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.
sigh I am getting tired of all this. It really is disheartening to see how lawyers do what they do. I know they are necessary – more and more as the world becomes more and more litigious – but it is a shame that this happens.
If I were going to try and sum all this up, in my own words, and from my own perspective, which, after all, is all I CAN do, I would say the following:
I think the whole issue could have been easily avoided if permission were asked directly and up-front. That way, JKR could have told SVA what the issues were and a compromise could have been reached. I firmly believe that a compromise was possible that would have alowed SVA to publish his book and JKR to be happy with the outcome. Not necessarily of the book, but of the whole resolution.
Instead, we have lawyers having to step in to make representations, we have what has essentially become (and it is ALWAYS like this) a “he said, she said” situation, and we have an unwanted and distasteful bit of unpleasantry that at least JKR, and maybe even SVA, would rather have avoided (though I have the distinct impression that RDR and Co. are not unhappy).
It is, however, interesting to note that JKR is not uttering a single word, preferring to let her and WB’s attorneys do what they do (and maybe following their advice to remain silent). If the other side would do the same, and let THEIR legal beagles do what they do, perhaps there would be a cleaner resolution.
At this rate, unfortunately, there is already so much hype, and the fact that JKR is so well-known that this is going to be messy until the end, and it will be difficult to conclude with any certainty whether the ultimate decision, whatever it is, is the right decision. The one thing that I DO think will happen here is that an otherwise unknown publishing house is getting more free air-time than it could have otherwise EVER have hoped for (and, as such, might benefit from the notoriety alone). Whether anyone emerges unscathed is, I think, an open question.
Melissa, thanks again, for remaining outside the commentary on this matter, for providing, to the extent it is available, BOTH sides of what is out there, and for trying to manage us, an unruly mob of Potter fanatics (please everyone, tongue FIRMLY in cheek) to keep us on the high road.
M.
Posted by Morton Kaiserman on February 11, 2008, 06:44 PM
report to moderator
Just wanted to make a comment on a posting from the first page of this thread about the NY Times, and how a respectable paper like that should be doing their research. Please everyone remember, the NY Times was the paper that published the review of DH before the publication date, despite JKR’s general request for a litle self-control, and was soundly villified by almost everyone who was aware of it. Why would they bother to do any research that might support JKR/WB’s claims? And before anyone says, how come JKR didn’t sue them, remember they published a review, clearly within the fair use doctrine. JKR never threatened to sue, she only expressed disappointment that the Times did not honour her request.
M.
Posted by Morton Kaiserman on February 11, 2008, 08:32 PM
report to moderator
“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.”
Posted by Loren in NYC on February 11, 2008 @ 12:10 PM
Yes Loren, anyone can record a TV Program for later viewing. It’’s perfectly legal. But, it wouldn’t be legal if the person made DVDs out of the recording and sold them for profit, would it?
In the same way, Steve is allowed to catalog and re-organize the HP Series, but not allowed to profit from it. Because he wasn’t asked to do it, he did it voluntarily knowing that he wouldn’t be allowed to profit from it.
Posted by Govind Kalburgi on February 12, 2008, 07:59 AM
report to moderator
For those supporting RDR, I guess it would be okay for me to remix the HP songs from the soundtrack, burn them on a CD, and sell them. I spent hours working on them so I might as well sell them to the fans who want them. It’s not copyright infringement as long as I added my own sounds to it and rearranged the score right? John Williams wouldn’t mind I’m sure.
What a pity of a case. As I said some time ago, it gets nastier by the minute.
My humble opinion in the facts alone is as it was at first: the intended book is most likely fair use of the copyrighted material, but JKR/WB know that this book in particular, unlike other companion books, could actually make important profit. It’s the only companion book who could actually pose a threat to a future official encyclopedia, and therefore they complain. In this scenario, the book should be published.
And yet RDR/SVA have indeed, from the first objection JKR/WB raised to the publication of the book, behaved in a most nasty way. They’re destroying their own defense with their stubbornness.
Pity.
Posted by Snape's Mistress on February 17, 2008, 01:56 PM
report to moderator
sigh I am getting tired of all this. It really is disheartening to see how lawyers do what they do. I know they are necessary – more and more as the world becomes more and more litigious – but it is a shame that this happens.
If I were going to try and sum all this up, in my own words, and from my own perspective, which, after all, is all I CAN do, I would say the following:
I think the whole issue could have been easily avoided if permission were asked directly and up-front. That way, JKR could have told SVA what the issues were and a compromise could have been reached. I firmly believe that a compromise was possible that would have alowed SVA to publish his book and JKR to be happy with the outcome. Not necessarily of the book, but of the whole resolution.
Instead, we have lawyers having to step in to make representations, we have what has essentially become (and it is ALWAYS like this) a “he said, she said” situation, and we have an unwanted and distasteful bit of unpleasantry that at least JKR, and maybe even SVA, would rather have avoided (though I have the distinct impression that RDR and Co. are not unhappy).
It is, however, interesting to note that JKR is not uttering a single word, preferring to let her and WB’s attorneys do what they do (and maybe following their advice to remain silent). If the other side would do the same, and let THEIR legal beagles do what they do, perhaps there would be a cleaner resolution.
At this rate, unfortunately, there is already so much hype, and the fact that JKR is so well-known that this is going to be messy until the end, and it will be difficult to conclude with any certainty whether the ultimate decision, whatever it is, is the right decision. The one thing that I DO think will happen here is that an otherwise unknown publishing house is getting more free air-time than it could have otherwise EVER have hoped for (and, as such, might benefit from the notoriety alone). Whether anyone emerges unscathed is, I think, an open question.
Melissa, thanks again, for remaining outside the commentary on this matter, for providing, to the extent it is available, BOTH sides of what is out there, and for trying to manage us, an unruly mob of Potter fanatics (please everyone, tongue FIRMLY in cheek) to keep us on the high road.
M.