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.
Rogers-“Steve, whose only skill is free time”-brilliant. That definitely put a smile on my face. Michele—also brilliant. Kudos to you both. :D
I just read the NYT article and it kind of makes me sick. I agree with him to an extent when he says that copyright protection is going a bit to far these days, but then he continues to show Jo, our beloved Jo, as a person who’s power hungry, demanding, and controlling. I wonder how he would feel if I took his article, changed a few things around, replaced his name with mine, and then published it to profit. How would he feel about intellectual property and copyrights after that, I wonder… hmm…
All other companion books (Mugglenet’s book, etc.) are ok in Jo’s mind because they offer analysis and discussion. They bring their own creative content to the table. Steve doesn’t. There’s the problem. To those who call Jo a hypocrit, are you actually a Harry Potter fan? Shouldn’t we support our beloved philanthropic author who wouldn’t hurt a fly? She’s suing to help suffering children, not to restrict people’s rights.
Felipe, ever heard of the “in everyday english” series. It takes classic works of lit, and re-writes them in modern english. The publishers make money off of this. Have you heard of cliff notes, or coles notes or whatever other version your local college uses as ‘study aids’, which do indeed paste examples word for word of these works and then analyses them. And yes, encyclopedias do reprint sections of the original text. You’ll note however in my original post, I never mentioned the word encylopedia. I’m tallking about any kind of analysis or summary of the books. In a couple of hundred years when these books are re-witten in future ‘everyday english’, is that stealing? Or would it be helping create a greater understanding.
I was at Profecy this summer, and I heard Steve’s speaches. They were brilliant. And as many times as I’ve read and listened to the books, there was so much he pointed out that I hadn’t looked at before. I felt like I was back in uni again. I appreciated that. That’s what is going to be in his book and on the lexicon. JK’s book, which I’ll buy, will be full of information we haven’t seen yet. I’m not seeing a conflict here.
I think A. Lincoln said it best:
“It is better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”
Mr Vander Ark, I for one, am glad you didn’t “keep silent”...now I don’t have to wonder, anymore! Thank you TLC for staying objective and being helpful in guiding the postings on this very sad situation.
Posted by Confederate Lady on February 09, 2008, 04:06 AM
report to moderator
“[Dave Langford, editor of Ansible] and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others. “
“It is much more work, and of a different nature. Steve has compiled all of his work for years and years.” quote from Lilyp
Really? Much more work? As in more than the 17 years that JKR put into creating the HP series? SVA’s work was volunteer. He has no right to make any money from those hours, other than from ads on his website. And he did not create anything. Organizational skills are not creativity. I can spend hours and hours organizing my closet by color/style/whatever, but that does not make me creative, it just makes me a bit obsessive-compulsive. If you want to admire the hours he put in, fine, but that still does not make the material his. Anyone could have created the Lexicon. Anyone could make lists like the ones in the proposed Lexicon book. Anyone. That is why it is not a creative work. Any inconsistencies in the HP series are simply immaterial to the case.
It is not hypocritical of JKR to give the website an award, and then not allow it to be published; as everyone has already pointed out, there is a difference between a free website and a $25 book. It is a bit hypocritical of SVA, however, to send an email a few years ago saying that it would be illegal and disrespectful of JKR’s wishes to publish the Lexicon, then release another email statement like this one.
“The books are finished. What happens from now on belongs to the public.” quote from Maven
Um, no. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. The content of the HP series belongs to JKR and her heirs until 70 years after her death. End of story.
“How many encyclopedias are there about Shakespeare, The Bronte Sisters, Hemingway, Twain, Tolkein” quote from Maven
They are dead. Other people have written more information about the Tolkein estate; I don’t know a lot about that, but others have already touched on it.
“Do we have to wait until she’s dead like the others before people can write what they want about her books? That’s just not right.” quote from Maven
Yes. You do. It is right, because it is HER creation. It does not belong to anyone but her.
well. i dont know what to say. its seems like its sorta turning political (not that any of us in the US need more of that)...... neither side seems to be considering the other side’s point of view… this could have been worked out with a lot less fuss.
