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
Felipe, this isn’t the place, but I promise when there’s actual news about the book I’ll post it. I’m still editing, so it’s nascent. There’ll be updates in the next few months. But thank you very much for your interest. :)
wow, melissa is up late into the night. wonder if she has been writing like me. i find night time is the best time to write without destractions.
but to get back on topic. I take it the exhibts up on the website stating they were filed in hard copy are the text of the lexicon book? guess they dont want people to read it and the story of just what it exactly is to get out so people know RDR Books is in the wrong.
i was wanting to download all the files, print them out, take a picture of me waving it, and mail it to RDR Books with the caption of “hahahaha, even in the extremely unlikely chance you get to publish it, I already have a near completely copy without paying! HA! yay for taking a stand for decency in the world of creativity.”
Wow, Cheryl Klein seems like a very sweet person, and it sucks that it’s being used against her! :(
I’m completely willing to wait 10 years or however long it may take for Jo to finish her encyclopedia exactly how she wants it. :)
Thanks Melissa for keeping everyone up to date!
cheryl klein from what I have seen of her, through her visits on pottercast, and through her website which is a must for any writer because she really has alot of helpful information on it, is a really great person. I agree, it is disgusting how RDR Books is useing her.
just because they say she thanked steve for the sight does not mean she is saying she supports RDR books publishing a copyright infringing encylopedia after repeated and frequent cease and desist from the people who own the rights to harry potter.
RDR Books is becoming well know for their shadey dealings and thier illogical out of the norm publishing tactics. they have done about faces, meaning one of their not contradicing statements in perjurius, which is a federal crime. I would not be shocked if the judge fines them for defrauding the court by filing contradictory documents.
its also laughable that it seems most all of their lawyers working on their case are not actually legitamate lawyers, but 1st year law students, some who apperently havent even finished their first years in their entierty. no, RDR Books will be in alot of trouble by the time this is all done. the fact that they have to resort to students, instead of real lawyers makes me think no legitamate lawyer was willing to touch the case.
It is a shame that Cheryl is being used in this manner. I refer to TLC for their HP news all the time and am very appreciative for it, but just because Melissa thanks all of us for participating and keeping things civil doesn’t mean she’s giving us permission to download from the site in a print format and creating a for profit book out of it.
BTW, it’s not unusual to have first year law students et al to do the majority of grunt work on legal cases. It gives them practical experience in hunting case law, preparing papers, and filing motions, etc. RDR does have full fledged attorneys who’ve passed the bar to represent them in the court room.
Not everyone (meaning Steve and RDR) have the resources for the kind of legal advice and research time a case of this sort requires . . . especially gong up against a billionaire author and her billionare corporate partners. Some, possibly many, of the law students in question may very well be doing this work because they believe an important and negative precedent would be set by a victory for Jo. If their work isn’t as coherent and well-organized as the plaintiff’s, that’s hardly surprising.
Nobody is going to NOT buy Jo’s Scottish Book because the Lexicon is in print. (It will be a lot less useful as a wooden brick than it is as a website.) Nothing I’ve seen in this suit convinces me Steve’s work isn’t coverable by Fair Use doctrine as we’ve always known it—and if Fair Use is going to change, we’d all be better off if it changed in a more liberal direction for once. I hope all of our love and respect for Jo doesn’t blind us to the love and respect we owe Steve and free commerce of iseas.
we don’t owe steve a lick of respect for his book. For his free site,sure, if we’re users of it. But if they win this case it will be the end of the free flowing fandom as we know it and for that we should not be grateful. Of that we should be frightened. Let us not have respect for Steve’s website blind us into thinking up’s rights should be compromised. That would be the real bad ending.
“If [SVA/RDR] win this case it will be the end of the free flowing fandom as we know it.”
That’s not something that occurred to me . . . I still don’t see it. Can someone explain who is hurt and how if the Lexicon is printed and published?
Interesting comment re: point 4—
Skipped over George Beahm’s “Fact, Fiction and Folklore in Harry Potter’s World.” I don’t know what he’s done for HP, but I know he’s done 4-5 books on Stephen King. I own 2, as I’m a big fan, and used to write reviews and readers’ guides of King’s works. One’s a biography, one’s a photobook with geography, one’s an encyclopedia (with several updates, as King keeps writing). All of them encompass appropriate additional items: photos of landscapes and homes, newpaper clippings, copies of SK interviews, bibliographies, adaptations, etc.
