, they are often wrong.” She says those instances bear the signs of someone having “scavenged about, sometimes through a dictionary of a language he seems not to understand, for the likeliest synonym.” She cites the entry for “colloportus,” which is referenced as derived from the Latin “collego, to bind together,” and “portus, door,” when the term “portus” is usually tnce.” She also says that it is “oddly etymologically silent at times.”
She also says it fails to follow “the first rule of scholarly research: full and proper citation of one’s sources,” citing instances of a lack of source such as one definition that comes “verbatim, from Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary,” and another, for the entry for Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa Von Nettesheim, which is quoted “virtually verbatim” from Encyclopedia Brittanica online.
She says the single error the book might offer research is for the errors found in the book, though the book says, “remarkably few genuine [errors] exist.”
Also, two article updates:
Methuen, the British publisher of the book, says it is “fairly confident” that the judge will rule in RDR’s favor and plans to proceed with publication in April in that case.
Harvard Law blogger and copyright/IP professor Derek Bambauer says that a recent NYT article on the case “Foul[ed] Up Fair Use” and contains an “embarassingly simple mistake of copyright law.”
rate this article
Interested in Companion Books?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
I think that HP fans do buy second can openers (I own GoF in 6 various forms, and it isn’t even my favorite). Anyone obsessed enough to buy it has read all the books and still will buy the Scottish Book. However, Jo really is correct. This makes me nervous because of what could happen to the fandom…
Even though this case is a bad thing I’m GLAD it’s happened because it should make it clear to those wishing to make money by ripping off HP that they need to cease and desist! And this is 100% about making money, NOT about giving something back to fandom, publishing something fans would enjoy.
As Jo pointed out, if SVA was a true fan he would have scrapped plans for the Lexicon book LONG ago. I’m glad Jo made a statement about him. It just shows how far this has had to go that she had to make these statements in the first place. I would be ASHAMED of myself if I had disrupted Jo’s professional life in this way after all the enjoyment she has given me through her writing.
Personally I’m quite against how the HP phenomenon has been hijacked by a lot of people to make money, whether it’s through books, music, whatever. What makes it worse IMO is the number of kids that are being taken advantage of because they want everything Potter, and as Jo said above, these inferior products are not what the books are about.
Incidentally, I don’t think of Melissa’s book in this way. It’s about the HP phenomenon (cool, I used that word twice in one post!) so that’s perfectly legitimate. If it was yet another book on ‘analysing’ the series I might have been disappointed. I particularly didn’t agree with Mugglenet’s book ‘What Will Happen In Harry Potter 7’ – put out for a quick buck before Book 7 came out. Also, the title was very cocky, it could easily have been mistaken for a book that explained what really happened in Book 7, thereby making it able to sell post-Deathly Hallows (luckily it’s very cheap everywhere now, so more fool you if you bought it at full price!!!)
justia.com have the documents now, with a couple of revised versions.
“Elvis like figure’ at fan events”
So that was why I couldn’t get a hamburger at Accio – SVA had eaten them all!
BTW, you can get the Mugglenet book from Amazon for $2 now.
Oops, I forgot the KEY thing about these ‘analysis’ books – YOU CAN GET IT ALL ONLINE FOR FREE!! Seriously, how much HP analysis has been done on Pottercast alone, and it’s been provided for free with pure entertainment and HP love in mind. Any book of this nature you may buy is just a repeat of all the millions of words that have been written about the HP books online. Just think of the forums! Thousands upon thousands of posts, day in-day out, all for free and in good fun!
I browse Leaky every day, listen to Pottercast every week, for free. Words can’t express how thankful I am that site exists (all staffers should be praised!) and that I’m safe in the knowledge that it’s run by fellow true HP fans not simply out to make a buck or five from it’s readers. ‘The Most Trusted Name In Potter’ is about right!
frankly i used to regard steve vander ark with the utmost respect but this situation has ruined him for me. i’m completely shocked by the fact that he thinks this kind of blatant plagiarism is at all acceptable. He is essentially writing a book with the exact things from another book which is the definition of such a deplorable action. I am appalled and think he should feel ashamed of himself for being so ignorant.
before i start…a few things scream out at me….
