In The News
RDR Books Files Response to JKR/WB in Lexicon Suit
LegalRDR Books has filed its response to the full request for an injunction to the Harry Potter Lexicon book filed by WB and J.K. Rowling three weeks ago. There are in all declarations from six people and several hundred papers of exhibits, most of which are copies of text from books (including almost the entire Lexicon book).
As a reminder of the current schedule: Feb. 27: WB/JKR file a response to this response March 13: A hearing will be convened with Judge Robert P Patterson
Edited to add: The full content of the filings has just been uploaded at Justia.com (by the ever-vigilant Nicholas, saving us a lot of bandwidth – thank you!).
The overarching document – the opposition brief – in this case says:
1. That J.K. Rowling “appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction,” and that “this is a right no court has ever recognized,” and if accepted it would “eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements,” as well as threaten “encyclopedias, glossaeries, indexes and other tools that provide useful information about copyrighted works.” It says JKR’s rights “simply do not extend so far” and she hasn’t shown that this guide poses a significant threat.
2. After giving background on the Lexicon, is describes the beginnings of the Lexicon book, which is later backed up in a declaration by Rapoport: It says Rapoport called Vander Ark after reading about him in an article, and Vander Ark “expressed interest in publishing a book version of the website. Rapoport said he thought the A-Z index was the best part to publish.
3. The brief recounts the history of the action by saying, “Shortly after RDR Books announced its intention to publish the Lexicon, Plaintiffs commenced this action.” There is no mention in this brief of the cease-and-desist letters that have been detailed by JKR/WB.
4. The brief says it is “far too late” for JKR to be the “first to publish” a Potter companion books, citing “nearly 200 Harry Potter companion guides,” “many of which incorporate A to Z listings.” RDR provides six of these books as evidence:
a. The Unofficial Harry Potter Encyclopedia: Harry Potter A-Z, by Kristina Benson
b. Field Guide to Harry Potter, by Colin Duriez
c. The J.K. Rowling Encyclopedia, by Connie Ann Kirk
d. A Muggle’s Guide to Exploring the Wizarding World by Fiona Boyle
e. Fact, Fiction and Folklore in Harry Potter’s World, by George Beahm
f. The End of Harry Potter? by David Langford
The documents do not list the 200 companion books. but count these six as the ones that had “especially striking similarities to the Lexicon in both format and content: At first flush, (a) appears to be out of print or unavailable on Amazon, (b) is about 2/3rds non-encyclopedic work, (c) seems to not be listed on Amazon, (d)’s title is actually “An Unofficial…” etc. and (f) is a predictions book.
5. Prof. Janet Sorensen declares in favor of RDR, and the brief says she says that “lexicons like this one have an important and distinguished place in the literary world…it organizes a tremendous amount of information into a concise and readable form…[and] provides a significant amount of original analysis and commentary.” It also says the HPL takes information from “painstaking collection” of Ms. Rowling’s interviews and statements, and Sorensen says it “helps readers to construct the universe of the Potter books in their minds, to understand its rich connections to the wide world in which we live, and to encourage the impulse to imagine a universe beyond the one depicted in the books.”
6. The brief maintains the HPL is “highly transformative,” and an example of work that has “always been held to constitute fair use.”
The argument of the brief states that to get this preliminary injunction, JKR/WB would have to show irreparable harm in the absence of it, and either “a likelihood of success on the merits or…sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant’s favor.”
It maintains that:
1. JKR/WB has not shown a case of infringement: “the Lexicon does not ‘reproduce’ the Harry Potter Works (or any one of them) in any meaningful sense of the word’ and claims examples of derivative works include ‘a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,” and then says the Lexicon does not fit in those categories because “reference guide” is not among them. It also says the Lexicon does not “recast, transform or adapt copyrighted works in comparable ways.”
2. It claims, based on a declaration from the Lexicon is a “supplementary work, the purpose of which is ‘explaining…commenting upon [and] assisting in the use of’ the Harry Potter Works, citing Benjamin Kaplan’s An Unhurried View of Copyright.
3. “Even if” it was a ”’reproduction’ or ‘derivative work,’” JKR/WB would have to “show substantial similarity between the Lexicon and Harry Potter Works.