All in all—Extensive Research! (like Moody’s Constant Vigilance!)
SVA and RDR would have saved themselves a world of hurt if they’d taken an academic approach and do the hard work. The best they could manage with their website would be a concordance—like a dictionary: on what pages does the term “accio” appear in the novels? This helps a writer or critic, and helps to identify themes. But it’s pretty dry reading and would likely sell only to libraries. On the other hand, it’s easy to do with a computer. And what have we learned about doing what is right or what is easy?
Loren: It’s been explained before (several times, in fact), but to make it short. (One) of the RDR arguments why this book should be permitted is that JKR (and WB) didn’t mind the Lexicon site (that they actually approved of it) and that that means the approval should count for the book, too. So, they are arguing JKR (by not objecting to fannish activity) weakened her own copyright. If this is confirmed by the court (she allowed the site so she should have no problems with the less infringing book, since book is supposed to have lesser % of directly quoted JRK material – but I didn’t count), then JRK is basically lost a huge deal of rights and lots of books like this could follow. She can try to forbid fannish activity in the future to protect what is left, but that’s not the most important thing.
The big deal is, there are other authors (and if not them, then certainly their publishers/agents etc) watching this case and if they see a big author losing part of her rights because she was lenient with the fans on the web, you can be sure there will be lots of interest to close all fan sites – trivia/fanfiction, you name it. They will have to, since there will be a precedent and they’ll risk losing parts of rights to their work if they don’t. This is so much not limited to HP. It could relate to any book, TV series, movies, you name it.
Evalita—many thanks. I’m not sure that I understood who would be harmed and how from your reply though. I think you are saying that JKR will lose rights if SVA/RDR win, and that it will have some chilling effect on artists who are afraid of losing rights as well, and so artists will avoid or hinder or crack-down on fansites and fandom. Is that right?
I suppose I do see the point. But the rights in question, the extent and meaning of Jo’s copyright, are things that are being established in this case—it seems to me it is being defined and determined: if the court rules for SVA/RDR, it is saying JKR doesn’t and didn’t have the right being claimed in the first place.
I think there will be a much greater ‘chilling’ effect on fandom if the fair use doctrine loses, and JKR can claim that the Lexicon actually causes her material loss. But admittedly, it’s just my opinion.
Thanks again.
I searched for all the articles related to the suit on Leaky … I found like 12 articles. but when I try to post the links here … it just doesnt post. It doesnt even give me any errors … am I doing soemthing wrong?
Well I searched for all the suit related articles on Leaky … These are in chronological order.
Thanks Melissa for all your hard work.
1. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/31/new-clues-and-secrets-revealed-on-jk-rowling-com
2. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/31/rowling-and-wb-file-suit-over-unofficial-encyclopedia
3. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/1/j-k-rowling-updates-companion-books-article
4. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/3/questions-and-answers-with-wb-and-rdr
5. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/5/harry-potter-lexicon-responds-to-suit
6. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/8/update-on-jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-case
7. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/5/lexicon-dispute-update
8. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/16/wb-and-jkr-file-full-request-for-injunction-of-harry-potter-lexicon-part-1
9. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/17/jkr-wb-file-full-request-for-injunction-part-2
10. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/2/6/lexicon-update-rdr-request-for-jk-rowlings-notes-denied
11. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/2/9/lexicon-article-updates
12. www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/2/9/rdr-books-files-response-to-jkr-wb-in-lexicon-suit
ok … I had to remove ‘http://’ from the links and then it posted. so if anyone wants to read them they will have to copy paste the link on the browser and add ‘http://’.
To Corrine,
Melissa will probably yell at me for this (even though she doesn’t know me), because, I know, she needs no defence. However, the fact is, if you take the time to read the actual briefs, and not just the precis that is published here at Leaky, you quickly realize that the reason Melissa is commenting on what RDR is saying is because they are NOT backing up their assertions with appropriate references, or are, in fact, contradicting their own earlier statements. What Melissa is adding is the WHOLE story – something that isn’t necessary from the WB/JKR side, for the most part, because they DO back up their assertions with statements that are not internally inconsistent.