“He mentions that for some, the Lexicon book would be their only purchase of a Harry Potter encyclopedia, and says the idea the official book would not be damaged because the same information is available on the Lexicon website because a website is impossible to give as a gift to a Harry Potter fan. “If the Lexicon were a perfect substitute for the [book] Lexicon, there would be no reason to incur the extra costs of publishing the book. Even if it is an imperfect substitute for the volume that Ms. Rowling expects to produce, the Lexicon would adversely affect demand for Ms. Rowling’s book.
so even if they are different…that doesn’t matter. hmmmmm.
“It counts 2,034 entries out of the book’s 2,437 entries that lift text directly from Harry Potter, and says the remainder “merely [add] adverbs such as ‘unfortunately,’ ‘sadly,’ or ‘possibly’ to descriptions” clearly shows that all RDR/SVA have done is cut and pasted the material from the Lexicon and put it on paper to make money. Without scholarly criticism or analysis, it’s blatant plagiarism.”
no…actually, since by all accounts it hasn’t even been set in type yet, it isn’t.
and see what i just did? where i directly lifted the text and then put lil flippy things in front and after it? THATS CALLED QUOTING. im allowed to do that. and, in fact, if it is NOT direct text, i could be misrepresenting you. MIS-quoting you.
so,say, if he called Ron’s hair, o…say….chestnut with an auburn hue, rather then a direct quote, he would in deed be guilty of the very thing he is being charged with….copyright infringement….taking an already static character and introducing a new element.
now…. i can already hear it….”but its her book!!!”
yes dear. its her book. her characters. her world (excepting the fact that england is…well…england.)
but let me ask all you rabid little potterites this….are the thoughts in YOUR head on HER books hers? of course not. unless you wanted to make a spot of cash from those thoughts. then she gets a say….right?
WRONG.
“she made up the characters, she made up the world, she blah blah blah whine whine whine…”
i have read quite literally MILLIONS of books. i dont count, but i average at least one a day, going all the way up to three if im having a nervous breakdown and cant sleep. ive been reading like that since i was in 2nd grade. and while JKR is decent, she is hardly the first to come up with any of it. NONE. its all derivative. everything is, actually, which is why we have GENRES. individual groupings of stratas based on their tone and what they derive from. kind of like food groups.
JKR is a nice solid PB&J…. and i’ll be the first to admit that sometimes a good PB&J is EXACTLY what one wants and needs. not to heavy, yet filling…sweet, but healthy enough to lack any major guilt. wizard schools, guilds, spells, teachers,methods….give me any random bit and ill give you a corresponding random bit from another book that precedes it. now….nothing wrong with that in the slightest.
plenty of food to go round, you know?
BUT….just because she wrote a decent PB&J does not give her rights over all other combinations of peanut butter, bread, and jelly, descriptions of such (including her own) lists of such, opinions of such, etc.
even if she IS planning on writing her own encyclopedia….its just that….hers. NOT HIS. that would be the difference. and the rub. just because she might/probably will/could write one….means he can not? NO! if RDR stole her notes on such, and tried to publish….if they had access to non published material JKR has in her head or otherwise, that would be a different story. RDR’s/SVA’s book is just that….THEIRS. based on and inclusive of already existing material organized into an easily referenced chunk of paper. theres no plot….you cant read the thing for story value… its a series of QUOTES, for gods sake, and a bit of “english for americans” thrown in to ease the ride. the fact that its all about JKR’S books is legal. if he was to write a NEW book with her characters, THAT would NOT.
the song about the song, as the say, is not the song itself.
