The thing they fail to metion is that the whole reason Jo wants to prevent publication of this book is because she wants the ecyclopedia money to go to charity
It seems to me that what RDR/SVA are saying now is different than what they were originally saying and doing. Initially they told WB to (paraphrased here) ‘go to the Lexion and print it off’ if WB wanted to know what was going to be in the book. Now, in reading Melissa’s summary and Steve’s declaration, that isn’t exactly the case – supposedly the book will only be an A-Z encyclopedic listing. In addition, the cover of the proposed Lexicon book has been changed dramatically from something that looked as if it had JKR’s support 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.”
I can understand completely how JKR and WB would fight for their rights over the initial book and I totally support them in that fight. As things have evolved or if RDR and SVA had been truthful in the beginning if that truly was their intent (see the above changes I noted), perhaps it’s not copyright infringement. Not being an attorney, I don’t know. But I do think it’s odd that so much has changed about the proposed book on RDR/SVA’s part since we first heard about the case and I think they know they were in the wrong and are trying to cover it up by making these changes. Just my thoughts!
Kirstin
Hi Anne, I absolutely agree with you [“But I would rather go without a guide altogether that betray JK by buying SVAs version. In the meantime I can get all the enjoyment I need from her books and imagine the background”]. I’ve been on the Lexicon site several times in the past, and while it certainly is well compiled by van der Ark and the fans who sent stuff, the information that he plans to publish in the book not only comes directly from JKR’s books, but has been, more often than not, quoted literally from the novels. There has been no analysis whatsoever, it’s merely rearranging sentences. He has no right, no right at all to draw profits from JKR’s hard work.
“Also, let’s be real: JK Rowling has flat-out lied about her characters, her plots, and her imagery. She’s also contradicted herself about a dozen times in interviews after the last book was published, AND she had the nerve to inflict a poorly edited, contradictory, badly characterized doorstop on her fans last summer.”
LMAO. Let me guess… a bitter slytherin fan?
“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.”
So if – god forbid – he gets the lexicon published, are these people going to be apid for their contributions? Does he even have their permission in the first place?
budb (on page 2): I think RDR will also have trouble getting damages if they win because they have effectively already conceded some points in the course of the lawsuit, such as the revision of the cover (which they now seem to have revised a second time after JKR/WBs detailed complaint was posted), so (in my non-legal opinion) they have admitted that the original lawsuit was at least partially justified.
re: “LMAO. Let me guess… a bitter slytherin fan?”
Heh. Either that or a bitter Harry/Hermione shipper. Or one of Snape’s astral wives. ;)
“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….”
@budb, many of us have carefully read Melissa’s posts on this case and some have even taken the time to read the actual legal documents. You will have to excuse us if we are not as dispassionate as you about this case, but could you please try to be less pompus about it?
oh, i am procrastinating and not doing work!
roon, its an all around sad situation, as SVA put it….
one thing that does strike me is the speed at which the legal documents are becoming public. my little experience with the court system in the US suggests that in most cases the exact details of legal wrangling and the documents filed with the court are kept confidential most of the time. here, we have instant access, from both sets of legal representatives….
ok, i better work, or face the consequences!
I can’t help but think that the response from RDR goes to great lengths to demonstrate why any derived work NOT of the form of the one they intend to publish should be considered fair use. Which, it seems to me, is also what JKR/WB have been saying.
It strikes me, as others have noted, that RDR seems to continually be avoiding the core question from JKR/WB—namely how repackaging can be construed as fair use.
sorry you find my efforts at a dispassionate and neutral writing style “pompous”, Molly. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that too many are posting without the close reading you are doing? Its that segment of our fellow fans I hope to persaude to be more attentive and careful in their arguments
“c. The J.K. Rowling Encyclopedia, by Connie Ann Kirk”
I was wondering about that. I went to the library a couple of weeks back and found this book in the HP section. It is indeed an A-Z listing of HP stuff with deflinitions/descriptions. However, since it is not in print anymore (perhaps because of threatened legal action) I don’t see how it is relevant.
well said, onespeedonly. I think the news here has been the most unbiased I’ve seen and I am grateful to Melissa for clarification of some points. Otherwise I’d be completely confused.