4. The Lexicon is protected by Fair Use, the document says, because it is “a valuable reference tool that helps readers to better access, understand and enjoy the Harry Potter works.” The brief argues that fair use is not a “narrow exception” but an integral part of the Copyright Act incorporating the need to ‘allow others to build’ upon copyrighted works. It claims Fair Use is a ‘First Amendment safeguard’ that prevents copyright law from burdening free speech.
5. That fair use is governed by four factors that are non-exclusive:
a. The “purpose and character of use,” ie, whether the nature of the work is ‘transformative.’ The brief says a transformative work ‘adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message,’ citing Campbell and a case against Amazon, Inc. a decision involving a search engine’s ability to produce thumbnail images.
The brief says a “thoughtful review of the Lexicon reveals significant, transformative functions that add extensive value, understanding and insights to the original works,” and claims the “organizational value” of the book makes it transformative.
It also says the Lexicon has a “significant amount of commentary and analysis,” citing the entry on Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood, talking about his bravery and leadership and Luna’s observations about her nature, decodes meaning of geographical and historical references and revealed “myriad errors and inconsistencies in the Harry Potter Works,” citing the example of Marcus Flint appearing as a seventh-year after he was to have graduated. (As an aside, this discovery was not made by nor is unique to this book; it is frequently spotted by fans and the first public record of it comes from 2000 ago on the HP for Grown Ups list by a user named Stephanie.)
The brief says “any fair reading” reveals significant transformative value, and that attempts to compare it to the case of the Seinfeld trivia book are inaccurate because of the nature of a trivia book not being a reference guide.
The brief compares the Lexicon to the Beanie Baby collector’s guide that was the subject of a lawsuit as well.
b. “Nature of the copyrighted work”: The brief says, again, that the Lexicon helps readers better “access, understand and enjoy” the Potter books.
c. Amount of the work used: This factor assess the portion of the original work used in the accused work, and this brief says that relies on “whether the extent of copying is reasonable in light of its purpose,” citing a search engine’s need to produce photographs and the Beanie Babies’ collector’s guide depicting the Beanie Babies products. It claims JKR/WB have ignored the purpose in their claim that the work relies too heavily on the original HP books. It also points out that the Lexicon does not borrow the overarching plot sequence or story ark, pace, setting, or dramatic structure, only “short quotes,” and “no more than what is necessary to its purpose.”
d. Market Effect: The brief says this depends (quoting Bill Graham from the MCA, Inc. v. Wilson suit) upon “balancing the benefit the public will derive if the use is permitted” versus “the personal gain the copyright owner will receive if the use is denied.” It says there can be “no dispute” the Lexicon gives “substantial public value,” citing J.K. Rowling’s and WB’s use of the web site (though it says “Lexicon,” without distinguishing the book from the site), claims based on a declaration from Steve Vander Ark. It also claims there can be no market harm because JKR/WB did not argue that the Lexicon book would be bought instead of one of the seven HP novels or seeing an HP movie. It also says that derivative works are “eligible for fair use protection.” It also says that it is incumbent on JKR to prove that the Lexicon is a substitute for the guide she wants to publish, and says that J.K. Rowling does not suggest anyone would purchase the Lexicon guide instead of hers.
The brief then goes on to say that the contents of the Lexicon being made available for free negates any market harm, and that the fact that it has existed online for free for six years should mean it is able to be sold in printed form.
