A couple of quick updates in the Lexicon case, in which J.K. Rowling and WB are trying to stop publication of an unofficial encyclopedia based on the Harry Potter Lexicon web site:
First, Steve Vander Ark, editor of the Lexicon, wrote Ansible, a prominent British fan zine, in defense of RDR Books’ case, saying, among other things, that “Part of the problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the part of many that Rowling has the right to completely control anything written about the Harry Potter world. That’s quite a huge power grab on her part and from everything I can tell, not legal.”
The letter also says: “[Dave Langford, editor of Ansible] and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others. We always try to do that in a legal and respectful way. However, if Rowling manages to extend her reach that far into our subculture, she will choke us off very quickly. And if she doesn’t, what’s to stop the next person from taking this legal precedent to even more dangerous places?”
In addition, a new opinion piece in the NYT Business section also calls the case a “power grab” and attempt to “choke” creativity by J.K. Rowling, and calls her a “copyright hog,” before going on to extensively profile Attorney Falzone and the Stanford U. Fair Use Project, which is arguing for the RDR Books’ side of the case. There is very little talk in this editorial of the merits of the actual Lexicon case or whether the book falls into fair use (in fact the article assumes that it does), only a wide and generic look at the history of copyright law and how this case may or may not fit into it.
As for the expected filings on the case: Some will come tomorrow afternoon (they will be filed overnight and take some time to process), and one exhibit, over 15MB in size, can only be filed in hard copy. That file is of some companion books already on the market, so there may not be any need to have it available for download.
We’d like to remind everyone to please be civil in the comments.
Urrgh…I thought from reading comments on the Lexicon site that it was mostly RDR doing all the (I’ll refrain from posting my particular thought here), and that Steve was sort of arguing against them, but after that, his credibility just dropped. Jo wrote it, and all this book is is copying it into an orderly alphabetical encyclopedia….That sure as heck isn’t under Fair Use laws….
On a completey unrelated, but amusing, note, I didn’t realise that Melissa was the Melissa posting. I honestly thought that it was someone named Melissa who was posting her picture, by chance with red hair as well, doing that. I snort at myseld with the derision I usually reserve for people who argue about things they know nothing about or won’t back it up. Did I just describe myself?
choke CREATIVITY, they say? What they’re doing is taking her CREATIVE works and publishing it for their own profit. I’m sure that is very CREATIVE of them.
Man, I gotta stop reading these updates. It’s just giving me an acid stomach. Of course, SVA’s lawyer must have an even worse acid stomach, trying to figure out a way to muzzle his client. How unbelievably ugly.
I won’t pretend to have even the slightest understanding of the legalities of this issue. But despite what the law says, I’m wondering whatever happened to good old-fashioned decency? No matter what the law says, as adults we should all understand the basic difference between right and wrong. Profiting off of someone else’s work just strikes me as clearly wrong, while plans to create something to benefit charity is obviously right, nice, and just plain decent. The money being spent on this case could be put to so much better use than solving what we all learned on the playground as children: you don’t take something that’s not yours, period.
I agree with Joy’s post that this entire situation for both sides has boiled down to money. It’s gone beyond the claims of intellectual property and the creative process. Both parties are throwing mud at the other (whether personally or through lawyers) and I fear that the damage has hurt both sides. Before all this started how many of you trashed talked the Lexicon for what it was doing? Accused them of copyright infringement? Very little if any from what I can remember. The Lexicon was heralded as a great source of HP knowledge. That, I fear, will no longer be the case. Before anyone flames me for my views on the “money” aspect of the case I understand that there is a difference between the web version (which is free to the public) and a book (which must be bought). And as an artist I understand intellectual property/copyright infringement aspect of the case as well. I find it hard to believe that this case is still about copyright laws anymore. It is about money and that may be hard for a lot of people to figure out.
Which side is wrong and right in this situation is now in the hands of the legal system. Should it have gotten to this point? No. Both sides should have sat down and come up with some type of compromise. Unfortunately the damage that has come from this case is done. JKR’s legions of fans will stick by her side and defend her even if her argument is found to be at fault. SVA has ruined his reputation with his behavior. I personally am no longer a fan of JKR and SVA/Lexicon. It appears that both sides have lost sight of what is most important, not themselves but the millions of people who love Harry Potter. I found the Lexicon entertaining and informative and the HP series was a fantastic trip. JKR’s journey of HP helped me through the loss of both my parents. It was the greatest escape for me. Sadly that’s been ruined by this entire situation. I hope that both sides come to some agreement for the sake of themselves and most importantly the fans. I hope that those who read this will at least think about my view and those of others even if you are opposed to them. We are a society that has become quick to judge and condemn those who are of differing opinions.