Further, a careful reading will show that, when warranted, Melissa HAS added explanatory information to “JKR Brief” statements, and has noted that in the interest of fairness she has clarified some RDR staements that might have been interpreted in an even worse light than they already are.
Her journalistic effort is actually amongst the fairest I’ve ever seen, and what’s more, she could just as easily have made one and only one statement when all this started. She could have said “sorry, I will neither comment, nor even report on ANYTHING to do with this case – it is potentially a matter of litigation and it would be wrong to get involved in any way”. After, what I’m sure, was a very careful check of her conscience as well as the legal issues, and findind both to be clean, she chose to report impartially. Three Cheers, I say!!
M.
@Loren
It actually see it as the opposite. JKR winning would seem to be keeping in step with the current standards for Fair Use and an RDR win would seem an expansion of Fair Use .
For example the copyright suit involving a Seinfeld trivia book that was found to be copyright infringement. It was primarily fictional facts from a tv show rearranged as a trivia quiz. From the court documents the lexicon book appears to take fictional facts from the HP books and rearrange them a-z to form a glossary. Fair use looks at the amount of derivative material (i.e. quotes, paraphrasing) compared with original material or material from other sources. The lexicon book does have some materials that are not from the HP books but it appears that the majority is info straight from the books. (Having nearly every detail makes it a good lexicon but not a good candidate for Fair Use.) It is my understanding that glossaries, concordances and the like are not considered Fair Use and need the copyright holder’s permission.
Loren,
I commented on the issue of “the chilling effect” on one of the earlier updates from Melissa, so let me try (btw Evalita, nicely done):
Imagine you’re a writer of what could be a series of books to be published over several years. You see the precedents set by Stephen King and JKR and others, and hope that your book(s) get the extra boost of fandom and discussion and so on, so you either encourage, or at least don’t discourage, fan sites and all that that entails.
Now, if RDR wins, and, as you point out, helps to establish that Artists/Authors do not have rights over their own material and creations unless they prevent ALL use of it ( that would essentially be the result here), why would you allow fan sites? Once they appear with any of your material on them, you lose the right to it, and anything else associated.
Why remain silent about, let alone encourage, the existence of fan sites? Why wouldn’t you simply make an upfront statement that any fan site is NOT sanctioned by you, and any of your material appearing on such a site is illegal use because you don’t give permission. This would in turn force a more definitive (and I don’t say liberal or stringent because it could be either) interpretation of fair use, and maybe this gets finally resolved 50 years from now, with charities, budding authors and many other possible groups and individuals affected.
As far as the fair use principle is concerned, I couldn’t agree with you more regarding the need to clarify it, and set some very specific guidelines. The problem is that it is ONLY a US copyright law principle (although other countries have similar though unique approaches). This is a GLOBAL phenomenon, and therefore a GLOBAL issue. I think what happens is when a situation becomes so wide-reaching, and could have such impact on so many jurisdictions, you tend to leave the guidance somewhat vague, and therefore subject to legal opinion and decision, which will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Don’t know if this helps, but sometimes its good to put yourself in the situation and see if it makes sense.
Morton Kaiserman
Well said! Melissa is a role model for aspiring journalists! Cheers.
Morton Kaiserman
Well said! Melissa is a role model for aspiring journalists! Cheers.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Since DH was published, your interest in Potter fandom has:
- Increased! I'm more involved now than I ever was!939 (22%)
- It's stayed at the same level of fun it always has!1542 (37%)
- Decreased slightly: I only check sites a few times a week now.1058 (25%)
- Severely lowered. Without new canon, I'm bored.419 (10%)
- It's gone. In fact, I can't even answer this poll because I'm not really visting a Potter site.135 (3%)
Sorry to go a little off topic, but sincerely I don’t believe SVA and RDR stand a chance so… Onto more interesting things: Melissa please, please, please give us an update on your book. Let us know when its projected publishing date is, or how it’s coming along, or something! And are you planning a tour? If you are you have to come to central Florida so you can sign my copy when I buy it and I can cherish it forever along with my HP books and DVDs! Maybe you can come here to Orlando and ask WB to get you into Universal’s Islands of Adventure to see construction of the Wizarding World of HP! Also, you could make a section here on Leaky about your book! Ok, ok, I’ll stop smothering you with my requests :-P but please give us a more info! THANKS A LOT!