“If and when Ms. Rowling decides to publish a companion guide, it will undoubtedly be unique,” the brief says, citing the Leaky Cauldron’s interview with J.K. Rowling in December 2007. It specifically mentions (multiple times throughout these documents) that she anticipated it might take as many as 10 years to produce, and that her ideal layout would be “facing pages” with backstory and extra details on characters on the left-facing pages and extra information that wasn’t in the books on the right. The brief repeatedly – outside of the exhibit in which is prints the enitrety of the transcript – leaves out the portion of the interview in which J.K. Rowling said it would be a definitive, give everyone-everything sort of guide. Here is the relevant text from the PotterCast transcript:
JKR: I’m just gonna say, “This might change,” but I imagined it as half of it, maybe on facing pages, but that might be difficult just through layout. But the ideal would be to have- say on the left hand side you’ve got a page showing all your back story, extra details on characters, or an entry on wands, showing what every character’s wand was and all of this stuff. And I think also it might be interesting to have information about the actual writing and what I discarded. So on one side it’s acting like the whole world is true and it’s giving you extra information on that real world and on the other side we’re admitting that it’s actually fiction and I’m showing yeah, discarded plots, characters that didn’t make it, problems in the plot. I think both lots of information are interesting so it would be nice to unite both of them… I think the only- the point of doing it, if I’m going to do it, it’s about doing the absolute definitive, giving people everything guide. ... [E]verything that I’ve got, put it that way. That’s what I aspire to do at the moment. It might, for practical reasons not be possible to do both sets of information in that way but I would like to, that would be the ideal. ... I think there’s no point in me doing it unless it’s amazing. And I think there’s no point in writing it unless it is everything and the last thing that I want to do is to feel that I have to rush something out because (SU: Right.) do you know what I mean? My hand is being forced or there’s demand and other people will fill it first. I think, I just want to do it right or not do it at all. And I really do want to do it right.
The brief claims her idea of the guide focuses largely on what is not in the books.
6. This brief claims there has been no bad faith on the part of RDR Books or Steve Vander Ark. It dismisses the JKR/WB “smoking gun” email in which Steve Vander Ark said a book of the HPL would be illegal and against Jo’s wishes, by saying, “Vander Ark is a layperson, not a lawyer, and his speculation as to the legal status of the Lexicon (since corrected) is beside the point.”
7. The brief says the quote in question from the Harry Potter Lexicon web site has been removed from the book’s cover – but it does not mention in this brief (only later, in Rapoport’s declaration) that it wasn’t removed from the Lexicon cover until after JKR/WB’s filing. It also claims if the quote remained the false endorsement evidence offered by JKR/WB would not apply because the quote does not have “the potential to mislead anyone,” and maintains the survey in which an independent consultant showed people the cover of the book and determined that 38-55 percent of them had been falsely mislead by the fansite award text, was fatally flawed because there was a disclaimer underneath it. It claims JKR/WB instructed respondents to look only at the quote and invite them to ignore the disclaimer.
8. The brief says JKR/WB has not met the burden of showing “irreparable harm.”
Further information not addressed above in the remaining documents:
1. Steve Vander Ark’s declaration says that:
a. Approximately 10 percent of the material included in the Lexicon book is part of the original postings on the web site when it was created. The remaining is material added to the web site since 2000.
b. No one has ever demanded a “cease-and-desist” for material on the web site that is now in the book.
c. The staff compiled an A-Z index of the site in 2005.
d. It has been his goal to present “a comprehensive encyclopedia, a single source in which they can find descriptions and definitions of all the characters, places, spells, creatures and physical objects in the world of Harry Potter.”
e. He says his contributions are about 60 percent of entries, and 40 percent by staff or other contributors and editors “and also fans whose comments and emails have proved useful and informative.”
f. In making the web site he says he has used general fable and myth research tools as well as the Potter books.
g. The only revenue has come from the “very limited advertising I allow. About three years ago, I began accepting ads from Amazon.com in return for a payment of approximately $15 per month. About 18 months ago I began accepting ads from Google for a payment of approximately $100 per month. Together, these ad revenues have covered the cost of operating the web site.” [The Leaky Cauldron houses and runs the Harry Potter Lexicon for zero charge, and has since it came under its current domain name. That is true as of this posting. The original intent before this response was filed was to transfer the Lexicon to its own server; because of this question of ownership and cost, we will refrain from changing any variables where sworn statements are concerned, and will not transfer the domain until litigation has been completed. At that time we will be happy to do so.]
h. The web site gets approximately 350K pageviews per month on its index page and 1.5 million per month on its entire site.
i. “Beginning in about 2003, I received regular requests from fans for printed copies of the Lexicon website, proof of a demand for a print version…At the same time, a number of people contacted me with proposals for using the material on the Lexicon website in a printed encyclopedia. For a considerable time I declined these suggestions…There were two reasons for this. First, until the summer of 2007, Ms. Rowling had not completed the series of Potter books, so that any encyclopedia published before that point would be incomplete. Second, until August 2007, I believed that an encyclopedia, in book form, would represent a copyright violation. This was an assumption on my part, however, as a layperson.”