Melissa, I know you’ve heard this a lot already, but I admire you so much for all you do. Thank you for tanslating the Legalese. This entire affair is so sordid. I truly feel sorry for Jo for having to go through with this, especially with a person she thought had supported her. To Jo Rowling, I’ve loved your books and continue to love them, and I offer you my fullest support. To Leaky, thanks guys for all that you do, and keep going strong!
I feel honor bound to respond to mme’s post. While I respect your opinion, the fact that JKR wrote it and then put copyright on it prevents anyone else from making a profit by directly quoting or paraphrasing her work in a non-reference book related manner (Which it seems the Lexicon is, despite it’s many strengths, a non-reference text). There is a name for that sort of action. It is called plaigarism and will get you expelled from most colleges and in serious legal trouble to boot. And to the comment that JKR is only literary PB & J, I’ve read Dumas, Hugo, Leroux, Shakespeare (Whom I practically worship), Marlowe, Lewis, Tolkien, and many others, and Rowling still, to this day, remains one of the authors with the finest ability to craft humor and a story that I have ever read. Heck, she showed me that reading could be the awesome journey it is. So, to quote Tom Hanks “That’s all I have to say about that”.
she must think she wrote don quixote or something (plagiarism is of course is in that story as well..but i digress). this is getting tiring. she has already made a billion dollars. and this is just another UNAUTHORIZED book like so many others. dear Jo, stop being greedy please. thank you.
I would just like to point out the fact that the SVA Encyclopedia is cited as basically summarizing the entire series. For those who are just looking to see what the whole phenomenon is all about, this would be a cheap option, therefore Jo’s books loose credibility and sales. I don’t even think its about Jo herself loosing money, but rather all the other people that get money from them. So yea. I’m with Jo.
And also, Melissa, I know its been said thousands of times here, but I truly would like to thank you so very much. You’ve provided a very unbiased and informative article that is easy to read and follow whats going on. I’m a 14 year old with the attention span of a sugar high squirrel, so even just reading the real documents is a struggle, let alone understanding them. The sugar high squirrel again says thank you. You’re like my hero. =D
“whale song of love and tenderess” and mme are likely the same person.
guys, jk rowling has the right legally to fight someone who is profiting by copying her work and reorganizing it for personal financial gain. that is illegal.
Guess what whale song, jk rowling is donating the royalties from her encylopedia to charity and have said as such for 5-6+ years, ever since she started talking about the encylopedia…. SHE WOULDNT GET A SINGLE CENT FROM IT. oh how greedy of jk rowling to give money to charity!
who wants to bet mme and whale song are from RDR Books.
just be greatful jk rowling gave you the harry potter books to read, but no one has the right to hijack her works for their personal gain without her permission.
First, I am not certain that Derek Bambauer is a Harvard professor. In his post he notes that he is in Michigan. Last I checked Harvard was in Massachusetts. He links to an article he expected to publish which suggests he is a faculty member of Wayne State University Law School.
Second, I am inclined to agree with mme in the post above. As much as I respect and admire Ms. Rowling, I don’t think she should be the only one to publish such a work. She has rights to license derivative works such as a musical or the movies. Prof. Bambauer seems to disagree with this principle for economic reasons, though you need to read the publication linked in his article for that analysis. I am not sure I agree with anyone having the right to produce a HP movie. Companion books are a different matter. It sets a dangerous precedent. Should an author have the ultimate say in how their work is analyzed and interpreted? I think not.
Greedy! Please. How can one be greedy when the intent is to give all profit to charity…?
Just because she’s had a phenomenal hit series of books, has made tons of money, doesn’t mean suddenly she loses her copyrights!
It is NOT just another “unauthorized” book. According to copyright laws JK Rowling has the write to license derivative works. An “unauthorized” derivative book can be published IF it meets the criteria of fair use OR is considered substantially transformative as to be ‘scholarly’.