Of course, I could be totally of my rocker on this entire case. This is just how it appears to me. Be groovy!
Come on!!! He’s just reached an all new low! Saying that J.K.’s ‘extending her reach into our subculture?’ Who is he joking? His book is just a copy of the Lexicon! He is just using her work to create a profit for himself! If Steve’s reading this, heed this warning: what goes around comes around!
I have had a lot of respect for Steve in the past, but that all just went out the window. I can understand wanting to write the book in the first place, but enough is enough. He’s risen above his place, it seems. Sigh.
I am unhappy that two people I admire and would like to support unconditionally are at odds with each other. Initially, I assumed that Jo was being over-aggressively protected by her publishers and lawyers, as the Lexicon doesn’t actually re-present her work but adds critical and entertainment value in essentially a separate genre. But the NY Times piece makes it fairly clear that Jo really does not intend that anyone be able to make or do anything with her characters for money—and that really IS a reach for power not previously established in law. The Lexicon seemed a clear case (and a great use) of Fair Use as a website; it should be no different as a book. Heaven knows I love Jo Rowling, but I really hope Steve wins this one for everybody’s sake.
1. The article in the Times was an OPINION piece slanted towards RDR and SVA and against JKR/WB. It stated things as fact, when in fact those statements were only OPINION and then goes on to glowingly praise RDRs attorney.
2. Fair use means 90% original thought, analysis, commentary and 10% or less of copyrighted materials. This is what makes a derivative work “transformative”. The Lexicon does not meet that criteria. Part of analyzing whether an item meets this criteria is to do a word count. Now, try going to the A-Z part in Lexicon, cross out all but 10% of words/info that are solely derived from Harry Potter and see what you have left. The truthful answer is ‘Not much is left’ and certainly not enough to stand alone in a book format. You can review most of the Lexicon and will find that all of the original content--fan essays, fan art, and fanfiction—is EXCLUDED from SVAs book.
Also, please remember that the original cover art for SVA’s book was very misleading. It appeared in the same size and typeset as the Harry Potter books, making it appear that it was connected to JKR, 30-50% of the general public would pick it up and buy it thinking they were getting a JKR original and only getting a very poor substitute. It had no disclaimers, no ‘unauthorized’ tag line, nothing. That type of deceptive advertising is illegal and it also fails one of the tests for ‘Fair Use’ of copyrighted materials.
3. Copyrights give the OWNER the right to say in which medium thier creative works may appear in and who has the right to sell their intellectual property, among other things. This means that it is entirely within JKRs purview to allow a free, not for profit fansite to exist on the web. It also means it is entirely withing JKRs legal rights to challenge the publication of that fansite in another medium, and in this case, that means a book format.
My advice is to please read carefully both sides of the issue, find out all pertinent information, and read up on copyright laws. That’s the best way to make an informed decision on this case.
Cara, many thanks. I will take your advice. Clearly the ‘original’ cover was deceptive, and is now referred to as ‘original’ because it is no longer the cover. SVA/RDR are doing what they can to address the legitimate claims by Jo and her side, which admittedly leaves them with a much less salable product. The exclusion of the original essay content of the Lexicon is puzzling to me, but the reference work represents something rather more than merely the words involved—the collection and organization are not ‘material’ by your ‘cross-out’ method.
I agree 10% to 20% quoted or paraphrased material is a good rule of thumb for fair use, but it’s always going to depend on some other factors and be a matter of opinion (and the judge’s opinion is the one that counts). I have read that when The Nation quoted 300-400 words from Gerald Ford’s memoirs, the Supreme Court held this was NOTa fair use, but In another case, the court held that it could be fair use for individuals to record ENTIRE television programs for later viewing. Sometimes less than 1% is NOT fair use, but 100% IS fair use.
Of the ‘other factors’ likely to hold sway here, material (financial) damage to JKR and her partners seems to be the most likely, and again, I just can’t imagine who would NOT buy the Scottish Book (or any other JKR creation!) because the Lexicon is in print and published.
Urrgh…I thought from reading comments on the Lexicon site that it was mostly RDR doing all the (I’ll refrain from posting my particular thought here), and that Steve was sort of arguing against them, but after that, his credibility just dropped. Jo wrote it, and all this book is is copying it into an orderly alphabetical encyclopedia….That sure as heck isn’t under Fair Use laws….
On a completey unrelated, but amusing, note, I didn’t realise that Melissa was the Melissa posting. I honestly thought that it was someone named Melissa who was posting her picture, by chance with red hair as well, doing that. I snort at myseld with the derision I usually reserve for people who argue about things they know nothing about or won’t back it up. Did I just describe myself?