j. “Before visiting London in July of 2007, I requested a fifteen-minute meeting with the Agency [Christopher Little] to discuss both the work visa [ that he was trying toget] and the possibility of using material from the Lexicon for a book and was told they didn’t have time.” [There is no document in the filing proving this, unless it refers to this letter, as cited by JKR/WB, which does not mention his wish to publish the Lexicon as a book.] “I made no further plans for a book until Roger Rapoport of RDR Books contacted me.”
k. Roger Rapoport told Vander Ark that he had consulted with an expert who said the publication would be legal, during discussions about the book. Steve then requested RDR indemnify him against lawsuits.
l. Work on the book began after August 20, 2007, and was completed on Sept. 15. It contains half the web site.
m. The book is smaller than the online resource because of space issues. “Entries in the book are often condensed versions of corresponding sections of the web site.
n. “It is true that, in a few places, the book employs phrases or sometimes whole sentences that are similar to phrases or sentences in the Potter books…in those cases, however, the similarity in language was unavoidable.”
o. “Over the past several years, I have gained widespread recognition as an expert on the Potter world. I have been interviewed about various Harry Potter subjects by the School Library Journal, Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Detroit Free Press…and several other publications whose names I do not recall.”
Vander Ark claims David Heyman, producer of Harry Potter, said the Potter flimmakers use the Lexicon web site almost every day. This was supposed to have been said during a set visit in which many fan outlets were invited to see the Order of the Phoenix lot.
q. The Electronic Arts Studio, the declaration says, has printouts of the reader’s guide on its walls.
r. After the release of the sixth book, Cheryl Klein of Scholastic sent Steve a thank-you note on behalf of his staff which is included as an exhibit. It reads: “Steve Vander Ark for the HP Lexicon: Dear Steve and the rest of the Lexicon team – On behalf of the Scholastic Half-Blood Prince editorial staff, I’d like to say thank you for the wonderful resource your site provides for fans, students, and indeed editors and copy editors of the Harry Potter series. We referred to the Lexicon countless times during the editing of HP6, whether to verify a fact, check a timeline, or get a chapter and book reference for a particular event…We’re all HP fans ourselves, of course, but you made our work immeasurably easier through the one-stop searchable HP encyclopedia the site offers. Please accept this as a token of our admiration and appreciation, and ever so many thnanks again – All best wishes, Cheryl Klein.”
s. The sole purpose of the Lexicon website and book, Vander Ark says, “is to encourage fan interest in, and serve as a reference to, the Harry Potter books…the Lexicon book cannot be financially successful or profitable if the Harry Potter works are not financially successful or profitable….I believe that Harry Potter fans will buy a similar work written by Ms. Rowling even if they have purchased a copy of the Lexicon book because her fans are very loyal to her and will always want what she writes.”
t. He deems many declarations from JKR/WB to be inaccurate and says that the books referenced by JKR/WB have been “carefully chosen to exclude” what has been seen in the case as other HP encyclopedias. It also says Neil Blair has never asked Vander Ark to remove from the website any material which is now part of the Lexicon book, and says that means the same content in a for-profit book is therefore not infringing. It says Diana Birchall’s claim that no outside sources were used to write the book is incorrect, and gives a few examples. It also goes on to illustrate what he deems as analysis in specific entries.
u. “Fans of Harry Potter, and ultimately Ms. Rowling her self, will only benefit,” from publication of the book.”
Further declarations are from Shawn Malhotra, a first-year law student at New York University, who summarized press statements J.K. Rowling has made regarding her encyclopedia, which quotes a significant portion of the statements J.K. Rowling made in the PotterCast interview:
The quote they use is this:
“The ideal would be to have- say on the left hand side you’ve got a page showing all your back story, extra details on characters, or an entry on wands, showing what every character’s wand was and all of this stuff. ...And I think also it might be interesting to have information about the actual writing and what I discarded. So on one side it’s acting like the whole world is true and it’s giving you extra information on that real world … and on the other side we’re admitting that it’s actually fiction and I’m showing yeah, discarded plots, characters that didn’t make it, problems in the plot. I think both lots of information are interesting so it would be nice to unite both of them.”