SVAs book meets ZERO of those criteria, therefore it is ILLEGAL to publish.
mme, I don’t want to argue with you about your overall postion on this case although I thoroughly disagree with it. However, when you say:
i have read quite literally MILLIONS of books. i dont count, but i average at least one a day, going all the way up to three if im having a nervous breakdown and cant sleep. ive been reading like that since i was in 2nd grade. and while JKR is decent, she is hardly the first to come up with any of it.
I have to LOL. I know you say you don’t count but maybe you should. Assuming you are 57 years old, you still couldn’t have even reached 25K books at the rate you say you read. Maybe you should find some legal books and read up on things like “fair use” , “copyright”, and “plagiarism”, and then come back and discuss the JKR v SVA/RDR situation. Even if you don’t change your opinion at least you’ll be a bit closer to the “literally MILLIONS” of books you mention reading above.
Just sayin’...
@msm: “She has rights to license derivative works such as a musical or the movies.”
As copyright holder she is entitled to license ALL derivative works that do not fall within the realms of fair use OR scholarship. Critique, review, analysis—-all are fair use. You’ll find none of these in SVAs book. Please not that RDR themselves identify over 200 unauthorized derivative works. The difference being is that they were ‘fair use’.
A quick look at Derek Bambauer’s credentials shows that he does teach at Wayne State, but he is a Harvard graduate with a B.A. and J.D. [and is licensed to practice in Massachusetts].
just like her blippity bop book? auction a book for charity when if she really REALLY cared about the charity she could easily plop down a 100 million dollars to save a bunch of people? hardly.
Songs of Whales:
Entitlement much? As far as i can tell, Jo Rowling has all the money she feels like she needs for life and does a great deal of admirable work for charities not only by direct donation, but also by events and donations that draw attention (and other donations to charitable causes) and she gets called greedy.
On the flip side, a single fan of hers has decided by his actions to endanger not only the freedom that JKR and Warners have allowed Harry Potter fans on the internet, but the freedom of ALL internet fandoms who operate by the grace of their copywrite holders… simply because he apparently believes his hard work should have a financial pay off.
Whatever mixed feelings HP fandom has over SVA (and I think his behavior as documented in the Klein and Blumsack is pretty inexcusable no matter what the social context), there are dozens if not hundreds of other fandoms watching this case and hoping that it doesn’t destroy decades of our own hard work.
Gee, it’s so nice when others are so free with another’s bank account. She’s been an amazingly charitable person. She earned her money honestly, she’s entitled to do with it what she will.
Just because she is now quite affluent does not mean she loses her rights to her works or is entitled to allow people to turn a quick buck off of her, nor that people have the right to steal from her. That’s what this Lexicon book does.
@ NotTheHBP: I suspect you’re right, it seems the ‘socks’ are out in force, tonite.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Since DH was published, your interest in Potter fandom has:
- Increased! I'm more involved now than I ever was!795 (22%)
- It's stayed at the same level of fun it always has!1334 (38%)
- Decreased slightly: I only check sites a few times a week now.887 (25%)
- Severely lowered. Without new canon, I'm bored.358 (10%)
- It's gone. In fact, I can't even answer this poll because I'm not really visting a Potter site.112 (3%)
I also join everyone thanking Melissa’s effort to make legalise bareable and pointing out the essentials. Really those who complained on the quality of what is excellent work should just go directly to Justia and keep childish accusations to themselves.
As for this sad business, am done passing judgment on SVA, he’s pretty much pulverised his credibility and reputation (whether or not he’s been indemnified). JK has clearly expressed her view and as someone cleverly pointed out, that was the equivalent of a “blogslap”. If this was directed at me, I’d want to be invisible, leave the country and hide in cave.
When thinking about what will happen I don’t think RDR will survive this. This case will ruin many lifes and disrupt harmless fans and fandoms because of this preposterous situation. And this will probably be true for the lexicon online. I have mix feeling about that, it will bare the consequence of this suite.