Ok, I just don’t get how retelling Jo’s work is creative? Anyone could do that if that had a ton of time on their hands. I think fan fiction is creative, and Jo completely supports all that but the authors of HP fan fiction can’t make any money off it. Remember awhile back when leaky said there was a guy who wrote the “unofficial” 8th book? “James Potter and the Hall of Elders’ Crossing”
It was amazing to read it, in my opinion it held its own against JKRs (just my opinion, don’t get me wrong, I love HP and Jo!) But it was amazingly good and I will probably read it again, and I think anyone who took the time will agree with me on this one.
But here’s the thing, he is not allowed to publish or make money from his 400 page fan fiction, no matter how many characters he created himself, and no matter how incredibly original the plot is. He is still basing his story off JKR’s, so no matter how much time and effort he put into his story, he won’t profit, and he is fine with that because his story would not exist if it weren’t for JKR.
So my question here is, how is this any different than an encyclopedia? It’s more creative, and it does stand on its own, so how does Steve have a case against JKR to publish his book, and this fanfiction writer cannot?
Basically, I’m thinking anything that increases the love and understanding of the Potter series cannot be a bad thing. The more Potter things out there, the more people find out about the series, the more people read the series. It’s all good. (I got into LotR after reading The Encylopedia of Arda). Again, no matter how many companion or other type of books are out there, people are always going to buy the author’s work first. Peace.
Maven, you said: ...”Think about it. How is what Steve doing different than what has been done for other great works of art. How many encyclopedias are there about Shakespeare, The Bronte Sisters, Hemingway, Twain, Tolkein”...
Also, cliff notes and re-writes analyze, explain, re-interpret the works they are discussing. The HP Lexicon book is just a cut and paste job with no personal creative work!
Also, if Steve VA is a great charismatic and eloquent speaker and a great analyst, well wonderful for him and those like you who got a chance to appreciate that analytical work of his. Why, then, didn’t he publish something like that? Then he wouldn’t have infringed any copyright…
I think the fans should leave this up to the courts. None of us have read the book. None of us is in a position to correctly gauge whether or not it is plagarism. If the book violates JKR’s copyright, then it should be stopped. If it does not, then it should be published. However, the legal system, not fans, is in the best position to determine the legality of the book. You are all ASSUMING and arguing that the book has no independent content and that the NYT article is ASSUMING that it does. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, don’tcha think?
melissa,
Is there just the opp. of Steve saying he wont write the book?
Oe does Jo’s layers want to get some money? ( I am very confused)
But do they want him to shut down the site?
I’m not speaking ownership in a legally in the strict sence.
People have been writing about Potter since she first published. She’s not dead. We all know of the numerous reference guides out there. Not to mention the newspaper articles, magazines and blogs. (Hey, what do we do here?) Legally yes, she owns them, but we can talk about them and write about them as much as we want to. About anyone’s work, as much as we want to. That’s what I meant about it belonging to the public. If not, no more blogs, no more web sites, no more papers, no more magazines, no more art, no more of any of the millions and millions of ways people choose to express their thoughts and opinions of these books without Ms Rowling putting her personal stamp on each and every one. Personally, I think her time could be better served elsewhere.
Rogers-
“Steve, whose only skill is free time”-brilliant. That definitely put a smile on my face. Michele—also brilliant. Kudos to you both. :DI just read the NYT article and it kind of makes me sick. I agree with him to an extent when he says that copyright protection is going a bit to far these days, but then he continues to show Jo, our beloved Jo, as a person who’s power hungry, demanding, and controlling. I wonder how he would feel if I took his article, changed a few things around, replaced his name with mine, and then published it to profit. How would he feel about intellectual property and copyrights after that, I wonder… hmm…
All other companion books (Mugglenet’s book, etc.) are ok in Jo’s mind because they offer analysis and discussion. They bring their own creative content to the table. Steve doesn’t. There’s the problem. To those who call Jo a hypocrit, are you actually a Harry Potter fan? Shouldn’t we support our beloved philanthropic author who wouldn’t hurt a fly? She’s suing to help suffering children, not to restrict people’s rights.