[To be fair, the next thing she says in the transcript, however, is:
“Well, exactly, to be honest, I think the only- the point of doing it, if I’m going to do it, it’s about doing the absolute definitive, giving people everything guide.”]
There is also a declaration from David Harris, another first-year law student, who has provided summaries of the six books listed as also uncontested HP encyclopedias.
Roger Rapoport also provides a new mockup of a cover for the book, which was designed in “late January.” The title has been changed to The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials and consists of a plain white cover. The front and back now list extensive disclaimers.
Janet Sorensen, a tenured professor at the English Department at UC Berkeley, made a declaration that says the Lexicon is “part of a long tradition of lexicons and guidees,” and mentions as a comparable example Charlotte Lennox’s Shakespeare Illustrated, in which she presented a guide to the public domain characters and plots of Shakespeare, and Samuel Richardson’s own guide to his own work, Pamela Illustrated. Most of the beginning of the declaration involves guides and lexicons in the 19th century and early 20th. It also mentions 20th-century examples of guides to JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis’s work, and notes that the works were published while still under Tolkien and Lewis’s copyright but doesn’t address the level to which permission was sought or granted for each. The Lexicon, she says, is a “ready resource” for J.K. Rowling’s creations; Sorensen mentions her own need to have her memory jogged while reading, etymological information in the book and citations. She says the Lexicon is helpful for the youngest readers of the book, referring to a six-year-old she knows who might find value in it. She also says that the Lexicon’s pointing out of mistakes is likely to be unique to it, and not included in Rowling’s version, adding value. She also attests to the light moments of critical interpretation and analysis.
*
That’s all for now. Apologies if it was too long, and you didn’t read. More in a few weeks. We hope, at least…
rate this article
Interested in Legal?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
well, I’m still on the side of JKR/WB morally, but I begin to wonder if SVA/RDR might have a chance in court. Less clear-cut than I had assumed.
Melissa~
I don’t see how that’s “shifty” at all. As I said, the part they left out actually supports their claim, so why would they omit it on purpose? It look to me like they quoted the relevant portion – based on that part alone, the fact that JKR’s book would be “definitive” is implied. In fact, they even quote that exact word from another source (bottom of page 19, start of page 20 of the main response document).
To take another example, you feel the need to point out that the Flint error is not unique to the Lexicon. So what? Not everyone who would buy this book will be a regular on HPfGU or Leaky or whatever, so it would be news to them. And most likely to the lawyers and the judge, too. More importantly, the Lexicon book would be woefully incomplete if it didn’t mention the Flint mistake. So far as I can tell, that is only cited as one example of where the book points out errors in the text (which in turn is used to support the claim that there is benefit to having guides written by someone other than the author).
I’m not making any judgements on the rights or wrongs of this case (in fact, I change my mind almost every day). Having read both arguments, it seems that both sides are convinced of the rightness of their legal standing, which would suggest that this is a grey area of copyright law that we are unqualified to talk about. Whichever way it goes, it will be new legal ground, and we should just sit back and let the lawyers do the work.
Whichever way the case goes, the mudslinging that’s been aimed at those involved – especially Steve and those close to him – is completely out of line. I believe that by adding remarks to your posts which attempt to sway opinion, you are encouraging this behaviour. I’m not suggesting that you’re doing this deliberately, but I’m sure you won’t deny that you’ve been making your personal feelings towards Steve pretty clear.
Melissa, thank you again for reading all those files and giving a synopsis.
Maybe you can now use this for a book of your own and give all those lawyers and lawstudents “the complete guide to the lawsuit JKR/WB in Lexicon suit” and then use all our comments for your benifit?
Sorry, just joking around because I am so mad and irritated by both SVA and RDR. They are just abusing the world Jo has created. And as others pointed out before: if RDR and SVA win this case (and I hope they don’t) other autors won’t be that tollerant toward websites, fansites, fanfiction.. as Jo has allways been, just to prevent that someone else would steal and benefit again.
“a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted”
The lexicon plans to publish a a-z guide: all the information is changed in another form. I don’t see how it wouldn’t fit in the above.
Oh,and thank you for giving all this information! It’s really interesting to read all this. Intellectual property is such a interesting subject, and this gives me a nice idea of how it’s done in the US (I’m Dutch).
“Whichever way the case goes, the mudslinging that’s been aimed at those involved – especially Steve and those close to him – is completely out of line.”
Are you the internet police?
Thanks a ton for the objective reporting Melissa, you’re great at this!! Coming to the case, why are they still bent on this? It’s looking more and more ridiculous by the minute, and because of all this mess, I don’t know if Jo is going to have the heart to ever write “The Scottish Book”.
Joining the applause for Melissa’s efforts to keep us informed….
I know I won’t—lack of time, energy and ultimately of interest—but has anyone plowed thru the RDR documents to see what exactly the content of the Lexicon would be? Yes, I do know what the RDR spokesman claimed: “Its everything on the Website” And more recently the RDR lawyers are claiming that is not the case, that the Lexicon actually includes substantial creative work….we’ve discussed the issue before, but now there are photocopies of the proof pages available. So, has anyone looked?
Ironic, but the commercial value of the Lexicon in print is probably dropping daily. If it had appeared on bookshelves anytime in mid-Summer through the holdiay shopping days of 2007, it’s sales would have ridden on the back of the DH, Beedle the Bard, and the Ootp film popularity. That unusual convergence of events within such a short period of really fed interest and sales of anything HP soared. Frankly I doubt that a print Lexicon, if released now, would have as much commercial success…
Ya I know Melissa,
I was just saying you present this as a great news story on the website. Keep up the good work (and can not wait for the book).
There is journalism outside of newspapers? I need to look into that because writing for a weekly is not going to pay the bills forever.
budb: And moreover, the whole legal process is putting off exactly those people in fandom who might have bought the book, and that will probably increase the longer the legal action lasts. So even if RDR wins, which allowing for appeals etc. probably won’t be soon, they may not sell enough copies to cover the cost of the legal action.
I think I’m on Steve’s side. Yes some of his claims are a little out there, but then again some of WB’s claims were a little intense as well. I think thats just all part of the machine of the lawsuit. And I don’t think RDR’s lawyers are all that bright.
But I am reserving final judgment, because I think it really does depend on the content and length of the intended book..
I don’t believe Steve is trying to make a quick buck. In fact, I was one of the people who requested a print version of the lexicon (my eyes get tire on the computer screen), so I understand his motivation there.
Nevertheless, all that aside, I’m not sure I’m convinced that this case counts as copyright infringement. Yes, don’t attack me here, I understand that the majority of the book was a list of entries. But HP is more than a list of magical items. We love HP because of the characters. It was successful because of the story, the narration, and the details were added pleasure.
If Harry Potter was a book listing imagined magical items and places and characters, then the encyclopedia would undoubtedly be copyright infringement. (though HP would’ve been preeeetttty boring)
And while I understand Jo’s reasons for not wanting an encyclopedia published (and honestly, I even agree with it!), but just because her reasons are cool and great, I don’t think that necessarily give her to right to halt other companion volumes.
roonwit, greetings! I was wondering where you were…your input into this conversation is always informed and thoughtful, which i and others appreciate.
if we are on the right track, then is the idea behind the suit becomes —if (and its a big IF) RDR wins, RDR will make its money from the court settlement and not from sales. proving damages tho would be difficult: RDR’s attorneys would need to argue IF the book appeared in Nov 2007 (for example) projected sales would have been….
If this is the best that Steve and RDR can come up with, then they have no case at all.
And I’m going to love the response from JKR/WB. Who wants to wager that there will be statements from both Cheryl Klein and David Heyman reminding Steve that any tacit approval of a FREE online resource isn’t the same thing as giving the go ahead to a for-profit version of the same site?
There’s no way that RDR is going to win this, which is fine with me.
You know, I wonder what Steve is thinking? Seriously…I would like to hear HIS reasoning behind doing this to Jo. Legality and lawyer issues aside, why is he doing this? Surely, he does not want to be on the outs with Jo…is this book that important to him? How can something so wholly unoriginal be worth all of this to him. Is it the money? Is it standing up for his fellow “fan” writers? I don’t get it. Does he not feel bad about what he is doing to Jo. His whole career, at this moment I mean, is because of her work…or at least her success is the reason why he has the Lexicon and this book he is trying to publish. You know what Steve, you should have dropped this a long time ago. Not because of legal issues or RDR…but because Jo wished it…Jo who has given us all so much freedom as it is…you should have dropped it long ago out of basic human kindness. Sigh.
Corrine, these are little things that not all fans are intimately familiar with that bear reminding/repeating. That happens in every news article, when the information in the article presents information that lacks public but perhaps not very well known information that is known to the reporter. The JKR/WB filing had very little of this. That’s not the case here.
There’s plenty MORE I could add that is not THAT, but is my own experience, and not public information, which is not knowledge that is otherwise available. That is what I specifically did not include.
“the Lexicon does not ‘reproduce’ the Harry Potter Works (or any one of them) in any meaningful sense of the word…”
OH, PLEASE. Did Steve actually say that with a straight face???
BTW, Melissa, you’re doing a really great reporting job. THANK YOU.
to my fellow HP fans at large: gentle friends:
From the screen names that appear in the Lexicon related threaded discussions, its pretty obvious that some closely follow the entire discussion and have throughout, others pop in and out and don’t read carefully, and others appear new to the topic… ok, thats ‘normal’ in any protracted discussion. Yesterday’s discussion re the sudden spate of Lexicon related editorials and interviews brought out some nastiness, despite the fact that—as someone put it (was it professor i?)—the situation smacked of a feint that was designed to coincide with the submission of RDR’s documents to the court….
but, as has been pointed out before, once the issue of the Lexicon went to court, JKR and SVA really don’t matter, the attorneys do. to personalize the discussion is very human—as someone put it about a month ago, to see this sad situation as a battle between JKR and SVA puts human faces on the legal issues. But the fact really is that JKR and SVA are now really on the sidelines, and appropriately both should be very guarded about what they say/write. And we as fans should recognize that fact and not make this a Steve vs Jo issue, or attack either of them as individuals. Instead its RDR vs WB, as represented by their respective legal teams.
And Corrine: Yeah, I’ll absolutely deny I’ve been making any personal feelings about this clear whatsoever. I’ve never once publicly shared my personal feelings on this, and I appreciate that you think you have inferred them but you haven’t gotten them from me. It’ll be better for both of us if neither assumes the other thoughts. :)
Thanks, all, again, for keeping it civil.
Melissa thanks for going over all of the text for us. I’ve read over the filings and I can’t help but feel that Steve and RDR books is completely wasting our time and American tax dollars.
It’s sad to see the books being entered as evidence are not simply relisting of facts as The Lexicon book is, but they are genuine critique and analysis. Any book with literary discussion will retell the facts of the story, but most of the print is the critique. I fear that by focusing so much of the argument on The Lexicon Web site, which Jo has said is fine as people don’t have to pay to use it, the site will suffer. Of course there are many other fine online reference sites for Harry Potter.
I’m also disheartened to see Steve again bringing up the cost of running the web site and the need for ads. If, as Melissa has pointed out, the site has been paid for by Leaky, then what costs are involved? Also, since there are no costs involved in running the site, and if he is correct that 40% of the work on the site is done by others, do they get 40% of the money earned? After all, if Leaky is covering the costs of running the site, then all the money made is going directly into Steve’s pocket. (which might explain his recent live journal post about wanting a VERY expensive toy)
I’ve vowed not to return to that site as I don’t want to give Steve one more penny of support. I’m hoping this case ends and his Lexicon never sees the light of day. Then true fans can go back to the joy of discussing the novels, speculating about The Scottish Book and forget about SVA.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
When do you think the trailer will be released?
- In front of "Get Smart"2174 (11%)
- In front of "Batman"6100 (31%)
- In front of "Hancock"1054 (5%)
- In front of "Who cares, I'm just going to watch it online anyway"9555 (48%)
- I'll explain in the comments.659 (3%)
Corrine, that isn’t at all commentary; a few instances in where an obvious fact, a seeminghalf-truth, etc., an be pointed out, we do – like the next line in the transcript. It’s exceedingly shifty that the transcript falls short there and any news article anywhere, if the reporter new the circumstances, would point it out. We haven’t at all started doing commentary…